THE DREW "SOS" SHARP INSULT

The Detroit Free Press published an article suggesting that MSU was a "sacrificial lamb" for Alabama. The infamous Drew Sharp claimed that the only reason Michigan State moved up two spots in the polls was because Oklahoma would have had a home-field advantage in Dallas (or some such reasoning).

"Oklahoma’s one loss came in a rivalry game against the Longhorns. And the Longhorns’ upset win at Baylor on Saturday makes the earlier loss look a little better than Michigan State’s loss at lowly Nebraska. It also shouldn’t be forgotten that the Sooners’ strength of schedule was much stronger than the Spartans."

Our first response on reading that was published as: Debunking Drew Sharp: MSUSpartan76 Proves Michigan State had a Tougher Schedule than Oklahoma.

In that article we showed that:

• MSU has more opponents ranked in the CFP top 15
• MSU opponents had an equal win-loss record
• MSU has more opponents going to New Years 6 bowls
• MSU beat more undefeated teams and late in the season
• MSU's 3 weakest opponents had better WL records than OK's 3 weakest
• MSU's 3 strongest opponents had better WL records than OK's 3 strongest

We continued with: Microscope on Drew Sharp: Oklahoma vs Michigan State Schedule Strength.

It was clearly shown that MSU's opponents comprised the stronger schedule based on the win loss records of Oklahoma's and MSU's opponents in terms of aggregate points scored and allowed including the margins of victories

In that piece I stated that I was not done with the comparison. Here is the rest.

"Lowly Nebraska." "Much stronger schedule." With his sharp comments, he implied that the Spartans had a soft schedule. In fact, he has insulted Iowa, Ohio State, and Michigan and, also, Oregon and Air Force and the rest of the Spartan slate of opponents. After all, those teams are the soft Spartan schedule.

Soft schedule means weak opponents.

The insulted fans really should make some noise about that.

Is the allegation true? No. Did Oklahoma have a "much stronger schedule?" NO.

In the previous articles we published in depth and in detail how Oklahoma's opponents fared over the season and also MSU's. Here is the rest of the story.

The Sooners went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-66 (0.542).

• Those 12 opponents played 1727 games amassing an aggregate record of 941-786 (0.545).

The Spartans went 12-1 vs 13 opponents with a combined record of 90-68 (0.570).

• Those 13 opponents played 1915 games amassing an aggregate record of 1090-836 (0.567).
• MSU played 2 conference championship contenders. Oklahoma played none. So adjusting the totals to just the regular season for those 2 opponents:
• The Spartans went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-66 (0.542) and did so versus opponents that went 1001-749 (0.572).

The opponents of the teams MSU played scored 149 more wins against 50 more losses than those Oklahoma played. More games. Tougher. More wins. Stronger teams. Even adjusting for the CCG games, MSU opponents won 60 more games with 37 fewer losses than the Oklahoma schedule.

"It also shouldn’t be forgotten..."

Agreed!

The head-to-head comparison.
For the WL comparison, an edge is a 1 win difference and an advantage is for a 2+ win difference.

For the combined record, an edge is either a better win or a better loss record, with the advantage given when both occur.

 

Racked and stacked from best to worst:
Iowa went 12-1 vs 13 opponents with a combined record of 79-79

Iowa played MSU in the B1G Ten Championship game. Oklahoma has no equivalent opponent.

Note: The Iowa loss in the B1G Ten Championship game is included in all of the opponents common to MSU (Nebraska, Purdue, and Maryland).

 

Oklahoma St. went 10-2 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 75-68

Ohio St. went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 75-72

• Edge: OSU for WL; Edge to OK St. for opp. WL. 

Texas Christian went 10-2 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 69-74

Oregon went 9-3 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 85-62

• Edge: TCU for WL; Advantage: Oregon for opp. WL. 

Baylor (TX) went 9-3 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 71-72

Michigan went 9-3 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 81-64

• Tied: WL; Advantage UofM for opp. WL. 

Tennessee went 8-4 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 84-62

Air Force (CO) went 8-5 vs 13 opponents with a combined record of 79-78, 8-4 & 69-75 disallowing the CCG.

• Tied: WL; Advantage: UT for opp. WL.

Texas Tech went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 84-62

Penn St. went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 87-60

• Tied: WL; Advantage: PSU for opp. WL. 

