So, Is The "U" Back?

[huskers1217]

Is that for real?

nevermind. Just saw he was there this weekend.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

How ironic. Oh I can be a homer sometimes, but I've lost count of the amount of times you've been called out for just being a dumbass. This would be just another one of those instances.

This wasn't about me being a homer. This was about your ignorance of how programs succeed. You just basically said all you need are elite recruits and that means you are going to be elite. How short-sighted.

How many times have I said you need elite recruits and great coaching. You want to put Ryan Day in the talks of being a great coach after one year, with a team filled with Urban Meyer’s recruits and a QB who was in the program a few months.

And nowhere will you find me say you only need elite recruiting — what I’ve said is, the only way you are competing nationally is with elite recruiting. You can have the greatest coaching staff in the world, but if you don’t have the talent — you aren’t beating the top teams.

In today’s CFB — there is a zero percent chance a team filled with mostly 3 stars recruits is going to win a title. It isn’t happening. You have to win a CCG. Then you have to win, not one, but two games against other elite teams.

 

[Across The Field]

How many times have I said you need elite recruits and great coaching. You want to put Ryan Day in the talks of being a great coach after one year, with a team filled with Urban Meyer’s recruits and a QB who was in the program a few months.

And nowhere will you find me say you only need elite recruiting — what I’ve said is, the only way you are competing nationally is with elite recruiting. You can have the greatest coaching staff in the world, but if you don’t have the talent — you aren’t beating the top teams.

In today’s CFB — there is a zero percent chance a team filled with mostly 3 stars recruits is going to win a title. It isn’t happening. You have to win a CCG. Then you have to win, not one, but two games against other elite teams.

Your exact quote was "We can’t beat OSU because you have out recruited UM for a decade plus." The difference in recruiting is nowhere close to the difference in coaching. We've been better at recruiting, sure, but the reason you guys have only beaten us once since 2003 is because we're just so much better coached and it's nowhere even remotely close. Hell, Purdue has beaten us 3 times in the last decade. Along with Purdue, there's Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa who have all beaten us multiple times since 2003. Why can't michigan? Are you gonna tell me they all recruit better than michigan?

You cannot acknowledge that michigan has had, and continues to have, absolute dogshit coaching for the overwhelming majority of this century. THAT is why we beat you every year. You guys have had the talent to beat us no less than 5-6 times this century, and probably more. However, your coaching is trash. Take a look at OSU's recruiting class rankings from 2004-2010 compared to michigan's. We were barely pulling in top 25 classes and you still couldn't beat us. Now that our recruiting has improved, we're beating the shit out of you every year, not just winning. 5 of the last 6 times we've played you, we've won by 2+ scores, with an average margin of victory in the last 6 years of 18 points per game. We're not doing that to the other top teams in the conference, but we are with you. Why do you think that is?

 

[Deep Creek]

ou just basically said all you need are elite recruits and that means you are going to be elite. How short-sighted.

Just having elite recruits doesn't necessarily translate into an elite team.

I've also never seen an elite team without elite talent.

 

[Tin Man]

Watch the 1986 Sugar Bowl. Was "Da U" ever truly there? Or, was it just hype for a team taught to play dirty by character-deficient coaches like Jimmy "Helmet Hair" Johnson?

 

[Across The Field]

Just having elite recruits doesn't necessarily translate into an elite team.

I've also never seen an elite team without elite talent.

We've seen tons and tons of examples of teams with elite talent that failed on the field, and it's due to coaching.

However, look at the final top 15 of 2019. You see teams like Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Baylor, and even Oklahoma who have either recruited no better than michigan, or much worse, that finish higher in the rankings. They all simply have better coaches. That's what makes the biggest difference.

 

[Deep Creek]

We've seen tons and tons of examples of teams with elite talent that failed on the field, and it's due to coaching.

However, look at the final top 15 of 2019. You see teams like Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Baylor, and even Oklahoma who have either recruited no better than michigan, or much worse, that finish higher in the rankings. They all simply have better coaches. That's what makes the biggest difference.

Sure we have. We've also never seen teams without elite talent win the CFP. I'd argue the only team to even make the CFP without elite talent was Sparty. Maybe Oregon but they had Mariota.

Again, elite talent doesn't in and of itself guarantee an elite team...and we've seen a bunch of example of that.

But you ain't gonna have an elite team without elite talent either. Great coaching can only maximize the talent available and only get you so far. Well coached teams with lesser talent are going to lose to well coached teams with superior talent MOST of the time. And those teams with superior talent that do lose to teams with inferior talent do so because of what they DIDN'T DO instead of what the lesser talented teams DID DO.

 

[micallen]

Hoping Miami can become relevant again to help the ACC overall.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Just having elite recruits doesn't necessarily translate into an elite team.

I've also never seen an elite team without elite talent.

ATF is just making stuff up as he goes. I’ve said 100 times to be an elite team you need elite talent and great coaching.

He just got upset that I said, while Ryan Day could become a great coach — one year with players recruited by Urban Meyer and a QB who transferred in doesn’t mean he is a guy who can win the big games. He also got upset when I mention the fact, the only team with compatible talent that OSU played, they lost.

