T1B

In order from the most important victory to the least important.

I saw such a topic posted on a ND homer board a few weeks ago, and with the off-season winding down, I thought this would be a fun topic. Here's how it works.

Start off assuming your team wins only one game this season, and pick the one team on your team's schedule that your team has to beat in that event. Then assume your team wins one more game, and pick the next game on your schedule that your team has to win. Continue until you reach 11-1, at which point the remaining loss on your team's schedule would be the least important team to beat on the schedule. I don't really care what your rationale is, but explain it if it's not readily apparent.

For ND, strictly my opinion:

1-11, beat BC.
2-10, add San Diego State.
3-9, add Syracuse.
4-8, add Stanford.
5-7, add Washington.
6-6, add Navy.
7-5, add North Carolina.
8-4, add Purdue.
9-3, add Pitt.
10-2, add Michigan State.
11-1, add Michigan.

If this were an ordinary year, I might have based my opinion more on the particular emotions that each opponent draws out. But since ND is coming off its worst season in at least my lifetime, I feel obligated to consider the effect a loss to each opponent might have on ND's program. Thus, with one notable and obvious exception, my rankings are based on the extent to which I believe a loss to each would have an adverse impact on ND's program.

I'm aware that this model doesn't allow me to account for every possible variable in that regard. In other words, for example, a one-point loss to Michigan would have less adverse impact on the program than would a blowout loss to USC. But all other things held equal, for 11 of the 12 programs, I believe this does correctly rank the extent to which a loss to each would have an adverse impact on ND's program.

Fwiw, if I hadn't decided to give Fredo special treatment, I would have ranked them somewhere between Pitt and Michigan, although I'm not sure whether I would've ranked them before or after Michigan State.

i'm not sure if you are in a conference, really, that you do that kind of ranking.

let's say it's OU. you have to beat Texas, if you want to win the conference and stick it to those morons. and we play AT Okie State in the last game of the year, you have to win there. they are gonna sky high to beat us. like always. and the sequence of home-away in conference play is something you have to think about.

we travel to ATM, and they always bring it for us. and we get Tech at home. KU is the week after beating Texas, which is always a letdown week.

in conference, games have sequence and matter beyond themselves in how they impact conference standings/tiebreakers.

for Notre Dame, you just play MSU or Navy and it's game by game. a win is a win and a loss is a loss. kinda like the NFL.

King Crimson wrote:i'm not sure if you are in a conference, really, that you do that kind of ranking.

let's say it's OU. you have to beat Texas, if you want to win the conference and stick it to those morons. and we play AT Okie State in the last game of the year, you have to win there. they are gonna sky high to beat us. like always. and the sequence of home-away in conference play is something you have to think about.

we travel to ATM, and they always bring it for us. and we get Tech at home. KU is the week after beating Texas, which is always a letdown week.

in conference, games have sequence and matter beyond themselves in how they impact conference standings/tiebreakers.

for Notre Dame, you just play MSU or Navy and it's game by game. a win is a win and a loss is a loss. kinda like the NFL.

Even with ND's schedule, the sequencing matters.

For example, let's take my example above and assume that ND were to finish 9-3. That would have given ND losses to USC, Michigan and Michigan State.

Now ordinarily, a 9-3 ND program could expect to be ranked somewhere between 10 and 20 in the final regular-season rankings. For ND, the difference in those rankings is huge. If ND is ranked in the top half of those rankings, they have a pretty good chance of playing in a BCS bowl. In the bottom half of those rankings, ND has almost no chance of qualifying for a BCS bowl (basically, they'd need some pretty serious help by two conferences dominating the BCS rankings and no non-BCS conference teams in the Top 14).

Under my scenario, ND would have put themselves behind the 8-ball as far as rankings are concerned by starting the season at 1-2, with the one win coming against San Diego State. Yeah, there would have been an 8-game winning streak following that, and that would have helped without a doubt, but against less than awe-inspiring competition, that help would have been tempered somewhat.

But I was just trying to have some fun with my team's schedule, and trying to get a similar take from others on their teams' schedules. I think you might have over-analyzed it a bit.

i actually think there is a big difference, but no reason not to play:

1. Texas--even when it wasn't a conference game, gotta win this one, sin Gary Gibbs
2. @OSU--on the road, last game of the year, they'll play way above themselves...a L here likely costs you a shot at the BCS or conference.
3. Tech--a lot of media 'experts' are pointing to this one to determine the South.
4. @ATM--always a tough roadie for OU. as usual, ATM is a complete pre-season mystery with top 25 recruiting classes.
5. KU--Reesing is dangerous and the week after Texas often means a letdown for OU.
6. @KSU--Sooner lost twice on the road in conference last year, at CU and Tech.
7. Nebraska--the return trip in 09 is a sterner test. for now, this is a game OU should win in Norman.
8. Cincy--good coach, underrated team with nothing to lose and something to prove.
9. @UW--Sooners lost twice on the road last year. Have traditionally had some trouble with dual-threat QB's under Stoops (Roberson, White, Reggie McNeal come to mind).
10. TCU--payback?
11. @Baylor--someday they'll beat someone at home. letdown?
12. Chattanooga--games like this shouldn't even be played, but we got hosed by Middle Tenn. State backing out (still hardly a prime timer).

1. Cougar High - Pretty obvious
2. SMU - Conf game, but season opener on ESPN Friday night to start season on Labor Day weekend.
3. Tulsa - Jackass former coach
4-8. Rest of conference - non really mean more than others, got to win more than lose to have shot at conf title
9. Vandy SEC team would get noticed if W
10/11. Rest of non conf
12. Texas - no one expects us to beat them in Austin.

Fwiw, if I had done my rankings based on the emotions our opponents elicit, they would have looked like this . . .

1-11, beat BC. About time we put them in their place.
2-10, add Michigan. Because of the history between these two teams.
3-9, add USC. A win over your principal rival is always nice. Plus, we don't want them getting too close to the 11-game winning streak.
4-8, add Michigan State. Becoming Fredo Lite.
5-7, add Syracuse. So that I don't catch any shit from the Syracuse "fans" who doubtless will come out of the woodwork around here should Syracuse somehow win this game.
6-6, add Navy. Can you imagine what the ESPiN honks will have to say should Navy win two in a row vs. ND?
7-5, add Purdue. Not that it has any effect on me, but in-state bragging rights are always nice to have.
8-4, add Washington. Weis can't afford to lose to the guy whom he replaced.
9-3, add Pitt. Of the remaining games, this one figures to have the most significant bowl game ramifications.
10-2, add North Carolina. A win on the road, against an up-and-coming program, and in an area of the country where ND doesn't often play would be very nice. But this is football, not basketball, so I can't justify ranking this game any higher than this.
11-1, add Stanford. We're supposed to beat these guys, right?
12-0, add San Diego State. See Stanford.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Start off assuming your team wins only one game this season

Come on now, we aren't all ND fans.

