GLENN SCHEMBECHLER HAD EASIER ROAD THAN MARK DANTONIO - PART 4

The fourth in a multi-part series by MSUSpartan76
detailing a variety facts about the illusion of Glenn Schembechler.

A few weeks ago on the UM page of MLive.com, a Skunkbear went on a diatribe about how great Bo Schembechler was and how Mark Dantonio could never be his equal. This poser asserted that Schemp was far superior because of 13 BT Championships in 21 years and Coach Dantonio was genuinely inferior because of only 2 titles in 8 seasons. He managed the simple arithmetic of 13-2 is 11 and 21-8 is 13 and used that to "prove" Coach Dantonio was vastly inferior to Schemp since Coach D. can't win 11 BT titles in 13 seasons.

While some facts were made, this is just another example of chUMp cherry picking and twisting reality to give utter disrespect.

Looking at the total record puts things in a different light.

In Part I the evolution of college football rules was presented, setting the context and relevant factors needed for a fair comparison. We saw the season is longer, there are more bowls and championship games, and teams play more games than they did nearly 50 years ago.
In Part II the overall records were examined. We noted that Shemp got over half his wins over teams with losing season records.
In Part III the bowl records were examined and we saw clearly that Shemp rarely was up to winning the big games.

Now, down to the nitty-gritty: 13-2 and 21-8. That those titles were earned in those long-ago years is factual, but are the titles Shemp received equivalent to the titles Coach Dantonio has and might receive?

To determine this, the conference record is examined. First, the facts:

Statistic	Bo Schembechler	Mark Dantonio	Notes
Conference Titles	5	1
Conference Co-Titles	8	1
Division Titles	0	2	[1]
Conference Record	142-24-3 0.8491	46-20-0 0.6970	[2]
Conference Games/year	8.00	8.25
Perfect BT Record	3	1	[3]

[1] BT CCG, division titles were started and co-championships were eliminated in 2011.
[2] The 1971 UM at MSU game was out-of-conference. The B1G Ten only scheduled 7 conference games that year.
[3] No losses and no ties. Schemp had 2 additional seasons where the conference record was blemished with a single tie.

Trivia questions:

1. What was Schemp's 21-year record versus MSU?
2. What is Coach Dantonio's record versus UM?
3. Who had the easier road?

Answers:

1. Schemp (21 seasons: 0.7955) was 17-4-0 (0.8095) versus MSU (21 seasons: 0.5192).
2. Coach Dantonio (8 seasons: 0.7075) is 6-2-0 (0.7500) versus UM (8 seasons: 0.5446).
3. Schemp

Schemp played fewer conference games per season. The 13 of 21 versus 2 of 8 hides that fact.

The question is: just how good were those conference opponents?

	Bo Schembechler			Mark Dantonio
BT Team	Overall Record	Bowl Eligible Bowl Record	UM versus	Overall Record	Bowl Eligible Bowl Record	MSU versus
All Teams	952-1110-47 0.4625	78 21-28-0	142-24-3 0.8491	737-589-0 0.5558	74 29-41-0	46-20-0 0.6970
Illinois	101-125-8 0.4487	8 1-4-0	19-1-1 0.9286	43-57-0 0.4300	4 2-2-0	3-0-0 1.0000
Indiana	88-142-3 0.3841	6 2-2-0	16-1-0 0.9412	33-64-0 0.3402	1 0-1-0	6-0-0 1.0000
Iowa	112-122-6 0.4792	9 4-4-0	13-3-1 0.7941	60-42-0 0.5882	7 3-3-0	3-4-0 0.4286
Maryland	n/a	n/a	n/a	45-56-0 0.4455	5 2-3-0	1-0-0 1.0000
Michigan	194-48-5 0.7955	21 5-12-0	n/a	55-46-0 0.5446	5 2-3-0	6-2-0 0.7500
Michigan St	118-109-7 0.5192	12 2-3-0	17-4-0 0.8095	75-31-0 0.7075	8 4-4-0	n/a
Minnesota	100-127-5 0.4418	9 1-2-0	19-2-0 0.9048	42-59-0 0.4158	5 0-5-0	4-1-0 0.8000
Nebraska	n/a	n/a	n/a	71-35-0 0.6698	7 3-4-0	2-2-0 0.5000
Northwestern	49-177-3 0.2205	2 0-0-0	14-0-0 1.0000	56-45-0 0.5545	6 1-4-0	5-2-0 0.7143
Ohio St.	181-56-5 0.7583	20 7-10-0	11-9-1 0.5476	88-18-0 0.8302	8 4-4-0	2-4-0 0.3333
Penn St.	n/a	n/a	n/a	69-33-0 0.6765	8 3-3-0	3-2-0 0.6000
Purdue	108-120-4 0.4741	6 3-1-0	16-3-0 0.8421	38-61-0 0.3838	3 2-1-0	6-0-0 1.0000
Rutgers	n/a	n/a	n/a	61-42-0 0.5922	7 5-2-0	1-0-0 1.0000
Wisconsin	95-132-6 0.4206	6 1-2-0	18-1-0 0.9474	76-31-0 0.7103	8 2-6-0	4-3-0 0.5714

Look at the data again. What jumps out?

• Schemp had a winning record against all 7 conference opponents.
• Only 2 of the 7 conference teams had a winning record during the Schemp era.
• Schemp had a perfect record versus 1 conference opponent, Northwestern. Northwestern had a 21 season record of 0.2205.
• Coach Dantonio has a winning record against 10 of 13 conferenct opponents and is 2-2-0 versus Nebraska.
• 9 of the 13 conference opponents have winning records over the past 8 seasons.
• Coach Dantonio has a prefect record versus 5 conference opponents.

The aggregate record of opposing B1G Ten teams during the Schemp era was 952-1110-47 (0.4625). Subtracting out the UM record versus the conference gives 928-967-44 (0.4899). So those 13 B1G Ten titles were "earned" versus conference opponents that, as a whole, gave nobody any real competition. The 21-28 (0.4286) bowl record by Schemp's BT opponents is a reflection of that.

During Schemp's 21 years, only 2 B1G Ten opponents achieved 0.5000 or better season records in 11 or more seasons (greater than half). Ohio State. Michigan State.

The aggregate record of B1G Ten teams during the Dantonio's tenure to date is 737-589-0 (0.5558). Subtracting out the MSU record versus the conference gives 717-543-0 (0.5690). The 2/3 B1G Ten titles were "earned" versus conference opponents that, as a whole, were much more competitive. Note: MSU's conference opponents had a 29-41 (0.4143) bowl record.

The conference opposition Coach Dantonio faced had only 3 teams that failed to achieve a 0.5000 record in 5 or more of the past 8 seasons.

Summarizing:

Schemp's 0.8500 conference record was versus an aggregate 0.4899 record while Dantonio's 0.6970 conference record was versus an aggregate 0.5690 record.

Schemp had more seasons, which were shorter, and his conference opponents were definitely weaker.

