I Have Found the Perfect VN Post.

just make up whatever you want to say and post it, regardless of accuracy. I read other posters reference that in debates with you and now I realize what they were talking about.

 

Great avatar

 

It's really simple and I don't have any idea why it's so drawn out on so many tangents. Dros asked for a big time coach at a program that didn't win big by year 3. Mich St avg'd 6 wins a year for 15-20 years before Saban got there. They won 6, 6, 7, 6 games in his first 4 years and finished either 5th or 6th in the league. That's not winning big. That's doing what they had been doing for 20 years. Dantoni is winning big with conf titles, 11, 11 and 13 wins, which occurred after 6 years of 6 win seasons again.

Saban is possibly the greatest college coach of alltime and averaged the @ the same number of wins the program had averaged in 20 years prior, so it's my opinion that avging 6 wins isn't winning big. That's all. If you guys consider doing the same thing as the prior 2 decades as big, that's fine. I disagree.

 

Saban's foundation was long gone and MSU was in several years of bad football before Dant took over. He didn't get to ride the wave in any form or fashion.

 

not bad. Between that, my sig and "embecile" under my name, I feel the love.

 

Well, someone did take time to do it.

 

breaking a 4 year streak of losing seasons in year 1: no big deal. Improving the record 3 straight years the first 3 years: no big deal. All while inheriting a team that had been rocked by scandal.

Beat #7 Michigan year 1. Beat 5 top 25 teams in year 3. Dude wasn't winning big in a good Big 10?

Nope, no way to see Saban was getting results.

 

Saban is the biggest a-hole on the planet, so he's got that going for him too

 

6, 6, 7, 6 were his first 4 years. He didn't improve the record 3 or even 4 straight years as you mention, and he didn't beat 5 top 25 teams. He was 1-4. I think you are misreading whatever stat you were looking at IP.

 

You said nick Saban twice. You included lsu. If the long approach is indeed the better way surely you could come up with a better example than a coach winning at a place that never won shit before he got there and a place he won the sec in his second season.

 

Once again. Saban never won big at msu according to you.

 

He beat a #1 or #2 ranked Ohio State team in 1998

 

The team was 5-6 the year before he got there, yes? He won 6 games the first two years and 7 the third, beating 5 top 25 teams that third year:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Michigan_State_Spartans_football_team

Am I reading that correctly?

And for what it is worth, he played #1 Nebraska years 1 and 2. The Big 10 was one of the best conferences in those years, and he had Nebraska on top of that. I'd consider making a losing team bowl eligible for 3 straight years, knocking off #7 in year 1 and beating 5 top 25 teams in a row year 3 "winning big." If Butch does that, we're all pleased as punch at the progress.

EDIT: I am not reading that correctly. That is the rank of Michigan State. But they did beat #7 Penn State.

 

He thinks winning the sec in year 2 isn't winning big.

 

Jesus man, did I somehow insult your mom?

I don't claim, nor have I ever, to have more than a cursory knowledge of the MSU football program. However, as noted by your use of Wikipedia and/or Google, I could have easily looked that information up myself. My post was purely an opinion from my view in the proverbial cheap seats as, IMO, MSU wasn’t much of a program until Dantonio was HC, at least to the degree that it is today.

As evidenced by the winning percentages that you so graciously provided, that assertion is not that far off the mark. However, you’re right, perhaps stating that Saban “laid the foundation at MSU” was a overstating it a bit. However, that should not be interpreted as “Saban laid the foundation at MSU…and also KidB’s girl (or boy, depending on which way you go)…

 

surely you don't think this was of any value? Without the trends, total overall winning percentage is useless.

 

Yeah, it's a waste of time.

yeah, it's called obfuscation, muddying the waters of the conversation. It's what folks do when they realize they stepped in it.

What surprised me was that so many seemed to fall for it.

Here, let me try to bring it back: If you're already talking about getting rid of Coach Jones, you're either an ignoramus or a troll from another school.

 

Phillip Fulmer was one of the top coaches in the country when he was fired!

 

Easy partner, I don't think you suck, and I have no evidence that you either insulted or had unprotected sex with my mother. I was just pointing out that you wrote was clearly not right, and for two reasons:
1) the gap in time between Saban and Dantoni and the abysmal record of the coaches that followed Saban.
2) Dantoni would have taken any big ten coaching gig.

 

I do think my post was of value. I don't think yours was of value. Were you going to make the case that Saban "laid the foundation for Dantoni to be hired" *wasn't* preposterous? Or were you just writing random sentences?