The only recruits we have really pursued hard and lost to MSU were from Rennissance. There is nothing RR can do about a MSU booster running a HS
alternate headline: man does job
The only recruits we have really pursued hard and lost to MSU were from Rennissance. There is nothing RR can do about a MSU booster running a HS
RR beat out MSU for a guy from Ren when he was at WVU. Carr got guys from Ren too when MSU wasn't even pursuing them because they knew it'd be pointless.
Carr was going up against John L. which has to be an easier task than recruiting against Dantonio. The only players Michigan recruited heavily that ended up going to state are Gholston last year and Lawerance Thomas this year
I heard the Ren. Coach didn't like what he heard from his player that went to WV, and still hates UM for how they treated Carson Butler, who was a head case, but I guess that was Michigan's fault. The result, no more recruits... As long as he has a say in it, that is. It's way too early to say we have totally lost the state, bein' we just added Will Campbell, the clear #1 instate player, just two years back. Give it time.
Technically, MSU is better than UofM, since they've won two in a row.
now you are just bating ppl lol
Nah. I'm just being honest. A lot of people around here like to ignore reality.
The jagged shiv of reason in the hysterical kidney of MGoBlog.
I don't know if it is a UofM slappy opinion that UofM is still better than MSU. Four years ago Michigan was one personal foul penalty from playing for the NC, three years ago we were ranked in the top 5 to start the season and were plagued by injuries all year. We have struggled for two seasons in a transition to a new coach. North Carolina won the NC in basketball last year but struggled with young players this year. By your logic, any team that beat them this year is clearly a better program? MSU was 6-6 in Dantonio's 3rd year, finished worse that the year before, had program wide behavioral issues, and despite getting Gholston (who I think looks like a workout warrior more than a football player) still had a much lower ranked recruiting class. How is it simple reality that they are better?
-I feel obligated to say I didn't neg you. Disagreeing with someone shouldn't be grounds for negging in my opinion.
They've had a better record and beaten us two years in a row. Our coach has won 8 games in two years on the job.
They're better because they won. I mean...if we won two years in a row, would you argue that Michigan isn't better than MSU? Absolutely not. You'd say, "Well, we've won the last two games, so we're better. Suck it."
It's just amazing sometimes what Michigan fans (and other teams' fans, I'm sure) convince themselves into believing.
So what if Michigan has a new coach? Let's say you buy a beat-up sports car and you're going to soup it up. In the meantime, some guy challenges you to a street race, but he beats you. Later he says, "My car is faster than yours."
Would you say "No, your car isn't faster. My car used to be faster and it needs a new engine, but when I finally fix it up in about six months, it'll be faster again. So your car isn't faster"?
That would be stupid. Yeah, his car is faster. Yeah, their team is better. You can believe all you want about how soon the ship is going to be righted, but in the meantime...sorry, that guy's car is faster. Ignoring it doesn't make it untrue.
What is amazing is how some people can miopically look at one thing and make it into another. Michigan's 2008 football team was not better than many teams that year. Michigan's 2009 football team was not better than many teams that year. Michigan's football program is better, historically, than everyone IMO, and right now, is better than all but probably 3 teams in the Big Ten. MSU is not one of those teams.
Damn...when people twist around words that are very easily defined ("better", for example), then it's difficult to argue.
Right now MSU is better. Like I said. They've had a better record and beaten us for two years in a row. There's no getting around it. You can ignore it if you want. That's fine. I guess that's what Michigan fans do.
But I'm done arguing what "better" means, because it's just ridamndiculous to have conversations like this.
I am more agitated by the tone of your argument. It is very condescending to say things like, " You can ignore it if you want. That's fine. I guess that's what Michigan fans do." It is implies that clearly you are of the superior intellect and I am walking headfirst into a wall struggling to realize that there isn't a door there. You have an opinion and I have an opinion. When left as such there is discussion. The approach you are taking is that we lower class fans just can't seem to come to grips with the simple reality that you have the ability to understand. It is an arrogant attitude and annoys me.
don't like Magnus, though they put up with it for his football knowledge.
was better in 2008 and 2009. No denying that. But to say they are the "better" team right now implies that they will have a better future which I disagree with.
