Because football is cyclical. MSU is 10-6 against michiagn going back 15 years and 6-5 against PSU. There is no reason those games are auto losses as people are stating. Sparty has the 12th highest AD revenue in the country and is also top 15 in ratings with all the infrastructure and funding you can dream of. If the right coach gets in you can compete. You won’t be a regular power like OSU but you can compete in the big10 even with the new additions if you get the right staff.
Michigan State Coaching Search
- Thread starter crooksie_26
- Start date
The last two years have been pretty brutal for MSU standards. Yes, they could turn the program around, but it won't be an overnight fix. But MSU's schedule will also get more difficult, which means 9+ win seasons will be far less attainable. The flip side is the difficult schedule leads to more opportunities for big, quality wins
Exactly. Sure, at MSU Klieman or someone from the Big 12 could double their salary...but for 2-3 years and you're fired? In the Big 12 coaches can still be paid $3M to $6M a year and have better access to the playoffs while not trying to get past Ohio St, Michigan, PSU, Oregon, USC and UCLA...the Big 12 is a great gig.
MSU doesn’t really have a track record for firing. Dantonio left on his own even with some really bad seasons, Tucker was obv fired for cause but if not he would have been there for years if only due to the contract. It’s not Michigan or OSU that demand and expect excellence.
I 100% agree with this from the playoff aspect though. When you look at the new Big12 there isn’t a single team that anyone would just pencil in as a loss like you would with some big ten teams. The league might not have any top teams but it is incredibly balanced. When teams have things come together and everything clicks it will end up in a playoff birth for the Big12.
I understand. Again, just repeating word for word the phrase Miller used. My guess is that "long haul" might mean - "I'm not planning to coach as long as a Ferentz or Saban, etc."
But big 10 teams likely will have a better chance at an at-large bid in the expanded playoffs due to the more difficult schedule. Really two ways to look at it: Easier schedule means easier to attain higher win count, but a two loss team likely will not make the playoffs. A more difficult schedule will attain to a lower win count, but a two loss team has a good chance at making the playoffs
As much as I have ripped Iowa for their soft schedule, winning is more fun than losing. I'd rather have option A
Don’t disagree, big ten will most years have 3/4 teams getting in so if you have a hot year or a bunch of returning talent you’re in, but in the Big12 every single team should feel like they could compete every single year. Unless utah comes in and just dominates which I kinda doubt.
I'm guessing the expanded playoff selection process will be worse than the existing one in terms of selecting teams that have the most TV potential versus ones that deserve it.
The good years will be really good, because you'll have some major quality wins. But the rough years will be especially rough because there could be 5 "auto-losses" based on the schedule. It would probably be pretty extreme swings. Esp if you schedule anyone good in non-con.
That said, even those programs you assume will always be elite (UO, UW, USC, OSU, UM, PSU) can hire the wrong guy and have bad years too. So it won't always be a murderer's row. Heck, one time even mighty Alabama needed a missed FG to beat ISU in a bowl game!
Can't wait to hear the mental gymnastics in discussions about how an 8-4 Notre Dame deserves the 12 seed.....