Warning: Obsession about Mgoblog's obsession about MSU spring game

Not much respect for the B1G D Linemen of the Year. Quite a few references to him being "ok"

This is officially my favorite post in the thread;

"Sparty is flat out getting lucky with some of their recruits. Bell, Waynes, Dennard were all 2 stars and will all be 1st 2 round NFL picks. That's just a lot of luck. Cooper looks good, he was supposed to be a high 4 star recruit, but blew his knee out, Sparty took a chance in sticking with him and it panned out. Just an incredible amount of luck.

There's more going on there though, looking at their players physically it's pretty obvious. They have some young guys too, but you're telling me not a player on their team has an ounce of baby fat? The only way to get so many 2 and 3 star guys to that level is to give them a little extra something IMO. You'll have a few players overachieve, but to have almost an entire roster over achieving, the odds of that are extremely remote IMO. Statistically it does not seem possible without help."

So, in the state of Michigan, you have two BCS level programs. One team has a roster jam packed with 4 and 5 star stud recruits which has consistently failed to live up to expectations over the past 5 seasons (save the occasional blip on the radar in terms of an 11-1 record). The other team has scraped together the best recruits it could find and has consistently won during that same time frame raising the bar each year. The conclusion that is reached is not that recruiting rankings are way too subjective and inherently flawed and, therefore, the argument's opening premise is invalid but, rather, that one team is on steroids. Solid logic there.

Clarett's Folly wrote:This is officially my favorite post in the thread;

"Sparty is flat out getting lucky with some of their recruits. Bell, Waynes, Dennard were all 2 stars and will all be 1st 2 round NFL picks. That's just a lot of luck. Cooper looks good, he was supposed to be a high 4 star recruit, but blew his knee out, Sparty took a chance in sticking with him and it panned out. Just an incredible amount of luck.

There's more going on there though, looking at their players physically it's pretty obvious. They have some young guys too, but you're telling me not a player on their team has an ounce of baby fat? The only way to get so many 2 and 3 star guys to that level is to give them a little extra something IMO. You'll have a few players overachieve, but to have almost an entire roster over achieving, the odds of that are extremely remote IMO. Statistically it does not seem possible without help."

So, in the state of Michigan, you have two BCS level programs. One team has a roster jam packed with 4 and 5 star stud recruits which has consistently failed to live up to expectations over the past 5 seasons (save the occasional blip on the radar in terms of an 11-1 record). The other team has scraped together the best recruits it could find and has consistently won during that same time frame raising the bar each year. The conclusion that is reached is not that recruiting rankings are way too subjective and inherently flawed and, therefore, the argument's opening premise is invalid but, rather, that one team is on steroids. Solid logic there.

Disbelief officially suspended

Clarett's Folly wrote:This is officially my favorite post in the thread;

"Sparty is flat out getting lucky with some of their recruits.  Bell, Waynes, Dennard were all 2 stars and will all be 1st 2 round NFL picks.  That's just a lot of luck.  Cooper looks good, he was supposed to be a high 4 star recruit, but blew his knee out, Sparty took a chance in sticking with him and it panned out.  Just an incredible amount of luck.

There's more going on there though, looking at their players physically it's pretty obvious.  They have some young guys too, but you're telling me not a player on their team has an ounce of baby fat?  The only way to get so many 2 and 3 star guys to that level is to give them a little extra something IMO.  You'll have a few players overachieve, but to have almost an entire roster over achieving, the odds of that are extremely remote IMO.  Statistically it does not seem possible without help."

So, in the state of Michigan, you have two BCS level programs. One team has a roster jam packed with 4 and 5 star stud recruits which has consistently failed to live up to expectations over the past 5 seasons (save the occasional blip on the radar in terms of an 11-1 record). The other team has scraped together the best recruits it could find and has consistently won during that same time frame raising the bar each year. The conclusion that is reached is not that recruiting rankings are way too subjective and inherently flawed and, therefore, the argument's opening premise is invalid but, rather, that one team is on steroids. Solid logic there.

They cannot wrap their heads around the concept of winning via good coaching and player development. They believe winning is a result of having shiny things.

This is a little thing, but I like the guy who propped our DE tandem of Calhoun and McDowell. Now granted, I'm sure McDowell will be a force in time, but this just goes to show how a UM fan's mind operates. He sees a guy with 5-stars next to his name and assumes he's going to be a dominant force from day 1, despite the fact we already have a proven senior at Rush coming back opposite Calhoun who's one of the best defensive players on the team.

Crooootin > on field production

Clarett's Folly wrote:This is officially my favorite post in the thread;


There's more going on there though, looking at their players physically it's pretty obvious.  They have some young guys too, but you're telling me not a player on their team has an ounce of baby fat?  The only way to get so many 2 and 3 star guys to that level is to give them a little extra something IMO.  You'll have a few players overachieve, but to have almost an entire roster over achieving, the odds of that are extremely remote IMO.  Statistically it does not seem possible without help."

So, in the state of Michigan, you have two BCS level programs. One team has a roster jam packed with 4 and 5 star stud recruits which has consistently failed to live up to expectations over the past 5 seasons (save the occasional blip on the radar in terms of an 11-1 record). The other team has scraped together the best recruits it could find and has consistently won during that same time frame raising the bar each year. The conclusion that is reached is not that recruiting rankings are way too subjective and inherently flawed and, therefore, the argument's opening premise is invalid but, rather, that one team is on steroids. Solid logic there.

Nothing new here, they never lose anything fair and square. Anyone that beats them is always cheating, its the refs, the timekeeper, the groundskeeper, Tressel......the list is endless.

J T wrote:

I'd like to know what they have to say about this.

By the way, is that guy taking a piss in front of those UM women?

JEK wrote:

They cannot wrap their heads around the concept of winning via good coaching and player development. They believe winning is a result of having shiny things.

For such a long time, UM largely faced good coaching and programs with great player development when they played OSU or in OOC games (especially bowl games). The results of those games were far more balanced than the mythical history of dominance that UM spins. The introduction of good coaching and player development at MSU - over the long-term - is new, and UM's failure to deal with it is a reflection of the real history of UM football.

As I was walking in for the spring game, their was a SCum fan wearing an Letter style Wolverine jacket.  I was dumbfounds.  Why in God's name would you go to MSU's spring game if you are such a blowhard SCum fan? 

TrueGreenSpartan wrote:As I was walking in for the spring game, their was a SCum fan wearing an Letter style Wolverine jacket.  I was dumbfounds.  Why in God's name would you go to MSU's spring game if you are such a blowhard SCum fan? 

Can't blame the guy. He wants to see what a winning team looks like.

Clarett's Folly wrote:This is officially my favorite post in the thread;

"There's more going on there though, looking at their players physically it's pretty obvious.

What is Ken Mannie? I'll take Bad MFers for $800, Alex

TrueGreenSpartan wrote:As I was walking in for the spring game, their was a SCum fan wearing an Letter style Wolverine jacket.  I was dumbfounds.  Why in God's name would you go to MSU's spring game if you are such a blowhard SCum fan? 

Hoke sent him to buy out the Melting Moments concession stand.

Larry Kazamias wrote:

What is Ken Mannie?  I'll take  Bad MFers for $800, Alex

They're mad because they were certain chocolate milk was the missing ingredient to a Rose Bowl victory.

Larry Kazamias wrote:

What is Ken Mannie?  I'll take  Bad MFers for $800, Alex

I"ve told this story before on the old board, but We had a friend who had cancer and we wanted to get a ball signed for him. He was a huge MSU football fan. Well, I had an ex-player who was on the MSU team at the time, so I got him one of those autograph balls to take into the weight room to have it signed by some players. Anyway, the kid gives it to Mannie and tells him the story, so Manie stops, gets up and yells "Ok, everybody get over here and sign this ball, some fucker is dying".   

DWags wrote:

I"ve told this story before on the old board, but We had a friend who had cancer and we wanted to get a ball signed for him.   He was a huge MSU football fan.  Well, I had an ex-player who was on the MSU team at the time, so I got him one of those autograph balls to take into the weight room to have it signed by some players.  Anyway, the kid gives it to Mannie and tells him the story, so Manie stops, gets up and yells "Ok, everybody get over here and sign this ball, some fucker is dying".    

  Guy sounds like a total badass. Perfect.

InTenSityX wrote:
You might have seen xxmgobluexx. His wife is an MSU grad, and he hates everything Green and White. He takes some kids to go to the youth portion, wouldn't surprise me if he wore um colors to the spring game.

Did he go to Michigan? I kinda hate that guy from my blue board days.

Ass Dan wrote:

Somewhere, karsch's wife's legs just quivered thinking about Miller and a bang wagon

  

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/football-2014-win-msu-or-osu

More great reading

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/football-2014-win-msu-or-osu

More great reading

Funny they like to posture themselves as pseudo intellectuals, but can't seem to figure out that calling the buckeyes "Ohio" makes them sound like high school dropouts.

BlueNation wrote:Play MOAR manball and win them all. Run DG on more bootlegs with a run and pass option and teach the offensive line three or four power running plays, toss a fullback in there and get to work. Don't over think football. Being able to gain the old three yards and a cloud of dust will open the PA pass. It will also allow us to control the clock. The other team can't score if they don't have the football.

Yes.  Please continue to try and run against us.  It has worked so well lately.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/football-2014-win-msu-or-osu

More great reading

I laugh at their logic that beating tOSU will piss off Spartan fans if u of m can only win one of those two games.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/football-2014-win-msu-or-osu

More great reading

Didn't realize our good friend MaizeAndBlueWahoo was an MGoBlow poster. Now it makes more sense that he got such a boner for keeping the UVA 247 board closed.

Turtleneck wrote:

By the way, is that guy taking a piss in front of those UM women?

    That's kind of how it looked to me too.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I laugh at their logic that beating tOSU will piss off Spartan fans if u of m can only win one of those two games.

They can knock off OSU for all I care. Bucks will be our biggest competition now that we're in the same division. They would only be doing us a favor.

And why do they insist on this Team 134, Team 135, etc. crap? All those stupid gimmicks Hoke brought with him are gonna die the moment he gets canned, which in all likelihood will be after this season. 30 years from now, nobody is going to harken back fondly on "Team 135." Or are they just trying to prove to the world that Walverines can, in fact, count?

I think its absolutely cute that they continually rank their rivals. It's like a 7 year old labeling friends 'best friend'.

  

He Got It! wrote:I think its absolutely cute that they continually rank their rivals. It's like a 7 year old labeling friends 'best friend'.

Yeah. It's like that, or it's like someone labeling strangers on the internet as friends because they've read your inane postings. Either way, you'd have to be a sad motherfucker to take any satisfaction from the situation...