Coach Dantonio has adjusted to 2 conference expansions and 2 division realignments, neither of which Schemp had to deal with.

In 4 of his 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio could earn a conference championship only through the CCG. That is another challenge Schemp never faced.

Coach Dantonio's teams played longer seasons and stiffer competition. B1G Ten rule changes kept MSU out of 2 Rose Bowls and prevented Coach Dantonio from hanging a second BT banner. Those are relevant facts.

Schemp's conference opponents were much less successful than those Coach Dantonio has faced. While Schemp has the better overall record and more titles, Coach Dantonio faced much stiffer competition and longer seasons. Even with that schedule, Coach Dantonio bested Schemp's record more than once.

What about the out of conference opponents?

In those 21 seasons, Schemp's teams faced 34 different non-conference opponents racking up a 51-24-2 (0.6753). Those 34 teams over the 21 years had an aggregate record of 4430-3535-148 (0.5552). Subtracting out the UM games, the non-conference opponents record is 4406-3483-146 (0.5574).

In 8 seasons, Dantonio led teams faced 24 different non-conference opponents going 29-11-0 (0.7250). Dantonio's record includes 5 wins over 4 different FCS teams, one of which (2 wins) has recently moved into FBS. Taking the other 3 games out of the conversation, the FBS record is 0.7027. Those 25 teams in the past 8 years have an aggregate record of 1350-1056-0 (0.5611). Without the FCS teams, and subtracting out the MSU record, the non-conference opponents record is 1334-1027-0 (0.5650).

Yes, Schemp has more BT titles. But when one looks at the whole picture, the one thing that is perfectly clear...

Schemp had the easier road.

It isn't over. It will never be over here. It's just starting.

Part 1, The Evolution of College Football Rules.
Part 2, The Season Records.
Part 3, The Bowl Records.
Part 4, The In-conference Records.

Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****

GLENN SCHEMBECHLER HAD EASIER ROAD THAN MARK DANTONIO - PART 3

The third in a multi-part series by MSUSpartan76

detailing a variety facts about the illusion of Glenn Schembechler

A few weeks ago on the UM page of MLive.com, a Skunkbear went on a diatribe about how great Bo Schembechler was and how Mark Dantonio could never be his equal. This poser asserted that Schemp was far superior because of 13 BT Championships in 21 years and Coach Dantonio was genuinely inferior because of only 2 titles in 8 seasons. He managed the simple arithmetic of 13-2 is 11 and 21-8 is 13 and used that to "prove" Coach Dantonio was vastly inferior to Schemp since Coach D. can't win 11 BT title in 13 seasons.

While some facts were made, this is just another example of chUMp cherry picking and twisting reality to give utter disrespect.

Looking at the total record puts things in a different light.

In Part I the evolution of college football rules was presented, setting the context and relevant factors needed for a fair comparison. We saw the season is longer, there are more bowls and championship games, and teams play more games than they did nearly 50 years ago.

In Part II the overall records were examined. We noted that Shemp got over half his wins over teams with losing season records.

In this part, the bowl record is examined. First, the facts:

Statistic	Bo Schembechler	Mark Dantonio	Notes
NC Titles	0	0	[1]
versus NC opponents	0-5	0-1	[2]
Bowl Appearances	17 of 21 (80.9%)	8 of 8 (100%)	[3]
Bowl Record	5-12-0 0.2941	4-4-0 0.5000
Rose Bowl	2-8-0	1-0-0
"BCS" Bowls	3-10-0	2-0-0	[4]
Bowl Game Streak	15	8
Bowl Win Streak	2	4
Bowl Loss Streak	5	4

[1] Starting in 1998, the National Championship was awarded based on a designated game that also eliminated co-championships. In 2014, the NC title was won by winning 2 games in a 4 team playoff.

[2] The Spartans led by Coach Dantonio not only faced the National Championship Playoff winner but also the NCG runner-up both in the same season.

[3] Prior to 1975, the B1G Ten restricted post-season bowl appearances. Schemp's bowl streak started with the 1975 season. UM was bowl eligible in all 21 seasons Schemp was coach.

[4] The term "BCS" is used for comparative purposes and includes appearances in the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, or Sugar Bowls. The BCS was in existence from 1998 through 2013.

Why is this relevant?

Post season bowls give national exposure to football programs. Post season bowls extend the season for teams selected both by providing one more game but also for the extra practices the team is allocated. These factors give teams competitive advantages in recruiting, alumni donations, and development over teams that stay home.

The most significant factor is the number of teams playing in bowl games. In modern times, more teams benefit from the extra practice, the game itself, and the shorter time between the end of one season and the next, and this results in a higher overall level of competition in college football.

In context, prior to the division split in 1976, 250 or so teams vied for the 11/12 bowls or about 10% of all teams played in the post season. In present time, 128 teams vie for the 38 bowls; nearly 6 in 10.

Breaking it down:

	Bo Schembechler			Mark Dantonio
Category	Bowl Eligible (%)	Bowls Played (%)	Bowl Record	Bowl Eligible (%)	Bowls Played (%)	Bowl Record (WL%)	Notes
Team	21 (100%)	17 (81.0%)	5-12-0 0.2941	8 (100%)	8 (100%)	4-4-0 0.5000	[1]
B1G Opponents	78 (43.3%)	49 (25.9%)	21-28-0 0.4286	74 (71.2%)	69 (66.3%)	29-41-0 0.4143	[1]
OOC Opponents	429 (60.1%)	264 (37.0%)	138-118-8 0.5379	129 (67.2%)	101 (52.6%)	55-46-0 0.5446	[2]
All Opponents	507 (56.1%)	313 (34.7%)	159-146-8 0.5208	203 (68.8%)	170 (57.4%)	84-87-0 0.4912	[2]

[1] Prior to 1975, the B1G Ten restricted post-season bowl appearances.
[2] Includes bowl games played versus UM/MSU.

From 1969 through 1989 there were 303 post season bowl games or an average of 14.4 bowls per year.

• 1969 thru 1977: 11, 12 or 13 bowls
• 1978 thru 1983: 15 or 16 bowls
• 1984 thru 1989: 18 bowls

From 2007 to present there were 279 post season bowl games or an average of 34.9 bowls per year.

• 2007: 32 bowls
• 2008 thru 2009: 34 bowls
• 2010 thru 2013: 35 bowls
• 2014: 38 bowls plus the NC game

As an aside...

• Schemp played 8 of the 13 teams that won NC or co-NC titles during his 21 years (19 of 26 titles). Schemp went 0-5 versus the seasons' NC teams.
• Coach Dantonio played 2 of the 6 teams that won NC titles in the past 8 seasons (4 of 8 titles). Coach Dantonio went 0-1 versus the seasons' NC teams.

Now, for the rest of the story. The Schemp era bowl record was 5-12-0, 2-8-0 in the Rose Bowl, 3-10-0 in "BCS" bowls.

