Another MSU/U-M debate

[Guest]

Today a co-worker who is a U-M football fan debated with me that over the past 10 years, U-M football is more elite and prestigious than MSU basketball. I know this debate has been beaten to death over the years but I am interested in getting input from other U-M fans or any MSU fans on the Michigan board. Try staying as unbiased as possible (which is obviously hard for any fan).

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

Just going from my general sense of how your basketball team has finished and the fact that the past 10 years include the worst 3 year span of Michigan football, I don't think he's got much to stand on. Now, the 10 years previous to that is another story.

 

[dannydiggler]

Every msu basketball player who has stayed for all four years under Izzo has been to the Final 4. Sadly msu basketball wins.

 

[damfran]

Just going from my general sense of how your basketball team has finished and the fact that the past 10 years include the worst 3 year span of Michigan football, I don't think he's got much to stand on. Now, the 10 years previous to that is another story.

Short...succinct....and accurate.

 

[Guest]

MICHIGAN is categorically more elite and prestigious across the board.

Sparty hoops is nationally elite ...with many thanks to Ed Martin for that along with Izzo, an incredible coach especially in the post-season.

MICHIGAN football has the most wins in the history of college football as well as the best winning percentage. Someone might argue that Boise State is more elite and prestigious than Michigan too ....

but that would be like saying the Hyundai Sonata is more elite and prestigious than Mercedes-Benz because of a 2008-09 JD Power & Associates report on customer satisfaction.

 

[hungry]

There really is no comparison. Michigan football has been elite for 110 years. Sure, they just had a dip in production compared to the other 110 years, but that doesn't change their national status that much. Meanwhile, MSU basketball has only been elite for 13 years. Michigan is more elite.

Now if you want to ask which program had more accomplishments in the last 10 years, you might have something, but you just can't compare 13 years to 110.

 

[dannydiggler]

the argument was the past 10 years, I think we have something.

 

[hungry]

Danny Diggler[/color]]the argument was the past 10 years, I think we have something.

The last 10 years haven't been enough to diminish UM's status enough for MSU basketball to overtake it in eliteness.

You are more than welcome to have your own opinion, of course.

 

[Monster]

If you're looking at the last 12 years (99 was sparty's title year i think), yes, during that era Sparty has been as or more prestigious than us. But as a whole, I think UM obviously has more prestige.

BTW...i'm guessing you're Nash, right?

 

[michlady77]

Just going from my general sense of how your basketball team has finished and the fact that the past 10 years include the worst 3 year span of Michigan football, I don't think he's got much to stand on. Now, the 10 years previous to that is another story.

This

 

[RABID]

More successful, yes.

More prestigious, no.

It looks different to the kids who have only been paying attention for the last 10 years.
If you are more familiar with Harry Potter than you are with STAR WARS, then I can understand your misconception.

prestige = respect over a long time span.

M > MSU

 

[dannydiggler]

^^ well said

 

[hungry]

More successful, yes.

More prestigious, no.

It looks different to the kids who have only been paying attention for the last 10 years.
If you are more familiar with Harry Potter than you are with STAR WARS, then I can understand your misconception.

prestige = respect over a long time span.

M > MSU

Isn't this the exact same thing I said, but you used 'prestige' and I used 'elite?' Diggler argues with me, but agrees with mrabid? To me 'eliteness' and 'prestigious' are very similar. Accomplishments and success are very similar.

If the 2 programs had started at zero 10 years ago, I can see what the MSU fan is talking about, but that isn't how they started. Michigan was at an imaginary 100 points and MSU was at an imaginary 30 points 10 years ago. Michigan dropped about 10 points in the last 10 years, while MSU basketball gained about 50 points in the last 10 years. The point system obviously isn't real, I'm just showing how I'm looking at prestige aka eliteness.

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

More successful, yes.

More prestigious, no.

It looks different to the kids who have only been paying attention for the last 10 years.
If you are more familiar with Harry Potter than you are with STAR WARS, then I can understand your misconception.

prestige = respect over a long time span.

M > MSU

Isn't this the exact same thing I said, but you used 'prestige' and I used 'elite?' Diggler argues with me, but agrees with mrabid? To me 'eliteness' and 'prestigious' are very similar. Accomplishments and success are very similar.

If the 2 programs had started at zero 10 years ago, I can see what the MSU fan is talking about, but that isn't how they started. Michigan was at an imaginary 100 points and MSU was at an imaginary 30 points 10 years ago. Michigan dropped about 10 points in the last 10 years, while MSU basketball gained about 50 points in the last 10 years. The point system obviously isn't real, I'm just showing how I'm looking at prestige aka eliteness.

I took the original premise as "If we were to lift the past 10 years out of history and compare them, how do they stack up."

I agree whole-heartedly with your position if I misunderstood the premise.

 

[KAWDUP]

Well make it be 15 years and answer again.

See cherry picking a set of years, even at natural breaking points like decades will always skew the result.

Got to take the whole into account, or at least since both started in the Big Ten to put them on equal footing as regard to competition etc. . JMO

 

[deathroh]

Well make it be 15 years and answer again.

See cherry picking a set of years, even at natural breaking points like decades will always skew the result.

Got to take the whole into account, or at least since both started in the Big Ten to put them on equal footing as regard to competition etc. . JMO

It's not like the OP is trying to say that because MSU has been better over the past 10 years that means they're a better program. He's just relaying an argument about those 10 years, so I don't think we need to get on him about cherry picking.

Unless he is trying to say that, in which case....

" title="" border="0"/>

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't look at "eliteness" as a 10 year period. I just don't.

. . . and yes there is a big difference between elite as considered by the AP Poll, and having an elite program.

You must define your terms. I'm kind of persnickety as it concerns a debate like that. Ask anyone. :*)

 

[GoBlueInAtlanta]

I don't look at "eliteness" as a 10 year period. I just don't.

. . . and yes there is a big difference between elite as considered by the AP Poll, and having an elite program.

You must define your terms. I'm kind of persnickety as it concerns a debate like that. Ask anyone. :*)

+1 for persnickety

(When I reload.)

 

[deathroh]

I don't look at "eliteness" as a 10 year period. I just don't.

. . . and yes there is a big difference between elite as considered by the AP Poll, and having an elite program.

You must define your terms. I'm kind of persnickety as it concerns a debate like that. Ask anyone. :*)

The terms were defined. Over the past 10 years who is more elite and prestigious. If you can't think of elite in those terms that's your issue, not the OP's.

 

[KAWDUP]

I never said it wasn't my issue. If you can't handle that I can't think of it that way - well you know what you can do.