Bryan

December 1st, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^

They've only won once in Corvallis since 1998. That said, I hope O wins. They were my national champion pick at the start of the season. 

mwolverineforlife

December 1st, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^

Let's Hope they win:

1. I don't want TCU sneaking into the title game.

2. If Stanford sneaks into the title, there is no way Harbaugh will come now or in the future, and if RR turns out to suck next year, we're gonna need Jim Harbaugh.

dearbornpeds

December 1st, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^

     My recommendation is that we drop that nickname untill we can demonstrate it on the playing field; i.e. actually beating them.  It's fun to reference their thuggery,  their d-bag coach  and the mediocre academics but it all boils down to one thing.  I motion for an end to references about l***le bro**er until we can back it up.

nedved963

December 1st, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^

One Year does not define a rivalry, no matter how much MSU would want it to.

And what does basketball have to do with football? If we're gonna look at more than one sport lets look at the big picture. Let's also look at how many people show up for basketball games. Okay. And how many show up for football games. Alright. Might as well include all the sports if we really want to make a comparison like that. Let's check the director's cup standings. Oh.

phd363

December 1st, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

Recently, they have beat us on the field, but that does not change who they are.  They have the advantage of coaching stability and I guess in the short run they have the advantage of letting criminals play.  But, in the end their efforts for greatness are futile and humorous.  Everyone knows they are trash, including the BCS. 

BraveWolverine730

December 1st, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^

I feel like this is the way most in-state rivalries are viewed by those in the state. Just like all politics are local, all rivalries are local too(no matter what ESPN tries to tell you about Yankees-Red Sox).

stankoniaks

December 1st, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

Not sure I'd put UF-FSU there.  Maybe in the last couple years UF has dominated, but through the 90s FSU was holding their own if not winning that rivalry.  UF is more prestigious academically, so maybe if you're taking about the totality of things. 

A couple more I'd throw on there for historical purposes:

  • Colorado-Colorado State
  • Washington-Washington State
  • Ole Miss-Mississippi State
  • And MAYBE, if just relegated to football and not other sports then: USC-UCLA and Alabama-Auburn (though I know the latter seems strange)

blueheron

December 1st, 2010 at 4:28 PM ^

I think the Huskie - Cougar rivalry is most similar to ours.  You need to have a "U" school that (historically, at least) has dominated the other Aggie school academically *and* in football.

I think the Oregon schools are a little too close in both categories to fit the UM-MSU model, although Oregon probably easily wins overall.

Tater

December 1st, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^

Florida State actually was better than UF during the '90's, but UF took it back during the aughts.   Before Bobby Bowden arrived at FSU, though, Florida had the better program.  Now, we have no idea where either FSU or UF is going right now.   Does Fisher have FSU on the way back up?  Will there be Urban Renewal or Urban Blight in Gainesville?

I have lived in Florida since 1998, and this is the least certain I have been about the direction of both programs in that time.  It is impossible to know. 

Wahlberg

December 1st, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^

that's a pretty good list and I think Florida - Florida state is the most interesting one.  Before this last game Florida had owned FSU the last decade but in the 90's it was fairly even no? That rivalry definitely seems more variable than others in terms of who's "on top"

 

*EDIT* Beaten to the punch by Stank.  Nice additions to the list

swamyblue

December 1st, 2010 at 3:21 PM ^

Boy, today is rapidly turning into Prohibition Day.  I for one am really trying to sprint away from any reference in regards to "lil-you know what". 

If there's one prohibition I'd love to see on this blog it's this one for sure.

Just say'in.

Wahlberg

December 1st, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^

You know I don't really understand all the backlash regarding little brother.  It's definitely over used during game week but this really isn't even about MSU per se.  I just thought it was funny that another team's player used that specific language to describe a rival. 

I think it's an interesting dichotomy; that most rivalries can be broken down into one team being the "big" and the other the "little" brother.

But if you'd rather have another thread in which we discuss ad naseum if RR will get fired then I totally understand. /sarcasm.

dw2927

December 1st, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

they are a little brother because  of their thuggery, Dantonio and mediorce academics..it does not have to be football or even sport specific...

case in point: Dantonio's carping about beating Wisconsin "convincingly" at his presser..well so you did Mark, but the sad thing is no one cares. I hope you enjoy being the only Big Ten team that will ever go 11-1 and yet still manages somehow to be irrelevant

How "little brother" of them to go 11-1 in the Big Ten, have no one really care (nationally) and miss out on the BCS.

LB

December 1st, 2010 at 4:00 PM ^

bit of consideration. How would you like to be them and know that you have to get past Michigan, Nebraska, and that other school to ever be relevant again? Once every generation, perhaps? Sure, every now and again it might be Wisconsin at the top of the other heap, but I think they had better be relishing the results this year,

GoBlogSparty

December 1st, 2010 at 6:33 PM ^

Really? The only Big10 team to go 11-1 and miss out?

Do you remember what happened to Wisco in 06? How about when Texas Tech had 1 loss in 08 and went to the Cotton Bowl? How about Mizzou in 08 with 1 Regular season loss and ending up in the Cotton Bowl.

If MSU had beaten Wisky in the final big10 game instead of the first big10 game, MSU would be headed to Pasadena. Timing your losses is everything in the BCS.

bacon1431

December 1st, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

I don't approve of Mike Hart's initial Little Brother comments. At least UM had beat MSU 6 in a row at the time. Oregon-Oregon St has been pretty even the past decade.

Waters Demos

December 1st, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^

What I can't stand about my MSU brethren is their preoccupation with M failure.  Getting more delight from another's failure than from your own success means you have a problem.

To me, that's what makes a "lil bro." 

Contrarily, when everyone else becomes insignificant, you're now on top.

It's the difference between hate and contempt.  Hate is for losers on the bottom looking up at winners and shaking their ineffectual fists.  Contempt is for winners looking down on everyone else with an amused smirk. 

lhglrkwg

December 1st, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^

While the rivals have split the last 10 Civil Wars, the Ducks have won the last two, which were both huge.

hey oregon. mike hart called michigan state "little brother" after we finished beating them for the 6th time in a row. we were 30-8 against them since 1970. maybe you should hold off on the name calling until you're better than .500 against them this decade

ATLWolverine

December 1st, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^

I don't think Hart was actually saying MSU is our little brother in all sense at the time; it was just an analogy where the context (brothers playing b-ball) fits. Oregon is the larger school and the more established football program, so I can kind of see what they're saying.

That being said, bad idea to put up bulletin board material the week before a game-- it may not actually work, but why risk it? And if it didn't work at least a bit, coaches like Belichik wouldn't keep doing it.

UMfan21

December 1st, 2010 at 6:16 PM ^

My UofO alum coworker insists Wasington is their main rival and OSU is #2. That is why the analogy fits to us. Not whether or not a rivalry is lopsided.