Mark Stoops

[Sbee]

I understand but I'm saying it's not. Lloyd Carr finished 1st or 2nd in the B1G 9 times in 13 seasons (5 firsts and 4 seconds) and finished worse than 3rd only once. Since their last title in 2004 he went 3rd, 2nd, 2nd and then RR happened and Mich had 3 straight losing seasons. Since then, Hoke has already gone 6-2 in back-to-back seasons. If you want to say they're not elite because of what RR did in 3 years, ok but to me that is disingenuous.

first, I wouldn't count 2nd place finishes as an example of elite status. that's a way to shift the argument to prove a point. secondly, most of Carr's 1st place finishes came against Cooper coached teams, he did next to nothing against JT.

RR is part of their history but he did bring in highly rated classes and he had a great track record before Michigan.

as for Hoke going 6-2 in back to back years, congrats. what I am saying is that there is a big difference between OSU and the rest of the big ten. Michigan has done essentially nothing in conference for the better part of a decade.

MSU hasn't done much, one big ten title and no rose bowl. I'm also not stating that MSU needs to be mentioned along with USC, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Bama, OSU, LSU, and other real powerhouses.

 

[Spartanmack]

the point is Mich won the CC more than 1/3 of LC's seasons as head coach and when they weren't winning the B1G they were finishing in 2nd place more often than any other place - something elite teams do. Elite teams don't always win and when they don't win they come close, they don't finish in the middle or bottom half. How is that "shifting" the argument? And Carr's last 5 seasons were 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd - not bad for a guy at the end of his career competing against a cheater. The Mich/osu rivalry has streaks throughout it's history - Carr owned Cooper and JT owned Carr/RR. John Cooper got fired because of Lloyd Carr. Yes, RR is PART of their history but he is not ALL of their history and to say that they are not elite because of 3 years out of more than a century is absurd.

To say that Mich has done nothing in conf for the last decade or even the better part of it is also disengenous. Here are their finishes for the last 10 years - for the first half, they appear to be pretty elite:

1st
1st
3rd
2nd
2nd
10th
10th
7th
2nd
3rd

so those 10 years include the 3 worst years in their history and look how quickly they've bounced back.

I'm not making any comparisons to MSU - as proud a history as we have, no one can reasonably argue that we are in the same league as Michigan. Nor can you argue that although they were down and are rebuilding that Michigan is not an elite program. Just look at their recruiting classes - if they were a flash in the pan or a dead giant, Hoke wouldn't be pulling the kids like he is.

I love that you threw florida in there. They've struggled almost as much as Michigan has recently and prior to 1990 they never did ANYTHING. That's right, the Gators have ZERO conf titles prior to 1990 (joined SEC in 1933) but of course, they are elite. USC was another recent flash in the pan and i bet you can find more and longer streaks where Alabama or any of those other teams you mentioned was not nationally competitive than Michigan.

 

[Sbee]

the point is Mich won the CC more than 1/3 of LC's seasons as head coach and when they weren't winning the B1G they were finishing in 2nd place more often than any other place - something elite teams do. Elite teams don't always win and when they don't win they come close, they don't finish in the middle or bottom half. How is that "shifting" the argument? And Carr's last 5 seasons were 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd - not bad for a guy at the end of his career competing against a cheater. The Mich/osu rivalry has streaks throughout it's history - Carr owned Cooper and JT owned Carr/RR. John Cooper got fired because of Lloyd Carr. Yes, RR is PART of their history but he is not ALL of their history and to say that they are not elite because of 3 years out of more than a century is absurd.

To say that Mich has done nothing in conf for the last decade or even the better part of it is also disengenous. Here are their finishes for the last 10 years - for the first half, they appear to be pretty elite:

1st
1st
3rd
2nd
2nd
10th
10th
7th
2nd
3rd

so those 10 years include the 3 worst years in their history and look how quickly they've bounced back.

I'm not making any comparisons to MSU - as proud a history as we have, no one can reasonably argue that we are in the same league as Michigan. Nor can you argue that although they were down and are rebuilding that Michigan is not an elite program. Just look at their recruiting classes - if they were a flash in the pan or a dead giant, Hoke wouldn't be pulling the kids like he is.

I love that you threw florida in there. They've struggled almost as much as Michigan has recently and prior to 1990 they never did ANYTHING. That's right, the Gators have ZERO conf titles prior to 1990 (joined SEC in 1933) but of course, they are elite. USC was another recent flash in the pan and i bet you can find more and longer streaks where Alabama or any of those other teams you mentioned was not nationally competitive than Michigan.

Florida won the outright NC in 2006 and 2008. If Michigan had two titles, this conversation wouldn't be happening.

My point is that OSU is the class of the conference. Michigan is a great program, MSU doesn't deserve to be mentioned with either of them. Michigan doesn't deserve to be mentioned with the nations elite though.

 

[Spartanmack]

I respectfully disagree. The conversation may not start with Michigan but they have to be in there - moreso than osu.

 

[Sbee]

I respectfully disagree. The conversation may not start with Michigan but they have to be in there - moreso than osu.

in the last 10 years it's not even close.