 

[Across The Field]

Sure we have. We've also never seen teams without elite talent win the CFP. I'd argue the only team to even make the CFP without elite talent was Sparty. Maybe Oregon but they had Mariota.

Again, elite talent doesn't in and of itself guarantee an elite team...and we've seen a bunch of example of that.

But you ain't gonna have an elite team without elite talent either. Great coaching can only maximize the talent available and only get you so far. Well coached teams with lesser talent are going to lose to well coached teams with superior talent MOST of the time. And those teams with superior talent that do lose to teams with inferior talent do so because of what they DIDN'T DO instead of what the lesser talented teams DID DO.

Absolutely agree. Here's the thing though - elite recruits aren't going to just randomly decide to go play for a team for no good reason. Elite coaching attracts elite recruits. It's just that simple.

 

[Across The Field]

ATF is just making stuff up as he goes. I’ve said 100 times to be an elite team you need elite talent and great coaching.

He just got upset that I said, while Ryan Day could become a great coach — one year with players recruited by Urban Meyer and a QB who transferred in doesn’t mean he is a guy who can win the big games. He also got upset when I mention the fact, the only team with compatible talent that OSU played, they lost.

Well none of that is accurate. This conversation is about Ohio State vs. michigan and how you keep making excuses for your mediocre program that can't hire good coaches. You can keep on making the same crybaby excuse of how OSU gets all the good players and you can't keep up, but you don't hear other higher-end B1G teams saying those things. Know why? Because they have shown the ability to compete with us and even beat us, while michigan is just a speed bump for us anymore.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Well none of that is accurate. This conversation is about Ohio State vs. michigan and how you keep making excuses for your mediocre program that can't hire good coaches. You can keep on making the same crybaby excuse of how OSU gets all the good players and you can't keep up, but you don't hear other higher-end B1G teams saying those things. Know why? Because they have shown the ability to compete with us and even beat us, while michigan is just a speed bump for us anymore.

Yeah — since the turn of the century — MSU is 3-13 and PSU is 4-15. Let me guess. It is because OSU has the better coaches. OR........OSU has way more talent on their roster than any team in the B1G.

As was stated before on here — OSU has the #1 recruiting class in the B1G this year. UM is #2. Our highest rated recruit would rank as the 9th or 10th highest recruit for OSU. But keep telling yourself it is all coaching

 

[Across The Field]

Yeah — since the turn of the century — MSU is 3-13 and PSU is 4-15. Let me guess. It is because OSU has the better coaches. OR........OSU has way more talent on their roster than any team in the B1G.

As was stated before on here — OSU has the #1 recruiting class in the B1G this year. UM is #2. Our highest rated recruit would rank as the 9th or 10th highest recruit for OSU. But keep telling yourself it is all coaching

So how do you explain michigan's inability to win for the majority of the 2000s when OSU's classes ranked for shit and michigan's didn't?

Michigan State was 3-6 against OSU in the 2010s and never had a single high-end recruiting class. Penn State was 2-8 but also had two 1-point losses, and had all of one top 10 class. I notice you just ignored Purdue, Iowa, and Wisconsin, who don't even recruit on the level michigan does whatsoever.

All of these teams beat Ohio State more in the last decade than michigan did, and your only win came at home vs. an interim coach, true freshman QB, and only happened because our true freshman QB overthrew an open WR in the final minute for a TD.

I'm aware OSU recruits better than anyone in the B1G. There's a reason for it - coaching and development. It's something michigan flatout doesn't have, yet you're too bull-headed to just admit it. Sad.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

So how do you explain michigan's inability to win for the majority of the 2000s when OSU's classes ranked for shit and michigan's didn't?

Michigan State was 3-6 against OSU in the 2010s and never had a single high-end recruiting class. Penn State was 2-8 but also had two 1-point losses, and had all of one top 10 class. I notice you just ignored Purdue, Iowa, and Wisconsin, who don't even recruit on the level michigan does whatsoever.

All of these teams beat Ohio State more in the last decade than michigan did, and your only win came at home vs. an interim coach, true freshman QB, and only happened because our true freshman QB overthrew an open WR in the final minute for a TD.

I'm aware OSU recruits better than anyone in the B1G. There's a reason for it - coaching and development. It's something michigan flatout doesn't have, yet you're too bull-headed to just admit it. Sad.

Are you that ignorant to think OSU out recruits everyone because of coaching and development? Let me guess — USC is bringing in top recruiting classes, because of coaching and development. Texas is bringing in top recruiting classes because of coaching and development.

At what point are you going to realize — a select few schools are going to continue to bring in the top recruiting classes because they have more money than the majority of other schools, they are located in rich recruiting states and/or they are a national brand.

The fact this needs to be spelled out to you is pretty sad.

 

[ericd7633]

Well none of that is accurate. This conversation is about Ohio State vs. michigan and how you keep making excuses for your mediocre program that can't hire good coaches. You can keep on making the same crybaby excuse of how OSU gets all the good players and you can't keep up, but you don't hear other higher-end B1G teams saying those things. Know why? Because they have shown the ability to compete with us and even beat us, while michigan is just a speed bump for us anymore.

I do think there is something to be said for laying a complete egg, and overlooking a team. That was the case with OSU in the losses to Iowa and Purdue the last couple of seasons. OSU isn't going to overlook Michigan because of the rivalry. That said OSU has a ton of more talent than Michigan does. But I do think it's concerning the longer we get into the Harbaugh tenure the more lopsided the game against OSU has gotten. With it being in Columbus next year, I don't see it changing either.

 

[Deep Creek]

Absolutely agree. Here's the thing though - elite recruits aren't going to just randomly decide to go play for a team for no good reason. Elite coaching attracts elite recruits. It's just that simple.

Not so sure. Elite coaching at an elite school will definitely attract elite talent. Elite coaching at a "meh" school won't always attract it.

I consider Bill Snyder an elite coach but he never had elite talent. K-State/Manhattan, Kansas just ain't attractive enough...even with a great coach.

 

[Across The Field]

Are you that ignorant to think OSU out recruits everyone because of coaching and development? Let me guess — USC is bringing in top recruiting classes, because of coaching and development. Texas is bringing in top recruiting classes because of coaching and development.

At what point are you going to realize — a select few schools are going to continue to bring in the top recruiting classes because they have more money than the majority of other schools, they are located in rich recruiting states and/or they are a national brand.

The fact this needs to be spelled out to you is pretty sad.

USC and Texas are the biggest brand names in two extremely talent-rich states, dumbass. Bad example.

Oddly enough, michigan has a ton of money and are a national brand, yet they can't win anything worth a damn, despite also bringing in top 10 classes almost every year. Why is that? Coaching and development.

Again, since you keep sidestepping these two extremely relevant points -

Why could OSU beat michigan for the majority of the 2000s with low-rated recruiting classes?

Why are teams like Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Penn State able to beat OSU multiple times in the not so distant past, and be competitive in several of the losses while michigan has been basically blown out in 5 of their last 6 games against OSU, despite recruiting better than those other 3 schools?

I'll wait for you to answer.

 

[Across The Field]

I do think there is something to be said for laying a complete egg, and overlooking a team. That was the case with OSU in the losses to Iowa and Purdue the last couple of seasons. OSU isn't going to overlook Michigan because of the rivalry. That said OSU has a ton of more talent than Michigan does. But I do think it's concerning the longer we get into the Harbaugh tenure the more lopsided the game against OSU has gotten. With it being in Columbus next year, I don't see it changing either.

That's a fair point, you're right. But Purdue has beaten us 3 times in the last decade. That's saying something. The disparity in talent between OSU and michigan is overblown though. From 2016-2019, OSU had an average class ranking of 5th, while michigan had an average of 10th. That's not a huge gap, yet we've beaten them convincingly every year Harbaugh has been there except for one. Trustme is far from the first michigan fan to act like recruiting is the only reason OSU dominates michigan, but it doesn't make it any less of a pathetic excuse, especially for a program like michigan that has more than enough resources to pull in elite recruits (of which they've pulled in quite a few in recent years). Not only that, but the fact that many of our biggest stars have been 4* or lower says more about our coaching and developing as compared to michigan.

 

[Across The Field]

Not so sure. Elite coaching at an elite school will definitely attract elite talent. Elite coaching at a "meh" school won't always attract it.

I consider Bill Snyder an elite coach but he never had elite talent. K-State/Manhattan, Kansas just ain't attractive enough...even with a great coach.

That's a rare example. The overwhelming majority of times, elite coaches make or keep programs elite and they keep pulling in top talent.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

USC and Texas are the biggest brand names in two extremely talent-rich states, dumbass. Bad example.

Oddly enough, michigan has a ton of money and are a national brand, yet they can't win anything worth a damn, despite also bringing in top 10 classes almost every year. Why is that? Coaching and development.

Again, since you keep sidestepping these two extremely relevant points -

Why could OSU beat michigan for the majority of the 2000s with low-rated recruiting classes?

Why are teams like Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Penn State able to beat OSU multiple times in the not so distant past, and be competitive in several of the losses while michigan has been basically blown out in 5 of their last 6 games against OSU, despite recruiting better than those other 3 schools?

I'll wait for you to answer.

Guess what — OSU is a national brand in a talent rich state. And they are the only D-1 program in the entire state.

As far as the 2000’s — I don’t even know what the recruiting was like for UM and OSU. I just know over the past decade plus — it has grossly been in OSU’s favor.

The fact you keep talking about teams in the B1G having comparable talent tells me how delusional you are. NO ONE in the B1G is anywhere near the talent level of OSU.

As I just stated — UM had the #11 recruiting class in the nation. OSU was #4 or #5. To tell you how enormous the gap is between a top 5 class and a top 15 class. UM had 1 top 100 recruit. OSU had 9 top 100 recruits.

CFB is and always will be about who can collect the most talent. Alabama and Clemson are 1a and 1b. Go down a few levels and OSU, LSU, Georgia, and I’m sure I’m missing another is 3-5.
Go down a lot of levels and it is everyone else.

What do Alabama, LSU, Georgia, OSU and Clemson have in common? I will give you a hint — it has to do with location.