1. Michigan
Considering the circumstances, it's now or ... possibly a long time. Up by 10 with 6 mins in the 4th quarter last year and still find a way to lose. This is a huge redemption game.

2. Ohio St
The team you need to beat in order to vie for the Big Ten.

3. Wisconsin
A top notch Big Ten contender. A team that will always stand in your way. Plus...I'll be there for that one.

4. Cal
Very first game of the year and it's a huge test. Can still do well in the Big Ten, but it's important to gain some confidence early, and a win at Cal would do just that. A win here and MSU could coast without a loss until the Ohio St game. OK, maybe "coast" is a little too homerific, but it is feasible.

5. Northwestern
N'western always plays their game of the year against MSU. This one's at Evanston and MSU needs to avoid the all-too-familiar letdown in this one.

6. Purdue
Usually pretty competitive games. MSU's secondary is much improved but still vulnerable and Painter can shred up a defense.

7. Indiana
At their house and Kellen Lewis is a beast. Could be a letdown game especially if they whip ND the week before.

8. Penn St
Not a slight to PSU. This is the last game on the MSU schedule and I think a bowl bid will be wrapped up by then, so a loss won't be too damaging.

9. Iowa
Pretty confident about this one, especially since it's at home.

10. Notre Dame
Also pretty confident about this one, but ND could pull the 180. With the type of talent they recruit, you just never know.

11. FAU
Actually slightly worried about this game, but a win here won't be real significant in the grand scheme.

12. Eastern Michigan
Not worried at all. Should be a blowout. A win won't mean much.

^^^^^^^^^

Come on you know Wisconsin is a fraud.

Sin,

NOJ

For OSU

1 Michigan - no reason needed
2 USC - to get some national respect back
3 Wisconsin - on the road at night in Madtown...I would rather go to the rein fare and watch m2OOOl sell chimes than be in Madtown at night
4 PSU - got to win it regardless
5 MSU - can't let Dantonio spoil a potential perfect season ala Saban in 1998
the rest whatever...these are the most important at this juncture...

9. Iowa
Pretty confident about this one, especially since it's at home.

Come on, MGO, that's insane. Michigan State being confident in beating Iowa? We beat you guys last year with a crappier team and didn't even bother to show up for the game until the 3rd quarter. I think MSU can win this game, but to be confident that's just nuts.

Iowa is one of your most important games, just like MSU is for Iowa. A couple reasons for that..... 1.It's a toss-up game at least at this point. 2.It's the first game of Big-10 play, so it kinda sets the tone for the rest of conference play. 3.Because the difference between winning and losing this game could possibly be a New Year's Day bowl and say the Insight Bowl.

Ohio State should be at the bottom of the list since you aren't going to beat them. I realize you aren't winning the Big-10 without beating them, but you're not winning the Big-10 anyways nor are you beating tOSU so why put them 2nd on your list?

I don't have a list for Iowa because they're all equally important. The most important games are the first 4. If we start out 4-0, we'll go 10-2. If we start out 2-2 or 3-1, I can see this team ending up 4-8 or 5-7. Sounds silly, but if you've followed Iowa football the last 2 years that would make sense.

TheJON wrote:I don't have a list for Iowa because they're all equally important. The most important games are the first 4. If we start out 4-0, we'll go 10-2. If we start out 2-2 or 3-1, I can see this team ending up 4-8 or 5-7. Sounds silly, but if you've followed Iowa football the last 2 years that would make sense.

Not just sense. JONsense.

TheJON wrote:Come on, MGO, that's insane. Michigan State being confident in beating Iowa? We beat you guys last year with a crappier team and didn't even bother to show up for the game until the 3rd quarter. I think MSU can win this game, but to be confident that's just nuts.

Well, I'm about as confident as you can get for a Big Ten football game, which doesn't equal 100%. So I'll give you that much. I honestly don't recall the last time MSU lost to Iowa at home. Early 90s?

Iowa is one of your most important games, just like MSU is for Iowa. A couple reasons for that..... 1.It's a toss-up game at least at this point. 2.It's the first game of Big-10 play, so it kinda sets the tone for the rest of conference play. 3.Because the difference between winning and losing this game could possibly be a New Year's Day bowl and say the Insight Bowl.

1. I don't feel the game this year is a toss-up
2. Indiana is the first game of Big Ten play, not Iowa
3. I could easily make that case for just about any Big Ten opponent

Ohio State should be at the bottom of the list since you aren't going to beat them. I realize you aren't winning the Big-10 without beating them, but you're not winning the Big-10 anyways nor are you beating tOSU so why put them 2nd on your list?

Would you have said that to Illinois fans last year? Huh?

It's about a theoretical win, JON. IF you win the game, what's the significance of that? That's the premise here. And yes, under that premise, a win over OSU is much more significant than a win over what I feel will be a baneful Iowa team.

Anyway, your submission is still complete and utter garbage. No, I don't expect MSU to win, but I expect them to compete and winning isn't outside the realm of reality. Just look at last year's game. Hell, look at ALL of last year's losses.

The best teams should always be your biggest games, especially if you're a program looking to turn the corner. MSU aren't world beaters but they're not Eastern Michigan, fer chrissakes. I believe MSU is on the cusp of something great but they'll never get there if they're just satisfied with .500 Big Ten ball and escape victories over the Iowas, Purdues, and Northwesterns of the world. Winning games like this can do a lot of positive things for your program, in terms of both immediate and long-term impact. A win over Iowa is just...well, another win over Iowa. Again, I refer back to 2007 Illinois.

So yes, this game is much bigger than Iowa. I can't even imagine pretending that it isn't.

If we start out 4-0, we'll go 10-2.

And I'm insane?!?

Mgo,

Ohio State is a meaningless game. You have no chance to win. Come on, be realistic about who you are here. You're freakin' Michigna State for crying out loud. When the heck is the last time your program has ever done anything or even competed for a conference title? Nick Saban's last year?? Wasn't that about 1999??

Michigan State football right now = Michigan basketball (though Michigan hoops had more previous success than MSU football ever has).

How in the heck can you be confident in beating ANYONE?? How many bad losses has your program had over the last decade or so?

Your program right now is not even upper-tier in the Big-10. It's the most underachieving program in the conference and to say OSU is a big game is insane. It's called "baby steps". OSU isn't a big game because you haven't got a shot at beating them. Comparing last year's Illinois team is crazy as well considering Illinois in 2007 would beat MSU's 2008 squad by 20. Of course you'd love to beat tOSU more than anyone. But it's not gonna happen, so that game isn't important.

Before Michigan State can even start thinking about contending for Big-10 titles they first need to start by catching up to the Iowa's and Wisconsin's of the conference. You know, teams that occasionally contend for Big-10 titles and get to New Year's Day Bowls. Hasn't MSU been to like 1 New Year's Day bowl in about the last 15-20 years?

Start by catching up to Iowa and Wisconsin. After that, then you can talk about contending. Win more than 6 or 7 games once in a while first. Throughout my lifetime, I've always known MSU as a more talented Iowa State. They'll get up for Michigan and Notre Dame, but they tend to fall apart.

A Michigan State fan being confident in beating ANYONE in the Big-10 is flat out ridiculous. Iowa may have been down the last couple of years but those down years are par for the course for MSU. 4 New Years Day bowls, 3 Top 10 finishes, and 2 Big-10 titles in the last 7 years is more than MSU has done in the last 25. Iowa and Wisconsin are your 2 biggest games other than Michigan. Catch up to us, then we can discuss MSU as a legit contender. Until then, check your arrogance at the door.

JON, you still don't get it, do you? The premise of the thread is to discuss what would be considered the most "significant wins" for your team in a hypothetical situation. I've already conceded that I wouldn't predict MSU to beat OSU, but that it is possible. So, are you honestly flat out telling me that a win over OSU would be insignificant?

check your arrogance at the door.

Wow, this coming from a guy who in 20 years from now will still be parading about with:

4 New Years Day bowls, 3 Top 10 finishes, and 2 Big-10 titles in the last 7 years.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:JON, you still don't get it, do you? The premise of the thread is to discuss what would be considered the most "significant wins" for your team. Are you honestly flat out telling me that a win over OSU would be insignificant?

check your arrogance at the door.

Wow, this coming from a guy who in 20 years from now will still be parading about with:

4 New Years Day bowls, 3 Top 10 finishes, and 2 Big-10 titles in the last 7 years.

Well, almost. 20 years from now it will be “4 New Years Day bowls, 3 Top 10 finishes, and 2 Big-10 titles in the last 27 years.”

1. @ Nebraska - Conference opener at a place Mizzou hasn't won since 1978 - trap game, all the pre-season accolades won't mean shit if they can't reverse history.

2. @ Texas - right after the Red River shoot-out. Don't think the Longhorns have ever lost a Big XII game after. Debinitely the toughest game on the schedule.

3. Kansas @ Arrowhead - I really shouldn't have to explain how much Missouri hates Kansas. We breed that into our children. Wouldn't really matter if both teams were 0-10 going in, the passion would be the same. Well, almost.

Hypothetical:

Big XII championship game vs. OU @ Arrowhead - winner plays for the MNC - Oh dear God and GOD... please, please, PLEASE let this happen. When we win, you can take me home, no questions asked. I'll have seen all I needed to see... er, just give me a few days to run smack on Sooner fan first. Thanks.

TheJON wrote: Your program right now is not even upper-tier in the Big-10. It's the most underachieving program in the conference and to say OSU is a big game is insane. It's called "baby steps". OSU isn't a big game because you haven't got a shot at beating them. Comparing last year's Illinois team is crazy as well considering Illinois in 2007 would beat MSU's 2008 squad by 20. Of course you'd love to beat tOSU more than anyone. But it's not gonna happen, so that game isn't important.

your entire understanding of football is unreasonable, let alone this take. baby steps, like the ones illinois took to blow past the iowas of the world? they went from two wins to the rose bowl in less than a year. they're talking about contending this year while iowa is scraping around for loose change to post bail for their entire secondary. msu didn't lose a single game by more than a touchdown last year. for them to be one of the conferences best teams this year isn't much of a stretch considering their progress in just one year under dantonio, who's definitely NOT bobby williams or john l. smith. plus, dantonio is quite familiar with tressel, not to mention has a senior qb and one of the best running backs in the league, so beating them is well within the realm of possibility.

M Club wrote:

TheJON wrote: Your program right now is not even upper-tier in the Big-10. It's the most underachieving program in the conference and to say OSU is a big game is insane. It's called "baby steps". OSU isn't a big game because you haven't got a shot at beating them. Comparing last year's Illinois team is crazy as well considering Illinois in 2007 would beat MSU's 2008 squad by 20. Of course you'd love to beat tOSU more than anyone. But it's not gonna happen, so that game isn't important.

your entire understanding of football is unreasonable, let alone this take. baby steps, like the ones illinois took to blow past the iowas of the world? they went from two wins to the rose bowl in less than a year. they're talking about contending this year while iowa is scraping around for loose change to post bail for their entire secondary. msu didn't lose a single game by more than a touchdown last year. for them to be one of the conferences best teams this year isn't much of a stretch considering their progress in just one year under dantonio, who's definitely NOT bobby williams or john l. smith. plus, dantonio is quite familiar with tressel, not to mention has a senior qb and one of the best running backs in the league, so beating them is well within the realm of possibility.

Illinois has much more talent than MSU. It's not even close. And, by the way, Illinois wasn't that good last year. I saw them in person. They were just an average team. They are athletic by Big-10 standards, but that's about the only good thing I could say about them. Zook is a terrible coach. He always will be. They'll go 8-4 every year with 10-2 talent because Zook simply doesn't understand what a freakin' trap game is.

MSU isn't even remotely close to contending for a Big-10 title. Wow, they were within a TD in nearly every game. Great.....if my aunt had nards she'd be my uncle. Iowa went 6-6 last year but was a couple of fluke plays away from potentially 9-3. And if you think 2007 Iowa was even close to being a bonified contender, you're high.

Why is Dantonio NOT the same as John L or Bobby Williams? What has he proven that suggests otherwise? He's never won at the major college level. I'll wait to pass judgement on the guy until he sustains something for a couple of years or, at the very least, actually fields a decent ballclub once. I remember when John L was hired he got off to a great start and then I believe he beat Notre Dame and everyone thought he was a breath of fresh air in East Lansing. Well, turns out, he sucked. Nothing changes with the MSU football program and you being a Michigan fan know that as well as anyone.

The Illinois example is just not a good comparison because they are the exception to the rule. Teams in College Football don't go from crap to contender overnight. Well, 95% of them don't. That's why I said Mgo needs to calm down a bit and take baby steps. First things first......quit with the bad losses. That's the very first thing Dantonio needs to end is Michigan State's embarrassing losses. Next, finish 5-3 or 6-2 in the Big-10. Cash in from that with some recruiting success and then in 2-3 years we can talk about contending.

Building a contender in CFB is a process. That's not a knock on Michigan State. Beating Ohio State simply isn't realistic this year and then saying you're "confident" in beating Iowa is even more crazy. Like I said, don't start talking contention until you've made your way through the other steps it takes to get to that level (win the games you should, take care of home field, don't put so much emotion into ND and Michigan so it prevents you from being focused in other games, get to a New Years day bowl, contend). Take it game by game. I know that sounds like Coach Speak, but I've seen coaches build programs with that strategy a whole heck of a lot more often than coaches that do things a different way.