Its possible MSU could prove better in the future, but a look at the talent of both teams, the on-field track record of their respective coaches and the recruiting histories of the 2 schools says otherwise.
FINALLY. I never thought I would see logic on this board. I guess having so many points negates the effect of a negbang. Agreed with everything you said.
It's hard to say you're wrong on this Magnus, but it's even harder to say you're right. I find that to be the case with many of your posts when the topic moves outside of technical football analysis. You know the technical side better than the vast majority of this board. The opinion side? Eh, I guess it depends on the amount of coffee you had on a given day.
Michigan State will never be a "better" program because it's a 2nd tier coaching destination. If Dantonio has an incredible year, he's going to jump ship just like Saban and they'll be stuck back down in the muck of deep mediocrity again.
The alumni support just isn't there to make MSU a sustainably good program, the best thing they can hope for is a couple of good years and then they start all over again. For that reason, I find it difficult to understand how an informed recruit would pick MSU over Michigan if they felt like they had an equal chance to play at both.
Michigan State was nowhere in B-Ball, until Magic Johnson went there, facilities were upgraded and Heathcote/Izzo made it a 1st tier coaching destination.
Heathcote didn't do much for MSU (aside from the two years he rode Magic's coattails). They were mediocre for most of his tenure. Izzo is pretty much solely responsible for their current state.
I don't drink coffee.
By Magnus' criteria MSU is better. Head to head they have beaten our boys. That is grounds for a sound argument in which one can say that MSU's 2008 and 2009 teams were better than ours. It is not a broadstroking statement in which he is supplanting Michigan from the top of the food chain in the state, he is just simply stating his opinion based upon what he considers to be the most unbias critera, their performance on the field. Because in our hearts, we know that we have a better program, better history, better coach, better personnel...but it has not translated to wins. So...they get the nod for their on the field performance. Like it or not, that is a sound way to judge the two teams, their head to head performances.
+1 for you sir. Touche.
Not that you need it, or that it matters. But sometimes the homerism around here drives me crazy. Michigan has sucked the last two years, and that's the reality. Part of bringing positive change is dealing with reality.
I appreciate your candid comments on recruits, too. I'm not astute enough to know who is a good prospect and who isn't.
I'm curious, though. What are some predictions (on recruits) that you have made which haven't matched up to reality. I'd be interested in both the positive and the negative, i.e., prospects you thought weren't very good who became awesome, and vice versa. The next question to follow that would be if there is some measurable factor that caused your bad initial projection.
One current case that would be interesting to follow: JT Turner. He has been widely hailed as da bomb, the second coming of Charles Woodson, etc. Now he appears to be a step back. Is he not as good as advertised, or do the schemes really make that much difference, or something else?
OUTPERFORMED MY EXPECTATIONS
Ryan Van Bergen
HAVEN'T MET MY EXPECTATIONS (YET)
Those are a few that I can think of. The jury is still out on a lot of players, so I can't comment on some of them.
As for why:
I thought Van Bergen was too slow to play defensive end. I still don't think he's fast, but his motor has been good enough to help him make some plays.
I didn't think Odoms would be as good as he has been, partly because I wasn't familiar enough with Rodriguez's offense at the time. I thought Rodriguez would want speed demons at slot receiver, and I didn't really think Odoms was a blazer. I've partly been right because his acceleration is better than his top-end speed (in my opinion), but that acceleration has been good enough to turn him into a good slot guy.
I thought Fitzgerald would be a beast of a middle linebacker, but he's been behind Ezeh and I think he's been a little slower to learn than I had hoped. But who knows? He could have a great junior or senior year.
I thought Michael Williams would be a great replacement for Brandon Harrison as the slot corner. As it is, that position kind of disappeared, and Williams hasn't really found a place since then. Again, he might break out this year or next from that spur position. Hopefully he does.
I thought McGuffie would be good, but I wanted him to redshirt. I really thought he would have benefited from a year to get bigger, and I thought Brandon Minor was the superior back in 2008. I can't really take the blame for being wrong about this one, since he transferred and had a bunch of concussions, but he's someone I liked who didn't pan out.