• 6 bowls versus teams with a better regular season record, 1-5 (0.1667)
• 2 bowls versus teams with an equal regular season record, 2-0 (1.0000)
• 9 bowls versus teams with a worse regular season record, 2-7 (0.2222)

Dantonio is currently 4-4-0 in bowl games, 1-0-0 in the Rose Bowl, 2-0-0 in BCS bowls.

• 4 bowls versus teams with a better regular season record, 2-2 (0.5000)
• 1 bowls versus teams with an equal regular season record, 1-0 (1.0000)
• 3 bowls versus teams with a worse regular season record, 1-2 (0.3333)

The take-aways?

• The percentage of B1G Ten teams that were bowl eligible during the past 8 seasons was much greater than during the Schemp era.
• A much greater percentage of Coach Dantonio's opponents benefitted from post-season bowl games than Schemp's opponents.
• Coach Dantonio is much more successful in post-season bowls, than Schemp ever was.
• Coach Dantonio faced superior opponents in half of his bowls and posted a 0.5000 record.
• Schemp faced superior opponents in only 1/3 of his bowls and posted a 0.1667 record.

Schemp was adept at trouncing weak opponents, but when it came right down to it, Schemp just could not win the big games, at least not on a regular basis, even though...

Schemp had the easier road.

We are heading towards the finish line - 13 versus 2 Big Ten Championships...

Part 1, The Evolution of College Football Rules.

Part 2, The Total Records.

Part 3, The Bowl Records.

Part 4, The In-conference Records. (coming soon)

Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****

GLENN SCHEMBECHLER HAD EASIER ROAD THAN MARK DANTONIO - PART 2

The second in a multi-part series by MSUSpartan76

detailing a variety facts about the illusion of Glenn Schembechler

A few weeks ago on the UM page of MLive.com, a Skunkbear went on a diatribe about how great Bo Schembechler was and how Mark Dantonio could never be his equal. This poser asserted that Schemp was far superior because of 13 BT Championships in 21 years and Coach Dantonio was genuinely inferior because of only 2 titles in 8 seasons. He managed the simple arithmetic of 13-2 is 11 and 21-8 is 13 and used that to "prove" Coach Dantonio was vastly inferior to Schemp since Coach D. can't possibly win eleven of the next thirteen conference championships.

While some facts were made, this is just another example of chUMp cherry picking and twisting reality to give utter disrespect.

Looking at the total record puts things in a different light.

In Part I the evolution of college football rules was presented, setting the context and relevant factors needed for a fair comparison. We saw the season is longer, there are more bowls and championship games, and teams play more games than they did nearly 50 years ago.

In this part, the total record is examined. The facts:

Statistic	Bo Schembechler	Mark Dantonio	Notes
Seasons	1969-1989 (21)	2007-2014 (8)	[1]
Record	194-48-5 0.7955	75-31-0 0.7075
Average Games/year	11.76	13.25
Undefeated Seasons	0	0	[2]
Longest Season	11-2-0 0.8462	13-1-0 0.9286
Best Season	11-1-0 0.9167 bowl: L	13-1-0 0.9286 bowl: W CCG: W
Worst Season	6-6-0 0.5000 bowl: L	6-7-0 0.4615 bowl: L
10+ Win Seasons	11 of 21 52.4%	4 of 8 50.0%

[1] Dantonio is entering his 9th season.

[2] Schemp's 1973 record was 10-0-1, which technically counts as undefeated. Schemp's 1971 record was 11-0 in regular season play. Season ended with a bowl loss.

What are the take-aways from this data-base?

• Schemp has the better record, but with 13 more seasons, Coach Dantonio will have coached 12 more games, not including any future bowls or championship games.
• Coach Dantonio has coached the best season.
• Coach Dantonio has coached the longest season.
• The percentage of 10+ win seasons is nearly the same. If the Spartans post 10 or more wins in 2015, Coach Dantonio will best Schemp in that category, too.
• Both had a 6-win worst season. Both lost the bowl game.

Schemp achieved a 0.7955 winning percentage with a 194-48-5. For Coach Dantonio to match or better that, the Spartans will have a 21-year record of 220-55-0. Given all of the next 13 years in this scenario, a bowl game would be played every year.

Schemp achieved his record with an average of 9.24 wins per year. Coach Dantonio achieved his record with an average of 9.375 wins per year. Because of the number of games played in the game today, to match Schemp's winning percentage, Coach Dantonio will need a 21-year average of 10.47 wins per year.

But there is more: Strength of schedule.

Statistic	Bo Schembechler	Mark Dantonio	Notes
Opponents	43	37
Opponents' 21-yr Aggregate Record	5382-4645-195 0.5360	2163-1676-0 0.5634
Opponents w/ 21-yr Winning Records	23 (53.5%)	24 (64.9%)
Team Record vs. Winning Records	13-7-3 (0.6304)	15-7-2 (0.6667)
Game Record vs. "Winning Teams"	57-36-2 (0.6105)	42-29-0 (0.5915)
Opponents w/ 21-yr Losing Records	20 (46.5%)	13 (35.1%)
Team Record vs. Losing Records	18-0-2 (0.9500)	12-1-0 (0.9231)
Game Record vs. "Losing Teams"	137-12-3 (0.9112)	33-2-0 (0.9429)
FCS Opponents (games)	0	4 (5)	[1]

[1] 3 of the 4 FCS opponents MSU has played have 8-year winning records. In 4 of 5 games the FCS opponent had a winning season when MSU played them. 1 of the 4 teams (2 games) is now a FBS program.

Schemp faced 43 different opponents in his 21 seasons. 23 (53.5%) of those teams posted a 21-year aggregate winning record. Schemp had winning records versus 13 (56.5%) of those teams. Coach Dantonio has faced 37 different opponents in his 8 seasons. 24 (64.9%) of those teams have aggregate winning records during Coach Dantonio's tenure and the Spartans have winning records versus 15 (62.5%) of those teams.

Schemp posted perfect records versus 21 opponents (48.8%). His best showing was 14-0-0 versus Northwestern. Northwestern's 0.2205 record in that 21-year span ranked 43rd of the 43 opponents. Coach Dantonio has so far posted perfect records versus 21 opponents (56.8%). His best showing was versus Purdue at 6-0-0. Purdue's 0.3838 record for the past 8 years ranks 32nd of the 38 opponents faced to date.

20 of Schemp's opponents (46.5%) had 21-year losing records and Schemp had a winning record versus 18 (90.0%) of them. Coach Dantonio has faced 13 teams with 8-year losing records and has winning records versus 12 (92.3%) of them. Schemp's worst showing was 0-1-0 versus North Carolina. UNC was 0.5806 during the 21-year span. UNC was 8-3-1 and UM was 8-4-0 the season they played. Coach Dantonio's worst showing was 0-1-0 versus California. California is 0.4500 over the past 8 seasons and both schools achieved 9-4-0 records the season they met.