TheJON wrote: Great.....if my aunt had nards she'd be my uncle.

this coming from the same guy who's been arguing that jeter sucks because of how many hits all these other players would have if they didn't break so many fingernails.

dantonio is not bobby williams or john l. smith because he took about five minutes to address the reason for all those stupid losses: discipline. msu was among the league leaders in penalties and turnover margin, which has never been the case before. my point about the close losses wasn't that they were a few fluke plays from winning the big ten, it was that they demonstrated they could play with each of their opponents and that making the jump to the top tier this year is entirely reasonable.

yes, building a program that consistently wins takes times, but lots of teams go from crap to contender overnight, for many different reasons [again, see illinois]. they generally don't sustain that status, but it happens quite frequently.

i would be very wary of the msu game if i was an osu fan. they're obviously not as good of a team as osu is, but they're talented enough to surprise them at home.

Mclub gets it. While OSU will be favored vs. MSU. State will have more than a punchers chance. They've always got athletes and are capable of beating anyone in the league. Their problem has always been that they are capable of losing to anyone in the league. Dantonio knows this and his key to success or failure is changing that part of the State culture.

Iowa is a few years past Ferentz's useful lifespan at a job. He doesn't recruit well and his schtick has grow tiresome. He has practically lost control of his program.

State on the way up....Iowa on the way down.

M Club wrote:i would be very wary of the msu game if i was an osu fan. they're obviously not as good of a team as osu is, but they're talented enough to surprise them at home.

I wasn't gonna say anything, but now that JON has almost surely jinxed this game I will add my $.02. Most tOSU fans are pointing to the games in Los Angeles & Madison as this season's toughest. But I will agree with M Club here, the game in East Lansing makes me a little nervous. With a proven guy like Javon Ringer in the backfield, MSU can run on Ohio State. Dantonio will see more talented defenses come through his program, but if they can cause turnovers like they did in last year's game this might be a close one. To say MSU has no chance is plain stupid. If the Spartans are the Big Ten's surprise team this season, I will not be very suprised.

To say MSU has no chance is plain stupid. If the Spartans are the Big Ten's surprise team this season, I will not be very suprised.

You're kidding, right????

dantonio is not bobby williams or john l. smith because he took about five minutes to address the reason for all those stupid losses: discipline.

I'd argue that he was the coach, he's responsible for his players. Undisciplined teams are often times a result of a coach that's lost his team or can't teach fundamentals. But you'd respond with "those weren't his players." To which I'd say "I agree, point taken." So I'm not going to argue that. Instead I'll ask you why on earth things will be different this year with a lot of his corps players back from last year? How do you know they won't continue to have those same mental breakdowns? Is it possible that it's going to take getting rid of John L's players to become a more fundamentally sound football team? There's no coincidence John L's players lack mental toughness. Look at him. But a good chunk of the players that will be starting this year for MSU were recruited by John L. So why would anyone believe this year will be different just because the new coach isn't a jerkoff and knows how to instill mental toughness in his players?

They've always got athletes and are capable of beating anyone in the league.

Those athletes have done exactly what for Michigan State in the last 20 years??? This is my point exactly.

TheJON wrote:

dantonio is not bobby williams or john l. smith because he took about five minutes to address the reason for all those stupid losses: discipline.

I'd argue that he was the coach, he's responsible for his players. Undisciplined teams are often times a result of a coach that's lost his team or can't teach fundamentals. But you'd respond with "those weren't his players." To which I'd say "I agree, point taken." So I'm not going to argue that. Instead I'll ask you why on earth things will be different this year with a lot of his corps players back from last year? How do you know they won't continue to have those same mental breakdowns? Is it possible that it's going to take getting rid of John L's players to become a more fundamentally sound football team? There's no coincidence John L's players lack mental toughness. Look at him. But a good chunk of the players that will be starting this year for MSU were recruited by John L. So why would anyone believe this year will be different just because the new coach isn't a jerkoff and knows how to instill mental toughness in his players?

i wasn't very clear and so you missed my point. i meant dantonio addressed discipline as soon as he took over the program, not after a lack of it lead to a loss. state had the 12th fewest penalties in college football last year. under john l... uh..? just for that i'll assume dantonio has fared well enough with jls' recruits.

Those athletes have done exactly what for Michigan State in the last 20 years??? This is my point exactly.

what is your point, exactly? the general consensus is that the state can beat anyone on any given day, lose to iowa the following week, and end the season either 7-5 or 5-7. so again, what point does your rhetorical question make?

TheJON wrote:Illinois has much more talent than MSU. It's not even close.

Not even close? Are you effing kidding me? Do you think Illinois is USC to MSU's Eastern Michigan, or something? You believe there's a gigantic gap in talent between the mid-tier Big Ten teams? What do you even know about the MSU team anyway, and who/what they're returning? You've typed an awful lot so I'm assuming you've got a real good grasp on their personnel, who they return, depth at positions, etc.

And, by the way, Illinois wasn't that good last year.

They weren't "that good" yet they beat OSU in C-bus. So...explain to me again how MSU has absolutely no chance? I'm fairly certain MSU is at least not "that good."

Why is Dantonio NOT the same as John L or Bobby Williams?

He's not the same because he understands that the key to a good program is running the ball and stopping the run. His teams will have an emphasis on D and toughness that the two previous regimes wholly lacked. In just one year he's done some tremendous things. The 2009 recruiting efforts have been unbelievable. He's got the 2nd or 3rd best class going in the Big Ten and top 15 nationally. Hell, you should know that. MSU nabbed one of its best recruits from your team.

He's got solid Big Ten roots and can recruit the state of Ohio. Even better, he's very well received by the Michigan high school coaches. Not to mention a few guys on the coaching staff are former players from the state of Michigan, and have already established connections. Bobby and John L? Bwahahaha. Not so much... Bobby was afraid to go into Detroit and John L had a horrible rapport with Michigan coaches. Add to that, MSU is just finishing work on brand new football facilities that will be on par with the best in the nation. That'll make recruiting that much easier.

He's also a great Xs and Os guy and a great evaluator of talent. Remember guys like Devon Thomas and Jonal Saint Dic? They were nobodys under John L. Dantonio saw their potential and turned them into stars on Saturdays.

So, yeah, the differences between Dantonio and Bobby/John L are monumental. You don't follow the program so I can understand how you wouldn't be able to recognize that.

The Illinois example is just not a good comparison because they are the exception to the rule. Teams in College Football don't go from crap to contender overnight. Well, 95% of them don't. That's why I said Mgo needs to calm down a bit and take baby steps. First things first......quit with the bad losses. That's the very first thing Dantonio needs to end is Michigan State's embarrassing losses. Next, finish 5-3 or 6-2 in the Big-10. Cash in from that with some recruiting success and then in 2-3 years we can talk about contending.

JON, I never tried to imply that MSU is going to win the Big Ten this year. You're exactly right, 2-3 years down the road is when the real expectations will kick in. However, I don't think it's unrealistic to suggest that this year's team can at least compete for the Big Ten, considering the conference is down, and considering they return some very key starters on offense and defense.

