tired of the Dantonio fluff
Let me start this post by saying that I think and have thought that Mark D is an improvement on any of the coaches that Sparty has had for a long time (with the exception of Saban). Now with that being said I would like to form a discussion about whether or not some of the fluff he is getting is undue. If we had a typical UM team last year I think we would have beaten Sparty last year. If we were our normal powerhouse selves but PSU had the year that they had PSU would still have been #1 in the conf. under normal circumstances UM and tO$U would have taken #2 and #3 respectively. With Sparty losing to us that would have put them tied in the conf. with Iowa. Iowa beat PSU and PSU beat MSU badly so I think that Iowa would have gotten the better bowl of the 2 of them. If that were the case your bowl breakdown would have been something like this; PSU Rose Bowl, tO$U Fiesta Bowl (they have owned us lately so I will give them this one) UM Cap one Bowl, Iowa Outback Bowl, and then finally Sparty in the Alamo Bowl against MO whcih they probably would have lost. So in a typical year that team would have finished 8-5. an improvement from what they were but is it really worth the fluff. 8-5 and a 5 place finish in the weakest BCS confrence I really dont' think is all that great. So with all of that I ask the question, "Is Dantonio really all that good?"
August 12th, 2009 at 5:30 PM ^
See, we talk a lot about Sparty.
Yes he is a good coach.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^
There has been a lot of discussion around OJ Simpson, I guess by that mentality he must be a great criminal, and Adolph Hitler must have been a great man.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^
OP: You think the Big East is a better BCS conference than the Big Ten?
August 12th, 2009 at 6:27 PM ^
I made the comment that the B11 was the weakest of the BCS confrences and I have to say that while there are arguements about Bowl placements that would have possibly made our bowl record a little better, I really think that we as a confrence last year stunk it up. The nations' perception of the B11 is that they are slow and cannot compete with the rest of the BCS Confrences. Not really a news flah here.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
Only the dumbest of the dumb could think that the Big East is better than the Big Ten in football.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:37 PM ^
I think the "Big 10 is slow" meme has been pretty well debunked.
August 13th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^
The Big 10's not slow, it's just that the SEC is really, really fast.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^
Umm, you should try to avoid using Hitler in your arguments. It usually loses you credibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
August 12th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
He appears to be a good coach but so far, the proverbial bar has not been too high.
Bid on Michigan Football memorabilia and help a Michigan undergrad battling cancer at the same time.
http://www.umich.cmarket.com
August 12th, 2009 at 5:38 PM ^
But who cares? As long as we win more than they do. His behavior suggests that he will not win or lose gracefully like LC. Rather, he will continue to look over his shoulder..
But... is he a good coach? Yes he is.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
"Is Dantonio really all that good?"
The more the media writes fluff, buys into the spin and the more that people including us talk about him, well that will help the perception that he is better than good.
On Cowherd's radio show yesterday someone called in and said that Dantonio beat Michigan in recruiting last year within the state of Michigan. Of course that is highly debatable as is the value of winning the state of Michigan recruits, but the more talk the more it is out there.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
I would think Viagra and Red Bull would be cheaper. Also why do we care? Sparty finally has another coach (since Duffy) who is both qualified and not batshit crazy. It was newsworthy 2 years ago, not so much any more.
August 12th, 2009 at 5:56 PM ^
waaaay too many posts about Dantonio
August 12th, 2009 at 6:06 PM ^
He's a pretty good coach but is one of the biggest douches ever. End of discussion.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:18 PM ^
...but I think you mean to say CLASSIEST douches ever.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:15 PM ^
That's a helluva lotta 'ifs' to put in a thread, and the kind of 'ifs' losers use when they lose. I know, because I've done it after too many bad MSU football years. Don't fall into the trap. Your team went 3-9, get over it. Is he that good? He took over a basket case and went 7-5 and 9-3. I'd call that pretty good. Just like I'd call Coach Rodriguez good if he went 8-4 this year or some variety thereof. Now please end this.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:28 PM ^
Speaking of "ifs", you seem to have taken the tone of 'if you don't count bowl games when you speak of Dantonio's record at MSU'. It should read 7-6 and 9-4, not 7-5 and 9-3 as you wrote. A record of 1 win in 8 games against teams finishing in the AP top 25 in two years is certainly not great. Or you could use the coaches poll where Dantonio has a better 2 wins in 10 games against teams finishing in the top 25.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:58 PM ^
well. I can think of someone who might not want their bowl results counted in their record, especially their rose bowl record.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:27 PM ^
0-1 after all...
