Can UM and MSU be great at same time?

Submitted by UMVAFAN on

I was thinking about the history of this rivalry -- have both teams ever been ranked in the top ten at the same time when the game was played and have both teams finished the year in the top ten at the same time?

Alabama and Auburn have shown that two teams from the same state (not including population centers like California, Florida, and Texas) can be great at the same time on a fairly consistent basis. Ole Miss and Mississippi State are showing the same thing this year (we'll see if it holds true by year end). South Carolina and Clemson ,and Oklahoma State and Oklahoma, have finished in the top ten the same year as their in-state counterpart within the past 5 years.

Unless Dantonio leaves MSU, I unfortunately don't see the Spartans slowing down. Narduzzi will inevitably leave for a head coaching job and that will hurt, but I think Dantonio will hold it together and has a solid foundation that won't crumble easily. Which brings me to my ultimate question -- can both UM and MSU be great at the same time? The closest we came to this was the Saban years at MSU, 1999 in particular.

ThadMattasagoblin

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^

No. There's not enough top recruits in our state and too many power schools around the state like ND, Ohio, PSU. Plus, I don't really want both to be good at the same time. Their fans and coaches are so classless that I want them to never have a winning season for the next 50 years.

GOBLUE4EVR

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^

your first (technically second) sentence is exactly why it will never happen... the reason why it can happen with Alabama and Auburn is because they have a much large talent pool to choose from in their own state... that is why it can happen in Florida, Texas and California also... in all of those states a coach can walk out of his back door and trip over 3 and 4 star players that aren't committed any where and end up with a very good team...

GoBlogSparty

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:50 PM ^

Not entirely true. Take a look at the 2015 recruiting talent pool in Alabama and compare it with the talent pool in Michigan. 

Auburn took a grand total of 6 Alabama kids in 2014 and Alabama took 7. Using a state's recruting profile is not the best way to measure the relative success of teams in that state.

 

Alabama: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=-1&sspid=54&yr=2015…;

Michigan: http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=-1&sspid=75&yr=2015…;

User -not THAT user

October 22nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^

Auburn gets far less of its best talent from the state of Alabama than the Tide do; they make a pretty good living poaching neighboring states...ESPECIALLY Georgia.

Theoretically the Alabama-Auburn model could work with Michigan-Michigan State if UM was a national recruiter on the level of Notre Dame and was able to offset in-state losses to East Lansing.  Theoretically.  Evidence suggests it's what RichRod was attempting by trying to open a pipeline to Florida to get fast guys for the offense.  Might've worked except OMFG, TACKLE SOMEBODY!!!!!!!!!!!

turd ferguson

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^

It's not that simple.  UM and MSU can't be great at the same time if they're both recruiting the same types of players, both recruiting heavily from the state / immediate region, and both mediocre or worse with identifying, developing, and using talent.  In that situation, there isn't enough talent to go around.  

But there are a lot of ways out of that problem.  If Michigan recruits nationally while MSU recruits locally, if either school develops and uses talent as well as MSU's defensive coaches have recently, if the schools run entirely different systems that use different types of personnel, etc., then you can get around the talent shortage problem.  For example, if our team were playing up to its recruiting profiles right now - and we're obviously not having a recruiting problem - then there would be two very-good-to-great programs in the state.  It's far from impossible for it to happen; it's just a little unlikely at any given moment.

alum96

October 22nd, 2014 at 6:29 PM ^

This not enough talent to share thing is silly.  If you believe this denial of reality MSU has been depanting UM in recruiting the past 3-4 years stealing player after player from us in head to head battles leaving us with a roster of rejects that didnt pick MSU over us.  That's a far cry from reality.  There might be 3 players on their roster who we lost a head to head on at this point.

MSU has generally been rrecruiting in the 30s nationally and UM in the single digits and teens.  UM has been competing with Notre Dame and OSU.   MSU has been competing with Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn State and even a team like Kentucky which when Stoops first showed up was competing with MSU for a lot of Ohio kids that Urban could care less (those ranked in the 20s/30s in the state of OH) about in the classes of 2013/2014.