 

[Spartanmack]

in three of the last 5 perhaps but the 5 years prior, definitely.

 

[Sbee]

in three of the last 5 perhaps but the 5 years prior, definitely.

OSU has beaten Michigan 10 of the last 12, played in 3 bcs title games, won the big ten 10 out of 12 years. how can you say that it's even close?

 

[Spartanmack]

Because we're not talking about mich vs. osu over the past 10 years - or at least I'm not. We're talking about whether or not Michigan is an elite program and they undeniably are.

 

[johnny2x2x]

The 2014 class is top 25 now on the major sites. I say, big whoop. 25th or 40th makes no difference. I trust MD and staff more than I do the nerds at Rivals and Scout. If you do put all of your stock in the nerds at the services, MSU is closinig the gap in recruiting if anything.

Personally, it's nice to see some of our recruits get recognition, but I take it with a grain of salt, there's less difference between the 50th and the 650th rated recruit than ever before. Because of technology, good training, diet, and coaching methods are available to all high school football players. Also, we redshirt 90% of our freshman anyways, so the services are really trying to predict the performance 2+ years from now of a growing high school kid.

As for Stoops, he's doing a great job of selling the SEC. Let's face it, the SEC is basically like the Major Leagues and the rest of college football is playing in AA.

 

[Sbee]

The 2014 class is top 25 now on the major sites. I say, big whoop. 25th or 40th makes no difference. I trust MD and staff more than I do the nerds at Rivals and Scout. If you do put all of your stock in the nerds at the services, MSU is closinig the gap in recruiting if anything.

Personally, it's nice to see some of our recruits get recognition, but I take it with a grain of salt, there's less difference between the 50th and the 650th rated recruit than ever before. Because of technology, good training, diet, and coaching methods are available to all high school football players. Also, we redshirt 90% of our freshman anyways, so the services are really trying to predict the performance 2+ years from now of a growing high school kid.

As for Stoops, he's doing a great job of selling the SEC. Let's face it, the SEC is basically like the Major Leagues and the rest of college football is playing in AA.

agree on all of this. the concern is the $EC staring to pilfer the guys that we were getting for years, more competition in Ohio for the guys that OSU doesn't take.

 

[johnny2x2x]

agree on all of this. the concern is the $EC staring to pilfer the guys that we were getting for years, more competition in Ohio for the guys that OSU doesn't take.

Yeah, but we're also developing a nice pipeline into the Chicago area. Brian Allen, Giancakos, Morrisey, and maybe Chris James among others. Demetrius Cooper was the top speed pass rusher that our coaches saw in the whole country last year from that area as well.

Kentucky beat us for West, but we beat them for Fry who is looking like a great player.

 

[Sbee]

Yeah, but we're also developing a nice pipeline into the Chicago area. Brian Allen, Giancakos, Morrisey, and maybe Chris James among others. Demetrius Cooper was the top speed pass rusher that our coaches saw in the whole country last year from that area as well.

Kentucky beat us for West, but we beat them for Fry who is looking like a great player.

part of the reason we would be better off in the big ten west, keep that Chicago presence

 

[Green and White 95]

The 2014 class is top 25 now on the major sites. I say, big whoop. 25th or 40th makes no difference. I trust MD and staff more than I do the nerds at Rivals and Scout. If you do put all of your stock in the nerds at the services, MSU is closinig the gap in recruiting if anything.

Personally, it's nice to see some of our recruits get recognition, but I take it with a grain of salt, there's less difference between the 50th and the 650th rated recruit than ever before. Because of technology, good training, diet, and coaching methods are available to all high school football players. Also, we redshirt 90% of our freshman anyways, so the services are really trying to predict the performance 2+ years from now of a growing high school kid.

As for Stoops, he's doing a great job of selling the SEC. Let's face it, the SEC is basically like the Major Leagues and the rest of college football is playing in AA.

Well said. I would still like to get some of those higher rated recruits though. Statistics don't lie, and a higher percentage of those guys go on to be better players.

 

[Sbee]

Well said. I would still like to get some of those higher rated recruits though. Statistics don't lie, and a higher percentage of those guys go on to be better players.

I wish I had this post to reference from the Rivals board, it's basically a chart that shows your chances of getting drafted based on your star rating.

there is a huge debate on that board about star rankings and their importance. it's kind of like the stats vs scouting debate for evaluating baseball prospect. stars matter but it's far from definitive

 

[Spartanmack]

Johnny, with all due respect how does having classes ranked 47, 17, 30, 31, 41 and 40 per one site or 37, 27, 32, 37 and 45 in another while our ranking in the conference has been 7, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5 show that we are closing the gap? We just had our 2 best years since 1988 and our recruiting class rankings are going down. It's way to early to assume 2014 will finish at 25 - it could go up or down. Say what you will about the predictive value of the stars but fact success on the field has not yielded meaningful results in MSU's status among elite recruits.

