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.
1. ND has better players. They have multiple playmakers on both sides of the ball. We have Bullough and Bell. While the recruiting rankings predicted this, that's not why they're better. the rankings just happen to be right this time, though they weren't for most of the last 20 years.
2. We will need better players to compete with ND, but we don't need better players to go better than .500. This year, other than the ND game, it was a failure by the current players to execute.
3. You cannot compare Dantonio and Kelly, since they are in completely different situations. Kelly is getting 80% of his Plan A recruits, while Dantonio is falling far short of that. If Dantonio had landed his top choice at OL and on the DL each of the last 6 years, this tean could be a national power. He never has done that, yet Kelly can do that with the ND brand...actually, getting more than 1 Plan A recruit on both lines EACH year.
ADDED ON EDIT: If not for atrocious officiating, ND would be 8-2, and we'd be 7-3. Would this post have been made if that were the case (as it should be, all else be equal)?
This post was edited by Rodeo Burger 20 months ago
For me, I think that the ND result is a lot of bad offense. They made a couple more plays than we did. Everything was fairly close statwise, but our inexperience on offense shined through. A missed FG and a fumble late didn't help. It was a battle of 3 and outs on both sides.
This is what kills me though. We just went ahead and won a B1G title and "competed" for another one last year with low ranked classes. I know that people have a "what have you done for me lately" attitude, but we are talking about kids that were from classes ranked about where we're at now. Do we "need" better recruiting to compete? No. It just makes it "easier". People need to define what better recruiting means. Does it mean the opinions of recruiting sites or do you mean the product on the field absent of star rankings?
It's a sliding scale of coaching and talent. If you put both on a scale of 1 to 10, then a team with 5 coaching and 9 talent should be even with a team with 9 coaching and 5 talent.
When you have the union of very good coaching and very good talent, you have the best teams in the country. Talent isn't always recruiting-ranking talent; KSU doesn't have near the recruiting talent of ND, but both beat Oklahoma @OK, a team that has very good talent and at least good coaching.
I think MSU's coaching is pretty darn good. I think the talent is solid, but not spectacular. I don't think Kelly is a drastically better coach than MD, but Notre Dame has out-recruited not just MSU, but every team on their schedule outside of USC and Oklahoma. I do think there's more on-field talent @ND than there is at MSU, though probably not as much as the recruiting rankings suggest.
The biggest disparity is the ND front 7 vs. the MSU OL, arguably BK's best unit in terms of talent against the Spartan's worst. That's just a bad match-up no matter what way you slice it and is the reason MSU has lost the last 2 years.
I don't know why you keep insisting that it has to be one thing or the other (re: coaching OR talent). Teams go through ebbs and flows; ND lost plenty of games under BK to opponents who just weren't that good. This is definitely a down year for MSU and an up year for ND.
Also have to realize that 2 years running MSU had a major OL injury or two during/right before the ND game. That's a strong front 7 as it is; having to the shuffle the OL on the fly against it isn't an ideal situation.
ND is having a great year no doubt, the first under BK. MSU has had 2 great years and is having a rebuilding season. That happens. To take this one year snap-shot as a referendum on the program as a whole seems a bit knee-jerk.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
That's probably a more apt comparison .
I agree about next season; at the start of this year, I wrote that this year was the most important of MD's tenure. A strong '12 should have carried over into very good '13 and '14 seasons, giving MSU 5 straight "good" years. That would matter a lot of the perception of the program.
Only hope for that now is to win out and beat an SEC team in a NYD bowl (likely Miss State in the Gator, if MSU finishes 7-5).
The '13 schedule sets up very very well. MSU gets 3 straight home games, including a mediocre USF team in Spartan Stadium to prep for @ND. Even if they lose to ND, they get a bye, then 5 straight games: @Iowa, then IL, IU, Purdue in some order and combo of home/away, then Michigan at home. Great thing about UM @ home? A bye immediately afterwards.
After they bye, it's @Nebraska and @Northwestern, before finishing they year against Minny.