West Virginia went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-65

Western Michigan went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 83-62

• Tied: WL; Advantage WMU for opp. WL. 

Akron (OH) went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 64-79

Central Michigan went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 74-70

• Tied: WL; Advantage CMU for opp. WL. 

Kansas St. went 6-6 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-65

Indiana went 6-6 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 82-64

• Tied: WL; Advantage IU for opp. WL. 

Tulsa (OK) went 6-6 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 71-75

Nebraska went 5-7 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 90-57

• Edge: Tulsa for WL; Advantage Nebraska for opp. WL. 

Texas went 5-7 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 85-59

Rutgers (NJ) went 4-8 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 76-68

• Edge: UT for WL; Advantage UT for opp. WL. 

Iowa St. went 3-9 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 95-51

Maryland went 3-9 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 105-43

• Tied: WL; Advantage UM for opp. WL. 

Kansas went 0-12 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 89-55

Purdue (IN) went 2-10 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 94-52

• Advantage: PU for WL; Advantage PU for opp. WL. 

Scoring the head-to-head comparison:

Team WL records:

• Oklahoma opponents: 3 edges, 7 ties
• Michigan State opponents: 1 advantages, 1 edge, 7 ties

Combined Opponent WL records:

• Oklahoma opponents:  2 advantages, 1 edge
• Michigan State opponents: 9 advantages

The Spartan opponents played tougher opponents. This means, for the identical regular season records, MSU faced a stronger schedule than Oklahoma. Hands down.

Are you listening Drew?

What about "lowly" Nebraska?
Nice insult there, Drew. I am sure Cornhuskers all over the country are applauding your insights.

Somehow in Drew Sharp's imagination, Texas beating Baylor somehow erased the Oklahoma loss to Texas, but "lowly" Nebraska beating MSU proves a soft Spartan schedule.

• Texas went 3-7 against a schedule of opponents that went 65-55 (not counting the Oklahoma and Baylor records).
• "Lowly" Nebraska not only beat B1G Ten CCG Champion MSU but also took down Southern Mississippi, C-USA CCG runner-up. Subtracting out those 2 team records, Nebraska went 3-7 versus opponents that tallied a 69-52 record.

Once again it shows up. Nebraska and Texas have the same records, but "lowly" Nebraska had the stronger schedule. The marquee wins:

• CFP No. 3 Michigan State 12-1
• CFP No. 4 Oklahoma 11-1
• Baylor 9-3
• Southern Mississippi 9-4

Maybe Texas beating Baylor doesn't so much make the win over Oklahoma insignificant but rather makes the Oklahoma win over Baylor less impressive.
 

Now to diverge.
One of the Drew chUMp's claims (chump is a synomym for idiot, by the way) is the CFP committee did not want Alabama to face an Oklahoma home field advantage.

Driving distance (by car) to the bolw sites (stadium to stadium) per Google maps:

Cotton Bowl

• Oklahoma 191 miles 3 hr 3 min.
• Alabama 584 miles, 8 hr 14 min.
• Clemson 904 miles 13 hr 8 min.
• MSU 1119 miles, 16 hr 47 min.

Orange Bowl

• Clemson 710 miles, 10 hr 46 min.
• Alabama 773 miles 11 hr 47 min.
• MSU 1421 miles 20 hr 47 min.
• Oklahoma 1484 miles 21 hr 41 min.

Phoenix Stadium

• Oklahoma 1027 miles 14 hr 47 min.
• Alabama 1667 miles 23 hr 26 min.
• Clemson 1986 miles, 29 hr 0 min.
• MSU 1993 miles 29 hr 0 min.

If the CFP Committee had manipulated things to achieve parity, then the MSU - Oklahoma game should have been in the Orange Bowl and Clemson - Alabama game in the Cotton Bowl. As it is now, Oklahoma gained a substantially greater home field advantage over MSU than they would have had versus Alabama. Had it been otherwise, Clemson would have had the greatest home field advantage (playing MSU) as is proper for the No. 1 seed.

So Drew Sharp is saying the CFP Committee made the selections based on home field advantage (travel time and distance being part of it). This just further proves that Drew Sharp is a chUMp. It is incredulous that the CFP committee would so badly tarnish the integrity of the selection process by allowing such favoritism to be permitted especially given the close scrutiny of tens of millions of fans. What really happened is the CFP matched the teams for the best possible games. Regardless...

 

We Spartans will play any team, any day, any stadium.

 

It isn't over and it will never be over here.

It's just starting.

 

REACH HIGHER!

 

 

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.*****

 

A QUESTION OF BALANCE

A bit of humor worth saving for posterity...

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

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God was missing for six days.  Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day.

He inquired of God, "Where have you been?" God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look Michael, see what I've made..."

Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."

"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused. God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth, "For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot. Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of dark people," God continued, pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot and arid while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."

The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a place. "What's that?"

"Ah," said God. "East Lansing, the most glorious place on Earth. There's beautiful women and an exquisite campus that is called MSU. The people from East Lansing are going to be modest, intelligent and humorous and they're going to be found traveling the world. They'll be extremely sociable, hard-working and high-achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace. I'm also going to give them undefeatable football and basketball teams who will be admired and feared by all who come across them."

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there would be BALANCE!"

God replied, "Wait until you see the loud-mouth bastards I'm putting next to them in Ann Arbor."

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

Found posted by MotownWalt, Oct. 18, 2015, on MLive.com article:
How it happened: Michigan's fumbled snap, Michigan State's TD and a celebration to remember
Motown apparently got it from mattboy_slim who posted it on TeamPhotoshop on Oct. 9, 2002.
Also found a different version on Rec.Humor.Funny Jokes and posted by Skid Schermerhorn.March, 2007.


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.*****

MICHIGAN'S KARMA PAYBACK

What is Karma?

A person's actions deciding their fate in the future. Cause and effect. A fate that ultimately balances success and failure.

UM's Karmic Debt

Even prior to the founding of the State Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, the UM arrogance was in full force. When the Michigan Legislature moved UM (then Catholepistemiad, a Jesuit college) to Ann Arbor in the year Michigan became a state, the Legislature gave UM a charter that included agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, mechanics, and a host of other educational programs that would benefit the people of Michigan. UM ignored those common pursuits and, instead, robed itself in an arrogant, elitist attitude that it would be the "Harvard of the West." The reneging of the charter led to the founding of what is now Michigan State University. UM endeavored to keep MSU from being founded.

Ever since its founding in 1855, MSU has suffered the arrogance and nefarious actions by UM, including attempts to steal its Land Grant money, its forestry program, its engineering program, and repeated moves to keep MSU out of the B1G Ten Conference.

There is a lot more, but that will be an article for another day. This is about football.

Flashback to November 3, 2007, East Lansing. It's Coach Dantonio's first game versus UM. It's midway through the 4th period. Michigan State had rallied from a 0-14 halftime deficit to take a 24-14 lead. Chad Henne went down with a twisted ankle. Ryan Mallet came in, botched the snap which bounced once right into the hands of Mike Hart who eeked out an 18 yard 1st down.

Michigan came back to win 28-24. A lucky bounce put the ball into a Wolverine's hands. It could have gone differently, but it counts all the same.

On national TV, post game, Mark Hart (the beneficiary of the bounce) inferred that Michigan had just been playing with the Spartans like an older sibling might do.

“I thought it was funny. They got excited. It’s good. Sometimes you get your little brother excited when you’re playing basketball and you let him get the lead. Then you come back and take it from him.”

Watch Hart's shifty eyes. He knew at the time it was wrong, classless, unsportsmanlike, and arrogant.

• The school, the athletic department and the coaching staff all did and said nothing about it.
• Current and former players, some in the NFL, use it frequently with glee.
• The media embraced it.
• Going into the 2013 UM-MSU game, ABC announced the upcoming program as "Michigan versus Little Brother Michigan State."
• The expression popped up during the B1G Ten Championship game and again in the Rose Bowl by the commentators.

For 2911 days and counting, Spartans have daily suffered the Mike Hart Insult.

UM's Karmic Payback

• Coaching carousel.
• Lloyd Carr was ushered out.
• Rich Rodriguez was brought in and brought NCAA sanctions down on Michigan.
• Brady Hoke led the Ann Arbor squad to ever lower levels of success each year.
• During the first 6 years, UM scoring has dropped, reaching a 46 year low of 6 points in 2013.
• Lots of individual, team, and program records set -- all negative. -48 yards rushing is a UM school record.

2007: Coach Dantonio's response to Mike Hart's insult:

"It's not over. It'll never be over here. It's just starting."

