Following Up from the Enemy
Just wanted to touch on a few things from my post yesterday and then ask a couple questions.
1. In case it wasn't clear, I didn't attend the UM Spring Game. I'm an obsessed fan, but not that weird. Which leads to the Barwis "attack". Thought most were aware that the UM Womans Softball game went long so that if you tuned in at 8:00pm for the Spring Game you got softball.
2. I didn't make the post to say "we're going to kick your a$$ next fall", but rather to offer an outsider's take on your squad, no matter how uneducated that is. With that said, I promise that Win or Lose in the fall, I will be here to take my licks or bask in the glow of 3 in a row.
3. I think trying to compare Cousins to Tate/Denard is a waste of time. Obviously Cousins isn't the type of QB that would flourish under RRod's offense, but I'll take him to lead our squad. He still needs to improve in clutch situations against good teams, but he had a nice year for a first year starter in the big ten.
4. I guess I am nuts for joining a message board of a rival school, but I enjoy conflicting opinions and can withstand a few barbs and boring/repetative jokes (little brother/jailhouse squad, etc.). That said, I do enjoy the MSU board discussions of "I think we will go 12-0 this year", me too, me three, etc.
Now, on to my questions. I don't know where I heard this, but I'm pretty sure RRod made a comment about facing negative recruiting. I'm also confident that while RRod didn't name MSU, that seems to be the consensus. So, is there any info out there that lead to this feeling? I'm just curious.
Also, what is your definition of negative recruiting?
If MD tells Anthony Zettel (just an example of a recruit both schools are after) that you want to choose a school where the coach isn't on the hot seat, is that negative recruiting? If yes, is that permissible negative recruiting?
Don't coaches that are on the hot seat universally face such tactics?
I'm not saying MSU did or didn't do anything, but I'm just curious as to what rumors/accusations of negative recruiting are out there.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^
Calmly shut off your computer, and back away from the keyboard because this could get ugly.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:57 AM ^
You have been doing so well but than I see a bit of the typical Sparty delusion sneaking in when you say this:
"I'm a realist, we are talking about MSU football. 3 straight bowls games in a step in the right direction. When/if MD has steadied the program to where we are consistently going 8-4/9-3 I might at that point raise expectations."
Saying you are a realist while talking about MD "steadying the program" and MSU going 8-4/9-3 consistently as though that is somehow where you rightfully belong is pretty lol.
MSU has won 8+ games seven times in the last 40 years and 9+ games three times over that span. In your entire history, you have put together four back-to-back 8 win seasons along with one four-year 8+ win streak that occurred over 50 years ago. Good luck with being 8-4/9-3 consistently.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
I think you are making the point for him.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
"Consistently" doesn't necessarily mean "every year", it means "more often than not."
Frankly, I've got little against this guy. I agree with the other posters who write that if he can make intelligent, well-informed posts, he's welcome. The only issue I have is that he openly admitted to being uninformed on UM recruiting and the Spring Game, on which he commented. That'll get you negged for sure.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
More often than not is pretty far removed from seven times in forty seasons.
I have nothing against him, either. I just think it's funny anytime I see any MSU fan discussing the possibility of winning 8+ games regularly.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
"RationalMSUfan" is saying that the reason MD is not on the hot seat is that MSU fans are NOT used to winning 8 games regularly. Also, it would take MD going 8-4, 9-3 for a couple of seasons for him to start raising his expectations. The fact that you think it's funny that they get to that level, again ,does nothing but support his reasoning. I'm not harping on you. I'd just rather defend him than have him go away and have a troll come on here and take his place.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:18 AM ^
You have been doing so well but than I see a bit of the typical Sparty delusion sneaking in when you say this:
"I'm a realist, we are talking about MSU football. 3 straight bowls games in a step in the right direction. When/if MD has steadied the program to where we are consistently going 8-4/9-3 I might at that point raise expectations."
Saying you are a realist while talking about MD "steadying the program" and MSU going 8-4/9-3 consistently as though that is somehow where you rightfully belong is pretty lol.
MSU has won 8+ games seven times in the last 40 years and 9+ games three times over that span. In your entire history, you have put together four back-to-back 8 win seasons along with one four-year 8+ win streak that occurred over 50 years ago. Good luck with being 8-4/9-3 consistently
Did you even read my post? I said "when/if". I am basically saying that MD should not be on the hot seat because he has gone 7-5, 9-3 and then 6-6.
I get it. UM football has a better tradition than MSU football. However, if you want to talk "delusional" you may want to look in the mirror. Just because UM football was good in the past, doesn't mean that it will automatically return to there. See Nebraska's struggles, USC (prior to Pete Carroll), Oklahoma (prior to Bob Stoops), Notre fricking Dame.
Similarly, I am entitled to hope and dream that MSU football will acheive the elite status of it's hoops program. Did Tom Izzo say "oh well, I'm destined for mediocracy therefore I'm not going to try to be great"?
Gee Whiz
April 20th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^
Keep in mind that 6-6 team last year didn't play OSU. Also, to win 8+ games 25% of the time over a 40 year period is not bad. Michigan also went to 35 bowl games in that time frame and had 38 winning seasons. Let's be honest that's what it's all about. Look at your basketball program. Izzo's success is strictly based on his tournament achievements. He went 7 years without winning a Big Ten title. It doesn't mean his basketball program is mediocre or he's a bad coach. Going to 3 consecutive bowl games is definitely a step in the right direction for MSU. I still don't think that Dantonio is going to change things in East Lansing. Whether you want to believe it or not, they don't recruit nationally and that's what hurts them. You can't build an "elite" football program strictly recruiting the state of Michigan. You definitely are entitled to your dream though. Go Blue!!!
They didn't win 8+ games 25%+ of the time over 40 years. They won 8+ games a total of 7 times in that span.
/nittery
You're right, I read that wrong..
April 20th, 2010 at 11:06 AM ^
Very appropriate and I agree with you. MD has certainly done what is necessary to hang onto the job. I don't see him as an outstanding coach but there is no reason to fire him IMO.
Your viewpoints are certainly welcome here. It takes some careful balancing to post on a rival board and not be roasted. I tried for a bit on RCMB but eventually tired from all of the flaming (although there are a number of good, rational posters there). I look forward to your future posts.
April 20th, 2010 at 12:36 PM ^
Why isn't MD on the hotseat? Matt Shepard brought this up and I think it is a pretty dumb question to be honest.Dumb? I would think a coach who brought in a dozen or so players who have ended up in jail would be on the hotseat. What do you think the freep (and henceforth national media) would do to Rodriguez right now if even one of his players got throwed in jail? Look at what they did to him when one of his recruits (Dorsey, who he hasn't even coached yet) committed criminal acts which a) were far less troublesome than what MSU's thugs did and b) didn't get him any jail time. The fact is that the seat at Michigan will always be a lot hotter than the seat at MSU, regardless of records. Furthermore, who's seat is hotter, Beilein's or Izzo's? Who's seat is hotter, Beilein's right now or Izzo's three years into his tenure? Unfortunately for MSU fans, Michigan is a marquee name and Michigan State isn't. It will take decades of a reversal of fortunes to change that.
April 20th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
This is easily, ime, a much better argument for why MD should be on the "hot seat".
April 20th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^
is adding to our board with his foray and is welcome in my book. Just because he's not as up on UM football as Irish doesn't mean he's not adding to the mix.
MSU is not even close to being significant enough to be "the enemy".
Your post seems reasonable enough, so you won't get thrashed in this great blog/forum for being sensible. Personally, I don't care about your opinion one way or the other. I find the reactions to it much more informative.
It's going to happen, but I don't think that anybody should overanalyze a spring game where it was 1 v 2, red numbers on QBs, base sets etc. It was good to see some of the young recruits begin to spread their wings, but that's about all I took away from it.
you're doing just fine
Your negative recruiting question is the same topic I tried to talk about previously but it was greatly unsuccessful, and it was mostly my fault. When I stepped back and thought about it, it really comes down to your definition of what negative recruiting is and the extent to which it is used.
At the loosest definition of "negative recruiting", painting your competition in any bad light would be broken by everyone. Anytime a coach talks about their own accolades or accomplishments they would be negative recruiting against any team or coach that didn't accomplish the same things. Now on the opposite side of things someone may "only" define it as something almost malicious or borderline unethical. Example being one florida school scaring parents by showing them photos of football players who were shot at Miami, yes this did happen. I don't care where your line is but that behavior well exceeds it.
If people are complaining because a rival coach is pointing out RR on the hot seat or pointing out UM's past schedule, I don't care. Is it negative recruiting in my own opinion, no, the coach isn't lying or deceiving the recruit, he is stating facts. Recruiting success is directly related to winning on gameday and the coaches getting it done. If there are questions surrounding either topic its fair game in recruiting. So my line is now drawn at intentionally misleading or lying to recruits, if a coach is doing that I have no problem with someone complaining about it.
April 20th, 2010 at 11:40 PM ^
Whaaaat?!
And Brian thanks you all for the hits.