MGoPoll - Rivalries and National Program Perception
So, the other MGoPoll that went up today asking who will win a national championship first, Football or Basketball, got me thinking a bit, so I thought I'd throw up another here.
This year, for the first time in seven tries, we can hold our heads high when thinking about The Game. Unfortunately, we're now sitting on an 0-4 due to a localized trash tornado in East Lansing. Meanwhile, in basketball, things are beginning to break back towards even versus the wicked witches of the West and South, having split the H/A schedule with each this year.
I personally am of the belief that when a classic rivalry game becomes too one sided, it not only hurts the losing team's national perception, but the winning team's as well. The big rivalry games are sometimes the only time that sports fans and reporters from far away see a given team all year. If that rivalry game fails, even the winning team will lose national perception because not as many people will pay attention to them.
So, my question is this. If the football OR basketball team is going to win an NC sometime in the near future, which game of the four big games is most beneficial to our national profile to have it be close, competitive and full of talent?
M-OSU Football
M-MSU Football
M-OSU Basketball
M-MSU Basketball
I personally think that the nature of the tournament makes basketball rivalries a little less important on a national scale, but then again, when one program falters, that's one less "marquee" win. Still, I think M and OSU both benefit the most from The Game being competitive.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
MSU improved over the last few seasons but they are set to take a drop and remain a second-tier program. OSU is a much more important game, especially for national perception. Living in Toledo, it has always seemed like UM-MSU is much more important within Michigan. Even Ohio Michigan fans (Michigan fans living in Ohio) don't seem to "get it."
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:33 AM ^
in a national sense the Ohio football game will ALWAYS be bigger.
Now I don't mean to single any one person out but I keep hearing about how "Michigan State is set to take a drop". How, exactly are they set to take a drop? Because we are outrecruiting them? We always have though, they are getting the same scrubs now that they've been winning with for the past several years, 2 and 3 stars that somehow everyone else missed. It's not as though they started getting better recruits and now they aren't, they never got the highly rated guys. I'm sorry to be harping on this but until we beat them I don't want to hear about how they are "set to take a drop" until the so called drop actually occurs.
If anything, wins in the near future against Sparty will come as a result of Michigan coming back, not because they "took a drop". I don't think I'm alone in saying the latter scenario would leave one somewhat wanting.
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^
MSU is likely to drop since they just lost most of the players responsible for the moderate amount of success they've had in recent years. (Cousins, Cunningham, Martin, Nichol, Linthicum and Worthy are all gone)
And while we traditionally "outrecruit" them, this hasn't really been the case in a couple of recent years. In 2009, for example, sparty had the 17th ranked class in the nation, which is pretty close to where they finished in the final BCS rankings the past couple years. By contrast, Michigan''s 2009 class, while rated high, included several 4-star players who aren't even with the program anymore (Tate, Vlad, JT Turner, LaLota, Stokes, just to name a few). For 2010, we lost Cullen, Dorsey, Austin White, and (techincally) M-Rob. From 2008, we lost Boubcar, McGuffie, Stonum.
The point is, Rich Rod's classes saw a ton of abnormal attrition, such that you can't really make any useful correllation between where Michigan's recruiting classes ranked during those years and the on-field results. Unless there's some reason to expect Hoke's classes to have similar abnormal attrition, and I'm not aware of any.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
M-OSU by a long shot, especially now that Meyer is there and will most likely have them performing up to their traditional standards. MSU is going to be a solid team year in and year out under Dantonio, but they are never going to be elite. If we can butt heads (haha) with OSU and hold our own on a regular basis, I think our national profile will be as high as it's ever been.
EDIT: I totally ignored basketball because the regular season doesn't mean nearly as much, so those choices are ruled out automatically.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:20 AM ^
Not much compares to the M-Ohio football war. This game already has so much national recognition that it is by far the best game to have as a strong, close matchup with significant talent on both sides.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^
Michigan/ohio, when we lost to the couch burners i was sad for a day , when we beat the ohio cheaters i was smiling pretty for a month and i still get happy thinking about it, i think MOST Michigan fans feel the same way.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:16 AM ^
LOL that M-MSU football is even on this list.
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:09 PM ^
Most people outside of Michigan think that Michigan and Michigan State are the same school. The say to me the one with the wings on the helmet right? MSU is not even on the national radar of casual CFB fans.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
M-OSU without question. I do not think MSU will be able so sustain the success they have enjoyed over the past couple of years because of staff attrition. Dan Roushar has not performed at the level Don Treadwell had at OC and I would imagine Narduzzi will leave for his own HC job somewhere soon also.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:30 AM ^
I prefer to beat Ohio and MSU all the time to be honest. National/Public perception be damned.
With Hoke and Meyer reinstating the old order of the Big 2 and Little 8 (i mean 10 now) I think that MSU has a fair chance at remaining a contender in the B1G for the next 5-6 years. They still have a boatload of underclassman defensive talent and a D coordinator that knows how to use it. In 2013/2014 they don't play Wiscy,Ohio,PSU during interdivisional play so they get favorable schedules. The real question mark is if Iowa or Nebraska can rise up and become the #2 team in the Legends division.
Does anyone else think that the first time Michigan and Ohio play back to back in The Game and the B1G Championship will be when they make the last game of the regular season an intradivisional game?
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
The crossover rivalry thing is a joke. How can anyone think it's fair? I hope at least that MSU fans know it's because the conference sees them as on the same level as Indiana.
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:57 AM ^
M/OSU in football is a national cultural event. Nothing we have with any other school, in any other sport, transends that. Very few sports teams, college or pro, have a rivalry that has reached yearly "event" status. Yankees/Red Sox, Texas/Oklahoma, Duke/North Carolina, Habs/Leafs... there aren't that many. Once an organization has one of these (and most don't), that's it. From a national perception perspective, that rivalry outstrips anything else.
Nothing MSU ever does against Michigan, in any sport, will ever eclipse M/OSU football... especially not in today's landscape with divisions, championship games, tournaments and the like. M/OSU football was built on decades of "the winner of this game goes to the Rose Bowl." M/MSU can't face each other in the B1G championship game (in football) and there is too much parity these days to expect it. The window for cementing a "transending cultural event" type rivalry may have closed.
Plus, there is simply no reason to believe it could occur with MSU given that there is no history of sustained "elite" success for MSU. They're on a good 15 year run right now in basketball, but I don't see them being mentioned in the same breath as Kentucky 20 years from now. And their "sustained success" has to conincide with "sustained success" on our end. Had we kept up our end in the court post Fab-Five, who knows? We could have a great B-ball rivalry going then... but it still wouldn't be "The Game."
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^
And their "sustained success" has to conincide with "sustained success" on our end.That's part of what I was saying. It's not just being good and beating the other team. It's both teams being good and creating nationally desireable matchups. I promise you that this coming fall, NBC is going to get their money's worth out of the M-ND game because the last few M-ND games have been entertaining not just to M and ND fans, but nationally entertaining.
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
Michigan/Ohio football by leaps, bounds, and light years ahead of all the other ones. Every school has rivalries. Mostly, nobody cares about them, especially the instate ones. There are a ton of rivalries all over the country, but only a select few that really project outside the insular fanbases. You can count 'em on one hand: the Iron Bowl, Red River, Army/Navy, Carolina/Duke, and of course, Woody vs. Bo. Ohio State is as much a part of Michigan tradition as the winged helmet and the Big House, and Michigan is as much a part of Ohio State tradition as helmet stickers and script Ohio. You can't say that about the other three rivalries. The Game is part of the fabric of the program. The rest are just games we want to win more than most.
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:13 PM ^
UofM vs. OSU is the game, and it will always stay that way. People know what to expect, understand we lead the overall series and that they owned the 2000's like we owned the 90's. It will all eventually balance out.
However, we're expected to beat MSU in football, and I've gathered the general perception is MSU is still nothing more that a regional team on a hot streak and was kicking us when we were down. It won't last.
I don't think think OSU vs. UofM in basketball rellay garners much interest outside of the B1G. People seem to forget we're rivals and don't really expect much one way or the other even though OSU is deemed a newer national basketball power.
However, we are expected to lose to MSU in basketball. We are always supposed to compete, but never really win. The rise of Izzo and the Michigan basketball scandal and subsequent decline has helped cement that. I think turning the tide in that rivalry will have the most positive effect on our national perception, because it's what we're least expected to do.
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:41 PM ^
However, we are expected to lose to MSU in basketball. We are always supposed to compete, but never really win. The rise of Izzo and the Michigan basketball scandal and subsequent decline has helped cement that.
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. Michigan leads MSU in overall head-to-head record by something like 20 wins. Granted, the past 10 years, MSU has had the upper hand on Michigan, but historically Michigan has not been MSU's whipping boy in basketball. Prior to the Izzo-era, MSU was a mid-tier Big 10 squad (1979 excluded), but they weren't perennial contenders in the same way teams like Indiana, Michigan, OSU, and Illinois have been.
Pre-1995
- Michigan Big 10 Titles: 12
- MSU Big 10 Titles: 6
- Michigan NCAA Tournament Appearances: 17
- MSU NCAA Tournament Appearances: 10
- Michigan Final Four Appearances: 6
- MSU Final Four Appearances: 2
No argument that Izzo has taken the Spartans to elite basketball status, but don't buy into their propaganda that would have you believe MSU has always been a basketball power.
February 22nd, 2012 at 2:48 PM ^
I know my history. I agree we're the more dominant team historically and your stats help prove that. But Izzo coached MSU isn't like the Dantonio era football team where their recent dominance in the rivalry is accepted as a string of good luck for them during a string of bad luck for us. The national perception is MSU is a better program than us in basketball, and that's what we're talking about here. You don't need propaganda to tell you that. I'm about as big of a UofM homer as they come, yet I've learned to accept that.
The fact that we need to remind the rest of the country that we're the historically better team is the reason why the UofM/MSU basketball rivalry is more important for our public image.
February 22nd, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^
I don't see this as being a hard question.
February 22nd, 2012 at 5:18 PM ^
February 22nd, 2012 at 8:58 PM ^
correct answer.