The official MICHIGAN-South Carolina game thread

[Gulo Blue]

Losing to Iowa is not even excusable for a team that was undefeated at the time.

Even knowing what Iowa did to OSU this year? Weird things happen in Iowa.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sorry dude, but the Sparty trolls count the overall year to year record against the Spartans as relevant, regardless of how good or bad the overall record of each team was.

Show me a single troll post within which the the Spartan trolls don't.

Spartan trolls can claim they're not trying to have it both ways...but that's just what Spartan trolls do.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. When the shoe is on the other foot it's all "throw out the record book for rivalry games" and you definitely don't see Spartans adding Rich Rodriguez/Steven Threet/everybody beat Michigan that year caveats when they talk about their recent win count.

I agree with lostleader on this - it's great for rivalry stats, but it's not a real accomplishment. I feel the same way about beating uofm in a lot of those years the last 10 or so. I'm not a big believer in "throw out the record, this is a rivalry game" but there is probably a small amount of truth to it, probably more from MSU players who may be bitter they didn't get recruited by uofm but in general, the better team wins those games.

I feel the same way about winning or competing for B1G championships a few years back - it was great, but uofm, psu and to a lesser extent osu were down for most or all of those years. I think those MSU teams were good enough to beat even great teams from those schools but the fact that they didn't have to made it easier - how much easier, who knows but it's a fair point to highlight.

 

[dubbsco]

Even knowing what Iowa did to OSU this year? Weird things happen in Iowa.

Sometimes, you just have to rise above all that '"weirdness'" and get it done. Top to bottom, Michigan was the superior team. If you ever want to be a champion, those are the ones you gotta have.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I agree with lostleader on this - it's great for rivalry stats, but it's not a real accomplishment. I feel the same way about beating uofm in a lot of those years the last 10 or so. I'm not a big believer in "throw out the record, this is a rivalry game" but there is probably a small amount of truth to it, probably more from MSU players who may be bitter they didn't get recruited by uofm but in general, the better team wins those games.

I feel the same way about winning or competing for B1G championships a few years back - it was great, but uofm, psu and to a lesser extent osu were down for most or all of those years. I think those MSU teams were good enough to beat even great teams from those schools but the fact that they didn't have to made it easier - how much easier, who knows but it's a fair point to highlight.

I'm talking specifically about the trolls, as Gulo points out. When gotime909 posts the head to head record since the Spartans have been dominant, he never puts an * and the footnote

*three of these years were losing seasons for Michigan, so we don't claim these wins with as much emphasis in seasons when Michigan was better.

Also gotime909 always likes to include Michigan's head to head record against the Buckeyes during any given period, for whatever reason he thinks that valid or relevant.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The Iowa argument is really more significant than the MSU argument. A non-accomplishment doesn't diminish how good a team was. But Michigan finish 10th in the country and was about as close as a team can be to having another win. There are years where teams over and underachieve based on the eye test. I think most of us would agree that Hoke's Sugarbowl winning Michigan team overachieved. MSU's CFP team overachieved. 3-9 MSU underachieved.

I don't recall any sense that Michigan wasn't every bit as good as #10 in the nation and on the edge of more in 2016. How we got from 2016 to 2017's offense is a mystery to me, certainly something to worry about, but I think it's an overreaction to just look the division rankings with no context and conclude it's do or die time.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm talking specifically about the trolls, as Gulo points out. When gotime909 posts the head to head record since the Spartans have been dominant, he never puts an * and the footnote

*three of these years were losing seasons for Michigan, so we don't claim these wins with as much emphasis in seasons when Michigan was better.

Also gotime909 always likes to include Michigan's head to head record against the Buckeyes during any given period, for whatever reason he thinks that valid or relevant.

in that context I don't think it has to be pointed out - it's at least implied by the lopsided record that uofm has stunk during that period. Just like we stunk for twice as long from '90-'07. Nobody is putting an asterisk on that but we know how bad we were. Yes, it's trolling but I don't think the asterisk is needed. Besides, we weren't always at our best those years either, particularly at the start of the streak in '08 and '09 when Dantonio was just getting started. If you start putting asterisks on streaks it's bound to devolve into petty nonsense and you're going to end up with a lame excuse for every loss on both sides.

I haven't seen a lot of gotime's posts over here but I like reading his stuff on the Spartan board, he's one of a few of us who don't see everything through green colored lenses and he has a pretty good sense of humor about things.

 

[Spartanmack]

The Iowa argument is really more significant than the MSU argument. A non-accomplishment doesn't diminish how good a team was. But Michigan finish 10th in the country and was about as close as a team can be to having another win. There are years where teams over and underachieve based on the eye test. I think most of us would agree that Hoke's Sugarbowl winning Michigan team overachieved. MSU's CFP team overachieved. 3-9 MSU underachieved.

I don't recall any sense that Michigan wasn't every bit as good as #10 in the nation and on the edge of more in 2016. How we got from 2016 to 2017's offense is a mystery to me, certainly something to worry about, but I think it's an overreaction to just look the division rankings with no context and conclude it's do or die time.

don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diminish what uofm did last year in any way. I just don't think beating us is an accomplishment worth mentioning - that's all I'm saying.

 

[Gulo Blue]

in that context I don't think it has to be pointed out - it's at least implied by the lopsided record that uofm has stunk during that period. Just like we stunk for twice as long from '90-'07. Nobody is putting an asterisk on that but we know how bad we were. Yes, it's trolling but I don't think the asterisk is needed. Besides, we weren't always at our best those years either, particularly at the start of the streak in '08 and '09 when Dantonio was just getting started. If you start putting asterisks on streaks it's bound to devolve into petty nonsense and you're going to end up with a lame excuse for every loss on both sides.

I haven't seen a lot of gotime's posts over here but I like reading his stuff on the Spartan board, he's one of a few of us who don't see everything through green colored lenses and he has a pretty good sense of humor about things.

MSU's from '90 through '07 was a win rate drop of 10% compared to all time (50% vs 60%). The Hoke and RR years vs all time was a drop if 21%. MSU struggled twice as long, but half as much.

 

[Spartanmack]

MSU's from '90 through '07 was a win rate drop of 10% compared to all time (50% vs 60%). The Hoke and RR years vs all time was a drop if 21%. MSU struggled twice as long, but half as much.

not a valid comparison - according to your math MSU suffered only half as much relative to their own average, not half as much as uofm. does the all-time record include '90-'07? Kinda stupid if it does.


this analysis should also control for the pre 1940 crap but I don't want to start that argument again and watch uofm fan's heads explode.

 

[Gulo Blue]

this analysis should also control for the pre 1940 crap but I don't want to start that argument again and watch uofm fan's heads explode.

If you ignore everything before 1940, Michigan's winning percentage drops from 72.9% to 71.2%.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not a valid comparison - according to your math MSU suffered only half as much relative to their own average, not half as much as uofm. does the all-time record include '90-'07? Kinda stupid if it does.

My suffering metric is spot on. No possible way any reasonable person would question it.

 

[Spartanmack]

If you ignore everything before 1940, Michigan's winning percentage drops from 72.9% to 71.2%.

and Michigan State's?

 

[Gulo Blue]

and Michigan State's?

It drops from 60.1% to 59.6%.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm actually surprised by the consistency. Pre-1940 games make up 33% of all MSU games and 34% of all Michigan games and yet they have very little impact on all time records.

Before 1940, Michigan was at 76.2% and 71.2% after.
Before 1940, MSU was at 61.2% and 59.6% after.

 

[lostleader]

Even knowing what Iowa did to OSU this year? Weird things happen in Iowa.

Kinnick Stadium is a weird place to play. I actually told an Iowa fan that last year the night before the game and I reminded my OSU in laws that before OSU got beat this year.