In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2489
Online now 2491 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Vegas has both MSU and UM ay 8.5 UM's juiced a little more to the Over, but it's basically the same.
I think that # is right on for MSU with the unknown at QB- if Maxwell plays well (Cousins 09, Hoyer 07) 9-3 or 10-2 sounds about right.. if Maxwell and offense struggles 8-4 or even 7-5 is possible
If I had to choose sides, I'd take Over on MSU and Under on UM- but probably just hedge one direction or the other on the UM/MSU game, as that might be the swing game for both schools
Considering Dantonio has the 2nd best winning % for MSU EVER.. then yes, think 2007 is a great place for MSU football to start
We have a winning record against both Alabama and Florida. AFAIK, we've never played LSU. We have a losing record against USC, but we've only played them in the Rose Bowl. Of course, considering their Rose Bowl record, we have plenty of company.
whatever you say
We are college football
Now this is a joke of a post. Michigan has a 3 year bad stretch and you claim this? Bama had a bad stretch before Saban got there. USC had a bad stretch before Carrol got there. Gators and LSU are new money to the powerhouses of college football. Gators are going through a pretty rough stretch right now.
And you've polled Texas fans to gain this knowledge
Now this is some funny stuff.
We've also beaten Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, Florida x2, and Vanderbilt since 1997. I don't think the SEC can talk down to us.
Ok, well you just said there is a chance that your new QB struggles and, if so, you end up at 7-5. I said I thought the cfn prediction was fair, +/- 1. Does that mean you are trolling the MSU fanbase, too?
The past is the past, no conference championships since 2004 for Michigan. Last two bowls against USC they got curb stomped, MSU got stomped by Alabama, Penn State got stomped in the Rosebowl, Wisconsin got beat last two Rosebowl games, Ohio State got whooped by the Gators and LSU...then you had USC whooping OSU at home and then going into the horse shoe and winning with a frosh qb.
I commend you guys for your past record, but midwest football as a whole is on the decline and as a whole the B10 is pretty damn soft.
Seems like a solid post to me...
National Titles since 1950:
Michigan will not be competing with those teams for titles anytime soon. B10 as a whole is soft.
Florida is considered new money when they won a NC the year before UM's 97 title
I don't know if I agree, but it would explain your success the past two seasons.
1950 blah blah blah.
B10 was respectable back then, probably the toughest I've seen the conference in my life. The conference is no where near where it used to be.
Just look at the bowl records and BCS championships. Look at the out of conference games lost by our blue chip programs. B10 has taken sharp decline since the glory days.
It's a sport dominated by the sunbelt.
Yes Florida is new money.
How about we go by total national titles and not pick a random date.
Why not just use NC's since 2011? Alabama has one and everyone else has zero. It's no less random and no less pointless than using 1950.
Little different from me taking stance on worse case scenario and you expecting 6-6 +/- 1 along with "You better beat your cupcakes or Sparty will be chillin'at home come bowl season."
Because no one thinks, outside UM fans of course, that UM's National Titles from the Great Depression or before are relevant in any way, shape or form
what's your definition of new $$
Except it proves I'm not trolling.
A. My prediction is in the range of reasonable outcomes you yourself put forth; and
B. If you lose your cupcake games you very likely will be sitting home during bowl season.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 21 months ago
1- I never said you were trolling
2- Never said 7-5 was a reasonable outcome- inferred 7-5 would be worst case scenario and typically worst case scenarios are not likely to happen
If I'm defining a reasonable outcome, I'd put it at 9-3 +/- 1
This post was edited by CaliSpartan0606 21 months ago
You put up the possibility of 7-5. Now you are saying it's not reasonable? So you have just been throwing out unreasonable crap whenever it suits your position? Talk about the definition of trolling.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports