MSU AD on 2011 Schedule

Submitted by 60blue on September 2nd, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Here is my favorite quote so far in this whole expansion fiasco:

"We could be a top-10 team next season," athletic director Mark Hollis said Wednesday, "and start Big Ten play 0-4."
I guess that makes sense?



September 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^

There is no schedule possible that would see a top ten team lose 4 straight games. Even if you were #10 and playing teams #1-4 you should be able to pull out one game. Not to mention that there is no chance that all four of those teams are in the top ten. Its a stupid statement.

The guy also insinuates how great OSU and Penn State are but basically says bring on Michigan. I can't wait until our program is back to where it was just 4 years ago so we can bitch slap these dipshits back where they belong.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^

Even if MSU has top-ten talent, it will not be favored to win on the road at OSU and Nebraska. It would be a slight favorite at home against UM and UW. Let's say the probabilities of losing are .55, .48, .45, and .55 for OSU, UM, UW, and Nebraska. Then the chance of losing all four is about .065. Not high, but hardly impossible.

Of course, MSU would no longer be in the top 10 after a stretch like that.

Hollis' point, of course, is that the schedule is tough for any team. It's also a good sign that he will be giving Dantonio the benefit of the doubt.

Maximinus Thrax

September 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

The gist of his statement appears to be that a team does not have to win games in order to be ranked.  Or else he may be saying that they are going to have a great team this year and have a very high preseason ranking (#10 Sparty, really?) only to fall dramatically as soon as Big Ten season starts.  I can at least buy the second half of that sentence.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

top 10 team if you drop 4 straight conference game unless the B10 occupies four spots ahead of you in the top 10 which means...... we would have a bitchin' conference!!!!! Woooooo!!!!!


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^

I get what you are saying. The whole world seems to have a boner for MSU and their mediocre run as of late. How Dantonio is still considered such a great coach is beyond me though. Say that they do pull of an 8-4 or 9-3 season here shortly, then all it will take is one big  name, nationally recognized school (which state isnt in football obvi) that sees the national media luv for Dantonio and he's outta there stat. Once again, leaving MSU back in the cow shit fields where they belong.


September 2nd, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^

It is because he has taken that program and gave them short term consistent improvement from what they had.  In that way, he is deserving of being considered whatever people want to consider him to be.

Rich would get the same regard if he can accomplish the same thing. So far, lots of growing pains.

It isn't a bad thing to make everyone operate on the merit system. We could argue whether Mark merits the love he gets nationally, but I understand why MSU fans love him.

We need to be better and the rest will take care of itself. It would be a dream scenerio that both teams are 10 plus win teams.  We want to be a team that competes with the best  I hope.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 PM ^

I get what you are saying. The whole world seems to have a boner for MSU and their mediocre run as of late. How Dantonio is still considered such a great coach is beyond me though. Say that they do pull of an 8-4 or 9-3 season here shortly, then all it will take is one big  name, nationally recognized school (which state isnt in football obvi) that sees the national media luv for Dantonio and he's outta there stat. Once again, leaving MSU back in the cow shit fields where they belong.


September 2nd, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^

LMAO.  I started that thread. It was food for thought, but I wasn't dense enough to think the food would be widely consumed among U of M fans.   And the guys on here are such good writers that I am not bitter that they  think I am full of shit.

I use the laying  low approach as my way of not going over the same arguments again and again with MSU fan.  I wanna be a right now team and not a yesterday team. 

Bottom line is lets go take a pound of cow college flesh on the 9th of October and it is all good.

MSU threads are always a great read. I won't deny it.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

This is typical MSU reasoning:

MSU Fan:  We are a top 10 team. 

Normal College FB Fan ("NCFBF"):  Wait, you lost like 5 games this year (again). 

MSU Fan:  Ok, but before that, we were a top 10 team.  We just had a tough stretch in the schedule.

NCFBF:  Right, but if you were a top 10 team, you would have won most of those games anyway. 

MSU Fan:  Right, we are a top 10 team, but we got screwed by the schedule.

NCFBF:  You are missing my point sir, and by the way, nice mullet.  But what I was trying to say was that lots of teams think they are top 10 teams, but those that really are can win their tough games. Since MSU did not, you must not really be a top 10 team.

MSU Fan:  Man, we are going to kick ass in basketball again.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^

The only rankings that matter are the end of year rankings which reflect what you actually did on the football field. If not, Michigan would have been a top five team through much of the last decade. The rankings during the year are fun and all, but they don't mean shit.