Comparing NFL drafts to stars is kind of ridiculous. If a 3 star gets drafted while a 5 star doesn't that doesn't mean the rankings were wrong. First of all, how many 3 stars are there? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot more than the number of 4 & 5 star kids combined. Also, a lot can happen in 4 years - kids grow, some get injured, some have family and other personal issues, some struggle academically, some lack motivation/heart (like Vernon Gholston), some kids don't mature and aren't smart enough to understand the increasingly complex game from one level to the next and now can't get by on athleticism alone (Vince Young for example). That doesn't mean at 18 the 3 star wasn't a 3 star and the 5 star wasn't a 5 star. Like everything, it's not a perfect system but generally speaking, they rankings are meaningful.

 

[Sbee]

We've never recruited better than UM and OSU, who knows if we ever will. the good news is that it's a lot easier to beat those teams on the field than it is in recruiting rankings. the difference between 3 and 4 star guys is slim and the red shirting at MSU is the secret sauce. sometimes better players are ranked higher but that's a snapshot of them when the rankings come out at age 16, a lot happens between then and when they contribute in the big ten at age 20 or older. our player development has been great and that's really the key to winning games

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't understand how everyone reads "not making progress" and interprets that as me saying we need to out-recruit Michigan and osu. We competed for the B1G championship 2 of the last 3 years and haven't landed a class higher than 5th in the conference and our ranking nationally have slipped the last few years. We can make a LOT of progress without ever out-recruiting osu and Michigan.

Player development has been a key to our recent success, no doubt. But lets wait and see how we compete in a conference where mich, osu and psu aren't at or near all-time lows before we determine how good that strategy is or even how great we are at developing players. I just don't think finding and developing diamonds in the rough is a sustainable model for a consistently competitive program.

 

[johnny2x2x]

The star rating stuff has been beaten to death. What I think is important as I've previously stated is that MD and staff are getting the players they want. And for the most part they are, we've missed on some O linemen and D linemen, but at all the other positions we're consistently getting plan "A" guys. When "2 star" TE Dylan Chmura becomes an All B1G performer, it's not going to surprise our coaches in the least as he was the #1 TE they looked at for his class. Same with CB Darien Hicks, DE Demetrius Cooper etc etc. It's also no surprise to them that 2 star guys Bell, Robinson, and soon Denard are NFL caliber players, the staff was very high on each of them when they brought them in. When the staff starts filling classes late with guys we evaluated and took forever to offer I will worry, that would mean they are settling.

I'm more interested in the record at MSU rather than all of college football, I think MD's record speaks for itself and there was no team we played last year that I felt had more talent than us including OSU and ND. In fact, with the talent we had 7-6 was about as bad of a year as possible, basically everything had to go wrong for that result. Again, if we lose games in 2013 it will not be because a team is simply more talented than us, that's a huge change from 6 years ago.

 

[johnny2x2x]

Johnny, with all due respect how does having classes ranked 47, 17, 30, 31, 41 and 40 per one site or 37, 27, 32, 37 and 45 in another while our ranking in the conference has been 7, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5 show that we are closing the gap? We just had our 2 best years since 1988 and our recruiting class rankings are going down. It's way to early to assume 2014 will finish at 25 - it could go up or down. Say what you will about the predictive value of the stars but fact success on the field has not yielded meaningful results in MSU's status among elite recruits.

Comparing NFL drafts to stars is kind of ridiculous. If a 3 star gets drafted while a 5 star doesn't that doesn't mean the rankings were wrong. First of all, how many 3 stars are there? I wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot more than the number of 4 & 5 star kids combined. Also, a lot can happen in 4 years - kids grow, some get injured, some have family and other personal issues, some struggle academically, some lack motivation/heart (like Vernon Gholston), some kids don't mature and aren't smart enough to understand the increasingly complex game from one level to the next and now can't get by on athleticism alone (Vince Young for example). That doesn't mean at 18 the 3 star wasn't a 3 star and the 5 star wasn't a 5 star. Like everything, it's not a perfect system but generally speaking, they rankings are meaningful.

I believe 9 of our 13 recruits have a 4 star rating on one or more of the services. If you care about things like what the geeks at Rivals and Scout think, then that is a big improvement over the past. I'm more concerned with what our coaches have to say though.

 

[Sbee]

I believe 9 of our 13 recruits have a 4 star rating on one or more of the services. If you care about things like what the geeks at Rivals and Scout think, then that is a big improvement over the past. I'm more concerned with what our coaches have to say though.

that's another thing, there are 4 major ratings services. I always see a news or freep article that a team got the #4 player in the country but there are three different #4 players. I believe that in general, good players are highly rated but there are exceptions, also, there are a ton of players in that 3-4 start category in the services and it's nearly impossible to say who's better.

Also, MSU has had a lot of luck with unranked or 2 star guys, you don't want a class full of them but I always take notice when we pick one of them up. one example is matt sokol, unranked in all services at qb but MSU wants him to play TE, he's 6'5" 220 with a good frame to put on muscle. he was unranked but never played TE in HS, then became a 3 star after committing to MSU

rankings matter but not as much as you would think