In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 199
Online now 182 Record: 7264 (3/12/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The fact that you are on your supposed hated rivals message board sharing your excitement about the "big 2" being back proves it's not back. This conference is and will continue to be competitive.
Hated? Respected rivals .. equals. When you've won as many B10 titles as tOSU and UM at the expense of one another .. respect comes with the territory. MSU and the remaining Little 9 are left to wonder what consistency of success must be like.
The "Championships by School" table pretty much sums it up. UM has won 6x as many titles as MSU .. and tOSU has won 5x as many:
77 conference titles between UM and tOSU. Say that aloud ... "seventy-seven". MSU? .. 7.
Big 2 Little 10 means that the UM and tOSU are dominating the conference. UM didn't dominate the Big 10 under Carr, and certainly not under RichRod.
Look, from '68 - '80, either UM or tOSU won the Big 10. That's the "Big 2 Little 8".
From '99 - '11 (looking at the same amount of time) here are the Big 10 champs:
1999 - Wisconsin
2000 - Michigan, Northwestern, Purdue
2001 - Illinois (hooray for Kurt Kittner)
2002 - Iowa, tOSU
2003 - Michigan
2004 - Iowa, Michigan
2005 - tOSU, PSU
2006 - tOSU
2007 - tOSU
2008 - tOSU, PSU
2009 - tOSU
2010 - tOSU, MSU, Wisconsin
2011 - Wisconsin
tOSU definitely dominated the '00s. In that same time frame, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern, Wisconsin, PSU and Michigan State all won the Big 10 along with Michigan.
It's not a matter of "UM has been down for 4 years"; it's been since 2004 and a variety of teams have won. It'll take multiple seasons of Michigan and tOSU being the only viable good teams to return to the "Big 2, Little 10". I think in this era of scholarship limits (especially if it goes down to 80), that it'll be very hard for such a return.
If this recruiting thing keeps up over the course of 5 or so straight years, then sure. More likely is that other Big 10 programs will have top 25 recruiting classes within that time period and field teams to challenge those teams on a yearly basis. I think the Big 10 is going to be as competitive as it's ever been.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
In 2006, Michigan dominated everyone up to the Ohio State game. That game was for all the marbles and it was reminiscent of the Big 2 Little 8. The following 4 years, we were down. What part of that is so difficult to understand?
As kids .. my neighborhood friends and I played football under the street lights -- a Griffin, a Schlichter, a Byers, a Speilman -- playing our rivals.
It's been 30+ years .. but, I'm fairly certain we weren't playing MSU or Iowa under those street lights. ;-)
UM or OSU have won or shared the B10 title in 36 out of the 44 years since 1968. Even during the period from 2000-2011, there have been only two years (2001 and 2011) in which one of the two teams did not win or share the title. And even though the 2000 decade was one of the worst in UM football history due to the Vest's dominance over Carr and the RR debacle, we still won or tied for three B10 titles and went to three Rose Bowls.
The Vest is gone. The RR era is over. And it's now Hoke's and Urbie's job to move the rivalry forward. Whether the next decade is balanced (see Bo v. Woody and Earl) or tilted in one if the two school's favor (see Carr v. Cooper and Tressel), one thing us certain - UM and Ohio will continue to dominate the B10.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 2 years ago
I'll disagree from a wins perspective:
Lloyd had an 81-20 record in Big 10 play.
Please refrain from bringing relevant history into the thread. It's offensive to some.
Yes you guys did dominate back in the day. The Big 2 little 8 was used because OSU and Mich flat out dominated during that time. It wasn't that way in the 2000's. 8 of the 11 teams won a BigTen title in that time period listed above. How is that Big 2 little 8. It was that way once but will never be that way again with the current set up.
Michigan State University is the university of Michigan
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that Michigan and OSU could take 7 or 8 Big Ten titles in the next decade. PSU is going to be a trainwreck for at least a few years, Wisconsin is losing coaches left and right, Nebraska is one bad season away from getting a new coach, and MSU will finally have to start playing a competent Michigan team.
That's part of my issue; it's been 1 recruiting cycle like this. UM's '08-'11 classes were all top 25 efforts, but attrition really robbed them of their full potential.
Also, you talk like anyone who isn't a 4-star AA is an "under the radar" type. It's not as though MSU and Nebraska are bringing in hoards of 2-star diamond in the roughs.
I agree that recruiting is the lifeblood of the program . . . but that the recruiting services aren't the be-all and end-all of determining whether or not your recruiting classes were a success. Yea, 4-stars usually work out at a high % than 3-stars, but you don't know whether or not those kids are going to be successful till they actually played a down.
For instance, the 2009 MSU class, probably the best in the MD era according to the services, has been outperformed by the lower-ranked 2010 class. All the 4-stars/5-stars panned out from '10 except for Boisture (career ending back injury) and multiple 2 and 3-stars became starters and contributors within their first 2 seasons. The '10 class was rated #30 by Rivals, but I'd argue that they are far exceeding that projection.
I'm not foreclosing on the possibility that UM and tOSU will be dominant, but I do take issue with the idea that it's a foregone conclusion that UM and tOSU are not only going to dominate, but do so for the next decade with the only evidence being a single great recruiting cycle.
Meyer's won national titles . . . and also had a team face plant even AFTER he had time to get all "his guys" in the system. I really think parity is the name of the game going forward; I'm sure either tOSU or UM will be in the thick of the Big 10 race year after year, but I am not convinced that those 2 teams are going to be the dominant programs for the next decade.
We'll just have to wait and see how things work out now that OSU and Michigan have what looks to be excellent coaches.
I have to disagree. I think teams like Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.. are at their ceiling right now unless they see an upgrade in recruiting. Sure you can have really good years from time to time but that happened in the past as well. Ohio State dominated the Big Ten the last decade with great recruiting and great coaching. Michigan is looking like we are back to that as well. Ohio State only had a down year from the Tressel problems. You can act like this year was some anomaly in recruiting if you want but it is looking very good for both Michigan and Ohio State in recruiting for 2013.
Are you kidding me? We're not basing our optimism on a "single great recruiting cycle". We know we're back because of way more than recruiting. Everything Hoke has done so far has been outstanding. Recruiting, handling the media, handling the Alumni, being a "Michigan Man", playing defense, playing honest, making sure academics are legit, handling team discipline, taking an underacheiving team to the Sugar Bowl, 11 wins, etc...
And all of his efforts have been towards building a foundation for the program. Hoke isn't using Michigan as a platform to get a better job like D'Antonio, Beilema and half the other coaches in the B1G. This is his dream job!
In your head.
This post was edited by joerco 2 years ago
You do realize that you're only strike against MSU is something that affects just 1 game on their schedule, right?
Says the guy whose home board has more threads about Michigan than his own favorite team.
That is absolute music to my ears. If you liked him, we wouldn't be kicking your tail.
Ban this piece of s***. He's over on the blue board calling Lloyd Carr a card carrying Neo Nazi.
I'm not defending what he actually typed, but this accusation is factually incorrect.
It's not so much an anomaly for UM and tOSU as it is for places like Penn State and Nebraska, taking MSU out of the equation for a second. It's not likely that both NU and PSU will have nothing but mid-30s classes for the next 5 years.
The biggest thing in this particular cycle is that UM/tOSU fans are focusing solely on the final class score. That ignores the fact that PSU (19), MSU (18), Nebraska(17) and Wisconsin(12) all brought in small classes.
I doubt any of those 4 would have produce a top 10 class had they been able to sign 23 kids, but I think you would have gotten a top 25 class or two out of that group; Nebraska was at 3.35 stars on Rivals, good for 19th nationally, while Michigan was at 3.56 (9th). State was 27th (3.11) and Wisconsin 29th (3.08). PSU is 50th in both groups, their worst finish in the Rivals Era.
I like to look at average stars because it's a good way to examine the quality of a class. Looking at it that way, it doesn't seem that the gap is as drastic as the "raw" rankings; tOSU 4th, UM 7th, Nebraska 25th, MSU 39th, PSU 50th, Wisky (Unranked).
Both UM and tOSU had plenty of space this past season. I think with 4 year scholarships you're going to see more 18-21 man classes from all Big 10 teams, which is going to reduce the large disparity of this most recent cycle.
Says the man who has a half-naked gnome throwing up the finger and a user name which contains no vowels . . .
Anyways, Dantonio isn't using MSU as a platform to get a better job; this is his last stop. All the stuff you say about building the foundation is good and I think Hoke is a legitametly good coach. I have no doubt that MSU - UM is going to be a very competitive rivalry going forward.
That said, you guys should probably win the conference (or the division) under Hoke before you proclaim that all is back to the Big 2, Little 10. Niether UM or tOSU played in the CCG last year, and it's impossible for both to meet in that game in '12.
In terms of recruiting, UM and tOSU have outrecruited Iowa and Wisconsin pretty much every year of the last decade. I know UM has outrecruited MSU every year over that time span. You'll know how good these classes are once they start playing. Before that, it's pure speculation. Many would have though that the 2008 UM class would have been part of a group that won a ton at UM; 17 4-stars, more 4-stars than were brought in in this last cycle for the Wolverines.
Is your '12 class going to shake out the same way? Unlikely, but the point is that high recruiting rankings alone don't guarantee future success.
I see a lot of you guys pointing to the 2008-2010 classes and their ranking. The problem with that is you're neglecting the lack of coaching. RRs defensive staff was inept, plain and simple and it's the main reason he's not here anymore. That is no longer the case and you only have to look at what they did with that defense last year.
The 2012 recruiting class has little to do with our optimism. It's the coaching those players will get that will be the difference.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports