It should read: MSU, worst school in the Big Ten until Nebraska joined*.
It should read: MSU, worst school in the Big Ten until Nebraska joined*.
Please allow me to preface the comments below with the statement that I cannot stand Sparty on any level and would rather beat them more than any other team in all sports.
Sparty's anger at where they got slotted is justified IMO. If you look at the three teams tied above the Big 10 and their head-to-head records Sparty looks like the nod:
OSU: 0 - 1 (loses to Wisconsin, doesn't play MSU)
Wisconsin: 1 -1 (loses to MSU, beats OSU)
MSU: 1 - 0 (beats Wisconsin, doesn't play OSU)
I know that's not how they break ties in the Big 10 for the Rose Bowl but it's hard for me to argue that they don't have a point in being upset. I know we sure would if the situation was the same.
Oh wait...it WAS (kinda) back in 1973 when we tied for the title with OSU and Sparty voted to send them instead of us. Maybe this is Karmic payback.
...since we tried to keep them out of the Big Ten. Still anytime my buddy takes a dump, he calls is "taking a Bert Smith" (MSU AD in 1973
Yes, but those aren't the only 3 teams in the Big Ten. Take a look at those team's records against the rest of the schedule and MSU is the only one with a loss, and it's an ugly one.
But they're the only teams that are tied.
Again, on an emotional level I love the fact their getting screwed. Couldn't happen to a bunch of nicer couch burners. I was simply pointing out their rancor is somewhat justified. Even if iI don't give a shit about it.
if their loss came to indiana or minnesota would you still be making that point?
Yes. In virtually all sports head to head results is the first tie-breaker used, not a third party (BCS) vote on who they think is a better team.
If it was just between Wisconsin and MSU, it would have been a head-to-head thing and Sparty would have gone.
But when you can't do a simple head-to-head (which of course you can't because OSU didn't play State), you can't simply ignore the rest of the games. Wisconsin's only loss came to a top ten team. OSU's only loss came from a top ten team. State's only loss came in the form of an absolute SHIT-CANNING form a 7-5 team.
Again....I truly do NOT give a shit about Sparty but why can't you do a head-to-head here?
Wisconsin head to head record is 500 (one win and one loss)
OSU head to head record is 0 (one loss)
MSU head to head record is 1000 (one win)
Would a tie-breaker like the one above be any worse than the BCS voters "feelings" on who's better?
I like where your head is at. I also loved when Appy State beat a Tebow lead Florida team in their bowl game in 07.
Also, what you described isn't head-to-head, its a head-to-head-to-head. It is tough to look at head to head records when there are more than 2 heads. That doesn't even make any sense.
Also, as much as I don't like it, BCS teams aren't picked on "feelings" as much as you'd like to say they do. Who you lose to and margin of victory definitely play into it. I guess Boise should in before MSU...their only loss came to Nevada, who is ranked. I bet Boise is putting up the billboard right now. Also, they beat Va Tech, who is pretty good. Boise in the BCS!
You can't do a head to head because Michigan State did not play Ohio State. End of story.
Because you can not do a head to head comparison, you must look at a larger sample size, like the Big Ten season. Wisconsin crushed people, Michigan State wimpered and sputtered against crappy opponents, and Ohio State is generally shitty in all shitty ways.
Mich and OSU tied for the Big Ten, as the only blemish on their records was the tie against each other. MSU was not in the conversation regarding the 1973 Big 10 Championship.
Dude - if you don't know why State was relevant to the 1973 Rose Bowl discussion you need to brush up on your Michigan history like immediately. I won't go into all the boring details but you see we had this coach back then named Bo and his team tied OSU for the championship and this Bo guy had a QB named Frankin who got hurt and then there was this vote.......
Nevermind. You're right - State wasn't in the discussion.....what was I thinking.
I saw the part that said
Oh wait...it WAS (kinda) back in 1973 when we tied for the title with OSU and Sparty
and failed to continue on to where it said:
voted to send them instead of us. Maybe this is Karmic payback.
So I was merely commenting that UM did not tie with OSU and Sparty. But thanks for the fascinating history lesson. Who is this Bo fellow you speak of? And what of this vote thing?
The best MSU excuse is their complaint that their schedule was too easy and therefore didn't give them a chance to win the tiebreaker. Also in no circumstances should a school put up a billboard if they want to be respected.
I actually understand why MSU is angry because 11-1 from an AQ conference is 11-1 and should be recognized. That said, as the season progressed Wiscy and OSU destroyed teams left and right while MSU needed last-minute wins and close calls against NW, Purdue, and PSU to keep their dream season alive. Voters and computers notice that, along with the fact that MSU couldn't sell out their stadium for most games, and that is why they are going to play Alabama. It may suck because this was probably their best chance to make a BCS bowl game for years to come, but barely taking care of business while other schools get stronger as the year progresses will do that to you.
Also, does MSU have some deal with billboard providers in the state of Michigan? Didn't they also post billboards after beating UM for the first time in years in 2008? Seems like a waste of money for people who should be doing something more important with it, like delivering my pizza on time! (oh yeah, I went there).
The billboard in 2008 was a response to Mike "the mouth" Hart. The BCS representatives are correct. Just throwing out the head to head, the one actual consistency in the schedules was all three played at Iowa. Two won, one lost. The idea that MSU beat Wiscy who beat OSU does not fly. This does not take into account home field.
Oh ya, the other consistency is they all beat the snot out of UM.
Who is that comment directed to?
Never once "pretended to be a Michigan fan".
Dorothy Mantooth is a saint! You take that back!
dude, honestly, get a clue. The perjorative exchanges that season were initiated by Dantonio's moment of silence. Not that it justifies anything one way or the other -- nor does any of it require justification. But I always laugh when Sparty tries to assume the moral high ground re: Hart's jibe. Like PSU fans forgetting Joe Pa's extra seconds in the first half, ca. 2005. Pitiful
It's tough luck on Sparty's part that their first 11-1 regular season ever sees them not playing in a major bowl game. Still, I don't know how anyone can objectively look at the seaons of each of the top teams and reach the conclusion that Sparty is more BCS worthy than Wisconsin or OSU.
Should have scheduled OSU and held their own against Iowa. They are such sore losers.
Cant argue with you there champ. State was being a pussy when they decided to not schedule OSU.
I'll give up now. Logic isn't working.
Did they leave them off on purpose? I really don't know, but I was under the impression that BigTen scheduling is based on a revolving schedule? MSU must preserve games against us and Penn STate and so leaving off tOSU is understandable. We weren't lucky enough to get Minnesota on the schedule, but we got Penn State, MSU, Wisky, Iowa, and OSU.
The lack of OSU is on the Big Ten, not MSU. Just as Minnesota and Northwestern weren't on our schedule this year, OSU wasn't on MSU's.
That said, the utter failure against Iowa is what ended them. Their nonconference schedule didn't help either. Fortunately, once we go to divisions, we'll clarify the champion situation significantly.
Sigh....State (like all Big 10 Ten teams) has ZERO input on who they play in conference. They only control the scheduling of their out of conference games.
Hence the sarcasm in my response.....
Please, someone with gif skills I don't have, make one of the final two on "The Bachelor" with Bucky getting the Rose. The Internet demands it.
Wisconsin loses to an 11-1 team
State gets absolutely embarrassed by a 7-5 team
END. OF. STORY.
I remember going to Subway in late October, when Sparty was unbeaten (just before getting smoked at Iowa) --- they were #5 in the country.
So what did I see at Subway...a special where you could buy one MSU ticket and get one free for the Purdue game. WTF????
You mean an 8-0 team, ranked #5 in the country, has to resort to a 50/50 raffle at a Subway to sell out its CONFERENCE home game???
We're not talking FAU or UMass here.
You want RESPECT then sell out your home season, especially when the team is 8-0 and ranked #5 in the country.
The morale of the story: MSU is a hoops school (and a great one at that) and a pretentious football school. They took advantage of UM's worst 3-yr stretch since the 1960's to win three in a row. Match up MSU with UM's 2002-04 teams. We sweep.
They lose any reasonable competitive spirit arguments. I mean, they were absolutely lucky not to get that second loss and not even be in the conversation. Wisconsin was destroying all comers by the end of the season.
The argument that could garner some sympathy is why did they NOW change the rule of the last tie-breaker to some BCS nonsense from the age old "team that hasn't played in the Rose the longest time gets to go" for just a couple of years before the Championship game? It may not have always sent the best team, but there was some conference fairness in having the team that hasn't had a chance in going in the longest time getting to go over a team that had just been there. That was part of the gripe with the post-tie game vote...that OSU had just been there, so they thought the ADs would vote Michigan in. It later became rule, and if it still existed, MSU would have gone. I thought that was a more egalitarian rule, and would have more sympathy for a Sparty making that argument. But no, in typical fashion, they have to ride the "we beat Wisconsin horse"....which just makes anyone not wearing green and white snicker.
...alumni can buy the billboard next to it and have the score of the Iowa - Michigan St game? Or is that stooping down to little brother's level?
and put the scores from the 2004-2010 OSU-Michigan games.
Now, if you put an Insight Bowl logo on it next to Iowa, it might have the proper creative "zing" to it...
I try to be civil with MSU but they never stop acting like seventh graders. At least I only have to worry about this kind of thing once every fifteen years. Go Blue.
I have to drive by that silly sign everyday. Makes me want to puke and laugh at the same time.
plus another thing to think about is which bowl committee would ever want to pick Sparty first, they don't travel well. They cant even sell out their own stadium. Not even during their best season ever. They sold out what, like 2 games all year?
should adopt a zero tolerance policy on putting up stupid billboards.
That's about as laughable as the spot the Freep put in the paper congratulating them on their 9-3 season in '08. Way to reach for the stars there sparky.
as would Ohio State. I'm not too worried, it'll be difficult for them to whine about how they were robbed once Alabama has their way with them.
This is why a playoff would be the anwser. It would expose the posers and reward the teams that stumble (1 loss) early and then put it together later in the season.
Until then, BS discussions like this will continue.
FYI, the billboard is also in GR at the 44th street exit of 131.
I also saw it on southbound 131 just before the Wealthy St exit. Noticed it last nite on my way to a family Christmas party.
Way to act like you've been there before, Sparty.
ummmmm......haven't exactly been there.
If they want respect they need to beat Bama, otherwise they have no room to cry.