In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 79
Online now 406 Record: 4815 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I know what you said, and my answer stands. MSU does not have as much or more coming back this year than Nebraska.
On offense alone, the Spartans lose their starting QB, their starting Fullback, their three best Wide Receivers, both Tight Ends, and a starting Left Guard. They return all of five returning starters on offense.
Nebraska lost a starting WR and their Fullback, and return nine starters from last season.
On Defense, MSU lost two DL and their Free Safety. Yes, they return eight starters, but that defense wasn't all that great, unless you think giving up 39 points to Wisconsin in the CCG is the mark of a great defense.
Nebraska returns EIGHT starters from the end of last season, which is exactly how much MSU returns.
So tell me again how Michigan State returns as much or more than the Huskers.
If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.
Using that criteria, the fact that MSU is considered the challenger for Michigan tells me flat out that Nebraska IS being overlooked.
Especially since the Huskers shut down the Spartan offense last year.
Sparty is not going to the CCG this year, unless the offensive skill replacements are actually better than the seven top skill players from last year. MSU will do well to avoid losing four conference games.
When you have our numbers wrong...then yes..you can make the argument that we return more than they do.
We don't return 9 starters on offense. We return 6. You can't leave out the 3 OL we lost (Hardrick, Jones, Caputo). We have 6 coming back compared to the 5 you say they have. Advantage us by 1.
On defense we lost 4 starters (Moore, David, Dennard, Cassidy) so we only have 7 coming back as opposed to the 8 you say they have. Advantage MSU by 1.
That means they have as much returning as we do, from a team that finished with a better record overall and better record in the conference.
I never said their defense was great, but it was better than ours and they have more coming back from it.
Apparently, you didn't crunch the numbers for MSU...
*How good were you last year? Finished 11-3 and in the Top Ten. Better than Nebraska
*Did you finish strong? Won 5 of last 6 games including bowl win over Georgia. Only loss was by 3 to Wiscy in B1G CCG. Better than Nebraska
*How many starters do you return? 14, 5 on offense, 9 on defense. Close call, edge Nebraska
*What's your schedule look like? Plays divisional opponents Iowa, Nebraska, and Northwestern at home. Ohio State at home as well. Better than Nebraska.
Out of the 4 criteria I named, only returning starters would favor Nebraska, and that's probably arguable.
Hence, MSU is predicted to to better than Nebraska.
We lost one skill player, period. That alone puts us about five up on MSU. that, plus the fact that we actually return four former starters in the OL; ARod, Choi, Long, and Sirles, not to mention Moore, who will be no worse than Hardrick was last year.
If you're going to nitpick, let's do it honestly. Nebraska is a far more talented team on offense this season than MSU, and we aren't replacing our QB and our entire corps of receivers.
If you're going to call me out for miscounting, get that right as well. Actually, I did miscount. MSU also loses their starting LT from last season, so they're replacing just as many OL as we are. Four total returning on offense then.
Rome finished the season, and is the returning starter, at DT. We lost David, Dennard, and Cassidy, as I said.
I can count. MSU: 4 + 8 = 12. NU: 8 + 8 = 16
Have you forgotten that this same defense shut down MSU last year, or that we scored 24 on their oh so terrific defense? Apparently so.
One game better overall, AND a loser to the Huskers.
No matter how you want to slice it, Nebraska is returning more and better than the Spartans.
You count it your way and I'll count it mine. i was responding to a post that stated that MSU returns more totheir team this year than Nebraska does, and that's not only incorrect, it's a blatant lie.
You can't lose nine critical players on offense and expect to be improved the following season.
This post was edited by daddyact 21 months ago
If you don't have the facts argue the...
If we are so dominant why did Michigan & Wisconsin blow our doors off? Northwestern? At home...
We will contend but this isn't a formality.
Your constant condescending b.s. is played out.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Trash Angel 21 months ago
It's good to be the King.
Where in the hell did I say we were dominant?
Do you have any freaking idea what we're arguing about or did you just decide to stick in your worthless two cents?
Don't take one part of an argument and try to turn it into something else.
This is about whether or not MSU has more talent returning than Nebraska. That's all!
We have more talent returning as compared to a team we beat 24-3 last year. Nebraska has more coming back than the team we beat and which we're supposed to lose to this year. That proves to me that the Huskers are being overlooked by the media.
Keep the argument focused on the initial point. The only valid point anyone could make in MSU's favor, imo, is that we have to play in East Lansing. However, last year Nebraska was a better team than Michigan State, and the only argument I need is SCOREBOARD.
Rome did not finish the season as the starter. He started all of 2 games. Moore started the final 5.
You are being pretty leniant in our favor in what you consider a returning starter. If you are going to consider ARod, Rome and Sirles returning starters, we need to do the same with a few of MSU's players. Dion Sims, Blake Treadwell and Tyler Hoover would be considered returning starters for MSU. . And you didn't miscount originally. Michigan State returns 4 starters on their OL. Fonoti, Jackson, McDonald and France are all returning starters.They lost one starter, we lost 3.
Convenient that our guys who never started a game last year, started a random game or two mid-year or got beat out half way through the year are considered returning starters but we don't consider similar situations for the opposing team.
Michigan State finished 2 games better in the conference season. A game and a half overall. They finished in the top 10.
We beat them last year....by your logic....Northwestern has an argument over us. You are calling scoreboard as proof that Nebraska is better than Michigan State. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't appreciate the same argument if one was making that argument in Northwestern's situation. Interesting how that works.
No one is saying we can't win the division. Hell, I think as of right now, I'd probably bet on us to win the division. But that has some Nebraska bias. Taking that away, you can't find much reason to put NU above Michigan State. Husker fan will consider someone like Sirles a returning starter. Your average college football fan wouldn't and if they did...then they'd consider a few extra guys from Michigan State as returning starters.
They have as many starters returning from a team that was better against the same competition last year.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by nustudent 21 months ago
It's not "my way of counting", DA, it's just a basic explanation for how pre-season rankings are formulated. The people who vote on these things don't get too heavily vested in any one team. They take a broad snap shot with simple criteria.
Actually, I agree with you that Nebraska should be better than MSU this year, but it's more about conjecture than anything you can hang your hat on.
Your team. All the time.
If you can't get the count of returning starters right you should probably throw in the towel.
Michigan and Mich State both won their bowl games, which gives them the benefit of the doubt come pre-season and what people perceive heading forward. I have no problem with that.
I think this being the 2nd year in the league will give us more familiarity and as a fan I'm excited to start year 2! We have some recent history to look at before games now.
This is year 2 for Taylor Martinez in Beck's offense, so I only think that can help.
Not as excited about the defense as some others. They need to prove it after last season. They were borderline blackshirt material and I hope Bo becomes more involved on that side of the football (I know he will).
Love a lot of our skill position players. Burkhead, Abdullah, Bell, Enunwa are proven and we all know Turner might be the best of the bunch with a ton of potential, plus I'm excited about Imani Cross, Morrow and Allen. Nebraska also has some of the best TE's in the league (Cotton, Reed). Taylor has weapons, but obviously needs to utilize them better (fingers crossed). O-line can be above average, but I want to see what happens at the center position (Very important).
All in all, I believe Nebraska will truly be a better team next year. Lavonte David going to the league hurts - he was special. But as a whole, I feel better going into this season than I did last season.
Biggest thing BY FAR is if NU can stop the penalties, turnovers, mental collapses, self-destruction. That's coaching and I expect better from Bo and staff. We'll see. Excited though.
...It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
W. C. Fields
Northwestern was better - in that game.
Nebraska was better - in the MSU game.
Michigan State was better in the Michigan game, and the first Wisconsin game, barely.
Iowa was better, in the Michigan game.
Nebraska was better, in the Iowa game.
There was not that much difference between the top three teams in the Legends. Home field was a major advantage for each of those teams.
No, MSU does not have as many starters as Nebraska has returning. I don't care that other people don't consider Sirles a starter, but you and I both know that having been a starter two years ago is a decided advantage, especially when he ends up as the back-up at RT, while a returning starter (ARod) from LG is probably going to slip into the starting job.
Again,this is not about winning or losing the division. It's about an inaccurate observation which stated that MSU has more talent returning than Nebraska this year. That is not true, and the people who keep trying to make such an argument are being completely disingenuous.
and your point about Rome is stupid. He started two games. He is returning, thus he IS a returning starter.
But who was better in that those individual games isn't the issue. It was who was better overall. That was Michigan State and Michigan opposed to us.
That's fine then if you want to consider those guys starters
But then we need to be fair and do the same for Michigan State. Dion Sims started more games than Rome did last year. He needs to be considered a returning starter at tight end. Blake Treadwell was a starter before injury. Now that he's healthy he needs to be considered a returning starter. Tyler Hoover was a starter in 2010 before missing all of last year with an injury...he needs to be considered a returning starter as well.
Unless of course, you just want to skew the argument in Nebraska's favor
It's only an inaccurate observation if you want to change the criteria to favor Nebraska and not give MIchigan State the same benefit of the doubt on various players.
I think you can make the case that Msu has more talent than we do. I am not saying they do but u can make the case.
Do we have someone on defense that is on the same level as gholston. No.
Qb talent- nuff said
Lb- Bo has mismanaged this spot bad so our talent( which some of it I question is young)
O line- they return 4 starters and it isn't like we have any all Americans maybe 1
For the big 10 award for best defender we had no one on the watch list. Cuz they currently do not see any player that talented.
Msu has been better than us for a few years.
Our talent level is not great. Reminds
Me of some of sOlich years.
Msu may have better talent than us.
cool picture from space
I agree this staff has some scary things in common with Solich staff. The changes being made are starting to help but its far from perfect.
We weren't even discussing which was the better team last year. The discussion centers around the statement this statement: "…Michigan State finished ahead of Nebraska last year and…(has)… as much or MORE RETURNING this year."
Let's stay on this statement instead of bringing in arguments about whether or not either of us think MSU was better last year or whether going to the CCG automatically warrants them consideration asa division favorite.
You said it, and I clearly showed you that MSU loses SEVEN starters on offense, as well as a third WR and a second TE. All nine of these players (including the starting LT and LG) played extensively and were instrumental in the success of MSU's offense.
That means that the Spartans return FOUR offensive starters from last season; literally, three OL and a RB.
Nebraska lost one skill player (Kinnie), and three starting OL from last season, so without even taking players like Sirles into account, the Huskers return SEVEN offensive starters. I tend to think that players who have started and are returning are just as important, so I added both ARod and Sirles to my original count, making NINE players, not counting the fact that both JT and Marlowe started at some point last year.
Now, we can talk about the relative talents about these returning players, but generally speaking, it's much harder to replace seven starters than it is to replace three or four, so whether you like it or not, at least on offense, NEBRASKA RETURNS MORE than Michigan State.
As to defense, MSU lost two starting DL and a FS from last years starting line-up, so they return EIGHT starters.
Nebraska lost a LB, a CB, and a Safety that were starters. We also lost a DT, who was replaced by another Senior DT, and a back-up freshman DT, due to injury, in the last two games. We can count him, if you'd like. In my opinion, any player that has started two games and played extensively throughout the last half of the season should be considered a returning starter, but that's splitting hairs.
Nebraska actually does return four DL starters, two LB starters, one CB and one Safety, and that adds up to EIGHT in my book.
Again, we can discuss the relative merits of these players, but going back to your original statement, both teams RETURN THE SAME NUMBER OF STARTERS ON DEFENSE.
SEVEN/NINE offensive starters to FOUR actually means that Nebraska returns more on offense.
EIGHT defensive starters to EIGHT actually would mean that both defenses return exactly the same amount, so at least the part of your statement that says "as much" would be true, at least on defense.
However, no part of your statement that MSU returns MORE than Nebraska is in any way, shape, or form even close to accurate.
Once again, I'm not interested in turning this into another argument surrounding other issues. My initial replay concerned the quoted statement. You were completely inaccurate, so i wish you'd just admit that you were exaggerating for effect, and let it go so we can actually discuss the other incessant posts that have absolutely nothing to do with my point.
Once again, you continue so skew the numbers in our favor.
We lost 5 starters from offense. 3 OL, Kinnie and a FB. That means we have 6 returning starters.
Michigan State has 4 returning starters on the OL. I named them, but you choose to ignore facts to bend the numbers your way. They also have a RB. That makes 5 returning offensive starters for Michigan State.
Defensively, we lost Dennard, David, Cassidy and Crick/Moore. The latter started 11 of our 13 games at DT. You can consider Rome a returning starter. I don't consider him one, but if you do that's fine. But then we need to consider Dion Sims a returning starter on offense for Michigan State. You have to have the same standards here. If one considers Chase Rome a returning starter because of his 2 starts...then a guy who has more starts than that would need to be considered one as well....unless of course..you are just picking a choosing who is a returning starter based on your argument.
With the lose of those 4 on defense...that means we return 7. 7 defense + 6 on offense equals 13 returning starters. Michigan State returns 8 on defense. You add that to what they have on offense returning and it equals 13. Which means they have AS MUCH OR MORE coming back.