Building a contender in CFB is a process. That's not a knock on Michigan State. Beating Ohio State simply isn't realistic this year and then saying you're "confident" in beating Iowa is even more crazy. Like I said, don't start talking contention until you've made your way through the other steps it takes to get to that level (win the games you should, take care of home field, don't put so much emotion into ND and Michigan so it prevents you from being focused in other games, get to a New Years day bowl, contend). Take it game by game. I know that sounds like Coach Speak, but I've seen coaches build programs with that strategy a whole heck of a lot more often than coaches that do things a different way.

JON -- you should always want to accomplish more than what you might be capable of. Do you really disagree with that? What do you suggest their approach to the OSU game be? I don't think there's a single game where Dantonio, or say, Kirk Ferentz says to their players, "Well, you're probably not good enough to win this game, so let's not take it too seriously. Baby steps. Let's just go out there and try." If that was the approach to last year's game vs OSU, I'm certain it would've been a blowout. Do you honestly feel that approach is a more effective method of improvement? They have the personnel to beat anybody in the Big Ten. Are they going to beat everbody in the Big Ten? Not likely, but you approach every game as though you can and will. This isn't USC, but this also isn't Temple or Idaho. Winning big games against big teams is a realistic possibility, and should absolutely be strived for...even for 2008.

I'd still like my original question answered, though. The basic premise of this exercise was to rank the significant hypothetical wins for your team. Under the hypothetical scenario that MSU upsets OSU, that would be an unquestionably significant win. I'd like to hear your stance as to how that would in fact NOT be considered a significant win.

Dantonio is a hella Defensive guy

Sin,

OSU Defense 2001-2003...

dude can flat out coach...Brian Kelly gets a lot of pub at UC but Dantonio started the ball rolling...all those great defensive kids that are juniors and seniors are kids Dantonio brought in...tough, hard nosed coach...

I would not be surprised if they won 8-9 games on strong defense and Javon Ringer...I had them as one of my games OSU has to win...also they would have Beaten BC the ACC Runner Up in the who gives a shit bowl had the QB not thrown 5 picks...heck when they were jamming the rock up BC's anus I wanted MSU to keep fucking running the ball until BC stopped them...

MSU > Iowa

I think a lot of you guys are misinterpreting the original premise. It's not so much about who you want to beat the most, as it is about who you want to lose to the least, if that makes any sense.

1-11 - Nebraska (this is the only way that a 1-11 season could be viewed as anything less than a complete disaster)
2-10 - add Eastern Washington (Losing to an FCS team is really, really bad, as Frisco and the Michigan fellas can attest. Losing to two in three years would be unpardonable.)
3-9 - add Iowa St. (really the only other "lock" on the schedule)
4-8 - add CSU (if they were a conf. opponent, they'd be ahead of ISU)
5-7 - add Oklahoma St. (gotta win the home games)
6-6 - add Kansas St. (ditto)
7-5 - add Texas A&M (probably not as good as the above two teams, by Kyle Field's a tough place to play)
8-4 - add Kansas
9-3 - add Texas
10-2 - add Mizzou
11-1 add FSU (if we're going to lose, might as well be early in the season to a non-con BCS conference team)
12-0 add WVU (especially one in the Top 10)

I'd still like my original question answered, though. The basic premise of this exercise was to rank the significant hypothetical wins for your team. Under the hypothetical scenario that MSU upsets OSU, that would be an unquestionably significant win. I'd like to hear your stance as to how that would in fact NOT be considered a significant win.

No, I agree it would be a significant win, but here's my point....

#1, you're not going to win anyways, but since we have to pretend here, we'll pretend you beat tOSU. Great. But judging by MSU's history, you'll come back the next week and lose to some Detroit High School. That's my point here. Michigan State will NEVER become a contender in this conference until they start taking care of business against the teams they should. Beating Notre Dame and Michigan are all fine and dandy but they've become season makers for MSU.

I can tell you from seeing both MSU and Illinois in person that the talent gap is far more than you might think. Illinois looked a lot faster, a lot more athletic than MSU did. But I watched an Iowa football team literally give MSU that game and Sparty refused to win. How in the fuck can you lose to a team that's quite literally trying to lose? Our QB threw for like 35 yards in regulation. Your team looked disinterested. They went into the locker room up 10-14 points and flat out QUIT. Which brings me to my point......the games that mean the most to Michigan State this year aren't the Ohio State's of the world, they're the other teams.

Your best record since 1999 is 8-5. Why? Because you keep losing games you shouldn't. Heck, just last year if you take care of business against Iowa and Northwestern you go 9-3 which possibly gets you to the Outback Bowl. Then, on top of that, if they win the Wisconsin game (another game they SHOULD have won), that's 10-2.

In a sense, your team reminds me of 2002 Iowa. Our 2001 team was very similar to your 2007 squad in that all of our losses were by a TD or less (we went 7-5) and then 2002 we ran the table in conference play and got to the Orange Bowl. But the difference between the teams is the talent gap. I don't see the future high NFL draft picks on your team. Do you have guys like Bob Sanders, Dallas Clark, Nate Kaeding, Chad Greenway, Abdul Hodge, Matt Roth, Jonathan Babineaux, Eric Steinbach, Robert Gallery, Sean Considine, etc? I just don't see it.

Okay, I'll retract on my original statement that tOSU wouldn't be the biggest individual win. It would be. But if I were a Spartan fan, I'd rather lose to Ohio State and go 8-4 or 9-3 by taking care of business then beat them and go 5-7 like they've been doing the better part of the last 15 years.

But to say Iowa is a lock.....come on now, you gotta be high to think that. You realize that even as bad as Iowa's been the last 2 years we've still got a better record than Michigan State in that span, don't you? As for you being confident since MSU owns Iowa at home.....well, first off you've only won 3 straight at home against us. Yes, the last time we beat you in East Lansing was 1995, but because of scheduling it's only been a 3 game losing streak. The last time we faced you in East Lansing was 2003 and no one on this team was a part of that squad. It's a toss-up game at least at this point and to say otherwise is just wrong. You're Michigan State, you're not a lock to beat ANYONE.

buckeye_in_sc wrote:Dantonio is a hella Defensive guy

Sin,

OSU Defense 2001-2003...

dude can flat out coach...Brian Kelly gets a lot of pub at UC but Dantonio started the ball rolling...all those great defensive kids that are juniors and seniors are kids Dantonio brought in...tough, hard nosed coach...

I would not be surprised if they won 8-9 games on strong defense and Javon Ringer...I had them as one of my games OSU has to win...also they would have Beaten BC the ACC Runner Up in the who gives a shit bowl had the QB not thrown 5 picks...heck when they were jamming the rock up BC's anus I wanted MSU to keep fucking running the ball until BC stopped them...

MSU > Iowa

MSU > Iowa. I seriously hope that's a statement about the 2008 teams and not the programs.

But those things you say about Mike Dantonio were the same things that were said about John L. It wasn't Bobby Petrino that built that team it was John L Smith. Petrino just gravy trained off of his players. Again, major college is a step-up from mid-major. You just don't know how a coach will do at a major college school coming from a mid-major until he proves himself. Remember how Steve Kragthorpe was some sorta Vince Lombardi reincarnation until he completely ruined the Louisville program that John L Smith and bobby Petrino had built into a quasi powerhouse.

Dantonio might, on the surface, have what it takes but I'm going to wait to until he actually does something before I annoint him the next Woody Hayes. I'm in no way saying he can't do it, because I've always thought Michigan State was a program that should be doing better than they are. I'm just saying let's all calm down a bit and wait until he turns the program around before we pass judgement on the guy one way or another.

TheJON wrote:#1, you're not going to win anyways, but since we have to pretend here, we'll pretend you beat tOSU. Great. But judging by MSU's history, you'll come back the next week and lose to some Detroit High School.

So why must the Dantonio regime be automatically tied to the undisciplined eras of Bobby Williams and John L? That seems pretty unfair. Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not predicting a Big Ten championship here. However, to rule out even the possibility of MSU showing well and competing for the Big Ten based solely on the crumblings of the two previous coaching staffs is completely off base.

Michigan State will NEVER become a contender in this conference until they start taking care of business against the teams they should.

I agree; and my prediction is that this will start happening relatively soon. Perhaps not this year, but soon.

Beating Notre Dame and Michigan are all fine and dandy but they've become season makers for MSU.

You don't want to downplay your rival. That didn't work well for John L and it won't work well for DickRod if he does the same with Ohio St. Putting emphasis on your rivalry games isn't to say you aren't focused on anybody else. For some reason, you seem to think it has to be one or the other. It's both, really.

I can tell you from seeing both MSU and Illinois in person that the talent gap is far more than you might think. Illinois looked a lot faster, a lot more athletic than MSU did. But I watched an Iowa football team literally give MSU that game and Sparty refused to win. How in the fuck can you lose to a team that's quite literally trying to lose? Our QB threw for like 35 yards in regulation. Your team looked disinterested. They went into the locker room up 10-14 points and flat out QUIT. Which brings me to my point......the games that mean the most to Michigan State this year aren't the Ohio State's of the world, they're the other teams.

There were some bad losses last year, no doubt. That tends to happen when you bring in a first year head coach. The fact MSU posted a winning record and got to a bowl game meant they had exceeded everybody's expectations. It was considered a successful season. If they improve upon that year even by one or two games, that'll mean an 8 or 9 win season. I'm ok with that.

Your best record since 1999 is 8-5. Why?

Pretty simple, really. Hadn't found the right coaching staff for the program.

I don't see the future high NFL draft picks on your team. Do you have guys like Bob Sanders, Dallas Clark, Nate Kaeding, Chad Greenway, Abdul Hodge, Matt Roth, Jonathan Babineaux, Eric Steinbach, Robert Gallery, Sean Considine, etc? I just don't see it.

Mel Kiper seems to think Javon Ringer will be the top RB going into the NFL draft. Greg Jones is also a guy that'll be a big selection. There are other guys that will get drafted, but it remains to be seen how they'll pan out. MSU more than holds their own when it comes to individual talent. That has never really been the knock against the program, and it's a surprising angle you're taking here. In fact, they've sent way more guys to the NFL over the years than Iowa has.

Okay, I'll retract on my original statement that tOSU wouldn't be the biggest individual win. It would be. But if I were a Spartan fan, I'd rather lose to Ohio State and go 8-4 or 9-3 by taking care of business then beat them and go 5-7 like they've been doing the better part of the last 15 years.

Under that scenario, yes, I would agree. Who wouldn't want to be 8-4 vs 5-7?

But to say Iowa is a lock.....come on now, you gotta be high to think that.

I said I was "pretty confident" about it. If you want to spin that as me calling it a lock, fine. If it makes you feel better, I submit to you that I wouldn't be nearly as confident about this game if it was @ Iowa. Since I'm pretty confident they'll field a better team, and since the game is at home, well, I'm expecting the W. Wow, call me crazy, eh? I don't think that prediction is out of line at all. That's not to say I'd be shocked to see a loss, but I'm definitely expecting a win.

By the way, a prediction to beat freaking Iowa at home isn't nearly as ridiculous as "Iowa will go 10-2 if they start 4-0." Just remember, buddy, you're Mr. 0-9. I'm not.

You realize that even as bad as Iowa's been the last 2 years we've still got a better record than Michigan State in that span, don't you? As for you being confident since MSU owns Iowa at home.....well, first off you've only won 3 straight at home against us. Yes, the last time we beat you in East Lansing was 1995, but because of scheduling it's only been a 3 game losing streak. The last time we faced you in East Lansing was 2003 and no one on this team was a part of that squad. It's a toss-up game at least at this point and to say otherwise is just wrong. You're Michigan State, you're not a lock to beat ANYONE.

JON, obviously I'm basing many of my thoughts and predictions on what I believe Dantonio will do with this team, and not basing them on what Bobby Williams and John L have done in the past. I think it's fair to recognize that there is a distinction between the different eras. If Dantonio was the coach during those particular seasons, then yes, it would be completely fair and accurate to use those seasons as a basis for the future. But I don't agree that the past coaches and all their ills have to be logically connected to the Dantonio era.

You seem to be taking a lot of what has been said in this thread hilariously out of proportion. You act as if I've come in here and thrown down the gauntlet calling for the Big Ten Title and BCS Championship. All I've maintained is that the team is on an upswing and is at the very least capable of beating anybody and competing. Why do you have such a huge problem with that? We see it happen in CFB every single year. MSU has the senior experience and talent to compete this year, and the coaching stuff is much, much better prepared. The fact that Michigan and OSU fans alike seem to agree with me has got to have you questioning your stance a bit, no?

You're Michigan State, you're not a lock to beat ANYONE.

And you're freaking Iowa. You haven't done shit since 2004 and you still talk about your "program" like it's nationally relevant. Seriously, how much longer can you gravytrain off of a 3 year blip of success?

A Wisconsin fan agrees with you as well, Mgo. After last season's close call, I'm not looking at the MSU game as anything better than a toss-up.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:In fact, they've sent way more guys to the NFL over the years than Iowa has.

Red flag. Unless MSU has been sending more than 85 players per year to the NFL, this statement is not correct.

This is confusing because I would like FSU to beat the best teams on the schedule but I wouldnt want them losing to a fucking D1AA team. So would the D1AA teams be high on the list even though I could give two fucks about those games....Fuck it here is mine....

1-11, beat the gaytors.

1-11 it would be a good season.

And you're freaking Iowa. You haven't done shit since 2004 and you still talk about your "program" like it's nationally relevant. Seriously, how much longer can you gravytrain off of a 3 year blip of success?

