For Argument's Sake: Could Michigan State supplant Michigan as the state's dominant program?
For each Big Ten preview, Michigan writers Dave Birkett and Michael Rothstein will jaw back-and-forth with words, parting shots and general opinions about why we selected each team to finish where we did.
Sometimes we'll agree. Other times, we won't.
Dave Birkett: It caught me a little off-guard last week when Michigan State was picked to finish third in the Big Ten. Not that the Spartans aren't as worthy as any of the other mediocre middle-tier teams, it's just expectations and MSU don't usually go together. And when they do, bad things typically happen. The Spartans have some position battles to shake out in camp at quarterback and running back, but their defense looks pretty solid - especially in the back seven - and overall I like what Mark Dantonio's doing. Maybe this is a different Michigan State, but I'm not sure it's their time just yet.
Michael Rothstein: Wow. I think you're just stealing my thoughts in many ways. Not as sold on the back seven of the defense as you are - losing Otis Wiley is bigger than you think it'll be - but they have a ton of questions on the offensive side of the ball. Plus, does Michigan State really have a guy who can replace Javon Ringer's production? Doubt it. Sure, Brian Hoyer was probably more of a placeholder at quarterback than anything else, but none of the Spartans' current options really make me excited. The one thing that makes me think Michigan State will have a good year is the coaching ability of Mark Dantonio, but Dantonio isn't on the field. Plus, Michigan State's offensive line wasn't terribly good last year. Will they be better this season? DB: They're going to miss Ringer a ton. The dude was a mule last year. But Edwin Baker and Ashton Leggett will make for a nice combo in the backfield. At quarterback, I think the Spartans have two pretty good options in Keith Nichol and Kirk Cousins. No idea who wins the job, but Nichol is the transfer from Oklahoma who didn't want to sit behind a Heisman Trophy winner, and Cousins is the late bloomer who's not afraid of competition. You hit on the biggest key to the season, the play up front (on both sides of the ball). If things solidify there, there's no reason the Spartans shouldn't be in a Jan. 1 bowl game again. Bigger picture though, do see Michigan State ever supplanting Michigan as the dominant program in the state?
MR: I think the record I drop on MSU will tell you my impression of how Michigan State will be this year. Hint: Don't really feel the Jan. 1 love. To the big picture question: I'm not sure. I was having a conversation today with somebody whom I respect about college basketball and he mentioned certain major programs and how he wasn't sure if they could ever win a national title because of the players they recruit. They fit a system well, but in the college hoops landscape, they can't pull it off. So you're thinking, what the heck does this have to do with football? Well, that's how I view Michigan State. Historically, a good program. Not great. The Spartans' last Rose Bowl: 1988. Current Michigan coach Rich Rodriguez was in his first year as a head coach, a 2-8 year at Salem. And don't you know, Salem doesn't even have football anymore. Anyway, the point is this: Until Michigan State gets to and maybe wins a Rose Bowl or two, they won't supplant Michigan unless the Wolverines continue to tank into irrelevance. That isn't something I see happening. You covered the Spartans for a bit, were around during the years of John L., what do you think?
DB: I say this cautiously because Dantonio's only in his third year, but as a program I think Michigan State is in about as good of shape as it's been since the 60s. High school coaches across Michigan and Ohio respect Dantonio a ton, so he's going to get his share of players. The problem is MSU is not a national program and won't be anytime soon. I think the Spartans can be the new Wisconsin, a team that's routinely in the top half of the Big Ten with a Rose Bowl spike every now and then, but just doesn't have the athletes to compete for national titles. Michigan, despite the recent trying times, has a long way to go before it tumbles down the Big Ten ladder. The Wolverines are the superior program - not team - for the foreseeable future. This year, MSU has the better team, though I don't think they win nine games again. I'm going 7-5 with room on the upside if they can upset Penn State at home.
MR: Better than under John L. or Bobby Williams, I'll believe that for sure. As I've stated earlier, I believe Dantonio is a good coach. Anyone who can turn things around at Cincinnati, which had one thing going for it for many years - it had an awesome stadium in Nippert Stadium - now has a good football team playing inside it. And I can't really disagree with anything else you've said there and despite my great, great doubt about Michigan State this year, I'm calling it at 8-4, with losses to Notre Dame, Penn State, Illinois and, in an upset, either Central or Western Michigan.
Dave Birkett and Michael Rothstein cover Michigan for annarbor.com. They can be reached at davidbirkett@annarbor.com or michaelrothstein@annarbor.com.
Comments
AANative
Mon, Aug 10, 2009 : 9:54 a.m.
I think tradition helps recruiting but the bottom line is that players want to be on the team that wins more games and is more likely to go to a bowl game. Right now MSU has a better chance to do that, so right now MSU is the best bet in the state of Michigan.
RudeJude
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 5:01 p.m.
