Denard Calls State Little Brother
"Of course we've got to say Ohio [State's] the biggest one," Robinson said. "[Then] Notre Dame and [No. 3] Michigan State, our little brothers."
I like it I enjoy the little jabs in rivalries. It really gets State all riled up and I love seeing State fans get all mad its like watching a monster child who is 3 years old.
September 6th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
It's funny because they always get so mad about it.
September 6th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^
but I can't help but smirk whenever it happens because you and I both know it pisses them off to no end
September 6th, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^
Denard has no right to call State little brother. He was 1-3 against them and was just plain terrible when they played. Mike Hart knows what its like to be little brother, he was 0-4 against Ohio State. Pathetic. Its time for us to stop talking and start winning!
September 6th, 2013 at 7:17 PM ^
regardless of what his record was against them the statement is still true. MSU's season hinges on beating Michigan, that is a defination of a Little Brother mindset. The last 4 years don't all of a sudden make the rest of the series history irrelevant either.
I was also like to point out that is not like Denard got a whole lot of help in those games from the defense in the first two he took part in. He didn't start one of those games either, Forcier started in 2009.
September 6th, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^
MSU owned Denard so there is that
September 6th, 2013 at 10:40 AM ^
September 6th, 2013 at 10:45 AM ^
When Michigan beats Sparty, we laugh and tell them, "Better luck next year."
Arguably, Dantonio's greatest years came on the back of Michigan's worst. And even though he shared a conference championship with Wisconsin in 2010, they didn't go to the Rose Bowl, or a BCS bowl for that matter. However, in 2011, we LOST to Sparty, didn't win the conference, and went to the Sugar Bowl anyway. Whether or not we deserved to be there is irrelevant. The Bowl committee thought we were worthy, and not Sparty.
No matter what, the success of Sparty is always measured to the might of Michigan. As Michigan and Ohio State compete for conference titles, Rose Bowls, and National Championships every year, Sparty competes for...whatever the former two left behind in their pursuit of success.
So, even though Denard didn't win more than 1 game against Sparty, he is right - our important games rank OSU and ND before Sparty, therefore, they are the perennial little brother.
September 6th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
To be clear, it wasn't the Bowl Committee that selected Michigan over MSU. MSU was ineligible for the BCS bowls because of the hit their ranking took for losing to Wisconsin in the conference championship. Michigan, on the other hand, jumped into eligibility thanks to conference runners-up falling in the polls. Michigan basically benefited by virtue of doing nothing.
All that said, yup, the rivalry is fairly lop-sided in the relative intensity of it. MSU will always care way more about Michigan, in general, than Michigan worries about MSU. Going off of the whole BCS selection issue, for instance, the MSU response to losing the conference championship game was, of course, to complain about Michigan and how unfair it was that Michigan would probably go to a BCS bowl.
All that said, Michigan really needs to do its part in these rivalries. Start beating MSU, again. Start winning against OSU, again. Right now, ND probably has the most even recent history of the three rivals, with the added bonus of being pretty face-meltingly batshit lately.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:04 AM ^
I'd say we are on the right track to beating all three, though. I know that we are underdogs to OSU but if we can secure wins against ND and MSU, I would say that beating Ohio in the Big House would be excellent odds. Problem I have is the fact that we will probably play them twice.
September 6th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
In 1999 pretty sure both UM and MSU were eligible for the BCS but even though MSU won, UM got a BCS bowl berth and MSU did not.
September 6th, 2013 at 10:55 AM ^
What the author wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^
I was about to ask what the author did wrong, but then I clicked the link. I had read a totally different article before. This one took a very idiotic turn there somewhere in the middle.
And what's with everyone's obsession with how many times teams have played to be counted as a rival? How many times has Michigan played Wisconsin or Iowa? I don't think of either of those schools as rivals. And more broadly, what's with everyone's obsession with the "rival" label? During conference realignment, everyone constantly talks about "well, now Nebraska's new rival will be Wisconsin..." as if it's something that's just arranged or designated. I think anyone who has experienced Michigan-ND knows it's a pretty intense rivalry game.
And while I'm on it, what's the deal with airline food? They don't even give you peanuts anymore! And if you want those pretzels, better be prepared to pay up! Am I right? Sheesh, whatever happened to the days of a soggy and simultaneously stale sandwich?
September 6th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^
September 6th, 2013 at 11:10 AM ^
The place of Michigan State will never hinge on 2, 4, or 10 years worth of results. They will always play second fiddle to the bigger, more popular, better school that shares their state. It's part of the reason they cling to the Wal Mart idea so fervently. It's a jealously induced reaction to undermine the fact that they are not the popular team, and don't really matter to anyone nationally.
September 6th, 2013 at 12:11 PM ^
Sparty's inferiority complex didn't begin with Hart's comment, he simply coined an apt characterization of it.
To me, Denard's record against MSU is meaningless as the little brother is crowing about winning when the older brother was at his lowest historical point, and had to resort to all sorts of dirty crap (trying to rip Denard's head off) in order to win. Sparty, and their psychotic coach, showed that even when they have the upper hand they're still nothing but pathological brats.
September 6th, 2013 at 7:20 PM ^
of an individual players record or level of play against State the point still stands. Their own behavior and mentality over the years has earned them the little brother label.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:25 AM ^
...talking smack with his eligibility over. Pretty weak sauce, IMO.
And count me in with the sect that loves Denard but thinks a 1-2 record doesn't leave much room for him to rag on Sparty.
Now, if he wants to call ND "little brother"...I'll sign onto that all day long. What does a big brother do with a little brother? Teaches him to play a game...and then beats the pants off him at that game until he runs off crying and doesn't want to play anymore.
Plus Denard was 2-1 against ND, so...yeah.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
Yeah, I kind of feel the same way. And while Denard didn't play much that first game, he still was involved. So he's technically 1-3 against MSU. I'd have preferred he just listed the rivals and moved on. But whatever, minor quibbles.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:46 AM ^
I kind of wish this meme would die. I love Denard, but this stuff drives me crazy because of its total irrelevance.
September 6th, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^
I'd say the problem you have is that you go crazy over stuff even you know is irrelevant.
September 6th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^
As much as I liked Denard, he did not win a single Big Ten title... rare for a Michigan QB who started so long... plus, MSU beat him and good.... so he should really shut up, and should NOT have said that. There is NOTHING more unifying than a common enemy... and when Hart called MSU that, it did help bring them together....
September 6th, 2013 at 5:47 PM ^
Think you may be overlooking a confounding variable or seven
September 6th, 2013 at 5:58 PM ^
September 6th, 2013 at 7:19 PM ^
was 1-3, while true isn't exactly accurate. He basically had no influence on the game in 2009 meeting. Not to mention the whole lack of actual defense helping him and the offense out in the 2010 game.
September 6th, 2013 at 7:50 PM ^
I thought Tom Brady said it best when he talked about the guys wearing the helmets and playing now represent not only themselves and their team mates but every man that has ever worn that helmet through the years.....In some of the darkest days of the Maize and Blue, he and his smile and his magic brought the few rare smiles and moments of joy experienced by Michigan Men and Women throughout the Universe. Let us remember he did not win or lose those games all by his little lonesome....THE TEAM BOYS, IT IS ABOUT THE TEAM....