Wolverine247 Board

See my champ / chump comment above.

I'll play along...

I didn't know National Relevance was so significant it warranted capitalization. There's no reason to minimize MSU football. It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. National name recognition - Michigan, more successful inception-to-date program - Michigan, team that currently has the best chance at success - MSU. Respect is a two-way street. We respect Michigan, but no longer fear them. You clearly do not respect MSU (as most of you have a yeah, but...) but I think you have some fear. Losing 4 in a row would put doubt in anyone's mind. I'll be honest, I was terrified of losing to UM bball yesterday. It would have signaled a big change in the bball landscape. Thankfully order was restored, but my respect has not diminished.

I don't know man...they did beat some great Michigan teams the last few years.

Okay, that's a fair viewpoint.

I have thought about how Meyer will be different from Tressel in this specific light, regarding MSU.
You are right in that Narduzzi made comments suggesting that Dantonio/Tressel had a 'gentlemen's agreement' that they wouldn't pester each others' verbal commits.
However, where we differ is in whether this will be a net positive or negative for MSU going forward. I guess I saw it as a break even scenario b/c I anticipate Dantonio to go after Ohio much much harder. I'm not saying that 'Meyer had better look out', just saying that we had never gotten a recruit from Ohio with an OSU offer anyway under Dantonio, so we have nowhere to go but up. The only caveat to that statement would be that Dantonio would now likely have a better chance to grab some Ohio recruits (a la Pittman) but that Meyer going 'gloves off' will dampen that future potential (a la Pittman).

1) I think you give UM's defense too much credit. While it was much better than expected, and definitely good, it is borderline blatantly-errant to put it on par with MSU's defense. I would agree that having the experienced QB should make UM more of a known entity on offense, but the two offensive systems are so completely different that it's really hard to compare the position. I think both teams have positive outlooks for the future, but MSU's staff/system (both on gameday and behind closed doors) are currently more established, which I think counts for a lot.

2) Many MSU fans feel that if they give a UM fan an inch in an argument, that they will try to take a mile. I have personally had this issue time and again. Therefore, it's hard to gauge the actual respect level. Me, personally, and every MSU fan that I have ever discussed it with, deeply respect UM's historical success, brand equity, and reputation resiliency. We just hate UM at the same time. Izzo put it perfectly. I respect the hell out of UM football, doesn't mean I have to like them.

Not trying to start more arguments, just a couple quick opinions...

Yes any, ask tBB if you want. Which program has a brighter future UM or MSU wouldn't really be a close vote IMO. Hoke went 11-2, won a BCS bowl, and had a top 7 class regardless of your skewed opinion of Michigan's accomplishment's it was a damn successful first year.

MSU can be a very successful program, and they are on the right track. But their upside just isn't as high as Michigans.

Okay, I'm confused.

Your original statement is that it would be unanimous among all impartial voters. That every single one would say UM.

Now you're saying that it wouldn't be a close vote, which implies that MSU would get at least a few votes.

Just need to know what you are arguing b/c there's a good chance we might be in agreement here...

Appreciate the assumption that I am unable to recognize anything UM accomplishes.

It was an incredibly successful first year, and vastly outdid any reasonable expectations that I was aware of.

MSU's upside is not as high as Michigan's, you're right. You have advantages due to your well documented history that MSU absolutely does not have, I couldn't agree more. But that does not directly translate to which program currently has a higher chance of success, which was the original statement/question.

I'm sure Spartans would get some votes, it's tough to tell on the internetz if someone is impartial. There are some haters out there. But I bet at least 80% would agree Michigan has a brighter future 3-4 years down the line.

You might be agreeing because there really isn't too much to debate. Michigan has a higher upside than State. Michigan will always recruit better than MSU so as long as they aren't wasting the talent they should be consistently better.

Michigan signed a top 7 class coming off it's worst stretch in program history. Sparty wasn't even top 25 (99% sure) coming off a B1G championship. That says it all.

What does current chance of success even mean? Michigan was arguably more successful this year then State regardless of the 1 game in October (I don't see it that way the polls do though). With a SR. Denard, vs. a first year starter any definitive statement that Sparty is somehow in better shape this year is at best a homeristic view point.

Okay, if you're acknowledging that there would be some MSU votes, I think 20% is a fair estimate, I might up it to 20-30%, but I think we're on the same wavelength there.

I am not agreeing b/c there isn't too much to debate. I'm agreeing b/c I think that people more readily buy into the 'rebuilding' (bad term, I know, maybe 'rejuvenation'?) of a traditional powerhouse (aka-a name they are used to hearing) than a relative newcomer. I do not, however, believe this directly translates to a higher likelihood of future on-field success.

MSU's 2009 class was ranked higher than it's 2010 class, yet the 2010 class has significantly more contributors. I don't care what the rankings say, the rating systems are either broken, ineffective in certain scenarios thus reducing it's accuracy and reliability and therefore it's relevance, or are an impossible task.

I can't decide if it's more fun to debate a well-defined premise, or one that leaves both sides guessing at what is being argued.

I completely disagree on the defenses. You can take Rocky's point of view if you want about Total D being a better barometer than scoring D and all that which makes more sense in the middle of the season than it does at the end of the year. The Simple fact of the matter is that Michigan's scoring D at the end of the year was i believe slightly better than MSU's. The point of Defense is to not let the other team score. Michigan's D did that to the tune of a top 10 Defense. You can continue to discredit Michigan's D all you want but the facts still remain the same. Michigan had a top 10 Scoring D at the end of the year which is what matters on the scoreboard.

I think you completely miss my point about the QB. It doesn't matter what system they play in when it comes to experience. The game slows down for experienced QBs at critical times in games. I give 2 year starting QB's a big advantage over a first year starting QB.

As far as staffs being established that is just a joke. Hoke and his staff did something in their first year that it took Dantonio and his crew 4 years to do. Win 11 games. So don't come on here and think a Michigan fan is going to give MSU the edge in coaching.

I don't care if you like Michigan. We constantly hear MSU fans put down Michigan as a football program. We hear that Michigan was only good during the leather helmet era, etc...
There is no respect. You guys can pretend like there is cause you want to whine about Michigan not respecting MSU but MSU does not give any respect to Michigan.