August 12th, 2009 at 7:35 PM ^
Don't get your point. Someone "might not want" their bowl record to count, but it does count.
After all, it was rival fans that constantly ripped on Bo's bowl record, and now this rival fan wants to not count bowls for Dantonio.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:16 PM ^
An interesting question is, can the fluff help him be a better coach. In example, get better recruiting classes and therefore have better players.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:25 PM ^
I don't mean to say this about Dantonio or anyone else in particular, or to say that Michigan hasn't or won't benefit from it themselves, but it is especially noteworthy how, in college sports, the media can annoint someone and then that image can become reality.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:29 PM ^
Good point. I cannot think of a specific case where it has happened but yes I could definitely see it happening.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:36 PM ^
I would say Charlie Weis, circa 2005/2006, got a hell of a lot of undeserved praise, or at least publicity, and that this probably contributed to some extent to his recruiting success. That said, it's hard to know, of course, why kids choose a given college.
August 12th, 2009 at 6:43 PM ^
We should probably stop talking about them now...
August 12th, 2009 at 7:25 PM ^
Marky Mark isn't a bad coach, but I don't think he is a good coach. I think he has just been the beneficiary of a bad big 10. You had a historically bad Michigan team, a Wisconsin program in decline, a Notre Dame program trying to stay relevant, and you got a good recipe for a somewhat successful program. In addition to that, against elite teams he has gotten destroyed. The Ohio State and Penn State games were a poor showing by Sparty. They weren't even games, only a demolition. Just goes to show you how far he has to go to even compete with those "good coaches". The only thing that is different from John L. Smith and Mark Dantonio is that Mark Dantonio wins the games he is supposed to win. John L. Smith was famous for losing to clearly inferior teams (Illinois and Indiana in 06) and blowing huge leads (17 points vs. Michigan in 04 and 17 points vs. Notre Dame in 06). Dantonio, in his first two years, has pretty much kept the team from the traditional MSU mid season collapse other than in that Michigan game. If winning games against inferior opponents and getting blown out against elite teams makes him a good coach, I guess he is a good coach then.
August 12th, 2009 at 7:45 PM ^
You had a historically bad Michigan team,
Seriously? Is that a typo?
August 12th, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^
If you understand that by that statement he mean the worst in the history of the program.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^
One season does not equal a historically bad UM program.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:38 PM ^
He didn't say "program." He said "team," which usually refers to a single season. I'm not sure what is controversial about calling last year's team historically bad.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
Oh Jesus Fuck, I'm stupid.
n/m.... walks away
August 12th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
"If winning games against inferior opponents and getting blown out against elite teams makes him a good coach"
Not to be a broken record, but Dantonio's been the coach for two years, not one. All of his losses in 2007 were by a TD or less. If margin of victory (or loss) is that important, than that was an amazing coaching year by that standard.
He took over a team that missed the postseason three years in a row to back-to-back bowl games, and he has had a grand total of two blowout losses in the last two years. For comparison, Lloyd Carr had a blowout loss in '07, and Rich Rod had three last season.
Unless you're extrapolating from one season, I see no trend indicating that Dantonio gets blown out by elite teams (unless it's an arithmetic progression - then MSU is in for four blowout losses this year). In addition, it's clear that MSU wasn't on the same talent level as OSU and PSU last year. Coaching can only get you so far.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
I hope it's not arithmetic progression. I couldn't handle 5 blowout losses this year
August 12th, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Cal blow MSU last year. My math says that with that one plus OSU and PSU would be three. Not trying to be a little whiney bitch or anything it just seems like Cal was a pretty one sided game. Maybe not.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
I wouldn't call 38-31 a blow out. But that's just me.
August 12th, 2009 at 10:49 PM ^
I stand corrected, I thought it was more of a one sided game.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^
Sparty rallied late.