Flash forward to October 17, 2015, Ann Arbor. It's Coach Harbaugh's first game versus MSU. There are 10 seconds on the clock. The score is 23-21. Michigan ball, 4th and 2 at the MSU 47. The punter fumbles the snap, gets it back and is hit. Jalen Watts-Jackson snags the airborne ball and rumbles 38 yards in for the score.

MSU came back to win 27-23. A lucky hit put the ball into a Spartan's hands. It could have gone differently, but it counts all the same. Jim Harbaugh, the "Messiah of Michigan Football," became the 7th UM coach (67 years) to lose his first game against MSU. Coach Dantonio went to 7-2 versus UM.

The day before the 2015 game, Mike Hart stated that making his comments was a mistake. Even with that, he tries to put the blame on MSU.

"There was something that week he had read several Michigan State players say — he can’t specifically recall what it was — but it stuck in his head."

Karma

2007 Michigan comeback win 28-24.

"Sometimes you get your little brother excited when you're playing basketball and you let him get the lead. Then you come back and take it from him."

2015 Michigan State comeback win 27-23.

"Sometimes you get your little brother excited when you're playing basketball and you let him get the lead. Then you come back and take it from him."

After the game, I copied a post written by a UM fan, "East Arbor," on the M-Live message boards (10/21/15).

"This is the Mike Hart curse at work. You would think that after years of annual bluster, unfounded arrogance, planting spikes, and repeated losses stretching over the better part of a decade, that the program and fan base would reflect on how foolish these sophomoric pregame antics are perceived by the prevailing opponent. But that's not likely to change - perhaps the theory is to keep it up and by the law of averages, at some point there will be a victory for the Champs of the World, at which point a decade's worth of blueballs bravado can finally be spurted into Sparty's face. But by that time, it will be nothing more than an aberration rather than some sort of kingly proclamation of elite status."

There are a few Wolverines that get it. Maybe when a tens of thousands get it Karma will get back in balance. Until then...

It's just starting.

----------

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.*****

THE ANATOMY OF RANGERS: MISSION 4:10 AND THE "JALEN BREAK" TD

The whiner chUMps have posted time and again that had O'Neill caught the snap he definitely would have gotten the punt off.
They are wrong. He might have. But the way the punt block defense was schemed and executed and the way the UM punt protection broke down, the odds are very, very good that it would have been blocked.

Traditional punters take 2 seconds to kick.
The snap takes 1 second.
Step once and kick takes 1 second.
A frame-by-frame viewing of one of the MSU punts confirms this.

The Australian "Rugby" punt takes 3 seconds.
The snap takes 1 second.
Move 3 steps (nearly 3 yards) to the right and kick takes 2 seconds.
The up backs also shift, but with their backs to the punter.
A frame-by-frame viewing of the O'Neill 80 yard (50 yards plus roll/bounce) confirms this.
As a footnote, UM was lucky that punt was not blocked. MSU had 4 rushers past the Up Back protection at the time of the kick. A 5th Spartan rusher was closing in.

What follows is the anatomy of the "Jalen Break" aka Rangers: Mission 4:10.
Again, this is from frame-by-frame viewing.
Since not all jersey numbers were clearly visible, the description omits them all.
Left and right are based on the punter's position and facing at the snap.
In the graphic, the X is the approximate position the Punter would have gone to to make his Australian punt. It is about 3 yards to the right of his starting position.

At 10 seconds remaining...
UM
5 Blockers (offensive linemen) on the line. The long snapper is B3.
3 Up backs (protection) 8 yards back.
Punter is 16 yards back at the 37.
Gunner G1 on far left undefended.
Gunner G2 on far right facing a jammer.

MSU
Rushers R1, R2, and R3 unopposed on left.
a wall of of 7 Rushers opposing the Bs 2, 3, 4, and 5. B1 unopposed.
R5 (gap), R7 (gap), and R10 (right) unopposed.
Jammer opposed G2.

36|

37|

38|

39|

40|

41|

42|

43|

44|

45|

46|

47|

48|

49|

50|

49|

48|

47|

46|

45|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

G1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B2

R4

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R5

.

.

P

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B3

R6

.

.

|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R7

.

.

|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B4

R8

.

.

X

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B5

R9

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

R10

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

G2

J

.

At 9 seconds remaining...
Up back protection was shifting to the right.
7 Rushers were clear of the line with 2 about to engage the Up backs, 4 about to flank the protection on the left and 1 beginning to flank the protection on the right.
2 Rushers were through the line with 1 heading to the take on the U2 (middle) and the other clear to flank the protection.
1 Blocker was down.
2 Blockers were engaged in blocking R4.
1 Blocker had transition to Gunner 3.
1 Blocker had been passed by a rusher and was effective out of play.
Gunner1 is headed down the field.
Gunner 2 is headed down the field being shadowed by the Jammer.
Ball bounced off Punter's hands.

>

36|

37|

38|

39|

40|

41|

42|

43|

44|

45|

46|

47|

48|

49|

50|

49|

48|

47|

46|

45|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

G1

->

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<

R1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<

R2

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<

R3

B1

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<

R5

.

.

B2

R4

.

.

.

.

P

>

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U1

.

<

R6

.

B3

.

.

.

.

.

|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U2

.

.

.

<

R7

.

.

.

G3

->

.

|

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

U3

.

.

<

R8

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

X

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

B5

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<

R10

<

R9

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

J

->

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

G2

->

The ball hits the ground in 2 yards in front of and slightly to the right of the Punter.
The Punter overshot the ball, turned to his left 180 degrees and stooped down to pick it up.
It is unlikely he saw his protection engaged.
It is unlikely he saw the 2 rushers that were moving unopposed to right flank the protection.
He continued his turn to his left.
His attention remained on the ball.
It is unlikely he saw the 4 unopposed rushers left flanking the protection.

At 8 seconds to go...
The punter, now at the 39, continued his turn (270 degrees at this point) to start his move to the right (now his left).
2 more Bs became Gunners having released their blocks on Rushers.
1 B is still down.
1 Rusher is in the middle but not engaged with the Us.
1 B was moving back towards the Punter but lagging the Rushers.
U1 on the left was overwhelmed. 5 Rushers passed the protection on the left.
U2 in the middle engaged a Rusher, turned him and pushed him towards the sideline past U3 (on the right) thus opening the middle of the wall through which 3 Rushers ran unimpeded.
U3 on the right stuttered not knowing who to block and never made a block at allowing all 3 Rushers go by unimpeded right up the middle.
At this point there are 8 Rushers within 5 yards of the Punter and only one of them was being blocked. 2 Rushers were within 1 yard of the Punter. 5 Rushers are between the Up backs and the Punter.

At 7 seconds to go...
Punter, now at the 40 was hit, ball flies out...
Punter was closely encircled by 7 Rushers, none further than a yard away.
The Rusher that made the hit is down.
At the moment he was hit there were 2 Rushers 4 yards directly in front of the place the Punter normally would have kicked from.
The Punter, when hit, was 1 step from his kick spot X but 3 yards closer to the line of scrimmage.
Jalen picks the ball out of the air.

At 2 seconds to go...
Jalen was downfield nearing the goal line.
8 Spartans versus 3 Wolverines.

At 0 seconds to go...Touchdown.
End of game.

The alternate reality scenario - the Punter does not bobble the snap.
Situation at 9 seconds is still in effect.
Punter turns to make his 3 steps/yards to the right. 3 quick steps, not running. 2 seconds.

U1 on the left is overwhelmed. 5 Rushers pass the protection on the left, moving at speed. 40 yards in 5 seconds from a standstill. 8 yards in less that 1 second.
U2 in the middle engages a Rusher, turns him and pushes him towards the sideline past U3 (on the right) thus opening the middle of the wall.
U3 on the right stutters not knowing who to block and never makes a block.

The middle of the wall is wide open allowing 3 Rushers go by unimpeded right up the middle to the very spot the punter would have kicked from. 40 yards in 5 seconds from a standstill. 8 yards in less than 1 second. It is probable they would have arrived before the punter. The rushers arrive at the kick spot while the clock still shows 7 seconds.

Punter reaches his kick spot and 3 Spartan rushers arrive head-on at the same time with 4 more arriving in front of him coming from the left.
Punter holds the ball and is tackled or, more like, tries to kick and the kick blocked.
If tackled, MSU ball on the 37 with 6 seconds.
If blocked, MSU had the players in position to scoop and run.
But it is highly improbable that the Punter gets the kick off, not with 7+ rushers in his face.

Bottom line:
The UM punt scheme was not up to handling the MSU punt block 11 scheme.
The UM special teams punt execution was horrible, especially the UB protection.