I have to agree from a head to head, and overall record standpoint.
I hate it when that happens!
Technically, CMU is better than MSU, since they've won one in a row. So shouldn't they be sucking up all the in state talent?
We all agree that Eastern sucks, right?
define technically, 'cause I don't think it means what you think it means...
You could also say that M is better than MSU because we own the all time record battle. If M wins the next game and is 1-2 in the last three games does that make us the better team, or them? My point may be confusing, but I don't think you can say they are better simply because they won the most recent games. Most people will also be looking at the future of the programs, and while I am probably (read: definately) biased, I think M's is brighter.
and say magnus comment will be negged lol
This depends on how you frame things. First, the NUMBER of recruits from the state of Michigan has been declining steadily since 2002. Second, the QUALITY of the recruits form Michigan has been consistent, or slightly improving since 2002. These data are from Scout, and are the number of Michigan recruits and the average star rating of the group since 2002:
2002 11 2.72
2003 6 3.67
2004 6 3.5
2005 6 3.5
2006 4 3.25
2007 5 3.6
2008 5 3.8
2009 4 3.25
2010 4 4.0(!) [the numbers are 3 & 4.0 if you discount Ricardo]
2011 2 (already) stars have not settled yet
The two best years in terms of quality were 2008 and 2010. The best years in terms of quantity were 2002-2005.
There are a couple of instate players that we really could have used, such as Baker, Capers, Mylan Hicks, Max Bullough, and Gholston, but as long as we are getting players that can play at a high level does it really matter what state they are from?
This article was written by Kurelic(also works for Spartan tailgate). It is so slanted it is ridiculous and not worth checking.
the OP's article is a regional roundup written by JC Shurburtt
It's a ESPN recruiting insider article so I can't link. I didn't see Shuburtt's article. The 2 scrubs MSU picked up he made them seem like All Americans and then he completly blew off Hollowell's commitment even though he and Thomas were the only ones on the ESPN150 watchlist. Then he went on to say if MSU can land Beyer, Zettel, Hayes and Arnett that would prove MSU is taking the state and Dantonio is winning the recruiting battle head up over RR. Sure if that happens he would be right, chances MSU gets all 4 is uh slim??
it doesn't matter if UM is better for him on or off the field. He will blindly walk off the cliff and not choose UM. We will always find similar or better talent so no worries.
Still waiting for MSU to "steal" a big name instate recruit from UofM... Gholston, Thomas, and Bullough were earmarked for MSU for a long time.. It would have been an upset if one of those guys chose UofM, not the other way around. And Michigan was too busy pursuing guys like Cullen Christian and Demar Dorsey to worry about what Mylan Hicks was doing. Seems to me that UofM is still able to recruit just fine in Michigan, while also recruiting guys from Florida, Cali, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc.. Something sparty is incapable of doing. Color me worried if MSU snatches a guy like BWC or Devin from UM. Until then, forever and always, fuck sparty.
The premise of the entire blurb is that, according to a kid being aggressively recruited by MSU, he likes MSU over UM. Is that some major story? Go talk to Conway or Hollowell and you'll probably hear how UM is the better choice. This is a typical puff piece that should probably be on a specific fan site, not a general-purpose recruiting article.
One thing I did find hilarious was the notion that MSU is somehow a receiver school, even though Dantonio has been about hammering the rock since he showed up. Sure, they could throw the ball this year when they were down, but this is not the type of team that is going to showcase any receivers. Pointing out guys who played for MSU 4 coaches ago totally ignores the fact that those systems are no longer in place.
Well, they've got one kid playing for the Redskins and another kid who had a pretty good Combine this year.
Meanwhile, Michigan has produced Laterryal Savoy and Greg Mathews.
I mean, the jury's still out, but judging by the current coaches only, I'd say MSU is more of a receiver school than UofM right now.
So one kid in the NFL makes MSU a better receiver school? You guys aren't exactly working with statistically relevant samplings are you? We have a punter who should be drafted this year. We are clearly the best 'punter school' in the Big Ten. Florida State had a defensive back win a Rhodes Scholorship. They are clearly the best 'intellectual defensive back school' in the nation. Are we really this bored?
Michigan is clearly a better destination for a receiver wanting to make it to the NFL, because of Braylon Edwards.
Recruits don't give a poop about David Terrell or Jason Avant, because Erik Campbell is in Des Moines and Lloyd Carr is sitting in an office somewhere. They care about what you've done lately, and other than Chris Henry, Rodriguez doesn't have much in the way of receivers to brag about; Tony Dews, meanwhile, was coaching offensive tackles at CMU when Chris Henry was around. I mean no offense to him, but his track record for producing NFL-caliber wide receivers isn't exactly stellar.
Of course the post you replied to didn't say anything at all about Michigan being a BETTER receiver school than MSU. It just said that MSU being a "receiver school" seems silly. The point he actually made (rather than the straw man) is valid.
OK then, Magnus, what Dantonio recruits (Cinci or MSU) are in the NFL?
Mardy Gilyard is about to be.
You mean the guy who emerged as a top receiver once Dantonio left and he was allowed to grow under the tutelage of Chip Kelly?
We have Barwis!
Every one of our players will be turned from 3-star to all american man-eating freak of nature athletes!!!
DeAnthony Arnett wants to be the next Blair White, I'm sure of it.
...probably more than he wants to be the next Greg Mathews.
And Steve Breaston, Mario Manningham, and even Jason Avant (who has had a nice little career so far in Philly and is on the upswing). And to be fair, MSU has had guys like Plaxico, Muhammad (though that seems like eons ago), and Derrick Mason.
But to your greater point, I doubt most kids care that much about whether a certain school produces more WRs than another provided that schools produces some consistent NFL talent. The age of a school being "linebawka U" or USC's run of top RBs is probably over in college football, as assistants leave and coaching staffs experience turnover on a near-constant basis. As long as a school is large enough that a kid is assured of getting some national exposure, the system being run is probably all that matters, and even then factors such as school name recognition, playing time availability, and coaching relationships probably trump.
All those guys were around before Rodriguez and Dantonio.
Anyway, a few posts above, you said Mardy Gilyard doesn't count because he didn't develop until Brian Kelly got there.
Now you're taking away Devin Thomas because Dantonio didn't recruit him.
You can't have it both ways. Dantonio gets credit for at least one of those aspects (recruiting or development). Maybe not both, but one. Whether you give him Gilyard or Thomas, though, that's better than Rodriguez has done so far at Michigan.
But then, to be fair, if you give Dantonio Cincinnati players you have to give RR West Virginia players, right? Did RR recruit/develop any wide receivers while at WV that made it to the NFL?
None that I am aware of.
I take that back - I believe Darius Reynaud was a punt returner or something for the Vikings this past year, but I don't think he contributed much at all. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong - my knowledge of Reynaud is limited. He was a slot receiver, though, not a wideout.
I said that a few posts above:
"They care about what you've done lately, and other than Chris Henry, Rodriguez doesn't have much in the way of receivers to brag about; Tony Dews, meanwhile, was coaching offensive tackles at CMU when Chris Henry was around."
Thomas was at MSU one year with Dantonio, but I will concede that he certainly blossomed under Dantonio. As for Mardy, Dantonio basically kicked him off the team after taking a flyer on him as a 2* recruit - Kelly was the one who really developed him and pushed him to be the player he is now. So I guess we'll give Dantonio Thomas, but only because he at least played for the man.
My point was that Dantonio's WR recruiting has been somewhat sparse, and his development of these players under his system has failed to produce the type of receivers that would precipitate the notion of he produces NFL-caliber WRs. Looking at the 2004-2009 NFL drafts (the time Dantonio was at UC plus his years at MSU), you'll notice not a single WR was drafted from Cincinnati or MSU (save for Thomas) - the closest was a TE. So over a 5-year span, I will concede a total of one drafted WR. RR had two in the 2005 draft - Chris Henry and Rasheed Marshall.
My point wasn't that MSU hasn't produced good WRs in the past, but this notion that Dantonio (and his system) is somehow a generator of top-fight WRs simply isn't supported by the facts.
