Started By
Message
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:47 am to AU_251
quote:
Michigan more historically relevant.
That's debatable. Sure, they have a lot of wins going back to the 1800s, but until this year they had a total of 1/2 of a national championship since 1948.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:51 am to MedDawg
quote:
Michigan more historically relevant
quote:How is it debatable? Michigan is #1 in all-time wins and was the first program to win 1000 games. Their titles are older but they have won more.
That's debatable. Sure, they have a lot of wins going back to the 1800s, but until this year they had a total of 1/2 of a national championship since 1948.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:52 am to AU_251
quote:
Michigan more historically relevant.
They have 3 Natty's in school history. LSU has had 3 different coaches do that in the last 20 years. Ok, Michigan has won the most games in college football history, but look at who they get to play and have played over the years.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 10:54 am to MedDawg
Yea if we are counting ancient national titles then Yale is “more historically relevant” than Alabama and Princeton is “more historically relevant” than every SEC team besides bama
Can always count on an Auburn fan on the SEC rant to have a dumb hot take
Can always count on an Auburn fan on the SEC rant to have a dumb hot take
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:02 am to aTm boy
quote:
Michigan is #1 in all-time wins and was the first program to win 1000 games.
This is argument makes more sense
Although Michigans eras of dominance were spread out between the early 1900s and then of course the 70s. And then some good seasons sprinkled in.
I do not think that the success of the program in those era = being a better job today.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 11:52 am to aTm boy
quote:
How is it debatable? Michigan is #1 in all-time wins and was the first program to win 1000 games. Their titles are older but they have won more.
No one gives about about someone’s record in 1935.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 12:37 pm to texag7
UM has larger stadium, larger athletic budget, a $17b endowment, larger alumni base, positioned in an area with much higher population base.
I would say it is better than all SEC schools…except Texas. Just needs the right coach.
I would say it is better than all SEC schools…except Texas. Just needs the right coach.
This post was edited on 1/24/24 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 1/24/24 at 1:11 pm to borotiger
Clearly you have one of them government jobs.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 1:12 pm to texag7
Michigan runs a cleaner athletic department. Less chance of getting busted for cheating
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:01 pm to Tigahtildeath
quote:
UM has larger stadium
How does having a slightly larger stadium make the job better?
107K compared to 102K
quote:
larger athletic budget
They're both around 200 million, the difference is negligible.
quote:
a $17b endowment
Has nothing to do with nor impacts athletic departments.
quote:
larger alumni base
I'll give yo this one, size of alumni base matters.
quote:
positioned in an area with much higher population base
Approximately double the population and land size of Louisiana, shares state with another Big 10 school. Not as talent rich. I don't see this as an advantage. Moreover, Michigan would not rank top three in population amongst SEC states.
Notwithstanding alumni base, your points as to why the job is better than LSU and/or other SEC schools are without merit.
Otherwise, Texas A&M would be considered the best job in the country, surely better than Michigan based on your qualifications.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:06 pm to texag7
quote:I guess it depends on perspective and context.
Is Michigan a better job than LSU?
I would suggest (and history seems to validate this) that LSU has better and more consistent access to elite NFL talent. You might have a few holes (traditionally it was QB), that you used to have to address by recruiting nationally... now with the portal that's easier to fix.
Odds are, in any given season with a healthy program, LSU will have better WRs, DBs, LBs than Michigan, with a couple linemen on both sides that will be good enough.
Michigan has to dip into the South to get elite skill position guys most of the time, and that's always worrisome. On the other hand, it's no slouch, and the interest is always there.
I would say the perfect storm hit for Michigan this year: Harbaugh could not handle Urban, but they were able to push past Day at Ohio State. Penn State seems to have settled into 10-2, doesn't challenge anymore.
UGA was the "best" team, but Bama was able to beat them on the "any given day" scenario. But that was an offensively flawed Bama team, with a raw and streaky QB and a center with poor fundamentals. And Bama displayed those flaws, and still the game went to OT.
You get a higher ceiling with LSU. When LSU hits on all cylinders, you don't need a lucky draw in the playoffs, or face an opponent with flaws.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:08 pm to AU_251
If you're from Midwest, East Coast, it's Big Blue by a mile.
Academics are elite and they have a fan base MUCH larger than LSU.
South / West - LSU by a mile..who the F wants to live in Canada.
Academics are elite and they have a fan base MUCH larger than LSU.
South / West - LSU by a mile..who the F wants to live in Canada.
Posted on 1/24/24 at 2:09 pm to Scoob
quote:solid post with solid arguments
Is Michigan a better job than LSU?
quote:
Is Michigan a better job than LSU?
I guess it depends on perspective and context.
I would suggest (and history seems to validate this) that LSU has better and more consistent access to elite NFL talent. You might have a few holes (traditionally it was QB), that you used to have to address by recruiting nationally... now with the portal that's easier to fix.
Odds are, in any given season with a healthy program, LSU will have better WRs, DBs, LBs than Michigan, with a couple linemen on both sides that will be good enough.
Michigan has to dip into the South to get elite skill position guys most of the time, and that's always worrisome. On the other hand, it's no slouch, and the interest is always there.
I would say the perfect storm hit for Michigan this year: Harbaugh could not handle Urban, but they were able to push past Day at Ohio State. Penn State seems to have settled into 10-2, doesn't challenge anymore.
UGA was the "best" team, but Bama was able to beat them on the "any given day" scenario. But that was an offensively flawed Bama team, with a raw and streaky QB and a center with poor fundamentals. And Bama displayed those flaws, and still the game went to OT.
You get a higher ceiling with LSU. When LSU hits on all cylinders, you don't need a lucky draw in the playoffs, or face an opponent with flaws.
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News