Wolverine In Exile

September 2nd, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

MSU Fan: we are so the top program in college hockey

Normal College Hockey Fan (NCHF): But you know your stadium rarely sells out, and you're not even in the top 5 in national titles or wins.

MSU Fan: But dude, the trophy is named after our coach and we just won the title!

NCHF: Ok, the trophy is the conference trophy not the entire NCAA and it was named after your OLD coach who also coached two other CCHA teams.

MSU Fan: But we beat Michigan last year!

NCHF: True, you beat michigan in the regular season. You also got swept out of your own building in the conference playoffs when you were the favorite and needed to win just that round to get in the tournament.

MSU Fan: What-ever, Izzo's so going to win the title this year. Sparty on!

NCHF: He's your basketball coach you moron.


September 2nd, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^

UM fan: Wow, we are going to be so good this year. Seriously, I'm seeing 10-2, at the very least.

NCFBF: Why do you say that?

UM fan: Well, we're Michigan, for one thing.

NCFBF: Didn't you go to Central?

UM fan: ......

NCFBF: Sorry. Anyway, carry on.

UM fan: Like I was saying, 10-2. Shoelace is dilithium fast, man. We're going to hang a hundred on Sparty! Even though we don't care about them. Haha, little brother!

NCFBF: Didn't you lose the top three players on a terrible defense? What are you going to do about your secondary?

UM fan: Little brother sucks. Not that I care. Dilithium. Our helmets have wings.

NCFBF: Weren't those wings invented by Michigan State?

UM fan: No, Little Brother just wants to be us!

NCFBF: Even though they did it first?

UM fan: What?

NCFBF: Never mind.

UM fan: Wait till Rich Rod gets his players, Sparty. Little brother's gonna BOW DOWN WOOOO WE OWN LIL BRO 67-30! Even though they aren't a rival, hah!

NCFBF: Why do you always fall back on victories from the 19th century when arguments about your current team falter?




September 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^

Ok, so you are obviously a Sparty troll with nothing better to do than visit your a Michigan blog.  Let me respond to your little post.  Don't worry, I will type slowly so that you can follow along:

1.  I don't know any Michigan fans that are expecting 10-2 this year.  Most are hoping for 7-5.  If this happens, we will be happy for the improvement, but we will consider it a disappointing season by Michigan standards.  For MSU, this is called a Dream Season.

2.  Yes, we have many fans that did not attend Michigan.  You know why?  Because Michigan is a team and a university that even non-alums and non-students are proud to affiliate with.  It is a compliment to our national brand that we are able to draw in so many outside fans.  By contrast, I don't know a single MSU fan that did not go there and spend the requisite 6 years obtaining a degree.

3.  The 19th century?  You do know that the 19th century refers to the 1800s, right?  Just checking.  Now, if you were referring to our past accomplishments, yes, we are proud of the fact that we are the winningest program of all time.  By the way, our last National Championship was only 13 years ago.  When was yours?  If you would like to discuss more recent events, our record SINCE winning that National Championship - even if you include the past two years - is still significantly better than MSUs. 

Sparty, No!


September 3rd, 2010 at 12:06 AM ^

You have half a national championship since World War II. Michigan State has six. But hey, you absolutely owned the 19th century, like I said. So keep living in the horse and buggy days, Big Brother. Shoelace will take you to the top!


September 3rd, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^

"You have half a national championship since World War II. Michigan State has six"

Cute.  You haven't won one in 44 years.  But let's choose WWII as a starting date.  Yeah, that will sound good.  Ah, me.  Reduced to schooling trolls.  Yes your team was better than ours near half a century ago.  But the current record stands at 67-30-5 if I recall correctly.  You aren't allowed to talk smack until you can double your teams wins against ours and still not be behind in the series.


September 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 AM ^

You do realize that after WWII (specifically, 1950) is about the time MSU joined the Big Ten, right?  Not just some random time period?  Seems reasonable to measure from the point both schools were on equal footing.  And if you start the clock when the Paul Bunyan trophy was introduced (i.e. 1953, when MSU actually joined the conference for athletics - most of the MSU-UM games before that were played in AA, since MSU was such a small school) the record is 34-21-2.  Not great for MSU, but hardly the "OMG TOTAL DOMINATION!!1" UM fans love to throw out there.

I know you guys love to call this stuff "trolling" but I think a little perspective can be helpful in threads like this.




September 3rd, 2010 at 3:27 AM ^

Yes, your program was a powerhouse in the 1950s and '60s.  That had a lot to do with historical factors that are no longer true today - black Southern players were frozen out of the SEC, and MSU recruited many of them.  When the SEC integrated, your pipeline dried up and your program has never been the same.  Since 1970 (when the SEC integrated), you guys have two Big Ten titles, and I'll spare you the embarassment of bringing up your record against us.