Yer killin mah dudes
But Dantonio never recruited Thomas (the player with Washington). He inherited that guy (along with most of his WR core) from John L. Smith, who ran an offense predicated on 4- and 5-receiver sets. In the past two recruiting cycles, he has recruited 3 WRs, and only one was of note (Donald Spencer was a 4* per Rivals). In that same span, he has recruited 5 RBs. That was my whole point in the post - MSU had a nice run of WRs because the earlier coaching staffs pushed for them, but under Dantonio the push has definitely been toward a run-first offense. I'm sure that some percentage of WRs at MSU will make it in the pros irrespective of the coach's focus, but they are "WR U" or anything.
Dantonio didn't recruit Thomas, but he actually utilized him which JLS failed to do (Thomas' most notable achievement before MD came was blocking a punt against NW). Also, he recruits the positions which don't have depth. In 2007 and 2008, they took 6 WR (along with 3 TEs), and had enough talent that the position was no longer a huge priority compared to RB, which with Ringer leaving, and the exodus of every RB on the roster aside from Baker and Caper necessitated the need for a little more depth at the position. Last year, they led the Big Ten in passing yards with receivers recruited by Dantonio.
MSU had the most passing yards and receiving TDs in the conference last year (pretty sure they did in 2007 as well).
They did lead the league last year (not sure about 2007), but Dantonio has said on numerous occasions that he is not a pass-first type of coach. So my point is that while the stats support the idea that MSU will continue to be a pass-happy offense, the coach's prerogative is for the team to run the ball like they did with Ringer. And if you look at how the recruiting has been under Dantonio, you see him moving away from the heavy-WRs classes under JLS and more toward the run-happy, defensive squads you expect under a Tressell disciple. But you are correct that MSU has enjoyed some recent success throwing the ball.
to see how things play out this year. I'd say around 70-80% of MSU's offers for 2011 are to Ohio kids as there aren't many "big name" in-state prospects left aside from Arnett and Hayes.
crack use is still rampant.
Apparently, the only thing that determines what is "better" is the last game.
Other things according to Magnus: Appalachian State now has a better football program than Michigan, Northern Iowa's basketball program is now "better" than Kansas, the US Soccer Team is now "better" than Spain, and Oregon State's Football program is now "better" than USC.
This. MSU has won two in a row for the first time in 40 years. They barely won last year. We need to beat them this year. If they beat us this year, then they are better.
Is there some kind of magical transformation when a streak reaches 3?
but only wen ur on the wrong side of the 2 game winning streak and ur trying to argue that it doesnt mean ur a worse program(currently) til they beat u 3 times. IF(probably wont happen) they beat u 3 times then it only counts if they beat u 4 times. and so on and so on. im agreeing with magnus btw, this whole thing was a lot of sarcasm for those who are missing it.
It doesn't fill me to the brim with confidence that perhaps the only person supporting me is the Texas Longhorn on the board, but I'll take what I can get.
im offering a fairly unbiased opinion so its better than nothing i suppose(as u said). i think that the biggest problem is the knee jerk reaction of "FUCK NO" wen people say mich state is better than michigan in football. if we talk recently then u are absolutely right. as program overall? fuck no, not even close. as of march 24, 2010 mich state has won 2 straight and has had better seasons for 2 years in a row. therefore mich state is a better football team. tho im sure that this will change because mich state wont have enuf players to field a team at the rate their felon list is going up.
You're missing the point.
If Appalachian State played in the Big Ten, beat us two years in a row, and had a better record against the same (or similar) opponents, then I might say something like that.
The same goes for Northern Iowa if they played in the Big 12, etc.
Right now? Yes. They've had 1 more victory over us over the past two years, and they've beaten us two years in a row.
This is not Lloyd Carr's or Bo Schembechler's or Gary Moeller's Michigan.
We are NOT GOOD. Saying "We're Michigan so we're better than ___________" doesn't mean anything when you're not winning [very many] games.
Michigan State was better than Michigan the past 2 games, simple as that. They certainly won't be better than Michigan this year.
Whether or not we agree with it (I don't) this is going to continue until the Fall. State has a lot of hype surrounding them right now (despite the assaults) and Michigan has a lot of negativity. It happens, and depending on who has a kids ear, what he listens to, reads, etc., what info he gets can vary drastically.