Only 2 teams (4.6%) Schemp faced had better 21-year records than UM. Schemp went 1-1-0 versus them. In comparison, 6 teams (16.2%) Coach Dantonio has faced have better records over the 8 years he has been at MSU. Coach Dantonio is 9-10-0 versus those teams. 4 of those 6 teams have better overall records than Schemp's two best opponents. Georgia has posted the same record and MSU under Coach Dantonio is 1-1-0 versus the Bulldogs. Both were bowl games.

It's clear from the data that Schemp's opponents were less successful than those Coach Dantonio has faced. While Schemp has the better overall record, Coach Dantonio faced a measureably more difficult schedule and even with that schedule bested Schemp's record more than once.

Breaking it down by season wins and losses:

	Bo Schembechler				Mark Dantonio
Opponent Season Wins	Games Played	% of Total Games	Record	W-L %	Games Played	% of Total Games	Record	W-L %
0-4	90	37.2%	90-1-1	0.9837	26	24.5%	25-1-0	0.9615
5-9	130	52.6%	100-27-3	0.7808	54	50.9%	41-13-0	0.7593
10-15	25	10.1%	4-20-1	0.1800	26	24.5%	9-17-0	0.3462
Opponent Season Losses	Games Played	% of Total Games	Record	W-L %	Games Played	% of Total Games	Record	W-L %
8-12	48	19.4%	48-0-0	1.0000	26	24.5%	25-1-0	0.9615
3-7	166	67.2%	144-22-4	0.8554	65	61.3%	44-21-0	0.6769
0-2	33	13.4%	6-26-1	0.1970	15	14.2%	6-9-0	0.4000

To make a fair comparison, the 11-game season versus 12-game season has to be factored in. Schemp faced 25 teams (10.1% of games played) that had 10 or more wins in the season they played. 4-20-1 (0.1800). Coach Dantonio has faced 18 (17.0%) with 11 or more wins in the season. 7-11-0 (0.3889).

What's the takeaway?

4-20-1, 6-26-1: Seems like Schemp just could not win the big games, at least not on a regular basis.

Breaking it down by season win-loss record:

	Bo Schembechler				Mark Dantonio
Opponent Winning %	Games Played	% Total Games	Record	W-L %	Games Played	% Total Games	Record	W-L %
0.0000-0.2999	50	20.2%	50-0-0	1.0000	18	17.0%	18-0-0	1.0000
0.3000-0.4999	74	30.0%	71-2-1	0.9662	19	17.9%	17-2-0	0.8947
0.5000-0.7999	95	38.5%	69-23-3	0.7421	54	50.9%	34-20-0	0.6296
0.8000-1.0000	28	11.3%	4-23-1	0.1607	15	14.2%	6-9-0	0.4000

Trivia questions:

1. How many winless teams did Schemp play?
2. How many winless teams did Coach Dantonio play?
3. Who had the easier road?

Answers:

1. 6: Illinois (1969); Iowa (1973); Northwestern (1978, 1980, 1981); Indiana (1984).
2. Zero. None.
3. Schemp.

Read on...

In the modern context, to qualify as bowl eligible, teams need a 0.5000 regular season record or better. Whether an 11 or 12 game season, bowl eligible teams had to win 6 or more games.

In his 21 seasons, Schemp faced 43 different opponents in 247 games, including bowl games. Only 123 (49.8%) games were played versus opponents that would have been bowl eligible today. Schemp was 73-46-4 (0.6098) versus bowl eligible teams and 121-2-1 (0.9798) versus teams with losing season records. Schemp did carry on the UM tradition of beating up weak opponents.

In 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio has faced 37 different opponents in 106 games, including bowl and championship games. In 69 (65.1%) of those games, the opponents were bowl eligible. Coach Dantonio has compiled a 40-29-0 (0.5797) record versus bowl eligible teams and 35-2-0 (0.9459) versus teams with losing season records.

Taking it down a notch, 27.5% of the teams Schemp faced had seasons no worse than 1 fewer wins than UM. The record was 29-38-1 (0.4338). 46.2% of Coach Dantonio's opponents had seasons no worse than 1 fewer wins when they played. MSU, so far, is 23-26-0 (0.4694).

In his 21 seasons, Schemp played 43 games (17.4%) against teams that had season records equal to or better than UM in the season they played. Schemp went 12-30-1 (0.2907) versus peer competition. Schemp was 182-18-4 (0.9020) versus inferior competition.

In 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio has played 39 games (36.8%) versus teams with equal or better season records compiling a 16-23-0 (0.4103) record. Versus the less successful teams, Coach Dantonio was 59-8-0 (0.8806). Coach Dantonio is playing more than twice the number of games per season against elite competition with a better win-loss record.

No question about it...

Schemp had the easier road.

But wait! There's more:

Part 1 -  The Evolution of College Football Rules.

Part 2 -  The Total Records.

Part 3 -  The Bowl Records.

Part 4 -  The In-conference Records.

----------

Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****

GLENN SCHEMBECHLER HAD EASIER ROAD THAN MARK DANTONIO - PART 1

The first in a multi-part series by MSUSpartan76

detailing a variety facts about the illusion of Glenn Schembechler

A few weeks ago on the UM page of MLive.com, a Skunkbear went on a diatribe about how great Bo Schembechler was and how Mark Dantonio could never be his equal. This poser asserted that "Schemp" was far superior because of 13 BT Championships in 21 years and Coach Dantonio was genuinely inferior because of only 2 titles in 8 seasons. He managed the simple arithmetic of 13-2 is 11 and 21-8 is 13 and used that to "prove" Coach Dantonio was vastly inferior to Schemp since Coach D. can't win 11 BT titles in 13 seasons.

While some supporting facts were offered, this is just another example of chUMp cherry-picking and twisting reality to give utter disrespect. What are the facts?

• Schemp coached 21 seasons at UM. True.
• Schemp had 13 BT Championships. False. Schemp had 5 BT Championships and 8 Co-Championships.
• Dantonio has coached 8 seasons at MSU. True.
• Dantonio has 2 BT Championships. False. Dantonio has 1 BT Championship and 1 Co-Championship.

No difference? Many have claimed that a Co-Championship counts only as 1/2. Combining them takes a narrow point of view in order to deflect from reality. But that is not the reason for the breakdown.

 "Foul!" they cry. "Schemp had 13 and Dantonio only has 2. There are no other relevant factors!"

Ok. Let's consider another fact. MSU under Coach Dantonio had a 13-win season. Schemp never did.

 "Foul!" they cry. Schemp only had 1 season with 13 games and never had a season with more than that.

In his first 8 seasons as UM head coach, Schemp won 76 games and had 1 outright BT title, 5 co-championships and went to 3 Rose Bowls (0-3). In his first 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio won 75 games and had 1 BT championship, 1 co-championship and went to 1 Rose Bowl (1-0). Due to rules changes, MSU missed 2 Rose Bowls and 1 outright conference championship getting a Division Title instead.