No I don't. You couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I've been very critical of the direction of the Iowa program MANY times on this board. Right now we have ZERO national relevance. You're right, 2004 is the last success we've had. I'm not gravy training off in "3 year blip" because I don't have to compared to MSU. Those 3 years may be a "blip" but the other years we've still been better than MSU has. Since 1981 the success Iowa has had has been FAR greater than MSU. It's not even close. The Big-10 has gone Michigan, Ohio State and then Iowa has been the 3rd best program in the conference since about 1980. And there is no argument at all for anyone else. We haven't just been a 3 year wonder. Sure, we haven't sustained THAT kind of success, but we've still got scoreboard overall in my lifetime (which is all I care about) over everyone in the Big-10 not named Ohio State or Michigan. You can try all you want to argue that but you would have no basis for that argument. Big-10 titles, bowl games, top 25 appearances, etc.... Scoreboard Iowa. The truth is that and 75 cents will buy me a USA Today, because quite frankly.....outside of Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan nobody gives a flying fuck about anyone in the conference outside of Big-10 country. Not Iowa, not Wisconsin, not Michigan State, not anybody. We're all pretty much irrelevant nationally right now. Neither you nor I can sit here and have a national relevance argument because no one gives a fuck about either of our programs. That's the truth.

So why must the Dantonio regime be automatically tied to the undisciplined eras of Bobby Williams and John L? That seems pretty unfair.

In no way am I automatically assuming he''s tied to Bobby Williams and John L. I just said let's wait and see. That's all. Again, I've been curious for years why MSU has sucked so bad. This has always, to me, been a program with potential and I've always thought of them as the biggest underachievers in the country. Someday somebody is going to take this program to the next level. Would I be surprised if that's Mike Dantonio? Nope. But would I be surprised if it wasn't? Nope. Like I said, let's wait and see. That's all I'm saying.

I agree; and my prediction is that this will start happening relatively soon. Perhaps not this year, but soon.

You very well could be right. Again, Dantonio seems to be the real deal but I gotta see his teams back that up on the field before I pass judgement.

You don't want to downplay your rival. That didn't work well for John L and it won't work well for DickRod if he does the same with Ohio St. Putting emphasis on your rivalry games isn't to say you aren't focused on anybody else. For some reason, you seem to think it has to be one or the other. It's both, really.

No, you don't want to downplay it. That I agree with. But you don't wanna go overboard with it because, as you know, emotions are a big factor in college football. You'll see teams put too much emotion into 1 or 2 games and then be burnt out or not focused the other games. That's what Iowa State does. That's why ISU will never win. They focus their entire offseason on beating Iowa. For years ISU fans wouldn't admit to that, but now they've come around to this realization. Until Iowa State starts focusing more on the Big-12 they'll never compete for anything. This is exactly why I said MSU just needs to take it game by game. Rivalries should be for the fans, not as much the players. It's August and if Michigan State's players are focused one bit on beating Michigan right now then you can forget about winning 8 or 9 games this year. It will be another 5-6 win year. Week to week....sounds like coach speak but that shit works.

All I've maintained is that the team is on an upswing and is at the very least capable of beating anybody and competing.

I'll give you maybe I've gone a bit overboard and somewhat spun what you said. But I would disagree with MSU beating anybody. My point with the baby steps is that you gotta beat the bottom feeders first consistently before we can start talking about competing with tOSU. Quite frankly, the only good team in the Big-10 this year is Ohio State and maybe Penn State. The rest of us are pretty mediocre. Illinois has the talent, but like I've always said.....they'll always be an 8-4 team with a 10-2 roster as long as Zook is coach. You've got a schedule full of toss-up games and when you have so many of those you can't really expect more than 6 or 7 wins.

My prediction of POTENTIALLY going 10-2 is not as insane as you think. We don't have Ohio State's or Illinois talent but we're as talented as ANYONE else in the league. You're going to be surprised to see how athletic our defense is going to be and how athletic our WR's are. The biggest questionmarks are leadership and special teams. If you follow Iowa on a day-to-day basis you would not be surprised if this team went 10-2 or if this team went 4-8. It all depends on if the attitude of the team changes. If it has, we'll be a good team (maybe not 10-2 good, but because the schedule is so weak we could realistically achieve that), if it hasn't this could be the worst Iowa team we've had in 9 years because they'll just lay down and quit if things start to go wrong. Take a look at Iowa's schedule......not a single game on it we can't win and not a single game you'd expect them to be more than a 3-4 point underdog. Our 2 toughest games are at home- Penn State and Wisconsin. And, like everyone that's actually watched Wisconsin play knows, they're not really all that good. I called them a fraud last year and I was correct. Only Goober could even try disagreeing with that FACT but that's because he's drinking the Kool-Aid. Penn State, other than last year, has been a team Ferentz has absolutely owned. So it's not crazy to think we can't beat them at home. Pittsburgh on the road could be tough, but if you look at pure matchups, we matchup very well with them. The biggest question in that game will be how we handle our first road test of the season.

The next toughest game is freakin' Michigan State on the road. I could see this team losing that game and I could see us winning it. Neither would be a surprise at all. What I can tell you about MSU is they're not more talented than Iowa. No way. Our WR's are better, our O-line is deeper, our D-line is far superior, and our LB's are more athletic. Yes, Ringer is a damn fine RB with excellent pro potential. I don't need Mel Kiper to tell me that. But who else really on this team is even all-conference worthy? What playmakers do you have with experience will scare opposing defenses other than Ringer? I just don't see it. We match up very well with MSU. The one advantage you've got is home field which could end up being the difference. I'm not trying to bash Michigan State here so don't take it personally, I'm just telling you my opinions on this team. I just don't see much improvement in terms of wins and losses THIS YEAR. Now next offseason, I very well may have a different view on them going into 2009. We shall see.

Here's my prediction on your team...

at Cal (loss by 10 points)
vs Eastern Michigan (3 touchdown win)
vs Florida Atlantic (4 touchdown win)
Vs Notre Dame (3 point win....though I could see ND winning that)
at Indiana (4 point win)
vs Iowa (3 point win.....though I could see Iowa winning)
at Northwestern (let down game, 10 point loss)
vs Ohio State (17 point loss)
at Michigan (3 point loss.... but MSU has a shot in this one)
Vs Wisconsin (4 point loss)
Vs Purdue (7 point win)
at Penn State (10 point loss)

So that's 6-6 with the possibility of 7-5 if the breaks go your way. I betcha I'm pretty dang close on my prediction.

TheJON wrote:No I don't. You couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I've been very critical of the direction of the Iowa program MANY times on this board. Right now we have ZERO national relevance. You're right, 2004 is the last success we've had. I'm not gravy training off in "3 year blip" because I don't have to compared to MSU. Those 3 years may be a "blip" but the other years we've still been better than MSU has. Since 1981 the success Iowa has had has been FAR greater than MSU. It's not even close. The Big-10 has gone Michigan, Ohio State and then Iowa has been the 3rd best program in the conference since about 1980. And there is no argument at all for anyone else. We haven't just been a 3 year wonder. Sure, we haven't sustained THAT kind of success, but we've still got scoreboard overall in my lifetime (which is all I care about) over everyone in the Big-10 not named Ohio State or Michigan. You can try all you want to argue that but you would have no basis for that argument. Big-10 titles, bowl games, top 25 appearances, etc.... Scoreboard Iowa. The truth is that and 75 cents will buy me a USA Today, because quite frankly.....outside of Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan nobody gives a flying fuck about anyone in the conference outside of Big-10 country. Not Iowa, not Wisconsin, not Michigan State, not anybody. We're all pretty much irrelevant nationally right now. Neither you nor I can sit here and have a national relevance argument because no one gives a fuck about either of our programs. That's the truth.

Where did I suggest MSU was nationally relevant?

Jesus effing christopher. I toss a harmless jab at your myopia and you go off on a long-winded "I'm better than you" closing statement like you're F. Lee Bailey. Settle down, dude. I'm not "dissing" the storied history of Iowa football. And yes, I suppose if you conveniently go right back to 1981 and start from there, then Iowa is likely the 3rd best team in the conference. Congratulations, JON. What are you trying to prove? This discussion is still about the 2008 Michigan State team.

In no way am I automatically assuming he''s tied to Bobby Williams and John L. I just said let's wait and see. That's all. Again, I've been curious for years why MSU has sucked so bad. This has always, to me, been a program with potential and I've always thought of them as the biggest underachievers in the country. Someday somebody is going to take this program to the next level. Would I be surprised if that's Mike Dantonio? Nope. But would I be surprised if it wasn't? Nope. Like I said, let's wait and see. That's all I'm saying.

I agree whole-heartedly. Let's wait and see. I don't have huge expectations this year, but wouldn't be surprised to see any number of win/loss scenarios come to fruition.

No, you don't want to downplay it. That I agree with. But you don't wanna go overboard with it because, as you know, emotions are a big factor in college football. You'll see teams put too much emotion into 1 or 2 games and then be burnt out or not focused the other games. That's what Iowa State does. That's why ISU will never win.

Perhaps that plays a part, but I think there are more readily apparent reasons for ISU's lack of success. Trust me, ISU ain't gettin' slapped around by Texas and OU because they're "emotionally drained" from the Iowa game. They're just flat out not half-as-good. You could have 100 different approaches to the Iowa game, but in the end you aren't gettin' any better unless you're producing better talent and better coaches.

In any event, your argument doesn't really hold up as it relates to MSU in recent years. Bobby Williams and especially John L didn't approach the Michigan and ND games with much more than a "it's just another game on the schedule" type of attitude. The fans of course did, but the coaches didn't. Essentially, they held the same position as you that you shouldn't put too much fervor into one game. In the end though, their approach simply was irrelevant either way as they did not have the talent and/or coaching competence to out-duel Michigan.

Since you have an in-state rival you should understand that the rivalry goes beyond just Saturdays on the football field. It's also about the recruiting wars in the state of Michigan, and winning over career-long relationships with Michigan high school coaches. You win those battles, and you have a better chance at winning the wars on Saturday. This isn't something that should be taken lightly, and John L was run out of town in part because of his lax stance on Michigan on and off the field. It's a rivalry 365 days of the year and should be treated as such.

I'll give you maybe I've gone a bit overboard and somewhat spun what you said. But I would disagree with MSU beating anybody. My point with the baby steps is that you gotta beat the bottom feeders first consistently before we can start talking about competing with tOSU.

In the "Big Ten Predictions" thread I (optimistically) posted an overall 8-4 prediction for MSU, and 4-4 in-conference. A one-win improvement from last season I don't think is stretching it, JON. That is my expectation ... however, I wouldn't be shocked to see them do better than that and at least contend for the Big Ten. That's all I'm saying dude. Is that ok with you? I'm not predicting it. I'm not calling it. I'm saying it could happen. And I don't mean in an App St over Michigan kind of way.

While logic would dictate that they do indeed need to take some baby steps, it isn't completly unreasonable to suggest they might go a few steps further than planned when you consider what they return and when you consider how mediocre the Big Ten will likely be this year. I apologize if suggesting that an outside chance of success looms for MSU upsets you so much.

Quite frankly, the only good team in the Big-10 this year is Ohio State and maybe Penn State.

I disagree, but hey, that just makes my point even more substantive as it relates to MSU's outside shot of success.

For the record, in addition to PSU and OSU -- I think Wisconsin, Purdue, Illinois, and Northwestern will all have good teams as well...but at slightly varying levels. Obviously these aren't top 5 caliber teams, but all should be competitive. I guess it depends on whatever definition of "good" you're using. If good is at all synonymous with competitive, then I safely assume "good" will apply to all, if not most of the above teams mentioned.

My prediction of POTENTIALLY going 10-2 is not as insane as you think. We don't have Ohio State's or Illinois talent but we're as talented as ANYONE else in the league. You're going to be surprised to see how athletic our defense is going to be and how athletic our WR's are. The biggest questionmarks are leadership and special teams. If you follow Iowa on a day-to-day basis you would not be surprised if this team went 10-2 or if this team went 4-8. It all depends on if the attitude of the team changes. If it has, we'll be a good team (maybe not 10-2 good, but because the schedule is so weak we could realistically achieve that), if it hasn't this could be the worst Iowa team we've had in 9 years because they'll just lay down and quit if things start to go wrong.

I see. So there are abstract intangibles like "leadership" that apply to Iowa, but if I were to suggest anything like that about MSU then I would be completely out of line, eh? I love how an upgrade in "leadership" and special teams play could potentially turn a 6-6 Iowa team into a 10-2 juggernaut...yet MSU probably has a better chance of knocking down the Great Wall of China, right? Great, great stuff. Whatever happened to baby steps? They don't apply to Iowa, apparently. Who needs baby steps when you can improve in leadership and special teams to the tune of four more wins in one season. Leadership and special teams? Are you freaking serious? You guys were 2nd to last in rushing last year, and 2nd to last in total offense in the Big Ten. Don't you think you have slightly more glaring problems to worry about? Is the offense going to reach into its own ass and pull itself out?

Here's my prediction on your team...

at Cal (loss by 10 points)
vs Eastern Michigan (3 touchdown win)
vs Florida Atlantic (4 touchdown win)
Vs Notre Dame (3 point win....though I could see ND winning that)
at Indiana (4 point win)
vs Iowa (3 point win.....though I could see Iowa winning)
at Northwestern (let down game, 10 point loss)
vs Ohio State (17 point loss)
at Michigan (3 point loss.... but MSU has a shot in this one)
Vs Wisconsin (4 point loss)
Vs Purdue (7 point win)
at Penn State (10 point loss)

So that's 6-6 with the possibility of 7-5 if the breaks go your way. I betcha I'm pretty dang close on my prediction.

I don't think this is totally off base. Anything less than 7-5 would be a disappointment. Anything beyond 8 or 9 wins is an overdose of green Kool Aid.

I think the root of our disagreement here is the simple fact that you feel MSU has no chance of an Illinois-type season whereas I think it's much more feasible than you realize. On that, we'll have to agree to disagree.