Michigan will have to settle this on the field.
In state recruiting matters. But winning and overall recruiting matters more.
I think Michigan State is definitely going to make in state recruiting more interesting but to say they own us is far fetched.
Every year about this time, you hear about the Sparty recruiting machine getting rolling, and are going to start to dominate the state. Especially the past couple of years with the Gholston and Thomas commits. You hear ohhhh man all the blue chippers will be flocking in now to play with these guys.However, after signing day, Sparty is always sitting on the outside looking in the top 25-30 in the recruiting rankings. The instate recruiting stuff is a bit overblown anyway. Normally not too many guys outside the top 10 ranked guys in Michigan are offered by Michigan anyway. Michigan has, and always get 4-6 players out of state. Lloyd's staff hardly ever brought in more then 4-6 guys either.
So when will MSU pull a Demar Dorsey out of Florida or a Justin Turner out of Ohio?? they have to push harder for instate kids because that's where they're known.
We don't even know how this kids will turn out to be, they might end like Carson Butler... I do think that not winning has taken a toll in recruiting, but the kids who are going to turn this ship around are already on the team, and once they start winning (which i'm confident they will) we will be able to keep again any instate recruit we might want, MI isn't even that talented-rich state so if we want to compete against the best teams we have to recruit nationally anyways.
Michigan is probably top 10 talent-wise as a state. At least top 12. Not that I disagree with your premise, but if you assume the top 5 (not necessarily in order) are CA, TX, FL, OH, PA, that leaves you with Louisiana, the Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, Alabama and Georgia. Arizona in the future will probably jump in to this mix.
FWIW, don't discredit Dantonio in Ohio, he will be effective going down there - he has strong ties to the state.
Pretty much every Southern state (except Kentucky, Tennessee and Arkansas) produces more talent than Michigan does, as do California, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Participation rates for high school football in the South are far higher than anywhere else, and it also has the largest black population. Georgia, for example, has more high school football players than Pennsylvania does, even though PA has 3 million more people - and black people make up 29% of Georgia's population, compared to 10% of Pennsylvania's.
Michigan is an OK state, talent-wise, but can't qualify as a hotbed. Our state's participation rate for high school football is mediocre, and much of our black population is concentrated in Detroit, which does not have very good high school football programs.
As a whole, maybe Michigan is top 12 overall. However, that's like saying Michigan is the tallest midget. Overall, there are massive fluctuations year-to-year in this state that you do not see in CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA. As such, it means a lot more to me to see RR beat out Urban Meyer for a kid in FL, than UM beating out Dan. for a kid in Michigan. On average (key words...on average), I would take a kid from FL over a kid from Michigan any day.
Having said that, obviously MSU got some good in-state recruits this past year. Sweet - good for them. After the years that UM has had, this absolutely does not surprise me. But, by no means does this indicate some sort of trend to me. It's merely a blip on a radar that in a few years will be wiped away.
Congrats to Dantonio for getting some good kids in-state. He'll need them!
In terms of fluctuation the bottom half of those 12 goes up and down way more than the top 5, even within the top 5 I'd say that PA and OH are much more prone to fluctuation than the big 3 of FL, TX, and CA, though that probably is obvious.
As long as Michigan is bringing in talent I'm happy.
Actually, the top five are Florida, Texas, California, Louisiana and Georgia. Ohio might be sixth (Virginia is up there, too). Pennsylvania is borderline top 10.
It's subjective. We'll agree to disagree. :)
It's not subjective. I'm talking about the number of D-I football prospects that come from each state. The data is out there.
Number-wise is different than talent-wise. New Jersey is not considered a "talent-rich" state, but produces a good number of D1 recruits.
Even so, the numbers ('04-'08) are as follows, and show that both PA and OH are ahead of LA in terms of pure numbers:
1) Florida, 2) Texas, 3) Cal, 4) Georgia, 5) Ohio, 6) Penn, 7) Alabama, 8) NJ, 9) N Carolina, 10) Virginia
Louisiana is #12, Michigan is #14.
Of course, this is not what my original post was about (a much more subjective look), but what you were arguing.
Okay you guys, Magnus just like playing devil's advocate. Don't respond and he'll go away.
I can tolerate Magnus for his football takes; this is just annoying attention seeking or, worse, a sad play to post so much for the MGoPoints.
Or it's right.
Seriously, how does it make sense to post this for the MGoPoints when I'm getting negged a bunch of times for each post?
If I were interested in earning points, I'd do some MS Paint or Photoshop where I attach Denard's head to a superhero's body.
magnus is just right. i dont see the point of posting this tho
When will you wolvies get it through your nappy fur that MSU is currently THE best team in the state period! Until your record shows it you are and will be our Lil Sis. Carry on!
so by those standards CMU is better than MSU..... can't have it both ways pal
Magnus - lay off the Haterade. Nobody likes the "logically pessimistic" fan. Just be blindly biased like the rest of us.
Heh...I get negged, anyway. Remember when I was head over heels for Brandon Minor in 2008? I loved the guy and really wanted him to play more. I got tons of negative comments. (I don't remember if the point system was in place then, so I don't know if I got negged or not.)
No matter what I say, I'm going to get negged. So I'm just not worried about it.
I know you were joking (at least a little bit), so no offense taken, by the way.
I absolutely remember the Brandon Minor thing. It was you against the world on that topic, and you ended up being right. In everyone else's defense (including mine), that was when Brandon Minor was fumbling A LOT and we were all still really gaga over McGuffie.
Rah Rah ah ah ah
Ro-ma roma ma
Gaga ooh lala
you get negged because every reply in this blog or whatever has been noticeably negative towards the coaches and players for M.
Remember, your on a UofM sports blog. As to why you come in this blog and completely shit all over michigan in your replies i have no idea.
Your opinion is your opinion, but from the looks of it, your opinion should belong to some MSU sports blog or something.
THAT is why you get negged my friend.
"As to why you come in this blog and completely shit all over michigan in your replies i have no idea."
I'm sorry I don't blindly believe that Michigan is the absolute best at everything. You may think that fans should think that way. I believe in objectivity.
Yeah man, that's completely understandable and acceptable.
But seriously 90% of the shit i read from you is against Michigan. (whether that be their coaches, players, defensive schemes, there ability to put WR's in the NFL, EVERYTHING).
There's objectivity and then there is just flat out being against M.
You say MSU is a better football team. Your basing that on a completely valid point. Being that they won the past two years.
Others are basing it off the football program as a whole. Which is also valid. There's no point to argue.
But by saying there a better team I'm assuming you believe there going to beat us this year again. (because well, usually the better teams win competitions)
My point is this is a Michigan sports support blog, and I have yet to see any signs of support from you.
I did not get the memo that this is a "support blog." If this is a place where we're only supposed to say positive things, then I guess I'm in the wrong place.
I was under the impression that we're all here to discuss Michigan athletics, not display absolute homerism.
My entire point in the first place was when your always so negative towards Michigan athletics why the hell do u whine and complain that everything u say gets you negged.
Of course it gets you negged u idiot, your posting 90% anti Michigan opinions on a Michigan athletics blog.
That was my entire point in the first place an I'm gonna leave it at that.
"No matter what I say, I'm going to get negged. So I'm just not worried about it."
In case you can't tell by that, I'm not complaining. I was just stating a fact.
EDIT: Also, saying that Michigan is worse than another school at certain things isn't anti-Michigan. That's a mindset that's completely illogical. It's arrogant to think that anybody who thinks Michigan is second- or third-best at something must be anti-Michigan. I'm clearly not anti-Michigan. I just have the ability to look at things objectively, which many people here don't like and/or can't do.
Arright cool. Good shit.
Props to you.
If I was talking about just one instance where your "anti Michigan" then you'd have a good point. But I'm saying everything I read it's something negative with you. Every post, it's pessimistic. I spend alot of time just reading on here and I noticed it.
Realism is a good thing but it gets to a point where it just seems "anti".
You call it objective, I call it pessimism.
Can we just agree to disagree?
Edit: I call it pessimism when it's so frequently a negative viewpoint. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems when there is a chance go say something positive, your never there. It's just negative realism. Never positive realism.
I'm not sure how well I explained that