 "Foul!" they cry. That's cherry picking. 76 wins versus 75 wins is not the complete record. And you can't take credit for things that did not happen!

How about this, then? In his first 8 seasons, Schemp was 0-4 in bowl games. In his first 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio is 4-4.

 "Foul!" they cry. The conference only allowed the Rose Bowl and did not allow back-to-back appearances. Not a fair comparison.

Not a fair comparison? Exactly my point. There are a lot of things that are different now than then and they all are relevant and need to be addressed to make a fair comparison. For example:

• 1969 - 11 Bowl Games were played.
• 1971 - NCAA went to an 11-game regular season. Prior to that, only 10 games were scheduled. The season was expanded to 12 games in 2006.
• 1972 - B1G Ten allowed teams to repeat in the Rose Bowl. Prior to that, teams could only go once every 2 years if they won consecutive conference titles.
• 1975 - B1G Ten allowed teams to participate in all bowls. The restriction of 1 B1G Ten team in just the Rose Bowl was lifted.
• 1976 - NCAA split Division I into IA (now called FBS) and IAA (now called FCS). The division was based on stadium capacity.
• 1982 - B1G Ten went to 9 conference games. In 1985, the conference schedule returned to 8 games.
• 1986 - UM played a 12th game under the NCAA provisions of the Hawaii rule.
• 1992 - Bowl Coalition was founded. A national championship was the goal, but it did not happen.
• 1993 - Penn St. joined the B1G Ten.
• 1995 - Bowl Alliance replaced the Bowl Coalition. A national championship was the goal, but it did not happen.
• 1996 - NCAA eliminated ties by implementing overtime.
• 1998 - The Bowl Championship Series replaced the Bowl Alliance and the first post season NCAA championship game eliminated championships by acclaim (i.e. polls).
• 2006 - NCAA went to a 12-game regular season.
• 2010 - B1G Ten changed the conference championship tiebreaker rules and included the BCS ranking.
• 2011 - Nebraska joined the B1G Ten. The conference split into divisions and implemented a conference championship game.
• 2014 - Maryland and Rutgers joined the B1G Ten. The conference realigned the divisions.
• 2014 - NCAA went to a 4-team championship series to determine the national champion.
• 2014 - 39 Bowl games were played, including the 3 bowls involved with the 4-team championship series
• 2016 - B1G Ten will go to a 9-game conference schedule.

The rules changes are tabulated below.

Years	Regular Season gms	OT?	B1G Ten Teams	B1G Ten gms	BCS Rank As B1G Ten Tiebreaker?	B1G Ten CCG? [1]	Repeat Rose?	BT Bowls	NCG?	4-team NCG?
1969-1970	10	N	10	7	N	N	N	Rose	N	N
1971-1971	11	N	10	7	N	N	N	Rose	N	N
1972-1974	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	Rose	N	N
1975-1982	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1982-1984	11	N	10	9	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1985-1989	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1990-1992	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1993-1995	11	N	11	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1996-1997	11	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1998-2005	11	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2006-2006	12	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2007-2009	12	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2010-2010	12	Y	11	8	Y	N	Y	All	Y	N
2011-2013	12	Y	12	8	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	N
2014-2015	12	Y	14	8	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	Y
2016-????	12	Y	14	9	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	Y

[1] When the B1G Ten inaugurated the CCG it eliminated Co-Championships and conference tiebreakers, but implemented Division Titles and division tiebreaker rules.

Footnotes:

• The UM-MSU game in 1971 was a non-conference game (UM won).
• The tiebreaker rules changed in the spring prior to the 2010 season. This change cost MSU the 2010 Rose Bowl trip; by the old rules, MSU would have gone. The vote was 10-1 with the sole dissenting vote cast by Coach Dantonio.
• The divisions and CCG implemented in 2011 cost MSU an outright BT championship. As a side note: Wisconsin was given the win in the inaugural BT CCG by a questionable call on an obvious flop. 
• An oddity of the CCG/divisions format occurred in 2012.Wisconsin won and took the BT Title but had a 4-4 regular season conference record. That is something that never could have happened with Schemp.

In today's world, a BT title comes through a championship game. So, if MSU wins 11 BT titles in the next 13 seasons, Coach Dantonio would have 12 outright titles versus Schemp's 5. Schemp never had to face the BT CCG.

What would be equitable? Counting Co-BTs as 1/2, Schemp has 9 points and Dantonio has 1.5. Add to this, MSU has a division title, which was harder to get with 8 conference games than the banner Schemp got facing only 7 BT teams. Count the division title as a 1/2 point, too. MSU winning 7 BT CCGs would bring the title score to 9 each and the MSU titles would be worth more than Schemp's by virtue of more conference games and the CCG. Still, 7 BT CCGs in 13 seasons in today's world is a daunting task, but not out of reach.

This season it is 9 but starting next year all BT champions will have played 10 conference opponents. Schemp faced an average of 8 conference opponents.

Coach Dantonio has never faced less than 12 regular season opponents. All future BT championships will come by playing 13 games. Only once did Schemp face 12 regular season opponents and never more than that.

Schemp had one 13 game season. All of Dantonio's seasons have been 13 or more (14 in 2011 and 2013).

It's clear from the rules that football today is more demanding and reaching the top has bigger challenges. The 13 of 21 versus 2 of 8 rant fails to address those facts.

No question about it...

Schemp had the easier road.

This is not the end of the story. Nor is it the beginning of the end. It is merely the end of the beginning.

Part 1, The Evolution of College Football Rules.

Part 2, The Total Records. (coming soon)

Part 3, The Bowl Records. (coming soon)

Part 4, The In-conference Records. (coming soon)

Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****

SCHEMP HAD THE EASIER ROAD - PART 1

A few weeks ago on the UM page of MLive.com, a Skunkbear went on a diatribe about how great Bo Schembechler was and how Mark Dantonio could never be his equal. This poser asserted that "Schemp" was far superior because of 13 BT Championships in 21 years and Coach Dantonio was genuinely inferior because of only 2 titles in 8 seasons. He managed the simple arithmetic of 13-2 is 11 and 21-8 is 13 and used that to "prove" Coach Dantonio was vastly inferior to Schemp since Coach D. can't win 11 BT titles in 13 seasons.

While some supporting facts were offered, this is just another example of chUMp cherry-picking and twisting reality to give utter disrespect. What are the facts?

• Schemp coached 21 seasons at UM. True.
• Schemp had 13 BT Championships. False. Schemp had 5 BT Championships and 8 Co-Championships.
• Dantonio has coached 8 seasons at MSU. True.
• Dantonio has 2 BT Championships. False. Dantonio has 1 BT Championship and 1 Co-Championship.

No difference? Many have claimed that a Co-Championship counts only as 1/2. Combining them takes a narrow point of view in order to deflect from reality. But that is not the reason for the breakdown.

 "Foul!" they cry. "Schemp had 13 and Dantonio only has 2. There are no other relevant factors!"

