(09-10-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:04 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Michigan will always be a blue blood. They are the Big 10. Their biggest rival is Notre dame. Ohio State and Michigan State have a greater view of their "rivalry" with Michigan than the other way around. Michigan is becoming a harder job because of demographics. Detroit is getting smaller, Michigan State is competitive, it's hard to get kids out of Ohio who have strong loyalties to the Buckeyes, it's hard to get Florida kids to play in the cold. Adding Texas to the Big 10 would help revive programs like Michigan and Nebraska.

This thread is the lowest-IQ thread I've ever seen around here.

It's like asking, for basketball, "how long will North Carolina be a blue blood"?

The answer is: "As long as there is such a thing as college basketball". And ditto for Michigan in football.

And wins/losses on the field have zero to do with it.

Well Michigan IS #1 in wins all time in FBS-by a good margin.

(09-10-2018 08:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:21 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2018 08:04 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  Michigan will always be a blue blood. They are the Big 10. Their biggest rival is Notre dame. Ohio State and Michigan State have a greater view of their "rivalry" with Michigan than the other way around. Michigan is becoming a harder job because of demographics. Detroit is getting smaller, Michigan State is competitive, it's hard to get kids out of Ohio who have strong loyalties to the Buckeyes, it's hard to get Florida kids to play in the cold. Adding Texas to the Big 10 would help revive programs like Michigan and Nebraska.

This thread is the lowest-IQ thread I've ever seen around here.

It's like asking, for basketball, "how long will North Carolina be a blue blood"?

The answer is: "As long as there is such a thing as college basketball". And ditto for Michigan in football.

And wins/losses on the field have zero to do with it.

Exactly. People kept asking me all weekend if Harbaugh would get fired and I said "heck no". Who are you going to replace him with? Harbaugh is building the program, as soon as Urban burns out again(IMO in the next 2 years) Michigan will be back.

Maybe, maybe not.

tOSU will always be tOSU. Might not be a top 3 program, but will still be a top 10. Penn State isn't going anywhere and neither is MSU. The road to the top might be a bit longer and more treacherous than Michigan might want to admit.

As for Khaki pants, this is year 4. If he doesn't have the program back to competing for the title by the end of this year, I think it's fair to start questioning. The string isn't nearly as long as it used it used to be for most major programs. If he hasn't returned the program to the promised land by the end of year 5, he'll be on the hot seat.

Ohio St. had a slightly down period in the 80s-early 90s. They had a 10 year streak with only one Big 10 title. Iowa-Michigan was the game that decided the Big 10, not Ohio ST.-Michigan.

Michigan's problem with Harbaugh is that they've 'castrated' him, tamed him to fit the mold. You look at him now and he's all buttoned-up in that Michigan jacket and cap, and wearing those glasses.

He looks like a Michigan coach from central casting. He's clearly been told by the Michigan big-wigs that he is expected to conduct himself with a decorum fitting of a Michigan coach.

Problem is, Jim Harbaugh is not his brother. He's a hot-head, and if you quell that heat within him, you also kill what made him a great coach for the 49ers.

For Harbaugh to be a big winner, he has to be free to unleash that beast within him, express that intensity. But Michigan won't let him be himself, so they are getting this mediocre team.

And I love it.

Yes, that’s it! You’ve unlocked the secret to Harbaugh’s 9-9 stretch. It’s all his generic demeanor at the root of underachievement - not running into better teams or coaches.

(09-10-2018 09:43 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Yes, that’s it! You’ve unlocked the secret to Harbaugh’s 9-9 stretch. It’s all his generic demeanor at the root of underachievement - not running into better teams or coaches.

It's because we know JH is an outstanding coach - that 49ers team he put together 6-7 years ago was deadly, probably should have won 2 super bowls.

So if you can do that in the NFL, you can win at a place like Michigan.

Michigan will always be a Blue Blood. They are in the B-10 and play other Blue Bloods like Ohio State annually, Notre Dame routinely, and other major B-12, SEC, PAC-12, and ACC Blue Bloods in major bowls.

(09-10-2018 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Michigan's problem with Harbaugh is that they've 'castrated' him, tamed him to fit the mold. You look at him now and he's all buttoned-up in that Michigan jacket and cap, and wearing those glasses.