Questions?

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.*****

DANTONIO OUT-COACHED HARBAUGH

Rangers: Mission 4:10

10 seconds on the clock. Michigan with the ball on the Spartan 47, 4th and 2.

Time outs were called. The situation was discussed.

First, Cook in the 4th was 4 of 14 with 2 sacks in the 4th. Not good.

Second, neither team had much success running the ball. For the game, UM: 1.9 yds/carry. MSU: 1.8 yds/carry.

Then there was that 74 yard pass from Cook to Pendleton that might have weighed on Harbaugh's psyche.

To hear Harbaugh speak after the game, he was also concerned about possible penalties. Is it possible he recognized the number of times Lewis committed PIs on Burbridge that were not called? Maybe. Maybe not.

Fumbles could not have been a concern. Up to 59:50, UM had just one fumble on a kick-off return.

Harbaugh also would not have been concerned about an MSU field goal. After all, Coach Dantonio twice chose to go for it on 4th down rather than try the field goal. Message to Harbaugh, the Spartan kicking is not clicking. One has to wonder how much of that was deception.The failed 4th downs were at the UM 28 (1Q)  and at the UM 32 (4Q).

Last factor: O'Neill had made that 80 yard punt. It was a bit over 40 yards in the air and rolled the rest of the way. His other punts were 30, 32, 41, 37, 44, and 48.

Decision time.

Harbaugh's choices:

[1] Throw the ball.
Maybe pick up the 1st down, maybe not. The UM passing game was not doing very well, but in the 4th, Rudock was 4 of 9 with 1 sack. Incomplete and MSU gets the ball at the 47 with maybe 7 seconds left. Interception? Who knows.
Remember, time management. Remember, incomplete passes stop the clock.
Net result Hail Mary with very little time left, but the clock does not start until the snap.
It seems Harbaugh had little faith in the UM offense, especially Rudock, who was really in his first high-stakes, big-time game.

[2] Run the ball.
Either (A) to burn time or (B) to try to get the 1st down.
The running game both ways was non-existent, so the burning the clock approach would have been better than going for the 1st down. Remember, time management. Remember, only out of bounds stops the clock. Keep it in-bounds and the clock stops long enough to set the chains, then it starts again.
It seems Harbaugh had little faith in the UM offense, especially Smith, who was only 2.4 yards/carry with a long of 8 yards.

[3] Punt.
This was his choice. Punt. He set gunners. Why? He was trying to back MSU up to the goal line hoping for a 1st and 99 situation. Harbaugh did not seem to notice there was no return man for MSU. If he did, he thought it was to his benefit in pinning the Spartans at the 1, or at least inside the 10.

Time outs were called. The situation was discussed.

On 2 prior UM punts, the snap was not good and O'Neill had to take an extra half second to recover to make the punt.
On 1 prior UM punt, there was a gap coverage let down.
O'Neill was from Australian football and his punt takes a second or 2 longer than the standard US punt. This was his first high-stakes, big-time game.

Decision time.

Dantonio made his decision without deliberation. Rangers: Mission 4:10, otherwise known as Block 11. The Spartans lined up with a blitzkrieg rush planned.

Cook was on the sideline bemoaning his failure to Coach Salem. Coach Salem turned to him and said, "They will block the punt." Good call.

ESPN gave MSU a 0.2% chance of winning at that point. I gave the Spartans a 80% chance of blocking the punt.

Rangers: Mission 4:10

Ball snapped. Snap was bad. O'Neill dropped the ball and roughing the kicker rules were no longer in effect. O'Neill picked it up.

UM ended up blocking 11 rushers with 6 people. The UM gunners ran down field away from the play.

The Spartans hit O-Neill, the ball came loose, and Jalen Watts-Jackson was immortalized and hospitalized.

Some of the media (CBS, ESPN) call this "Gift 6." NFL.com called it "Quick 6." A Spartan fan called it "Jalen Break." All too much we hear it as the "Bobble in the Big House" or the "Miracle at Michigan."

Funny thing, it was the 2nd such TD on a blown punt of the day. Rutgers got one first.

Rangers: Mission 4:10 was not a miracle.

It was not a gift.
It was not luck.
It was an excellent coaching call.
It was a well executed punt block.
It was Coach Dantonio out coaching Harbaugh.

Just like he did the whole game, but that is the subject of another write-up.

----------

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 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.*****