Ok. Let's consider another fact. MSU under Coach Dantonio had a 13-win season. Schemp never did.

 "Foul!" they cry. Schemp only had 1 season with 13 games and never had a season with more than that.

In his first 8 seasons as UM head coach, Schemp won 76 games and had 1 outright BT title, 5 co-championships and went to 3 Rose Bowls (0-3). In his first 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio won 75 games and had 1 BT championship, 1 co-championship and went to 1 Rose Bowl (1-0). Due to rules changes, MSU missed 2 Rose Bowls and 1 outright conference championship getting a Division Title instead.

 "Foul!" they cry. That's cherry picking. 76 wins versus 75 wins is not the complete record. And you can't take credit for things that did not happen!

How about this, then? In his first 8 seasons, Schemp was 0-4 in bowl games. In his first 8 seasons, Coach Dantonio is 4-4.

 "Foul!" they cry. The conference only allowed the Rose Bowl and did not allow back-to-back appearances. Not a fair comparison.

Not a fair comparison? Exactly my point. There are a lot of things that are different now than then and they all are relevant and need to be addressed to make a fair comparison. For example:

• 1969 - 11 Bowl Games were played.
• 1971 - NCAA went to an 11-game regular season. Prior to that, only 10 games were scheduled. The season was expanded to 12 games in 2006.
• 1972 - B1G Ten allowed teams to repeat in the Rose Bowl. Prior to that, teams could only go once every 2 years if they won consecutive conference titles.
• 1975 - B1G Ten allowed teams to participate in all bowls. The restriction of 1 B1G Ten team in just the Rose Bowl was lifted.
• 1976 - NCAA split Division I into IA (now called FBS) and IAA (now called FCS). The division was based on stadium capacity.
• 1982 - B1G Ten went to 9 conference games. In 1985, the conference schedule returned to 8 games.
• 1986 - UM played a 12th game under the NCAA provisions of the Hawaii rule.
• 1992 - Bowl Coalition was founded. A national championship was the goal, but it did not happen.
• 1993 - Penn St. joined the B1G Ten.
• 1995 - Bowl Alliance replaced the Bowl Coalition. A national championship was the goal, but it did not happen.
• 1996 - NCAA eliminated ties by implementing overtime.
• 1998 - The Bowl Championship Series replaced the Bowl Alliance and the first post season NCAA championship game eliminated championships by acclaim (i.e. polls).
• 2006 - NCAA went to a 12-game regular season.
• 2010 - B1G Ten changed the conference championship tiebreaker rules and included the BCS ranking.
• 2011 - Nebraska joined the B1G Ten. The conference split into divisions and implemented a conference championship game.
• 2014 - Maryland and Rutgers joined the B1G Ten. The conference realigned the divisions.
• 2014 - NCAA went to a 4-team championship series to determine the national champion.
• 2014 - 39 Bowl games were played, including the 3 bowls involved with the 4-team championship series
• 2016 - B1G Ten will go to a 9-game conference schedule.

The rules changes are tabulated below.

Years	Regular Season gms	OT?	B1G Ten Teams	B1G Ten gms	BCS Rank As B1G Ten Tiebreaker?	B1G Ten CCG? [1]	Repeat Rose?	BT Bowls	NCG?	4-team NCG?
1969-1970	10	N	10	7	N	N	N	Rose	N	N
1971-1971	11	N	10	7	N	N	N	Rose	N	N
1972-1974	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	Rose	N	N
1975-1982	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1982-1984	11	N	10	9	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1985-1989	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1990-1992	11	N	10	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1993-1995	11	N	11	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1996-1997	11	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	N	N
1998-2005	11	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2006-2006	12	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2007-2009	12	Y	11	8	N	N	Y	All	Y	N
2010-2010	12	Y	11	8	Y	N	Y	All	Y	N
2011-2013	12	Y	12	8	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	N
2014-2015	12	Y	14	8	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	Y
2016-????	12	Y	14	9	Y	Y	Y	All	Y	Y

[1] When the B1G Ten inaugurated the CCG it eliminated Co-Championships and conference tiebreakers, but implemented Division Titles and division tiebreaker rules.

Footnotes:

• The UM-MSU game in 1971 was a non-conference game (UM won).
• The tiebreaker rules changed in the spring prior to the 2010 season. This change cost MSU the 2010 Rose Bowl trip; by the old rules, MSU would have gone. The vote was 10-1 with the sole dissenting vote cast by Coach Dantonio.
• The divisions and CCG implemented in 2011 cost MSU an outright BT championship. As a side note: Wisconsin was given the win in the inaugural BT CCG by a questionable call on an obvious flop. 
• An oddity of the CCG/divisions format occurred in 2012.Wisconsin won and took the BT Title but had a 4-4 regular season conference record. That is something that never could have happened with Schemp.

In today's world, a BT title comes through a championship game. So, if MSU wins 11 BT titles in the next 13 seasons, Coach Dantonio would have 12 outright titles versus Schemp's 5. Schemp never had to face the BT CCG.

What would be equitable? Counting Co-BTs as 1/2, Schemp has 9 points and Dantonio has 1.5. Add to this, MSU has a division title, which was harder to get with 8 conference games than the banner Schemp got facing only 7 BT teams. Count the division title as a 1/2 point, too. MSU winning 7 BT CCGs would bring the title score to 9 each and the MSU titles would be worth more than Schemp's by virtue of more conference games and the CCG. Still, 7 BT CCGs in 13 seasons in today's world is a daunting task, but not out of reach.

This season it is 9 but starting next year all BT champions will have played 10 conference opponents. Schemp faced an average of 8 conference opponents.

Coach Dantonio has never faced less than 12 regular season opponents. All future BT championships will come by playing 13 games. Only once did Schemp face 12 regular season opponents and never more than that.

Schemp had one 13 game season. All of Dantonio's seasons have been 13 or more (14 in 2011 and 2013).

It's clear from the rules that football today is more demanding and reaching the top has bigger challenges. The 13 of 21 versus 2 of 8 rant fails to address those facts.

No question about it...

Schemp had the easier road.

This is not the end of the story. Nor is it the beginning of the end. It is merely the end of the beginning.

Part 1, The Evolution of College Football Rules.

Part 2, The Total Records. (coming soon)

Part 3, The Bowl Records. (coming soon)

Part 4, The In-conference Records. (coming soon)

----------

Tweet ****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments. ----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only). *****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****

MSU FOOTBALL FRONT-BURNER: One-On-One with ATownAndDown. Burn the Bridges?

Today, we go one-on-one with ATownAndDown. You will find his views insightful and thought provoking. You can read A-Town's comments on M-Live here.

Many Spartan fans seem to want radical, "burn the bridge" type changes. Have you seen any fan-base ideas that have real merit? What message would you like to get across to Spartan Nation about the current "state of State"?

The time to panic is now. Jump ship. Turn in your Spartan Nation card at the door on the way out.... Ok now that the lemmings are gone lets get down to brass tax. The MSU Football Program is not in as bad of shape as some would like to think. The offense, while not overwhelming, had moments that looked fine. Langford moved the ball fine and Brian Kelly admitted that MSU was moving the ball on the ground against his team. Cook made some youthful mistakes but has shown that he is a different QB than he was even 2 weeks ago. There were rumblings that the defense wasn't as good as some thought and had to see what it looked like against a talented team like ND. Are you sold yet?

My biggest issue is the coaching. Brian Kelly said that down the stretch he preferred to have MSU's offense on the field because he thought the MSU defense could turn a ND mistake into a score while he knew that MSU offense would get impatient and make a mistake causing the drive to stall. That is coaching decisions. Play calling and personnel decisions were poor. The most obvious was pulling Cook for the last series which he appeared confused about after being told it was due to his accuracy (he was 11 for 17 in the second half). Langford carried the ball 3 times for 11 yards and had a reception for 12 yards. Then he disappeared until the second half when he ran the ball 11 times for 60 yards. We opened the second half with arguably the best drive of the season that stumbled when we decided to run a weak wildcat play (no option for the backside of the play and basically was a direct snap off-tackle run). We still had the ND defense of kilter to open the next drive but ran an end around. This was a great play call because the defense was crashing hard to slow the run but then Shelton (a true freshman mind you) stopped and threw up a prayer because it wasn't just an end around there was a pass called. Interception and the rest is history.

The coaches need to get out of the way of these players. Stop trying to get overly cute with things. Stop trying to run the offense like you are trying to score 40+ points a game. Let your guys run the game plan and let them play. Tell Cook to push things and when he makes mistakes pat him on the butt and send him back out there. Not every pass has to be perfect. Tell Langford that he doesn't need to be physical after he bursts through the line. Put the ball in your WR's hands so they can run with it. And someone please throw the ball 20+ yards down the field.


What do you think is at the source of Dantonio's apparent inability to push the right buttons and pull the right levers in 2012 and 2013 vs. previous years, some with less talent? (Optional: What might be going on that we can't see?)

I think Coach D got spoiled with the 2011 team. 2007 and 2008 were just tough nosed football. Conservative play calling that all centered on running the ball. 2009 and even into 2010, it was very similar. Pound the run and set up the play action pass. In 2011 though the run was not as effective early in the season and MSU won a lot of games on the arm of Kirk Cousins. So they rolled with it and Cousins carried the team a long way in those contests. 2012 the offensive line was banged up and when we tried to get back to those basics the run blocking and the protection was not there. This year it seems like his decision making is stuck in 2012. Its like he has forgotten about the bread and butter that has brought MSU some pretty nice success. Impose your will and let the rest flow from that.


With a possibly even weaker than projected Big Ten Conference at hand on the schedule, how is the Spartans 2013 conference hopes for success shaping up now compared to what you thought when camp broke?

MSU is part of that perception that the B1G is weaker than expected so let's not get ahead of ourselves thinking that things got easier. I think the B1G is still staking up about the same as it was when camp broke. Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue and Minnesota are games we have to win. Northwestern, U of M and Nebraska are going to be tough outs but are winnable. NW and Nebraska are teams that need to score points to win (they are not going to be able to institute a similar game plan to what ND did). And Gardener, while talented, has shown that he can be mistake prone which could lead to short fields and/or defensive scores which help out a below average offense. Also, those games a later in the season and if Cook continues to improve who knows, maybe the offense becomes competent.

I think that this Iowa game will be a solid report card on how things are going to play out. You have had 3 games to experiment. You had a test in ND. Now you have a week off to reassess and work on things. Iowa, while not world beaters, is still a team that we will be able to see where we stand after making those changes. If it plays out similar to Iowa last year (even if we win this time around) then I don't put much stock in MSU competing for the B1G.


Any thoughts on the need to play Damion Terry at quarterback or are we burned out on that issue?

This issue plays into my question to the [other contributors and readers on this site]. I have heard some rumblings that some of the bigger donors to the program are becoming disenfranchised with what they have seen from the program over the past season and 4 games. The impression I got from what I heard was they are not happy with the feeling of mediocrity. If Dantonio goes 7-6 again, 2014 might become a make or break year for a guy that seemed invincible 2 years ago. Donor money is important to a program (and was the reason RichRod didn't get his 4th year at U of M).

[A-Town's question - reply using the comments button] Could it be possible that Dantonio's coaching decisions and not winning these close games could put him on the hot seat?

[ATownAndDown's Answer]
In my opinion, Coach D has to win this year. That means pulling out all the stops. Whether that is playing Terry, Delton Williams, Holmes, Madaris, Arnett or whoever on offense, he has to get it done. I don't care if these guys know only a handful of plays, if they can come in for those handful of plays and improve this team that is enough. Last year we lost 5 games by 13 total points. If playing those guys this year means that we score even 3 more points per game, is that 2-3 more wins than last year. What if they add more? AB came in last year and improved the offense. Cook came in during the bowl game and helped win that contest. We saw in 2009, freshman Caper and Baker carried the running game down the stretch. These guys are not perfect and might never be close enough to every be the perfect player. But if they can come in and do a few things better than we have now, lets do it. Going into this season I thought MSU's offense would be improved over last year's team and that would allows us to compete for the B1G. At this point I don't know if there is enough to count on the offense developing organically. Maybe one of these guys can be a spark the offense to find something more.

----------------

So readers and BEATchUMps.com contributors, what about A-Town's question above?

Click the comments link.

Tweet ------------- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, at the bottom of the page (Web version only). -------------- Please click on COMMENTS below the post to enter and view reader comments. ***If you are receiving this post via automated email, ***you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.blogspot.com/ (Web version only)

REAR-VIEW MIRROR: Dantonio Calls Audible and Improvises in Quarterback Decision

We've had the entire off-season to watch our MSU Football program re-invent itself with a plan to consistently reach championship level. We've seen the Spring Game, we've heard about the quarterback competition in August, and we've watched three actual games worth of "quarterback controversy". In this piece, I give my interpretation and explanation of what has happened thus far.

Preparing and Reacting
When a coaching staff prepares for a game, they create a game-plan. Ideally, things unfold in a way that allows them to follow the plan with some adjustments here and there and they walk away with a victory. They can review the tape and find plenty of things on which to work and improve for the following game. If the game has adversity or misfortune during the game, the staff may need to ditch the game-plan and react to a new reality. Sometimes a game situation, even a single play, can cause a game to "snowball out of control".

In a similar way, Mark Dantonio put together a season-plan for his team and more specifically the quarterback position within the offense before the season started. What we witnessed is not what the head coach and staff had originally planned to happen. When we pass judgement on what we see, we do so with the benefit of seeing how things already played out, including variables brought by the opposing team. It's easy for us, as fans, to ditch a game plan we know little about and contributed nothing towards creating..

The Promises
Mark Dantonio promised thorough evaluations and changes where needed after MSU's offense failed to produce positive results in 2012. Exit Dan Roushar enter the Dave Warner - Jim Bollman combination and several position-coach reassignments.

Dantonio promised competition at the QB position in the spring. Fans hoped it would not just be for show and motivation, but a true competition. Dantonio delivered with a lot of live practices and scrimmages for all of the quarterbacks. Maxwell held on to his job.

Dantonio promised more QB competition in August camp. More reps with the 1s and 2s for all the quarterbacks and more live contact followed. None of the challengers could do quite enough to unseat Maxwell. Most fans accepted the outcome of the competition, although some were disappointed.

Dantonio delivered. He did what he said he would do. Again, Andrew Maxwell passed the test. Receivers had improved. The offensive line looked like a strength. Confidence in the running backs was building. The big concern seemed to be at the tight-end position.

The Plan
Heading into game week, Dantonio had another promise to keep. He was not going to leave the Spartans without an experienced quarterback in 2014 the way his did in 2012 by failing to play Andrew Maxwell in 2011. He looked at the hand he was dealt and figured he'd approach the first three games with a somewhat softer pre-season feel, intending to spread playing time to at least two of the three non-Maxwells.

Dantonio would never verbalize things this way, but it's likely the thought process was something like this:

"Maxwell is the starter. He racks up yards and points in game one and everyone gains confidence. Cook comes in to audition for the assumed #2 role. O'Connor gets his fair shake due to his mobility. All three play if things go right in that game. Ditto for game two with the possible exception of an O'Connor/Cook flip-flop based on their performance the previous week. Damion Terry learns by watching. We believe our best chance to win is with Andrew Maxwell, but we want to be sure and will use the first two games to confirm our decision and to provide valuable experience for all the number two and three quarterbacks. If Andrew stumbles and one of the other guys lights it up and backs it up in practice, we are comfortable making a change, but we don't anticipate that happening. We tighten up loose ends and get experience to whoever needs it in game three as we get set for the meat of the schedule and Notre Dame the following week. We use the bye week to make necessary adjustments, heal up and begin our march to compete for a division championship with our 5th year starter at quarterback and a capable, now experienced back-up."

Reality
Dantonio kept his off-season promises and executed an aggressive off-season plan. Much like calling a play in the huddle and assessing the defensive alignment as he approaches the line of scrimmage, Mark Dantonio had to call an audible prior to the snap (he saw the overall ineffectiveness of the offense regardless of who was in at quarterback in the first game). Even though he may have have checked into the right play (going with Cook/O'Connor in game two), assignments were missed (receivers, O-line, no TEs) and bad play calling. It was like a "broken play" in football. He had to improvise (going with Cook/Terry in practice - holding out Maxwell while everyone else learned/competed) to create a positive outcome - or at least avoid a game changing mistake (playing Terry and burning his red-shirt or going with the safe bet of Maxwell which would have created a real issue if he didn't come through - both are still available if needed).

The way the quarterback decision unfolded may have looked like a "quarterback circus" and may have appeared to be a management debacle by Dantonio, but in reality it was an audible into the correct play, then an improvisation on a broken play. While we all tend to consider only a few primary factors when viewing a game or strategic decisions, the head coach has an entire eco-system to consider. There are personalities, micro-messaging, long-term and short-term effects, and a staff of coaches among other issues to calculate. He also has to play out the down-side risk scenarios more seriously than the fan base usually considers. That is why most coaches are naturally risk-adverse.

Most Fans are thrill-seekers. We get to evaluate decisions from a rear-view mirror perspective, while a head coach is making decisions before the scenarios unfold and while circumstances are fluid and quickly changing. It's like a baseball manager bringing in a relief pitcher when the starter was cruising along except for those last two batters who just reached base. The relief pitcher comes in and gives up a double. Fans call in to the local radio stations complaining about the manager making the pitching change as if they know that if the starter had the opportunity, he would have got the next hitter out. In reality, he might have given up a home run, but the caller never considers that possibility. In a way, Dantonio ended up executing his plan. It just didn't look the way he had planned nor did it produce the result he expected. He was forced to adjust on the fly even while being accused of being stubborn.

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda
In the case of how Dantonio handled the quarterback situation, many think Dantonio caused the problem or at least exacerbated it. They say, "he should have picked one guy and stuck with him" or just "prepared Damion Terry from the beginning so he would have gotten more reps and enough experience by now" or "ditched Andrew Maxwell from the beginning". I think all those approaches are easy to say from where we sit, but they would have violated some basic principles and promises (covered earlier), jeopardized the development of viable plan B options, or would have led us to the same place we ended up anyways. In fact, he actually did pick "one guy" before game one. Receivers couldn't catch passes - easy ones or tough catches, the O-line couldn't protect the quarterback and the TEs were non existent. He picked "one guy" for game two. Some fans just didn't see it that way. He stuck with that guy after game two and confirmed his decision by making sure Terry shouldn't get in the mix after another week of evaluation.

When looking at the quarterback derby as a called play, then an audible, then innovating after the play broke down, Mark Dantonio did just fine making a play with an offense that doesn't have star power. The way Dantonio handled the circumstances was not pretty from a public relations standpoint, but I believe he very well may have prevented the situation from snowballing out of control. He played his cards the best you could expect with the hand he was dealt - especially when considering that he couldn't see all the cards on the table beforehand that we can see now.

The Big Question
I just have to wonder about caliber of this offensive coaching staff at this point. MSU had issues all last year and during the bowl game after the extra practices. The problems persisted into the 2013 season no matter who was playing quarterback. Could Dantonio and MSU have attracted a high-end offensive mind in the off season? Dantonio valued continuity and the security that comes with it more than ingenuity and the risk that comes with it. Yet, there is still a lot of adjusting taking place for the players and staff - The QB coach is now calling plays as co-OC. The RB coach is now coaching QBs, the new co-OC Jim Bollman handles TEs and we are not sure what else he really does. Also Mark Staten was the TE coach before taking over the OL when Roushar became the OC in 2011.

Can this staff evaluate, recruit, develop, coach and game-plan at a championship level? Could it be that Dantonio made a mistake in assembling this staff as he lost Dan Enos, Don Treadwell and Dan Roushar (who was the O-line coach before his trial run at OC). We have to wait and see. If the offense regresses to 2012 form for most of 2013, BIG changes will be needed. If we see a 2012 re-run, will Dantonio say goodbye to his long-time friends on that side of the ball to bring in a high powered staff to get the most out of Damion Terry? Would Narduzzi staying at MSU or leaving influence that decision? All of these issues will be solved if the Spartans can produce on offense and get back to the Big Ten Championship game in 2013.

~ MSU FOOTBALL FRONT-BURNER WILL APPEAR ON WEDNESDAYS ~

Tweet ------------- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, at the bottom of the page (Web version only). -------------- Please click on COMMENTS below the post to enter and view reader comments. ***If you are receiving this post via automated email, ***you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.blogspot.com/ (Web version only)