In partnership with CBSSports.com
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
23 (Big Ten) Conference titles since 1950 > 8 (SEC) Conference titles since 1950?
I think what you mean to say is what has Michigan done since 2007? With that, I agree, not much.
This post was edited by Umchemeng 18 months ago
Yes. I am talking about now, not going back 50-60 years. That's the problem with so many Michigan fans - they live in the past.
And part of the reason rules were changed in the first place was because Michigan was being Michigan and handing out 125 scholies preventing other schools from getting players. Michigan being Michigan attempting to keep other schools out of the conference. Michigan being Michigan setting up conference competition to their advantage. And, lastly, Michigan being Michigan, going out to the west coast with their brand new, shiny Big Ten Conference Championship and getting their asses handed to them by real competition.
Thanks for the insight.
I guess I get confused on everyone's definition of "the modern college football era". It seems to change depending on who i talk to.
National Titles in the modern era of College Football (Since 1950). Michigan 1.
More than that, how many years in the last 60 or so has Michigan even been a National Title Contender? 2? Maybe 3? Bo had 1 maybe 2 teams that were in the discussion late in the season. 1997 when they shared the title with NE. 2006 they were close until getting beat by OSU and then killed by USC in a Bowl.
All that money and supposed inherent advantage hasn't produced a whole lot on the field at the National Level.
MSU has won 6 National Titles during the modern era. What great advantage did we have that helped us make so much noise on the National Level?
Modern era is post WW2. The modern era has had some bumps. From '45 to '51 the NCAA went to a 2 platoon system. Then they returned to one platoon with limited substitution from '52-'64 and switched to unlimited substitution and no scholarship limits from '65 -'72.
ummies love to include the leather helmet days and all those years where MSU had to play in aa if they wanted to play umaa almost every year. That went on until MSU (much to Crisler's consternation) was admitted into the Big Ten.
Fact is MSU has won more football national championships from 1950 forward than umaa.
The fact is that few outside of Michigan considers Michigan a football powerhouse. They've simply not been in the National Title Hunt often enough over the past 60 years to be seen that way. MSU was definitely a National Powerhouse in the 50s and 60s, but since then has been mired in mediocrity.
Hell, in the last decade, MSU has more B1G Titles than Michigan. Michigan and OSU took advantage of the free reign era by signing 120 players and throwing more money at their programs the the rest of the Big Ten combined. Of course those 2 were going to win almost all the Big Ten Titles during those seasons, they were playing teams with less than half the football rosters they had. The Big Ten was awful for a long time. But of the 2, Ohio State won 5 National Titles under Woody so they would be considered a National Power then.
I'm not debating # of NCs since 1950. I am debating the inaccurate comparison to Tennessee's success in the SEC.
I agree, according to College Football Data Warehouse (fair?) Michigan has won 3 NCs since (and including) 1947. 1 since 1950 vs 4 for MSU.
You might want to look at Tennessee's record before you make that Statement. 17 ten win seasons since 1950. 26 seasons with at least 9 wins. Claims on 4 National Titles. They happened to play in a much more competitive Conference that whole time so they didn't win as many Conference Titles, but they accomplished more than Michigan has in the modern era of football.
I don't see Michigan as a current national powerhouse. I do, however see them as a Big Ten power team. Michigan has had 2 B10 titles in last 10 years, vs MSU 1.
I watched some video on new Tennessee facilities many months ago where the narrator stated that Tennessee has more wins in college football than any other team since 1927 or something like that. I didn't check into it any further than that, it just stuck in my head.
Starting in 1927, Tennessee went 6 full seasons with only one loss total. They were tied 5 times, but to have a zero in the loss column for 5 out of 6 seasons was a nice run. But, that's a long time ago. Tennessee has been one of the better programs in the modern era too.
Correct... They are pretty close.. michigan has 30 season with 9+ and 19 with 10+
How many National Titles?
It's pretty clear that Tennessee is a good comparison to Michigan in the Modern Era except Tennessee plays in a tougher conference and competed for National Titles more often. Michigan had less down seasons though.
This post was edited by Johnny2x2x 18 months ago
Did quick check.. it may be true... UT has 661 vs UM has 642.. (not agreeing that UT has all time, but defintely more than UM). Talk about a random date to pick... Does 1927 have any significance besides the goal posts being moved back? Maybe the publishing of Pop Warner's football guide?
Just checked Alabama, they now have 666 wins (could it be.... SATAN?)... Don't think that includes any games under sanction either.
+1 all around
I agree. Conference championships are not the best indicator. SEC has 23+ Nat Titles vs Big 10's 12+ since 1950... (hard to remember which teams were original SEC vs Big 8, etc.) and not including Penn St. titles since they werent Big 10 yet). Or Nebraska for that matter but that was easier to ignore.
Irony is I grew up in Knoxville as a UT fan. My Mom and Dad went there.
Moral of the story... Statistics are fun... and they can easily be misinterpreted/manipulated.
Actually you don't. We have 2003 and 2004. You have 2010.
Tennessee didn't compete for national titles more often. They were a joke compared to Bama in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Wow. The RCMB alarm certainly sounded on the UM boards today. They came running.
Anyone. Anyplace. Anytime.
And UM has 0 B1G titles the last 8 years
Tennessee actually won 4 Titles since 1950.
Their 1967 title was a joke. They lost the orange bowl, had two losses, and finished 2nd in both polls.
They read tRCMB as much if not more than most active RCMB posters. One of tBB UM posters gave a full rundown of all Michigan talk on tRCMB today, kind of concerning?
"As far as the downvotes. It's a gnat biting an lion"
-- A member of tRCMB Justice League, taking the internet WAY WAY too seriously.
Which still is better than any season Michigan had other than 1997. Plus the 3 other NCs. They were in the mix on a few others too. Michigan was in the mix 2 or 3 times total Over that time. Tennessee won more and was in the running for more national Titles than Michigan in the modern era of football, period.
How? Tennessee had 6 conference titles between 1955 and 1992. That is not competing for the national championship.
And no it isn't. We finished #2 in both polls in 1985.
This post was edited by UMWolverines 18 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports