Is it Saturday yet?

[stillsomeguy]

I'm not sure how much stock you can put in those lists. I mean, ND's looks like an All American team waiting to happen, and we all know that's over-inflated expectations.

Or bad-coaching...

Looking at OSU's list, it appears things aren't going to get any better for UM fans come future Ohio State games. Heh...

With the lists, the point is, it’s like that every year between UM and MSU.
Given such a talent gap, UM should own MSU in football.

Now, be like a Walmart Wolvie and thump your chest about how UM came from behind in the fourth quarter to beat a bunch of two- and three-stars. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Oh, and one more favor…go back to UM’s page and count all the four/five star high school athletes from the states of Michigan and Ohio. Then, go to the OSU, Penn State and UND pages and do the same thing.

It’s like that every year, too.

But you stick to your claim that MSU should be able to get some top-quality athletes from the two states to come to E.L. every year.

[Rightwinger]

I'm not sure how much stock you can put in those lists. I mean, ND's looks like an All American team waiting to happen, and we all know that's over-inflated expectations.

Tee-hee....look at Appalachian State. Good thing they've been broomed off the schedule, for good!

I looked at ND too. Take a look at their class a few years ago and you'll see a bit different picture.

[octopus]

I'm not sure how much stock you can put in those lists. I mean, ND's looks like an All American team waiting to happen, and we all know that's over-inflated expectations.

Or bad-coaching...

Looking at OSU's list, it appears things aren't going to get any better for UM fans come future Ohio State games. Heh...

With the lists, the point is, it’s like that every year between UM and MSU.
Given such a talent gap, UM should own MSU in football.

Now, be like a Walmart Wolvie and thump your chest about how UM came from behind in the fourth quarter to beat a bunch of two- and three-stars. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Oh, and one more favor…go back to UM’s page and count all the four/five star high school athletes from the states of Michigan and Ohio. Then, go to the OSU, Penn State and UND pages and do the same thing.

It’s like that every year, too.

But you stick to your claim that MSU should be able to get some top-quality athletes from the two states to come to E.L. every year.

I will stick to that claim, because there is still no reason to refute it. Other schools that live in the shadows of more famous, more successful programs do it all the time. It doesn't usually happen overnight, but it's amazing what a charismatic coach and a couple of decent seasons in a row can do for a football program.

OSU is a huge school, and it's not hard to get into. They should get their pick of a lot of big dumb athletes every year, and they do. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's easier to get into MSU, than it is OSU. There was a time when MSU dominated UM in football. Why do you think it's impossible, to do so now?

For what it's worth:
-----------------------------------------------------
2006 Rankings - "Prestige" (US News & World Report):
Acceptance difficulty (from hardest to easiest) is about the same.

1. Northwestern
2. Michigan
3. Wisconsin
4. Illinois
5. Penn St.
6. Ohio St.
7. Purdue
8. Iowa
9. Michigan St.
10. Minnesota

[jaster]

Using the number of little stars on a website as an excuse for losing to another team is rather pathetic. Yes, rivals and scout are good resources, but they are mostly a crapshoot when it comes down to individual players. 4-star recruits often end up being better than 5-star guys and 3-star guys are often better than 4-star guys. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to look at the whole picture much more in-depth to get an idea. Michigan typically doesn't get 5-star guys, but they get a whole heckuva lot of 4-star guys. Meanwhile, many schools try their hardest to get those two or three 5-star guys, but then end up with a bunch of 3-star guys. It's quality across the board that matters, not just, 'hey, our top two recruits are better than your top two recruits!" And I'm mostly referring to the UM-OSU comparison here because they are in the same recruiting league (MSU, on the other hand, is clearly in another league). There are a couple significant reasons UM has lost to OSU five of the last six seasons, but having less talent is not one of them.

[stillsomeguy]

There was a time when MSU dominated UM in football. Why do you think it's impossible, to do so now?

Asked and answered, counselor...in the thread from a week or so ago.

The culture of losing has gone on for too long. Other than the occasional blue-chipper who may have something like a father or uncle or brother that once played for MSU, most of the top high school talent in the Midwest don't even have MSU on their wish lists--not when recruiters for the likes of UM, OSU, PSU and UND are knocking on their doors.

If the Big Ten schools were located in a warmer climate, such as the SEC and PAC-10 schools, I might agree with you.

For MSU to compete against the traditional giants in the Midwest, they'd have to go outside the Midwest--down to Florida, Texas, California, etc. -- for top recruits and that isn't going to happen. What potential recruits are going to want to come to a cold climate to help MSU turn their program around when they go with a one-off program closer to home for the same reason?

[stillsomeguy]

Using the number of little stars on a website as an excuse for losing to another team is rather pathetic. Yes, rivals and scout are good resources, but they are mostly a crapshoot when it comes down to individual players. 4-star recruits often end up being better than 5-star guys and 3-star guys are often better than 4-star guys. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to look at the whole picture much more in-depth to get an idea. Michigan typically doesn't get 5-star guys, but they get a whole heckuva lot of 4-star guys. Meanwhile, many schools try their hardest to get those two or three 5-star guys, but then end up with a bunch of 3-star guys. It's quality across the board that matters, not just, 'hey, our top two recruits are better than your top two recruits!" And I'm mostly referring to the UM-OSU comparison here because they are in the same recruiting league (MSU, on the other hand, is clearly in another league). There are a couple significant reasons UM has lost to OSU five of the last six seasons, but having less talent is not one of them.

Stars in the skill positions mean more than, say, OL or DL. Yes, not all of them pan out, but those ranking services have been correct more often than not. They do seem to have a better track record in projecting basketball, though.

[stillsomeguy]

I've been ready for Carr to retire for about 4 years now. When it happens I'll be happy. Until then, I'm not going to get excited about some rumors on a message board.

Par-tay time for you:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar ... /711180359

Bub-bye, Hound Dog...

[jaster]

I'm getting wasted tonight