Biggest "plus" to me is having byes after the 2 big rivalries, and especially having one right before Nebraska. The last 2 years, MSU has been beat up as heck prior to playing the Huskers. Winning in Lincoln ain't easy, but you aren't going to have a better opportunity than coming off of a bye. Also, Nebraska plays @UM the game before MSU, so they'll have had to "get up" for at least one game prior to MSU.
Bottom line: 2012 was a golden opportunity to make hay because of how easy '13 and '14 set up. Just because '12 hasn't gone as MSU fans hope doesn't change the fact that '13 and '14 should be good years.
Rocky I admire your ability to argue with folks who seem to avoid cold hard facts like ND's recruiting rankings for 6 years and the ND record with those recruits.
Especially when in those same seasons MSU's win totals exceeded ND's with recruiting classes all rated lower.
Some folks here need Chapstik for all the Kelly butt kissing that goes on the RCMB.
Not any more.
Keeping the sunshiners in check since 2000.
I think we need to stop with the "without these refs we'd be 7-3!" mantra; this is reality, and there is no going back.
As for the "would we still be talking about this if we were 7-3?" angle, I would say yes, although there would probably be less negativity. So would we be not too happy if we lost to ND, Iowa (?!?) and Michigan, and would be in line for once again being on the outside looking in for the Rose Bowl race? This seems like a given. This is arguably the worst Big Ten from top to bottom in the last 20 years, and we can't even take advantage of that.
For recruiting, I don't think we are ever going to be able to recruit like ND does, but I don't really feel like we have made the inroads I would expect given our recent success either. The lack of development at WR and QB this year (and within this group playing this year over the last several) is starting to shake up my confidence at "coaching up" as well.
The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude.
Here's what I dont get about you, Tanner. MSU has back to back 11 win years and you predict a fall to SOS. ND has one good year and declare that they are back. ND has not done shit in 20 years, Kelly has not proven anything yet,
FWIW, I think the WRs have developed as the year went on. Lippett and Fowler went from personas non grata(s?) to being reliable options; those two were the reason MSU beat Wisconsin.
Maxwell has not looked great at home this year. For whatever reason, he's completed at least 60% of his passes on the road (7 TDs, 1 INT on the road) but has completed under 58% of his passes in every home game, including two games under 40% completion (vs. Iowa and Nebraska). Iowa was in a rain storm, so I can't bash him too much and Nebraska ran up similar #s against Cousins last year (11/27, 86 yards, 1 INT for Cousins vs. 9/27, 123 yards, 1 TD, 0 INTs for Maxwell), but the passing O has been downright painful to watch at home.
Fortunately Northwestern is very bad against the pass and I do think the WRs have been coming on strong. This will be the first game with the "new and improved" Fowler/Lippett/Mumphery/Burbridge + a healthy Dion Sims + healthy OL.
Let's see how the team looks after the bye, and hopefully the bowl game.
Are people that impressed with ND this year? I mean they are good and having a good season, but they aren't steamrolling anyone and the eye test tells me they are not at that top elite level with the other undefeated's and a handful of other teams. Michigan isn't really any good and outplayed them and lost because Dennard went full retard. Pitt had a good shot. Purdue played them pretty evenly. They got some breaks and looked about even against Stanford. This is not some great team, they are just pulling out some close games. I don't think I'm alone in thinking they could very well get exposed if they were to play a team like Alabama, Georgia, Oregon.... Kelly is a good coach, he has a pretty talented team, and he has them playing well. But he hasn't done anything amazing yet, and he mostly has underachieved given the recruiting rankings.
2002 Ohio State.
And 2010 Auburn.
Haven't you seen the SOS this year? Losing games in the last minutes? Blowing leads in the 4th quarter. Despite back to back 11 win seasons, the recruiting classes haven't improved. If anything, they have declined. You are starting to see it already with epic failures in the 4th quarter where winners win and losers lose.
Dantonio has done it for 2 years and Kelly has done it for 1 year (not really true since he has won everywhere). Yet Kelly has not proven anything yet but Dantonio has. That makes a ton of sense.
? I was more thinking of a team led by it's D and a relatively unimpressive O that went to the NC and won against a heavily favored opponent. IIRC, everyone was dogging tOSU throughout the whole 2002 season after they were winning games 19-14, 13-7, 10-6, 23-16 (OT) and 14-9.
As far as Lippett and Fowler go, I was speaking more to their growth in the program thus far. Lippett is in his 3rd year here, and the flip flopping from CB to WR hasn't really yielded any solid results in either direction. Fowler is actually in his 4th year with the program, and has battled foot injuries, but doesn't seem coached up. Ditto for Maxwell who has been here for quite a long time. At this point, I'm a bit miffed that these guys aren't at least more fundamentally strong than they are now.
I'm much more critical of these guys than the OL for the simple reason that injuries can't be anticipated but graduation can. We knew that Cousins, Martin, Cunningham, etc were gone after last year, so what was put in place to prepare the guys for next year? What's being done this year to prepare for next year?
Ah, I was just going with a team that had a ton of cloes games, but won them all because of their prowess on 1 side of the ball. Auburn 2010's defense was nothing special at all, but it didn't matter. Same with the OSU offense you mentioned.
Using this season as your sample size?
Somone using this type of small sample size ND logic would be torn to shreds in front of a judge and / or jury.
Well, I agree with you 110% that not enough was done to prepare Maxwell and Co during the '11 season. I was particularly incensed that they didn't get more time vs. Iowa and Indiana, two blowouts that should have seen the back-ups playing most of the 2nd halves. Though I realize that Lippett was needed at CB last year, Mumphery could have gotten a little more time on simple end arounds/screens, etc. last year.
With Fowler being injured last year, MSU pretty much started from scratch at the receiver position.
The flip side, to answer your final question, is that all of this year is being used to prepare for next year. As I said earlier, MSU's passing O essentially started from scratch; the 1 experienced WR (Fowler) missed almost all of '11 with an injury and the other 2 "top" guys (Lippett and Mumphery) either were playing defense or didn't get any PT. The #4 WR is a true FR who barely qualified, causing him to miss most of the off-season conditioning, but who then was injured during the fall.
On top of all this, the projected top 2 WRs plus Maxwell missed the last 2 weeks of the spring ball. I completely admit to glossing over that, figuring they had the summer + the past few years to build chemistry. I was wrong. They needed every rep they could get.
It all amounted to an offense that had to baby step its way along this year. We'll see how they do post-bye week and (hopefully) the bowl. I don't think any of them are close to their ceiling (i.e., it's not a raw talent problem) and they'll only continue to get better.
Remember, Cunningham struggled with drops his first few years, as did Dell and K-mart. Think 2008; RS FR Cunningham, true soph Dell who was oft-injured, and walk-on Blair White were the top 3 WRs. Drops were a huge issue and Hoyer completed 50% of his passes for 9 TDs and 9 INTs. Those guys were part of MD's best passing O in 2009; they all returned and despite having a new QB, were able to make a lot more plays.
So, second thoughts anyone?
No. You are, in fact, a douchebag.
He has proven to be unethical and a liar to hundreds of kids...............and he's a murderer.
I know we are not supposed to personally attack posters, but I have to ask how you passed the bar exam with your critical reasoning skills. Do you really think that recruiting is the only thing that matters in CFB? No possible other variables?
Maybe you are just trolling, maybe you really are this dumb, I can't tell anymore
Edit: I forgot that Tanny is banned right now. Tough luck, princess
This post was edited by Dr RedHotLlama 20 months ago
Now with a PhD in Applied Llama Physics...
So, Notre Dame is playing for the National Title. Is recruiting 4 and 5 star athletes important, or is Brian Kelly a far superior coach to Dantonio?
Or maybe...just maybe...this year's small 12-game sample is no more statistically significant than any previous year's small 12-game sample?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports