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

[SeattleLionsFan]

Overall I absolutely do. You played Wiscy at home but we had to play the mighty Spartans on the road. Yowza!

[SeattleLionsFan]

And played three games clearly easier than playing eastern. So what?

[Jamie H]

MSU folks seem to want to ignore the effect that playing teams like 1-11 Florida Atlantic and 3-9 Central Michigan have on over schedule strength calculations.

As SLF said, Michigan played 10 bowl teams out of 12 opponents. That is pretty damn good.

[nhwbrooklyn]

No I refuse to believe you believe that SLF.

Wisky@home
Wisky@neutral
@Iowa
@OSU
@Nebraska
UofM@home
@ND

UofM's record with that schedule (swap MSU to a home game) would be 4-5 losses.

@ND, @Nebraska, Both Wisky games, and maybe even @OSU were harder games than a visiting UofM squad.

MSU was UofM's most difficult game and it isn't close.

Does this finish it?

And really it's not a big deal. MSU clearly had a bit better of a season from a single season standpoint (growth wise UofM should be thrilled).

[nhwbrooklyn]

MSU folks seem to want to ignore the effect that playing teams like 1-11 Florida Atlantic and 3-9 Central Michigan have on over schedule strength calculations.

As SLF said, Michigan played 10 bowl teams out of 12 opponents. That is pretty damn good.

Those calculations are real and why the computers differ from the voting and obvious truth.

Michigan beat one top 25 team. One. Michigan also lost to a scrub team in Iowa.

[Jamie H]

Nobody can say MSU didn't have a harder schedule with a straight face (perhaps it's easier to type it on a forum).

Nobody except for every objective way to measure schedule strength, which all say Michigan's schedule was tougher as equivalent to MSU's schedule strength. But those schedule strength equations aren't MSU fans, so their opinion must be wrong.

[SeattleLionsFan]

And downplay how great their team was. No game on anyone's schedule was harder than playing state at state.

[Jamie H]

Those calculations are real and why the computers differ from the voting and obvious truth.

Michigan beat one top 25 team. One. Michigan also lost to a scrub team in Iowa.

Right. The same top 25 team that flattened Michigan State like a road grader.

[nhwbrooklyn]

And played three games clearly easier than playing eastern. So what?

@Nebraska
@Wisky
Wisky@Neutral

Were all significantly tougher games than playing UofM@home. Not even close really.

UofMs toughest game of the season was MSU... the more you try to suggest MSU didn't have as tough a schedule and season the more you knock your toughest game of the season.

[nhwbrooklyn]

Right. The same top 25 team that flattened Michigan State like a road grader.

But we beat Iowa on the road. So what?

How can this failed argument still be going?

[Masspartan]

You're telling me that my argument, that a team that utterly DEMOLISHED you on the field is better than you, is weak while you have put forward the following doozies:

Nebraska isn't better than MSU because they don't currently have a long winning streak against MSU.

Nebraska isn't better than MSU because MSU was ranked higher when they played so therefore it was just a freak upset.

In all seriousness, how do you write this stuff with a straight face?

The cognative dissonance required for you to claim MSU is clearly better than Michgain yet Nebraska is NOT better than MSU is staggering. Nebraska kicked your ass. Even the 21 point differential was closer than the game really was. You managed to score 3 freakin' points.

If you are going to claim that MSU is clearly better than Michigan because they won a game over Michigan at home, it is only logical that Nebraska is clearly better than MSU because they won a game over MSU at home and did it much more dominating fashion. But logic and you don't seem to co-exist very well.

Or, you could take a realistic view of the situation and realize that all 3 teams are pretty much equal with the home team getting the edge in all 3 games between them. But you are SO DESPERATE to hang onto your MSU IS SUPERIOR TO MICHIGAN!!!! mantra that you just keep making up ridiculous arguments that I don't think most people could make with a straight face.

In the end, your silly view on the matter is irrelevant. If Michigan wins in the Sugar Bowl, they will end up a better record and ranking than MSU and in the top 10. Feel free to hang your hat on one game. All anyone else will remember is that Michigan was 11-2 and a top 10 team who won a BcS bowl.

I'm trying to figure it out .... you either aren't very bright or your 12.

Again. ONE GAME doesn't mean jack shit. Upsets happen.

Since you couldn't answer it earlier I will. Appalachian State was NOT a better team than Michigan. If they were then, by default, they would have to be better than Florida as well since U-M beat Florida, and I don't believe that to be the case. Get it? U-M WAS better than App State, yet on that day they (App State) played better and U-m was UPSET. Doyou understand that the better team doesn't always win?

So let's discuss Nebraska. Who is the better team? Well NU was the day they played. Michigan State was the rest of the year. Michigan State buried Northwestern on the road, yet Nebraska got beat by Northwestern at home. Doesnt' that imply that State > Nebraska? We can play this stupid game all day. State got upset by Nebraska in Lincoln. It doesn't mean they are the better team. I said that I didn't know which it was NU > State or State > NU because it was just 1 fucking game. I do know that State had the better overall season which is why they played in the Championship game. Doesnt' that ALSO indicate or hint at the fact that MSU was the better team, but laid an egg in Lincoln?

Finally ... let's discuss State and U-M. Who is better? State beat U-M straight up. There's one indicator that State may be better than U-M. State also beat U-M four straight years. That would dispel the "maybe it was an upset" theorem since four consecutive years would indicate a pattern. State played the B10 championship game and finished ahead of U-M in the standing ... another indicator that State is better. There is quite a bit of evidence indicating State > U-M ... and very little (or none) that would suggest otherwise.

Did anybody say vastly or far superior? NO.

4 in a row would indicate some level of dominance however.

Got it?

You can put your stupid Nebraska argument to bed. It's weak and played and as I discussed above ... irrelevant due to a lack of history.

[nhwbrooklyn]

Nobody except for every objective way to measure schedule strength, which all say Michigan's schedule was tougher as equivalent to MSU's schedule strength. But those schedule strength equations aren't MSU fans, so their opinion must be wrong.

Your hardest game of the season was @MSU. And you got manhandled quite literally. MSU played 3 games clearly more difficult than anything you guys did.

Your next hardest game standings and home/away wise? Nebraska maybe?

MSU had about 5 games more difficult from a standings and home/away standpoint.

[SeattleLionsFan]

So the 2008 loss means state is better this year? What does the six straight wins before this four year streak mean about this years team?

[nhwbrooklyn]

And downplay how great their team was. No game on anyone's schedule was harder than playing state at state.

Doesn't that tell you something?

[SeattleLionsFan]

It really doesn't matter how many times you post your opinion preceeded by "clearly" or "obviously" it doesn't make it true. Nor does outrage serve as proof.

But apparently the experts seem to agree UM is better than State. So....clearly they are better.