As someone else said, Dantonio has been doing it mostly with players under the radar of Notre Dame, Michigan, and OSU.  He is doing it mostly like Beilen - has a system, recruits to it, gets an occassional big recruit, but has a lot of guys people scratch their head about on recruiting day and then (differently for basketball than football) redshirts almost all of them, and gets them started as players who make an impact in year 3 of their 5 years at MSU.

If you want to argue there is not enough upper league talent to share in the Midwest your question should be can UM, OSU and ND all be successful at the same time with the talent pool shrinking.  My answer to that is yes as well because UM's classes have been almost identical to ND and a tiny step behin OSU the past 5 years.  We just have a lot of coaches (position wise) pissing away our talent pool.  Meanwhile you can argue ND, OSU, and MSU have 3 of the top 12-15 coaches in the nation.... and some apparently good position coaches to go along with them.

switch26

October 22nd, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^

Wrong.. we have more than enough talent on our roster to be plenty good right now..

 

The coaching staff is a complete joke..  If we had a good set of coaches in here currently we would be completely fine and be competeting with state and OSU for going to the B1G title game easily..  

 

Hoke has beaten Dantonio something like 28-5 in head to head recruiting battles so im not sure how there isn't "enough" top recruits in the state for Us and them to be good?  

 

Overall most of our top talent comes from out of state anyway

NOLA Wolverine

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:42 PM ^

Michigan is supposed to be a top team in the country based on recruiting rankings as it stands right now, it seems like somebody should be able to come in and get 11 guys on the field to succesfully play. 

Everyone Murders

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:45 PM ^

The consensus is that Michigan currently has enough talent on its roster to be great, but has not developed that talent.  Dantonio has shown he can do more with less than the average coach, plus he has shown an ability to recruit players that fit his system even if not highly ranked.  So if Michigan develops its players and MSU stays the course, both Michigan and MSU can be powers at the same time.

I don't want that, though.  I want MSU to return to Sparty No! and for Michigan to return to glory.  Is that too much to ask?

redsoxaa

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:46 PM ^

As things stand now, they could.  The BIG is down as a whole, so MSU and UM could both recruit well in the next 5-10 years.  If teams like Purdue, Illinois, and Minnesota make improvements (or maintain in the case of Minny) then the likelihood of MSU and UM having sustained success decreases.  Doesn't matter who the next UM coach is, UM won't be able to consistently recruit nationally until there is sustained success on the field.

LSAClassOf2000

October 22nd, 2014 at 12:47 PM ^

Although I am not sure about the game per se, there are some instances of Michigan and Michigan State being in the Top 10 of at least the AP at the end of the season per a few sites:

1950 - MSU #8, Michigan #9

1956 - Michigan #7, MSU #9

1999 - Michigan #5, MSU #7

There are numerous other instances of one or the other being in the top 10 and the other team being somewhere in the teens. That site for historic year-end AP polls is here - LINK.

I believe that we were #3 going into the MSU game in 1999, and State might have been #10 or #11 in the poll that week. Not sure about that though. 

SFBlue

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:02 PM ^

Yeah I think 1999 is the best example.  State beat Florida in a bowl game, Michigan beat 'Bama.  Michigan may have still played for the MNC had they not gacked it up against Illinois the week after losing to Sparty.  Sparty still had Saban and crashed pretty hard after he left.  I was in the student section for the '99 game in EL.  The hype leading up to that game was pretty cool, and the gameday atmosphere was electric.  If that was how it always was, or even often was, I would view the rivalry in a totally different light. 

MDot

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:39 PM ^

The only way I could see it happening is if MSU dominated recruiting locally (while still finding diamonds in the rough), while Mich fulfilled Notre Dame's quest to become a dominate national recruiting powerhouse, being able to pull 5-Stars consistantly out of Florida/Cal/TX/etc.

 

Other than than that, there simply isn't enough talent around Michigan/Ohio anymore in order for Michigan, OSU & MSU to all excell at the same time. And obviously, OSU only has to worry about kids going up north. Mich & MSU can't afford to split talent.