Again...if you want to consider ARod, Sirles, Turner, Marlowe or Rome as a returning starter...that's okay.....but we need to apply the same standards for MIchigan State because they have players who started games as well that aren't being considered returning starters.
Gholston was helped a great deal by the presence of Jerel Worthy, and he will miss that presence just as much as Crick missed Ndamakong Suh in 2010.
QB talent? So you are automatically giving the edge here to a Junior with practically no playing time over a two time returning starter? Uh…okay. How sad that you hate TM so much that you'll even begin to make this comparison.
LB? Ah, yes, let's blame Bo for building his team to play in the B12 where there was little premium on utilizing or even needing more than four LBs in your two deep. Changing conference was obviously the fault of his mismanagement.
MSU does NOT return four OL starters. They lost Jared McGaha at LT and Joel Foreman at LG. And I don't see any All-Americans in their returning group either.
As to your statements about MS being better for a few years, I suppose it depends upon your definition of "a few". If you mean more than two, that would be highly inaccurate, unless you actually think that MSU's 6-7 in 2009 was better than Nebraska's 10-4.
If you only mean the last two years, it would be hard to dispute that, with the possible exception of 2011, when Nebraska beat them 24-3. If they've been better then they probably should have won that game, right?
I'll even argue whether they were "better" in 2010. Yeah, they shared the Big Ten championship, but then again they never had to play Ohio State that year. If they had, they would have likely had three losses, but it's difficult to make such conjecture since the two teams played entirely different schedules.
Your opinion that MSU has been better for a few years is completely subjective, imo.
Our talent level? Really? Interesting, since Pelini has out-recruited MSU since 2008, in every objective category you'd care to mention. And that same talent beat the living crap out of MSU last year.
And here come the negative nellies, piling on and agreeing wholeheartedly that this program stinks and our coaching staff sucks.
There is nothing wrong with this coaching staff, and ironically, the last few versions of our coaching staff, although lacking in some areas, were still good enough to raise this woeful talent into two CCGs and a minimum of nine wins per season.
Yeah, it's a really scary staff. I'm just terrified we're only going to win nine games this year.
Nebraska is about WINNING championships. Lets hope they bring it home this year.
No, we have three returning WR starters, a QB, our RB, two TEs (pick one), and four OLinemen (ARod, Long, Sirles, and Choi) who were starters last season or the year before. But I will give you that we'll only start three of them.
If you want to count the FB, then okay, but that still means we return two WRs, a TE, a QB, a RB, and three OL starters. That's eight, and still four more than MSU returns. Don't want to count either Sirles or Arod as a returning starter? Okay, then we have SEVEN returning starters, which is still more than the four that MSU returns.
Sorry, but both McGaha and Foreman were their starters last year. As for their TEs, they lost two Seniors at the position, and you are gong to claim that Sims should be considered a starter. All right, I'll give you Rome for Sims.
So that means that MSU returns FIVE offensive starters compared to NU's EIGHT (two WR, RB, QB, TE, and three OL) offensive starters, and EIGHT defensive starters to NU's SEVEN defensive starters.
Yes, i will count at least one of the two (Sirles or ARod) as a returning starter, since they will both be playing RT and both have starting experience exceeding an entire season.
Even adding Sims and subtracting Rome, MSU has a total of 13 returning starters, while Nebraska returns 15.
Why do you insist on tweaking the numbers to favor MSU? Even when you do that you are barely able to match the totals returning. Your statement was "as much or more", so I assume that you now are planning to retract the MORE part of that statement.
I notice that you haven't admitted that it was inaccurate, but then perhaps you don't understand how the English language works. If you say as much or more, then you should have some evidence that shows how that "more" is implicit. I would have had no problem if the statement was simply "as much", but by adding the "more" you are implying that Nebraska can't measure up to MSU on the field, even though they have far more talent returning, and far more of the talent that beat MSU 24-3 last year.
Seriously, I don't expect you to make the retraction, because you haven't shown a proclivity for integrity in the past. Why would you start now?
I wonder sometimes why fans like you make these statements which are obviously intended to denigrate the current team. Are you so intent on hoping that Bo screws up and loses enough games to get him fired, or is it simply that you hate the players that we have? I mean, seriously, what kind of fan expects to see the team fail, just so they can be right?
Not relevant to this argument. We haven't won a championship since 1999. There are substantive reasons why that's true.
It's about f*cking time that we all acknowledge that and start appreciating what we do have, instead of insisting that we should win the championship just because we're Nebraska.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports