header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame

 (Read 6334 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10535
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #84 on: October 10, 2017, 12:03:06 PM »
and winning the BIG is unquestionably tougher now, the conference has better coaches, you can't get a shared title anymore with the advent of the championship game, hell, urban's only won 1 big 10 title and he's never lost more than 1 big 10 game in a season.

While technically true, the Divisional titles are easier to achieve than pre-CCG Big Ten Titles, as you are competing with fewer teams.

You still get a share of the Divisional Titles even if you don't win the tie-breaker that allows you to play in the CCG. So they really aren't all that hard to come by.

MSU and Wisconsin have each won 3, Penn St has won 2, Iowa and Nebraska have each won 1, and OSU has a streak that currently stands at 5.

Michigan has won zero. Frankly, they haven't even come close.

A second place finish in 2011 is their best showing. And they lost their division to MSU that year.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 12:10:06 PM by Brutus Buckeye »
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Mdot21

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 11163
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #85 on: October 10, 2017, 12:25:57 PM »
It is something.  How much hype have we heard about Michigan's tight ends, especially Bunting and Wheatley?  But McKeon is clearly the go to guy at tight end for them.  Really, McKeon and Perry are the only consistent guys for Michigan's offense.
Bunting has disappeared off the face of the earth. They only bring Wheatley in to block- what good is he if they won't throw him a pass? When he's in defenses automatically know it's a run. I'd hardly say McKeon is consistent. Can't block and I am not a fan of McKeon. Still pissed at him for trying to be a hero and not going down. Clock stops on the 1st down. He didn't need to try and be a god damn hero only to get the ball stripped. Clock is ticking. He needs to get down and let O'Korn call a TO or hurry up and spike it to stop the clock.

Eye test tells me Gentry is the best TE they have. That kid is unusually fast for a 6'7, 240 pounder. He's a little raw as he's transitioning from QB to TE- but they need to just keep him on the field and let him learn. You only get good at football by playing football.

They rotate too many guys in and out on offense- and it's really stupid. Just play the best talents and let them grow. Can't never play a guy and then throw him out there here and there and expect him to produce. He's got to play to learn how to play.

Really Grant Perry is the only consistent player they have on offense and he's really not even that good. Tarik Black, McDoom, and DPJ are the best talents they have at WR. Black is hurt and McDoom and DPJ- neither of them are consistent at all. Very raw. They need to develop and fast.

Mdot21

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 11163
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #86 on: October 10, 2017, 12:30:19 PM »
Their RB's also kinda stink.

This is a huge problem, if you think traditional UM teams, they pound you with the rock, play action pass with their quality QB's, run tons of screen passes to the RB's etc.

They gotta somehow figure out how to run the ball again, that will help alleviate a lot of the other issues.
Ty Isaac needs space to run- he's got ball security issues- and he runs finesse for being 6'3, 230. Despite his great size, he's not a between the tackles runner and he doesn't run with power. Isaac would be a good back on a team that has a really good OL and spreads people out and runs out of the shotgun a lot. He's not a downhill I-formation, between the tackles runner. He's just not. He's a 6'3, 230 pound spread/scat back.

Karran Higdon is the best inside runner they have, but he's on the smaller side and he can't pass protect a lick. Can't keep him in the game if he can't block for the QB.

Chris Evans is being misused. He's not really a RB. He's more of an offensive weapon. Meyer would have a field day with that kid. Not sure Harbaugh knows how to use him. Evans should be getting looks on kick-off duty since DPJ has punts, and Evans should be lined up in the slot at WR, thrown bubble screens- just used in a variety of different ways. He's too slight to be an every down back- goes down in first contact way too easy. His greatness is in space- get that kid in space and he can make stuff happen. And his hands are so soft- he catches everything and runs really good pass routes.

TresselownsUM

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 233
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #87 on: October 10, 2017, 12:48:08 PM »
You still get a share of the Divisional Titles even if you don't win the tie-breaker that allows you to play in the CCG. So they really aren't all that hard to come by.

yeah, but how many divisional titles are you hanging up at St John Arena? I'm not slighting that it's an accomplishment, but OSU went 7-1 two of the past 3 years and didn't play in Indy. In previous years we'd still consider ourselves a BIG 10 champ.

now? there's only 1 big 10 champ per year, and it's quite possible some year that might mean a 6-3 division winner knocks off 9-0 from another division.

I will say the current divisions is one of the greatest things that could of ever happened for Wisconsin football. they are in indy virtually every year, that's so much great TV exposure, for a school that's never been a high in the recruiting rankings type school, I gotta think that it's helped them some. if nothing else it's great for the fan base I would think. and at least in the interim, no real serious challengers on a year to year basis that's going to steal their west division crown.

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10535
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #88 on: October 10, 2017, 01:22:40 PM »
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a Divisional title is on par with a Conference Title. But it is a way to seperate the haves from the have nots.

If you are a helmet team, you don't want to find yourself in the zero camp. Especially when "little brother" has a plurality of them. 

In the old days when two teams tied for the title, everyone knew that the real champion was the one that won the head to head.  

Yet the loser of that game would quietly pass out the rings and hang up the banner anyway. 
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

TresselownsUM

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 233
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #89 on: October 10, 2017, 02:12:48 PM »
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a Divisional title is on par with a Conference Title. But it is a way to seperate the haves from the have nots.

I guess I agree, but how much value is there in UF winning their SEC division the last few years, most people probably think they were a fringe top 20 team the past couple seasons.

I guess my point is you can be pretty average and have a conference division title next to your name.

you could easily argue the 2nd place team in a division, for instance the potential Penn St/OSU loser this year is significantly better than the winner of say a divisional winner from the ACC coastal or PAC 12 North (I think I have the divisions right there?)

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17172
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2017, 02:18:23 PM »
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a Divisional title is on par with a Conference Title. But it is a way to seperate the haves from the have nots.

I guess I agree, but how much value is there in UF winning their SEC division the last few years, most people probably think they were a fringe top 20 team the past couple seasons.

I guess my point is you can be pretty average and have a conference division title next to your name.

you could easily argue the 2nd place team in a division, for instance the potential Penn St/OSU loser this year is significantly better than the winner of say a divisional winner from the ACC coastal or PAC 12 North (I think I have the divisions right there?)

That's true, but it's a way to further differentiate between the 1 conference champion and the 13 non-champs, particularly among division rivals.  Yes, people acknowledge that Florida's SEC East titles are less impressive than being 2nd in the West...but it's still better than Georgia's no SEC East titles the past two years.
I think over time simply making it to Indy will mean less and less.  Hell, I was online the second MSU clinched in 2011, and didn't make it back in 2013 or 2015 (maybe i"m the curse).  But I know that when OSU pulled out that win in Columbus last year, my Michigan family was plenty bummed about not getting to go to the CCG.  I think it's new enough that simply making it still holds some weight.

medinabuckeye1

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 6401
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #91 on: October 10, 2017, 03:02:06 PM »
Yeah, I'm not suggesting that a Divisional title is on par with a Conference Title. But it is a way to seperate the haves from the have nots.

I guess I agree, but how much value is there in UF winning their SEC division the last few years, most people probably think they were a fringe top 20 team the past couple seasons.

I guess my point is you can be pretty average and have a conference division title next to your name.

you could easily argue the 2nd place team in a division, for instance the potential Penn St/OSU loser this year is significantly better than the winner of say a divisional winner from the ACC coastal or PAC 12 North (I think I have the divisions right there?)
This is why it is REALLY hard to compare pre-CCG Championships to post-CCG anything:
  • Championships is not a fair comparison because pre-CCG there were frequently multiple champions
  • Division Championships is not a fair comparison because there are a LOT more post-CCG Division Championships than there were pre-CCG Championships

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18539
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #92 on: October 10, 2017, 03:06:33 PM »
I think it's new enough that simply making it still holds some weight.
That's not how I felt last year. Sure, it's better than finishing #2 in the division, but seeing a loss rings hollow.

I'd much rather there be shared championships with the Rose Bowl in the balance for the most deserving (so long as it's truly that).
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

TresselownsUM

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 233
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #93 on: October 10, 2017, 03:09:10 PM »
But I know that when OSU pulled out that win in Columbus last year, my Michigan family was plenty bummed about not getting to go to the CCG.  I think it's new enough that simply making it still holds some weight.

I totally get that, I've been twice, loved it both times. maybe sitting inside watching football when it's freezing outside is the best selling point.

will it wear off? eventually probably, maybe ask Wisconsin fans, they've been there the most.

there's also trade off for most middle income families, go to Indy? go to a bowl game? go to a possible 2 playoff games? get's pretty expensive, and it's all around the holidays to boot

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18539
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #94 on: October 10, 2017, 03:14:13 PM »

will it wear off? eventually probably, maybe ask Wisconsin fans, they've been there the most.

there's also trade off for most middle income families, go to Indy? go to a bowl game? go to a possible 2 playoff games? get's pretty expensive, and it's all around the holidays to boot
I enjoyed it last year, minus the outcome.

Agree on the tradeoff. I know that year when UNL and UW played, a lot of UNL fans stayed away because they already got their plans made for the Rose Bowl. UW fans stayed away because it was the 2nd in a row, the team was 7-5 and it finished 3rd* in the division.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MrNubbz

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 13891
  • Liked:
Re: Michigan State (2-0, 4-1) at #7 Michigan (1-1, 4-1) Postgame
« Reply #95 on: October 11, 2017, 03:27:40 PM »
According to ESPN this game had the highest viewer rating in the country last week.It has turned into quite the annual scrum - good stuff
"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member" -  Groucho Marx

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.