Perkis-Size Me

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:41 PM ^

Of course it can happen. To my recollection, neither schools have had particularly good coaches both at the same time. If we land a home run hire after Hoke, I don't see why we can't catch up to Sparty in a year or two.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Tater

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:46 PM ^

I think both schools can be very good at the same time, but not great.  Not only instate but within the reason, each school is affected by the other's success or lack of success in recruiting.  

Sparty built its team thanks to "Michigan men" who were telling coaches not to send their kids to Michigan. The fact that the dissenting faction helped turn Michigan's program into a dumpster fire further benefited Sparty.  

Currently, Sparty has a nice little program, but I still don't think they are as good this year as they were the last few because Brady Hoke has been successful at recruiting.  Unfortunately, the current problems are going to help Sparty have a great 2015 class.  

To answer the OP's original quesiton, my opinion is that both teams can be great at the same time.  However, MIchigan's national appeal and reputation as a great university makes it a lot easier for them to be great when Sparty is great than it is for Sparty to be great when Michigan is great.  

 

UofMDieHardsBlog

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:48 PM ^

No, they cant be both great beacuse they recruit out of the same area and top recruits would go to the school that is better! Why go to Michigan when Michigan state is ranked 8 and Michigan is barely .500? Lets get this straight, most recruits dont care about campus or education, they want a good and advanced football team! Michigan had the better recruits, but now when we are struggling we could and are losing commits. Players like Brian Cole and or Mike Weber could end up at State! Thats my take, I could be wrong though! Go Blue! Tumbs up if you agree with me! 

mackbru

October 22nd, 2014 at 1:52 PM ^

On rare occasion, sure. But how often, in recent years, has either team been truly and consistently great? State had a few big years in the 60s, then none until the last couple years. Michigan, in the last two decades, has had a few great years. Mostly, though, it's been B/B+. Given the downturn in Midwestern talent and population, the law of averages says mutual greatness is unsustainable.

maize-blue

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^

In my humble opinion, there is only room for one top program in the state. Honest question: Has this happened before, where both programs had extended top 25 runs? I think there was probably a season here and there were both were ranked but year in and out, I don't recall.

UMxWolverines

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:20 PM ^

Is everyone forgetting 2011? 

The only thing that prevented that from happening consistently is...bad development of players. 

If Michigan rights the ship I'm really doubting that MSU and Dantonio are just going to go ''well that's it we can't compete anymore'' considering a ton of their recruits weren't even offered by Michigan or OSU. In fact most of their best players weren't (Cousins, Cook, Cunnngham, Lippet, Bell, Bullough, Baker, etc). 

Elwood

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:28 PM ^

Of course there is. There is enough talent for both teams in the Midwest and nationally.

And coaching is way more important than recruiting anyways. We just need a good (preferably great) coach.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

goblue16

October 22nd, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^

Yes. Bama auburn, ole miss miss st, Stanford USC, Florida Florida st, Florida st Miami, cal USC, Oklahoma okla st, Baylor tcu, South Carolina Clemson..... These are all examples of schools that were able to maintain some success at the same time for 5 or more years so it is possible but it doesn't seem to last long.

saveferris

October 22nd, 2014 at 5:15 PM ^

Historically, when MIchigan has got it's shit together, MSU's record against the Maize and Blue sinks to about .300 and that's a pattern that has been historically consistent.  Those brief instances in history where MSU rises to the top tier of the conference, you see a proportionate decline in Michigan's performance.  There really is no prolonged period where both Michigan and Michigan State were performing at great to elite levels concurrently.

Ruffneck61

October 24th, 2014 at 5:18 PM ^

Yeah it's possible but it has a lot to do with coaching. If we had competent people running the program then we would be there now. At the same time there is only so much talent from hs kids. I don't think it's a state thing but a region thing. Big 10 region has prolly enough talent to sustain 3 maybe 4 really good teams. If a team moves up another has to fall down. Tennessee demise was not their own doing (no evidence) but more so Georgia's rise