I'm not sure how long they'll be willing to keep Dantonio if he can't rebound from last year. If he has another 6-6 season, he may be on the hot seat.
fair point that
I'm not sure how long they'll be willing to keep Dantonio if he can't rebound from last year. If he has another 6-6 season, he may be on the hot seat.
I could see MSU bouncing back a little this year. They still have a good D and I bet their offense will improve some. The game against them this year in East Lansing will be tough. They basically put everything they have into the Michigan game. I will not be surprised if they pull out some crazy stuff on offense just for the Michigan game.
But how do you see them (whether the divisions change or not) in the future now that Ohio has Meyer and Hoke is recruiting Michigan like Carr in his BEST years?
The Drake Harris situation should tell you everything you need to know about MSU...they're going back to where they came from. Michigan and Ohio are DOMINATING the region in recruiting.
There's also that school named Notre Dame that hurts MSU in terms of recruiting.
You ALSO have more and more SEC teams looking for recruits in the north.
This is a much better solution than trying to balance it out. Programs rise and fall, but we'll be on the same level of difficulty as Ohio regardless. All we wanted was an even chance, and this is it.
Leaders and Legends, we hardly knew ye. Actually, I didn't know ye at all. I deliberately forced myself from remembering which was which, and my stubborn obstinancy has been validated.
Sure, just like some weirdos get a perverse enjoyment out of hemorrhoids.
Unbalanced but good for the traditional rivalries.
I was thinking Majors & Minors, but I like your's better
It's like that every year. It's a very hard game because they are so amped up for it. However, they will suffer the losses of Bell and Sims greatly. They're already putting their best LB at RB. That's how bad their situation is. Maxwell and the receivers will have to step up big time. We'll see this fall.
I hope the "best LB to RB" comment is sarcasm
I think Connor Cook starts.
Recall that Dantonio played Cook over Maxwell at the end of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. (Sport!)
|Michigan State Passing|
I expect Cook to be servicable, which is a significant upgrade from the completely impotent Andrew Maxwell.
Do we still play Nebraska every year?
No. They won't be in our division.
Damn the rivalry was just getting warm
It will be Michigan or OSU winning the B1G championship. I don't see NE or WI keeping up with the UM's and OSU's!
At least the game will mean something now! I hope Hoke can win more than Urban. If he can you will see Urban get Ill and retire!
I think it's either Max Bullough or Riley Bullough that were called MSU's number 1 RB after spring practice. Both are LBs. Edit here it is http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130412/GW01/304130006/LB-Riley-Bullough-gets-shot-RB
but really, if we were trying out say James Ross or Joe Bolden at RB right now, I would be 100% certain that the position was going to be a tire fire this year. I expect MSU's RB position to be a lot of people running into the backs of their own linemen 2 yards in the backfield
GB. People running into the backs of their own linemen 2 yards in the backfield is called "Play # 1" in Bollman's 1-page offensive playbook.
I refuse to recognize these adopted stepchildren from the east coast as legitimate members of our conference.
As an Iowa native, in a few ways this sucks. Good for the Hawks getting to play Wisconsin again (that was stupid as can be) but now Michigan only plays Iowa once a decade*...awesome. I've been to the Iowa-Michigan game @ Kinnick dating back to the 90's and even though there were a few breaks from the every other year cycle, once every 14 years* @ Kinnick is loose butthole. Welcome aboard Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana (which, okay, true BigTen at least). Saying this is analagous to just finding out baseball was on steroids but this college football game is turning into a heaping pile of crap; I love it, but man she ain't what she used to be. "Fear the Turtle" is now a part of the Big Ten mottos.
*Hyperbole, but I'm sure I'm really not far off.
East and West isn't very appealing, but at least it's neutral. Leaders and legends made us a national embarrassment. The addition of two crappy schools also hurts the conference's prestige. It's amazing that a product with so many millions of fans can limp along under such poor management.
I'm happy that the divisional alignments don't completely screw Michigan and make Ohio's life as easy as possible, but I'm upset that we still have fucking Rutgers and Maryland in the conference.
Au revoir, Legends and Leaders.
The expansion hurts the whole conference. The Big Ten has basketball prestige because it has so many strong teams. We should be adding only strong football teams. That's the way to build a conference. The decline of the conference is something we should all be honest with ourselves about. The conference is at its lowest point in a hundred years. And they think we're going to solve it by adding Maryland and Rutgers?!
Ignoring the vacations, of course. Eastern division teams in bold.
If you give Nebraska that winning percentage through the entire decade (which might be a little high since they had a couple of bad years in the decade), you get total winning percentages of .543 for the east and .498 for the west.
So whether you think this is balanced probably depends on where you think Maryland and Rutgers would slot in. If they averaged 31-49 for the decade, it would be dead even.
6-18 in B1G play in three years under RR to be precise. Ugh.
44-12 in seven non-RR years.
That last sentence just made me feel better
Not the most scientific way to do this, but I took a slightly different path - I took the overall records since 2000 and calculated the "average record" and put those into the proposed divisions to get some vague (key word) sense of competitive partiy for these. It turns out that, in this scenario, the East would have a 0.588 winning percentage and the West would have a 0.576 winning percentage in that snapshot. Each division would then have only one team whose average performance was sub-.400 since 2000, which seems fair on the surface.
If they had done the other thing that was considered as well and put Purdue in the East and Indiana in the West, then the divisions, using the same method, are skewed by a good 8% when it comes to winning percentage and the West would have the two worst performing Big Ten teams since 2000. For parity on a broad level, I think these divisions that will be voted on by the presidents and chancellors might be about as fair as it gets from a team performance standpoint if geography is the driver.
Bummer for Sparty. Mark Hollis just negotiated his program to lying in the weeds for several more years. Until such time as hell freezes over, the Rose Bowl will remain a figment of Sparty's imagination.
Disagree. Things will get much worse for them before they start to turn the page. 5-7 years or longer is about the quickest they could do it with the huge loss of scholarships and ongoing bowl ban.
Then they'll have to shed that bottom feeder rep. Gonna be rough.
ever winning the Big Ten again just went so far down.
Number of times they've beaten both UM and OSU in the same season = 5 (twice in the fifties)
Number of times they've beaten UM, OSU and PSU in the same season= 1 in 13 tries
to play Penn St every year. We have had some classics
Will be awhile for classics..but yes there were
You've got to hand it to Jim Delany. The man sure knows how to time a press release.
Stop it with Penn State. They're a couple of years from bottoming out with the sanctions. And they won't be fully out from under them for at least six years.
As a reminder, here are Penn State's sanctions:
* No postseason games and no B1G bowl payout for 4 years (2012-2015).
* $12M fine plus probation each year for 5 years (2012-2016).
* Maximum 15 freshman scholarships each year for 4 years (2013-2016).
* Maximum 65 total scholarships each year for 4 years (2014-2017).
The biggest blow to Penn State's competitiveness, the 20 scholarship total reduction, does not even kick in until the 2014 season and lasts through 2017. They will probably not have a full complement of scholarship-quality players until 2020 or 2021.
Mark my words..... Michigan vs Rutgers will become the game to watch. They may even have it under the lights it will be so big. haha
The divisions are fairly balanced for now. If this is short term, I'm happy with it. But Penn State isn't going to be down forever, and I'm not entirely sure that Wisconsin is going to still be great 10 and 20 years down the road. What about Northwestern once Fitzgerald is gone? Are they the slightest threat to win the Big 10 a decade or two from now? For that matter, I'm not even sure Nebraska is built to compete with Michigan and ohio when both programs are firing on all cylinders. There will come a time where, if left in the current allignment, the East will far outperform the West. Although that is hilarious for sparty haters, it does make things difficult for anyone trying to win the East, and winning the West will largely come down to who you avoid from the East.
It's probably all a moot point since we'll be adding more programs in the near future. But as all of those teams are likely to come from the east, I'm still not sure how a true, geographically divided West will ever compare to a division with Michigan, ohio, and a non-sanctioned Penn State. At some point, it seems like we'll either have to give up on a geographic division or content ourselves with having one division be much stronger than the other.
Any geographically-oriented conference is going to have issues like that. It's not a big deal. Things work themselves out.
Nebraska is 9th in all-time winning percentage, 4th in all-time wins ahead of Ohio. Over the last fifty years they're first in both. Over the stretch from 1969-1997 their worst season was three losses. In one stretch they finished in the top ten 19 years in a row.
You could just as plausibly argue that Michigan and Ohio State might not be built to compete with Nebraska when the Huskers are firing on all cylinders.
"Just as plausibly" meaning not at all plausibly, obviously. But any suggestion that Nebraska hasn't been in the very top class of national football powers is laughable.
Yes, they are (were?) elite. I wonder if they can keep it up now that it is much harder for them to recruit Texas since they won't be playing any games down there. Bo Pelini sniffing around Ohio for Meyer/Hoke/Dantonio scraps does not seem to be a viable replacement for Texas recruiting.
...was done without games in Texas. The Big 8 didn't expand until 1996.
Take a look at their 1971 roster, probably their best team ever.
There wasn't a single player from Texas and almost no one in the Big 8 footprint outside Nebraska. Outside of half a dozen California kids and some bits and scraps from full-scale national recruiting, the whole roster is from what's currently the B1G, including five from IL and 7 from MI.
College football has changed an awful lot in a short period of time. There were several factors that combined to allow Nebraska to have the type of success they had in the 90's, many of which are no longer available. Nebraska was running the option when most other teams had abandoned it, making them THE place to be if you wanted to play that style of football at a high level. They had a legendary coach that was there for a long, long time. And it was an era where recruits chose where they'd play with prestige and tradition as a primary determining factor much more often than now. I think recruiting has changed, and I think Nebraska has lost some of what once made it uniquely appealing. That doesn't mean they can't keep winning a lot of games. But I believe Michigan and ohio are more attractive destinations for most elite recruits for a variety of reasons, and on top of that (for the time being, anyway) have better coaching staffs.
I could easily be wrong here, and any big program is really just one great coach away from being a powerhouse. But right now if I'm judging Big 10 programs based on apparent ceilings, there's the Big Two and everyone else. I think the era in which Nebraska was a top two or three program overall are behind us.
One final note: As far as "firing on all cylinders" goes, I'm not sure that most of us have ever seen Michigan firing on all cylinders, though we may once this staff has had a full recruiting cycle. We may have seen it for a brief period from Carr, and maybe early in Bo's career (though many of us weren't around for that.) But at best, the late 90's were the last time we were anywhere close to realizing our full potential as a program. So when I talk about Nebraska having a tough time keeping up, I'm talking about coaching, recruiting, and developing at a top five-ish level annually, because IMO that's where we'll be if everything comes together. Perennial national contenders, with NFL prospects on both sides of the ball playing in NFL-type systems. I don't know that Nebraska's program in it's current state shows any signs of having that type of potential. Again, one great coaching hire may change all that.
Never mind that I was talking about fifty years of excellence, not a single decade in the 90s. You claim there's no evidence that the Nebraska of the present is top-level B1G material...but here are the conference records since they joined:
Looks like they're keeping up OK to me, so far.
But of course the real problem with this kind of analysis is that it looks at objective facts, and what you really seem to want to do is compare other schools to your wet-dream fantasy of a Michigan future at a level that no school in the history of college football has ever been able to maintain. Nobody's "top-five-ish annually." It's very rare for any school to even average ten wins/season over a decade or more.
"We weren't going to go with 'Bo or Woody,' 'Black or Blue,' or 'Plains or Lakes,'" Delany said. "Obviously we got some acceptance [with Legends and Leaders], but not as much as we would have liked."
"Some acceptance" = Delany and his marketing firm and no one else.
"not as much as we would have liked" = understatement of the year. Outside of Big Ten HQ, pretty much everyone considered Legends and Leaders an embarrassment.
Else think it would be ironic/awesome if u of Chicago accepted their open invite to rejoin the big ten immediately after we add 2 more teams?
took two tries to come up with East and West.
is that the eastern part of the country and its recruits get opened up to Michigan and Ohio this way, and then maybe the best recruits in the western part of the conference maybe trickle up some to Nebraska and Wisconsin. So, maybe more Illinois kids drift out that way, as well as Minnesota and such.
I'm glad Michigan is in the East division, for recruiting purposes. In the traditional Big Ten footprint, we'll still be able to recruit well, and having Maryland and Rutgers on the schedule every year should help increase recruiting in those and surrounding areas.
Anyone else hoping when they redo the schedules Nebraska gets another welcome to the Big Ten and gets OSU back on the cross-division games AGAIN? Or both of us?