He looks like a Michigan coach from central casting. He's clearly been told by the Michigan big-wigs that he is expected to conduct himself with a decorum fitting of a Michigan coach.

Problem is, Jim Harbaugh is not his brother. He's a hot-head, and if you quell that heat within him, you also kill what made him a great coach for the 49ers.

For Harbaugh to be a big winner, he has to be free to unleash that beast within him, express that intensity. But Michigan won't let him be himself, so they are getting this mediocre team.

And I love it.

I don't know the reasons for Harbaugh's struggles with the Skunkbears (just loving it like crazy), but compare Brady Hoke and Jim Jacka$$ after 40 games:


Total record:

Hoke----27-13

Harbaugh---28-12


Conference record:

Hoke---15-9

Goofy--18-8


vs. ranked opponents:


Hoke--3-7

Khaki--5-8

vs. "rivals"

Hoke--4-5

Jim---1-6

Road record:

Hoke--6-8

Joke--9-6

Salary:

Hoke--$3.25 million/yr.

Jimbo-$9 million/yr.

Harbaugh to date at Ann Arbor (is a Whore) is a very slight upgrade over Brady Hoke.

Those numbers are not what Michigan hired Harbaugh for, not the results they expected and not what they pay him $9 million a year to achieve.....

(09-10-2018 03:19 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Harbaugh to date at Ann Arbor (is a Whore) is a very slight upgrade over Brady Hoke.

Those numbers are not what Michigan hired Harbaugh for, not the results they expected and not what they pay him $9 million a year to achieve.....

Yep, he's been a massive disappointment so far.

Why do we play the game? To win.

Michigan remains the WINNINGEST program in the history of college football.

No other program has won more games than Michigan.

That makes the Wolverines a Blue Blood in my book.

And the 100,000+ fans every week, the winged helmets, the fight song and national success across most decades? Icing on the cake.

You mean how many years straight does Ohio State have to spank that Big Blue ass before it's irrelevant? Depends how long ESPN and the rest of media wants to keep pumping up their over-rated coach in an over-rated conference... (What no team in college football play-offs...lol)

CJ

I am not one to worship at the alter of recruiting rankings. A portion of a recruiting star ranking is based off of who offers them a scholarship so it not a coincidence that big brands have higher star players when a player is given a higher star ranking based on being offered by a big brand. That being said, what isn’t debatable is the stark difference in talent between states and the fact that the majority of recruits stay somewhat local. If you look at the blue bloods who have struggled lately it’s the ones without a large local talent pool. Michigan, Norte Dame and Nebraska all have to recruit outside their local area. Now that doesn’t necessary kill a blue blood at the top of the roster because elite players tend to be more mobile, but it does hurt a team’s depth at the bottom. And there is the difference between the elite teams and the next level. The ability to rotate in quality players not only keeps the elite players healthy all year but wears down other teams late in games and insulates against letdown games where the star players don’t show up.

I am not sure how these teams a work around this in the future in the current environment. I think in the past playing for one of these teams was the ultimate goal for high school athletes. Now the goal appears to be making the NFL as soon as possible so a lot of athletes don’t really care where they play if they can get playing time early. That definitely has hurt programs that use to hoard talent and given rise to a lot of other programs like MSU, Wisconsin and OKlohama State taking away local depth that use to automatically go to Nebraska, Notre Dame and Michigan.

(09-13-2018 07:44 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I am not one to worship at the alter of recruiting rankings. A portion of a recruiting star ranking is based off of who offers them a scholarship so it not a coincidence that big brands have higher star players when a player is given a higher star ranking based on being offered by a big brand. That being said, what isn’t debatable is the stark difference in talent between states and the fact that the majority of recruits stay somewhat local. If you look at the blue bloods who have struggled lately it’s the ones without a large local talent pool. Michigan, Norte Dame and Nebraska all have to recruit outside their local area. Now that doesn’t necessary kill a blue blood at the top of the roster because elite players tend to be more mobile, but it does hurt a team’s depth at the bottom. And there is the difference between the elite teams and the next level. The ability to rotate in quality players not only keeps the elite players healthy all year but wears down other teams late in games and insulates against letdown games where the star players don’t show up.

I am not sure how these teams a work around this in the future in the current environment. I think in the past playing for one of these teams was the ultimate goal for high school athletes. Now the goal appears to be making the NFL as soon as possible so a lot of athletes don’t really care where they play if they can get playing time early. That definitely has hurt programs that use to hoard talent and given rise to a lot of other programs like MSU, Wisconsin and OKlohama State taking away local depth that use to automatically go to Nebraska, Notre Dame and Michigan.

Interesting theory but IMO your explanation founders, because I think that at least since the 1960s, when the NFL hit the real big time, the ultimate goal for any good football player has been to get to the NFL as soon as possible, and yet the three blue-chips you mention thrived for most of that time.

FWIW, here are the number of players on 2018 opening day 53-man NFL rosters:

Notre Dame .... 26
Michigan ......... 26

Penn State ...... 24

Wisconsin ....... 22

Nebraska ........ 19

Michigan State ..... 17
Oklahoma State ... 11

For blue-chip schools, the talent is there, coaching is what matters most. Penn State easily has the best coach of that group.

Heck, I'd say Notre Dame and Michigan have more talent on their current roster than do Penn State or Wisconsin, but the latter are likely to win more games because of coaching.

On that NFL list, Florida is #3 with 38 players on NFL rosters, but the Gators have been lousy all decade because of bad coaching. With Urban, they won national titles.

This CBS sports talent ranking has Notre Dame #9, Penn State is #15:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...s-in-2018/

(09-13-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 07:44 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I am not one to worship at the alter of recruiting rankings. A portion of a recruiting star ranking is based off of who offers them a scholarship so it not a coincidence that big brands have higher star players when a player is given a higher star ranking based on being offered by a big brand. That being said, what isn’t debatable is the stark difference in talent between states and the fact that the majority of recruits stay somewhat local. If you look at the blue bloods who have struggled lately it’s the ones without a large local talent pool. Michigan, Norte Dame and Nebraska all have to recruit outside their local area. Now that doesn’t necessary kill a blue blood at the top of the roster because elite players tend to be more mobile, but it does hurt a team’s depth at the bottom. And there is the difference between the elite teams and the next level. The ability to rotate in quality players not only keeps the elite players healthy all year but wears down other teams late in games and insulates against letdown games where the star players don’t show up.

I am not sure how these teams a work around this in the future in the current environment. I think in the past playing for one of these teams was the ultimate goal for high school athletes. Now the goal appears to be making the NFL as soon as possible so a lot of athletes don’t really care where they play if they can get playing time early. That definitely has hurt programs that use to hoard talent and given rise to a lot of other programs like MSU, Wisconsin and OKlohama State taking away local depth that use to automatically go to Nebraska, Notre Dame and Michigan.

Interesting theory but IMO your explanation founders, because I think that at least since the 1960s, when the NFL hit the real big time, the ultimate goal for any good football player has been to get to the NFL as soon as possible, and yet the three blue-chips you mention thrived for most of that time.

FWIW, here are the number of players on 2018 opening day 53-man NFL rosters:

Notre Dame .... 26
Michigan ......... 26

Penn State ...... 24

Wisconsin ....... 22

Nebraska ........ 19

Michigan State ..... 17
Oklahoma State ... 11

For blue-chip schools, the talent is there, coaching is what matters most. Penn State easily has the best coach of that group.

Heck, I'd say Notre Dame and Michigan have more talent on their current roster than do Penn State or Wisconsin, but the latter are likely to win more games because of coaching.

On that NFL list, Florida is #3 with 38 players on NFL rosters, but the Gators have been lousy all decade because of bad coaching. With Urban, they won national titles.

This CBS sports talent ranking has Notre Dame #9, Penn State is #15:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...s-in-2018/

I disagree that recruiting is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s as today. First and foremost the scholarship limit first in 1978 to 95 and then to 85 in 1994 changed everything. Look how many new programs that were traditional dumpster fires rose after 1994.

Then the internet changed everything. Now big time recruits are near national celebrities because of the internet compared to just local heroes. A lot of these guys think they are NFL ready in high school just from the recruiting fame alone.

Howver I completely agree with it is all about coaching in college football. I think that is the number one thing that has hurt Michigan and similarly Nebraska. These schools think or have thought they could just live off their prior names but really need to take a step back and rebuild from the ground up. Because without the best recruiting pools, they really need to become a developmental program like a better Wisconsin. Penn State had to do it because the scandal and seem to be headed in the right direction football wise.

(09-13-2018 11:02 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 10:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 07:44 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I am not one to worship at the alter of recruiting rankings. A portion of a recruiting star ranking is based off of who offers them a scholarship so it not a coincidence that big brands have higher star players when a player is given a higher star ranking based on being offered by a big brand. That being said, what isn’t debatable is the stark difference in talent between states and the fact that the majority of recruits stay somewhat local. If you look at the blue bloods who have struggled lately it’s the ones without a large local talent pool. Michigan, Norte Dame and Nebraska all have to recruit outside their local area. Now that doesn’t necessary kill a blue blood at the top of the roster because elite players tend to be more mobile, but it does hurt a team’s depth at the bottom. And there is the difference between the elite teams and the next level. The ability to rotate in quality players not only keeps the elite players healthy all year but wears down other teams late in games and insulates against letdown games where the star players don’t show up.

I am not sure how these teams a work around this in the future in the current environment. I think in the past playing for one of these teams was the ultimate goal for high school athletes. Now the goal appears to be making the NFL as soon as possible so a lot of athletes don’t really care where they play if they can get playing time early. That definitely has hurt programs that use to hoard talent and given rise to a lot of other programs like MSU, Wisconsin and OKlohama State taking away local depth that use to automatically go to Nebraska, Notre Dame and Michigan.

Interesting theory but IMO your explanation founders, because I think that at least since the 1960s, when the NFL hit the real big time, the ultimate goal for any good football player has been to get to the NFL as soon as possible, and yet the three blue-chips you mention thrived for most of that time.

FWIW, here are the number of players on 2018 opening day 53-man NFL rosters:

Notre Dame .... 26
Michigan ......... 26

Penn State ...... 24

Wisconsin ....... 22

Nebraska ........ 19

Michigan State ..... 17
Oklahoma State ... 11

For blue-chip schools, the talent is there, coaching is what matters most. Penn State easily has the best coach of that group.

Heck, I'd say Notre Dame and Michigan have more talent on their current roster than do Penn State or Wisconsin, but the latter are likely to win more games because of coaching.

On that NFL list, Florida is #3 with 38 players on NFL rosters, but the Gators have been lousy all decade because of bad coaching. With Urban, they won national titles.

This CBS sports talent ranking has Notre Dame #9, Penn State is #15:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...s-in-2018/

I disagree that recruiting is anywhere near what it was in the 1960s as today. First and foremost the scholarship limit first in 1978 to 95 and then to 85 in 1994 changed everything. Look how many new programs that were traditional dumpster fires rose after 1994.

Then the internet changed everything. Now big time recruits are near national celebrities because of the internet compared to just local heroes. A lot of these guys think they are NFL ready in high school just from the recruiting fame alone.

No question, unlike in the 1960s, programs like Alabama and USC can't stockpile 200 players on the sidelines like they used to. Scholarship limits have taken a bite.

But still ... look at the recruiting rankings. The blue-chip programs dominate, and while recruiting and winning isn't perfectly correlated, there is obviously a very high correlation. It's utterly unsurprising that schools like Alabama, Ohio State, and Clemson that are near the top of recruiting rankings are also habitually in the running for the national title.

As a school like Florida proves, top talent isn't a sufficient condition to have a top team. But, as Alabama and Ohio State prove, it is basically a necessary condition. Combine recruiting with good coaching and you get those results.

Michigan is a joke. I can say that because my joke of team leads them in head-to-head match-ups. Look it up, sweetheart!!

Okay, I've cleaned up 2 pages of posts that were off topic. Next time you want to have an anti Catholic / pro Catholic insult and defense match do it on the PM or take it to the Smack Board!

No warnings issued here buts here's the caution. Next time we get into a anti religious / pro religious spat on this forum the warning levels will start at 25% and go up.

And that goes for subsequent off topic discussion unrelated to the thread topic as well.

Thread Closed!