Here is a sneak peek at next weeks For Argument's Sake: Will the sun ever burn out? Yes, Michael, "never" is a strong word. Of course it could happen and, said rhetorically, it WILL happen over an endless timeline. They also say that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter, over an endless length of time, will eventually produce a "Hamlet" or the like, too, but something tells me that won't happen anytime soon. I think you should have made the question "Could MSU supplant Michigan as the state's dominant team within the next five or 10 years?," or would that have made the question more laughable and less provactive? MSU becoming the state's dominant program is SLIGHTLY more likely than the monkey scenario, but I think it would be many seasons before the Spartans could claim that crown. Here is a question, if MSU DID become the state's dominate program, would it be because MSU becomes a national powerhouse or because Michigan faulters into consistent mediocrity? I believe it would have to be the latter because I cannot forsee MSU maintaining long-term success. Then again, I don't believe Michigan would stay mediocre for more than a handful of seasons. Michigan has that name-brand appeal when it comes to college football. If Coach Rodriguez fails over the next few seasons (he will succeed in my opinion), I believe that the Michigan name-brand would attract a great, nationally-recognized coach that would create excitement around, and interest in, the Michigan Program instantly. I think it's a longer climb to the top for MSU than it will ever be for Michigan.
81wolverine
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 3:53 p.m.
The book is still out on Dantonio, but he seems to be making progress whereas his two predecessors set them back. He seems to be taking advantage of Michigan's short-term dip by doing well with recruiting, in-state especially. But, that's all it will be - a temporary turn-around. By next year, Michigan will be back to winning at least two out of every 3 MSU-Mich. games.
1201SouthMain
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 12:32 p.m.
MSU will not become the dominant program until they can recruit Nationally on the level with UM. That requires tradition and history. Not something MSU can achieve with a good season or two. It's possible but I feel it would take a good decade before that would happen.
Michael Rothstein
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 11:53 a.m.
Blue, Here's the thing. It's not necessarily a stupid question and here's why. In the northeast, for example, Syracuse and Boston College were THE dominant programs (not counting Penn State, I'm talking more of the NY, NJ, Philly, Delaware, Boston, Connecticut corridor) as late as 10 years ago. Now, Syracuse is a joke and BC is less of a factor being in ACC. And Rutgers, the doormat of the Big East for years, is now the most stable program in that area. Am I saying it'll ever happen in Michigan? Unlikely at best. But don't say never, because never's a really, really long time.
SalineDad
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 9:49 a.m.
Thanks for clarifying the standard for a good program in the Big Ten, the Rose Bowl. Bo was 2 for 10, Gary was 1 for 2, and Lloyd was 1 for 3. At least since the dominance of Duffy, the Sparty's are 1 for 1. According to MR, 1 more appearance and the Little Brothers are right there...
blue
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 9:34 a.m.
"Could Michigan State supplant Michigan as the state's dominant program?" No. It's a stupid question and you know it. Commentary "for argument's sake" seems pretty lazy.
Kubrick66
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 3:55 a.m.
"Could Michigan State supplant Michigan as the state's dominant program?" "For arguments sake" I'll play along... In Michigan's worst season ever it took MSU all of four quarters to beat them. One losing season in 41 years... And suddenly this is considered a legitimate question? Worst case scenario how bad could the Michigan program possible become? And what would it take for MSU to become the States dominate program? In 112 years of football MSU has exactly two 10 win seasons. Two. Suddenly they're going to start winning games at a rate higher than any other period in school history? And the great recruiting classes Michigan continues to bring in are going to fall flat on their face year after year? This story is silly filler. As long as Michigan continues to field a team MSU will never become the states dominate football program... Scattered years here and there they'll get their licks in... but overall... Never.
Kubrick66
Fri, Aug 7, 2009 : 3:52 a.m.
"Could Michigan State supplant Michigan as the state's dominant program?" "For arguments sake" I'll play along... In Michigan's worst season ever it took MSU all of four quarters to beat them. One losing season in 41 years... And suddenly this is considered a legitimate question? Worst case scenario how bad could the Michigan program possible become? And what would it take for MSU to become the States dominate program? In 112 years of football MSU has exactly two 10 win seasons. Two. Suddenly they're going to start winning games at a rate higher than any other period in school history? And the great recruiting classes Michigan continues to bring in are going to fall flat on their face year after year? This story is silly filler. As long as Michigan continues to field a team MSU will never become the states dominate football program... Scattered years here and there they'll get their licks in... but overall... Never.
azwolverine
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 10:50 p.m.
Michigan may have QB questions, but their potential answers at those positions have WAY more upside than MSU's QB's. Give it another year, if not this year, and all talk of Michigan's possible demise and falling behind MSU will be over.
NoBowl4Blue
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 8:45 p.m.
MSU beats Mich as does OSU,ND, PSU and Ill. MSU and Mich both have QB questions whereas ND, OSU, PSU and Ill do not.
maizenbluenc
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 7:02 p.m.
MSU will beat ND. But they won't supplant Michigan. My view, Michigan State and ND are each one of the two "rivalry" games that Rich can circle and can say "we can win this one, so lets focus on doing it!" Penn State and OSU... we'll have to rely on our guys playing near perfectly, and thier guys messing up.
tater
Thu, Aug 6, 2009 : 6:15 p.m.
Until MSU improves on their 28-67 record against UM, I'll have to file this story on my fiction shelf.