U of M thread (in the Lions Forum) :)

[Jamie H]

WTF are you talking about?

Here is what SLF said:

At least Clemson is ranked. Can't say the same for the Irish.

What in the fuck does that have to do with what the hell you are talking about?

Mass Spartan is crowing that MSU had less Big Ten losses than Michigan. As if going 9-2 while losing to Notre Dame is better than going 9-2 while losing to two Big Ten teams. It's an idiotic argument. Both teams were 9-2 against a similar schedule.

[Masspartan]

see above. precedent.

come on ... just come out and say you are a typical arrogant ass U-M fan and that there is NO WAY Sparty has passed you by no matter what the facts show.

[SeattleLionsFan]

WTF are you talking about?

Here is what SLF said:

At least Clemson is ranked. Can't say the same for the Irish.

What in the fuck does that have to do with what the hell you are talking about?

You claimed VT should be nowhere near a BCS game because they lost to Clemson. I simply pointed out that Clemson was ranked. Unlike the team that beat State.

[froot loops]

Mass Spartan is crowing that MSU had less Big Ten losses than Michigan. As if going 9-2 while losing to Notre Dame is better than going 9-2 while losing to two Big Ten teams. It's an idiotic argument. Both teams were 9-2 against a similar schedule.

But I'm not Masspartan and neither played Clemson. So the question remains WTF are you about?

[Jamie H]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd argue it's establishing precedent.

State beat the team you lost to ... at their place.
U-M beat the the teams we lost to ... at home.
State beat U-M in their head to head meeting.
State finished 7-1 in the Big 10 with a tougher schedule
U-M finished 6-2 in the Big 10 with a softer schedule

please help me find any LOGIC that would dictate U-M > State in 2011.

Sagarin has MSU's schedule ranked #41 in the country.
Michigan's schedule is ranked #42.

And that INCLUDES your 2nd game against Wisconsin.
So that pretty much does in your tougher schedule argument.

Look, you got blown out by Notre Dame. You got blown out by Nebraska. If you were somehow a significantly better taam than Michigan, that wouldn't have happened.

Do you really think MSU would be heavily favored over Michigan on a netrual field? Really? I can't believe the line would be more than about a point either way.

[Masspartan]

Mass Spartan is crowing that MSU had less Big Ten losses than Michigan. As if going 9-2 while losing to Notre Dame is better than going 9-2 while losing to two Big Ten teams. It's an idiotic argument. Both teams were 9-2 against a similar schedule.

crowing? nope. Just stating the facts.

Still waiting for someone to say U-M > State and put any sensible argument behind it.

[Jamie H]

But I'm not Masspartan and neither played Clemson. So the question remains WTF are you about?

I've explained it clearly twice now. I'm not going to waste my time because you clearly have no interest in trying to understand.

[Jamie H]

crowing? nope. Just stating the facts.

Still waiting for someone to say U-M > State and put any sensible argument behind it.

I'm still waiting for someone to say UM > State. I said the teams were pretty much equivalent this season. They were both 9-2, they both were unbeatable at home but weak away from home, and they both beat up on teams the other team lost to.

Of course 6 of the 7 BCS computer polls say Michigan is better, with Sagarin pegging Michigan as a 1.5 point favorite on a neutral field, but I'm sure you'll just tell me the computers are all biased against MSU.

[Masspartan]

by the way ... I don't think I've claimed MSU should be in a BCS bowl game ... just that they deserve (based on accomplishments) to be in one more than U-M.

As for the schedule ... U-M had two tough road games (and lost them both). State had 4 tough road games (and went 2-2 included a beat down of Iowa)

[froot loops]

You claimed VT should be nowhere near a BCS game because they lost to Clemson. I simply pointed out that Clemson was ranked. Unlike the team that beat State.

VT doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the Sugar Bowl. And neither does State, but you guys don't effing read. There are 4 teams in the BCS top 10 that deserve to be at the Sugar Bowl before either Michigan or Virginia Tech. Boise, TCU, Arkansas and Kansas State are all ranked ahead of them.

They lost twice to Clemson badly and didn't beat a ranked opponent.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Of course even dumbtonio has Michigan only one spot behind State.

[Masspartan]

U-M had a nice season ... State had a nice season ... a case can be made that State > U-M ... you can't make a logical case the other way.

Otherwise you would have.

[froot loops]

I've explained it clearly twice now. I'm not going to waste my time because you clearly have no interest in trying to understand.

You didn't explain what Clemson had to with it.

[Jamie H]

see above. precedent.

come on ... just come out and say you are a typical arrogant ass U-M fan and that there is NO WAY Sparty has passed you by no matter what the facts show.

Yes, I forgot about all the 1 co-Big Ten title and 4 bowl losses MSU amassed over the past 4 years. I wonder how Michigan will ever catch up to that kind of dominance?

I hope you enjoyed the years of Rodriguez, because playtime is over. You were at home this year with a senior QB. Next year things aren't quite so favorable.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I explained what Clemson had to do with it.