You guys pretend that we're living in the past, and then you bring up a bunch of accomplishments from the Jim Crow era.  In the present, MSU is a marginal program and that's why the Big Ten saw fit to pair you up with Indiana.  If you don't like that, hey, your beef's with the league office.


September 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^

I feel as if you showed the ignorance of the rest of the NCFBF's (mainly sparty).

I hope you weren't serious about "Weren't those wings invented by Michigan State?...even though they did it first."

If you are aiming to make a joke at us, at least use the correct teams and history. I'm pretty sure all UM fans know the history of the helmet. Maybe you could do some research? OH, LOOK! I will provide you a link.


September 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

It would be just like a Spartan to claim that they invented the winged helmet, now wouldn't it?  You didn't invent it.  The people at Spaulding did - they put extra padding on the forehead area, and offered models where that padding was colored. 

Fritz Crisler's innovation was not the wings, it was the three stripes, which he had painted on to help QBs see their receivers downfield. 


September 2nd, 2010 at 9:02 PM ^

The fact that so many UM fans are caricaturing MSU fans shows that there is lots of worry among UM fans. I can imagine the nervous laughter. I grant you that things still heavily tilt in UM's favor. But this is like no other time since I've been following the Spartans. There is a glimmer of hope for MSU. It would take a perfect storm, and some colossal blunders by the UM administration, to allow MSU to surpass MSU in football. And yet the hiring of RichRod offers that glimmer of hope.

If UM lays an egg this year you will not see a recruiting class in the top 30. The fact that you can't even land Zettel yet speaks volumes. He'll probably leave the state if UM goes 6-6 and worse. And then the defections will come. Brandon will have a tough decision to make. In the meantime, MSU will pull in a top 20, maybe better class. And MSU will truly have the better team for the next couple of years. (That doesn't guarantee victories in the UM-MSU game, of course.)

A guy can dream, can't he?


September 3rd, 2010 at 12:33 AM ^

you really don't follow MSU closely. Dantonio had "his team" and JLS seniors, with a QB who had seen snaps the year before, last year while going 6-7. what's more they had OSU rotated off and faced an awful Minnesota squad. what excuse is there for that? if you're going to rip on a coach for underperforming, look at your own coach first and foremost. in the meantime, expecting a titanic shift to suddenly occur that is irreversible after... let's even give you three years... of underperformance on behalf of UM is ridiculous. 

worry about your own team rather than rolling out your Jumping to Conclusions matt and taking it for a spin


September 3rd, 2010 at 7:24 AM ^

To have three decades of dominance in head to head play before declaring they were the best in the state. MSU fans can lol all they want for having won back to back years. It's that these games came in UMs worst and suddenly MSU has assumed control over UM that's just effing stupid


September 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^

I have no idea when UM fans decided they had won a sufficient number of games over MSU to declare themselves officially Awesome(TM), but on your larger point I can more or less agree with you (though I'd argue that the vast majority of MSU fans are more rational than to claim they've established utter domination over UM, and UM fans are focusing on the loud minority).




September 2nd, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^

Well at least he's set the bar high (sarcasm).  Only the Spartans AD would proclaim a 0-4 start to the Big Ten conference schedule.  Way to have confidence little bro.


September 2nd, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^

Why so glum, Sparty?  Because MSU has to play OSU next season?   Just like Michigan does every year?  Maybe they forgot about OSU since they didn't play last year, don't play this year and were likely hoping to skip them for a while.  When you want to be a big boy, you can't be scared of playing the big boys.  Alas, you'll always have Indy.

What I don't get is why MSU "covets" a game against NW.  Is that a big game for MSU?  For anyone? least Mike Valenti loves you.


September 2nd, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

Who wants to play Penn St the last game of the year....( when you can play Indiana)? At least there was some honesty about being afraid of Penn St.  I could just hear Hollis pleading with Delany..."just give us Indiana and it's a done deal on this".  And then Delany gave the dumbasses Ohio St and Wisky the next 2 yrs


September 2nd, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^

from UM fans if MSU keeps improving, becomes a title contender, and gets to play Indiana every year. I can already hear it now: "MSU is avoiding Penn State." Or, when OSU falls off the schedule: "MSU is avoiding Ohio State." Or "MSU has an easy path to the title."

How ironic it will be when the MSU-Indiana game turns out to be the one that clinches the division title for MSU. UM fans made fun of this matchup when it was reported but they might end up hating it.