The most Michigan State little brother thing ever

[TrustMeIamRight]

YOUR fans stated the past 8 years has no bearing on what is going on (probably since Meatchicken LOST 7 of the last 8), so I dug deeper and went 24. So maybe keep your idiotic fans in check and just admit you have been owned by MSU and have zero reason to talk shit, when you are too busy swallowing MSU's to say anything useful in this debate.

In regards to the Big Brother, Little Brother debate -- the last 7 or 8 years does have very little to do with the debate. It'd be like a Michigan fan saying UM's basketball is better than MSU, because UM went 6-2 over a 3 or 4 year stretch against State.

Reality is -- the BB, LB debate has as much to do with how the colleges are viewed by those in the state of Michigan, as it does the football program. UM is the prestigious university where only the best of the best students get in. MSU, while they have raised their academic requirement to get accepted over the years, was the school everyone went to because they accepted anyone.

MSU has owned UM lately, without a doubt. No only owned UM, but pushed UM around. It still doesn't change the BB, LB debate. It was only a matter of time before UM got the right coach hired. Rich Rod was terrible. Hoke could recruit, but was a terrible coach. It is no coincidence, everyone owning UM happened with these two coaching hires and while fans said, well Harbaugh didn't beat them last year -- it is going to take time to get in his own recruits. Until then, he uses the hand he was dealt.

 

[Across The Field]

In regards to the Big Brother, Little Brother debate -- the last 7 or 8 years does have very little to do with the debate. It'd be like a Michigan fan saying UM's basketball is better than MSU, because UM went 6-2 over a 3 or 4 year stretch against State.

Reality is -- the BB, LB debate has as much to do with how the colleges are viewed by those in the state of Michigan, as it does the football program. UM is the prestigious university where only the best of the best students get in. MSU, while they have raised their academic requirement to get accepted over the years, was the school everyone went to because they accepted anyone.

MSU has owned UM lately, without a doubt. No only owned UM, but pushed UM around. It still doesn't change the BB, LB debate. It was only a matter of time before UM got the right coach hired. Rich Rod was terrible. Hoke could recruit, but was a terrible coach. It is no coincidence, everyone owning UM happened with these two coaching hires and while fans said, well Harbaugh didn't beat them last year -- it is going to take time to get in his own recruits. Until then, he uses the hand he was dealt.

There's nothing wrong at all with this explanation. Well-put.

 

[theboardref]

In regards to the Big Brother, Little Brother debate -- the last 7 or 8 years does have very little to do with the debate. It'd be like a Michigan fan saying UM's basketball is better than MSU, because UM went 6-2 over a 3 or 4 year stretch against State.

Reality is -- the BB, LB debate has as much to do with how the colleges are viewed by those in the state of Michigan, as it does the football program. UM is the prestigious university where only the best of the best students get in. MSU, while they have raised their academic requirement to get accepted over the years, was the school everyone went to because they accepted anyone.

MSU has owned UM lately, without a doubt. No only owned UM, but pushed UM around. It still doesn't change the BB, LB debate. It was only a matter of time before UM got the right coach hired. Rich Rod was terrible. Hoke could recruit, but was a terrible coach. It is no coincidence, everyone owning UM happened with these two coaching hires and while fans said, well Harbaugh didn't beat them last year -- it is going to take time to get in his own recruits. Until then, he uses the hand he was dealt.

That is a well thought out response. There is hope.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

If you want to say that OSU was more talented than Michigan, OK. But TWO of the upper classes that Michigan had last year were top ten class. MSU has never had a top 15 class and our upper classes were in the 30's. Michigan had plenty of talent on that team last year, they were poorly coached by Hoke. And Michigan fans were talking a ton of shit after Rich Rod and Hoke were hired.

There is a big difference between a highly rated class and players living up to the rankings. Some of the players who made UM's classes ranked so high, were absolute busts. Devin Gardner was the #1 rated dual threat QB in the country. He was terrible. Shane Morris was a 5 star, elite 11 QB -- saying he is terrible is an understatement. Derrick Green was a 5 star RB, the #1 RB in the country -- he came to camp 30 lbs overweight, got hurt, sat out, then was basically 2nd or 3rd string, before transferring out to a D-2 school or something (not positive where he went).

If you want to look at the struggles of UM -- you need to look no further than the QB position. Every QB they signed flopped and they had no one to coach those kids up.

The issue with Hoke is -- he could recruit, but they were horrendous at developing the talent. The area where UM didn't struggle developing talent was the DL and that was because of Greg Mattison. It is no secret why that is and has been a strength on the team.

But last year -- I didn't think UM had a shot against MSU. I was shocked we should have won that game. I thought Connor Cook and that OL would control the line of scrimmage.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

There's nothing wrong at all with this explanation. Well-put.

That is a well thought out response. There is hope.

I should add -- another reason for the BB,LB argument -- in the state of Michigan -- UM is viewed as the football school and MSU is viewed as the basketball school.

It was like bizarro world for a few years, as UM was the basketball team getting to final fours and championship games, while MSU was smacking around UM in football and winning B1G championships and BCS bowls.

While it isn't going to change overnight -- as long as UM has a coach who can develop the talent they sign, UM will start beating MSU on a regular basis, as UM will continue to bring in more talent. Just like MSU will beat UM on a regular basis in basketball, because MSU signs way more talent.

 

[Across The Field]

I should add -- another reason for the BB,LB argument -- in the state of Michigan -- UM is viewed as the football school and MSU is viewed as the basketball school.

It was like bizarro world for a few years, as UM was the basketball team getting to final fours and championship games, while MSU was smacking around UM in football and winning B1G championships and BCS bowls.

While it isn't going to change overnight -- as long as UM has a coach who can develop the talent they sign, UM will start beating MSU on a regular basis, as UM will continue to bring in more talent. Just like MSU will beat UM on a regular basis in basketball, because MSU signs way more talent.

As long as Dantonio is there, this is no guarantee. He's turning MSU into a consistent national force. It'll shift more towards michigan winning more frequently assuming Harbaugh keeps improving them, but it isn't going to go back to full-on BB/LB.

 

[theboardref]

I should add -- another reason for the BB,LB argument -- in the state of Michigan -- UM is viewed as the football school and MSU is viewed as the basketball school.

It was like bizarro world for a few years, as UM was the basketball team getting to final fours and championship games, while MSU was smacking around UM in football and winning B1G championships and BCS bowls.

While it isn't going to change overnight -- as long as UM has a coach who can develop the talent they sign, UM will start beating MSU on a regular basis, as UM will continue to bring in more talent. Just like MSU will beat UM on a regular basis in basketball, because MSU signs way more talent.

If I am a kid looking to play football, I am never going to say, "Oh let me look at the history between these two teams and see who won more games". I would say, "so for as long as I can remember MSU has beaten Michigan". While history is important, it isn't always the most relevant information. That was my point. I get where you are coming from as well and respect your statement, more so than erase the past 8 years and MSU doesn't matter, line of logic.

 

[7Samurai13]

I should add -- another reason for the BB,LB argument -- in the state of Michigan -- UM is viewed as the football school and MSU is viewed as the basketball school.

It was like bizarro world for a few years, as UM was the basketball team getting to final fours and championship games, while MSU was smacking around UM in football and winning B1G championships and BCS bowls.

While it isn't going to change overnight -- as long as UM has a coach who can develop the talent they sign, UM will start beating MSU on a regular basis, as UM will continue to bring in more talent. Just like MSU will beat UM on a regular basis in basketball, because MSU signs way more talent.

Well before Izzo, and before the country knew that half of Michigan's talent was bought and paid for, Michigan was viewed as the basketball school as well.

 

[theboardref]

Well before Izzo, and before the country knew that half of Michigan's talent was bought and paid for, Michigan was viewed as the basketball school as well.

Fab 5 (says the guy who only knows about hem from a documentary).

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

If I am a kid looking to play football, I am never going to say, "Oh let me look at the history between these two teams and see who won more games". I would say, "so for as long as I can remember MSU has beaten Michigan". While history is important, it isn't always the most relevant information. That was my point. I get where you are coming from as well and respect your statement, more so than erase the past 8 years and MSU doesn't matter, line of logic.

Maybe you might say that, but it's clear that's not how the average recruit thinks. Teams with a winning history recruit the best. Again, you've mistaken my point if you think that I think the last 8 years hasn't mattered. MSU has turned into a perennial power. But MSU will have to do a lot more to erase what Michigan has done, or even equal it, so your average recruit might see them on the same level. After 8 of the worst years in modern history for Michigan, and 8 of the best years since the 50's for MSU, I don't think MSU has had a single top 15 class...maybe one. The only reason teams like Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Miami, USC and so on are able to maintain their top standing with recruiting during down periods is because of their history and tradition of winning. There are plenty of teams who come from no where and have a good stretch, only to fall back into average again shortly after.

Not to mention, how old is Dantonio? He's 60...How many years of coaching does he have left? What happens to MSU when he leaves? Will they be big enough to get a big name or have to rely on hitting the jackpot like they did with Dantonio?

 

[RobToxin]

Well, I have seen better pissing contests in my day but this one was pretty good.

Better than the SEC-B1G pissing contests at See BS.

 

[theboardref]

Maybe you might say that, but it's clear that's not how the average recruit thinks. Teams with a winning history recruit the best. Again, you've mistaken my point if you think that I think the last 8 years hasn't mattered. MSU has turned into a perennial power. But MSU will have to do a lot more to erase what Michigan has done, or even equal it, so your average recruit might see them on the same level. After 8 of the worst years in modern history for Michigan, and 8 of the best years since the 50's for MSU, I don't think MSU has had a single top 15 class...maybe one. The only reason teams like Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Miami, USC and so on are able to maintain their top standing with recruiting during down periods is because of their history and tradition of winning. There are plenty of teams who come from no where and have a good stretch, only to fall back into average again shortly after.

Not to mention, how old is Dantonio? He's 60...How many years of coaching does he have left? What happens to MSU when he leaves? Will they be big enough to get a big name or have to rely on hitting the jackpot like they were the shit!

Screw titles, screw winning, I want to lose at a team who was good when leather helmets were worn. You are stuck on stupid if you buy into that.

 

[Across The Field]

Not to mention, how old is Dantonio? He's 60...How many years of coaching does he have left? What happens to MSU when he leaves? Will they be big enough to get a big name or have to rely on hitting the jackpot like they did with Dantonio?

They'll just bring back Pat Narduzzi.

 

[7Samurai13]

They'll just bring back Pat Narduzzi.

That's my hope.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

They'll just bring back Pat Narduzzi.

I guess that's possible, but his first year at Pitt was fairly average. And if he does well quickly, he might get picked up by a major program before MSU needs him. I don't think Narduzzi has the attachment to MSU that would make him leave a major program for them. MSU would have to get him while he's at Pitt.

 

[Across The Field]

I guess that's possible, but his first year at Pitt was fairly average. And if he does well quickly, he might get picked up by a major program before MSU needs him. I don't think Narduzzi has the attachment to MSU that would make him leave a major program for them. MSU would have to get him while he's at Pitt.

Then they'll just bring in Harbaugh.

 

[7Samurai13]

Then they'll just bring in Saban.

God I would have to cut myself if this happened.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

If I am a kid looking to play football, I am never going to say, "Oh let me look at the history between these two teams and see who won more games". I would say, "so for as long as I can remember MSU has beaten Michigan". While history is important, it isn't always the most relevant information. That was my point. I get where you are coming from as well and respect your statement, more so than erase the past 8 years and MSU doesn't matter, line of logic.

I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately for UM fans, the last 7 or 8 years have happened. The one thing they have going for them -- many of the recruits are brought up as fans of one school or the other, so while MSU has definitely been the better team, it hasn't changed the recruiting. UM still gets the majority of the guys they want in state, with the exception of theRich Rod years, as he almost ignored recruiting the state of Michigan.

Getting the recruits and developing the recruits are two different things though. UM hasn't had a coach to develop talent once it is on campus or put the players in the best spot to succeed. Hoping that changes with Harbaugh.

 

[Across The Field]

God I would have to cut myself if this happened.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Screw titles, screw winning, I want to lose at a team who was good when leather helmets were worn. You are stuck on stupid if you buy into that.

There are so many factors that go into college recruiting that it's hard to narrow it down to a few things. I will say the slight difference in Michigan's recruiting classes vs. Ohio State's is due to winning. You combine things like history, tradition and so on with recent success and you get a huge boost in recruiting. I'm not sure how leather helmets play into it, but when Michigan tells recruits that UM has the most wins, 11 national titles and the most B10 titles, I doubt many of them are getting on google and finding out the exact dates that they happened on.