Who will revive their program first? Dantonio or Beilein

[Baker]

I thought this might spark an interesting debate. Instead of pleading with people to be non-biased and have it get nowhere, I'm going to promote being biased. Make your case for your coach being the one to do the unthinkable.

Dantonio

In favor: Dantonio has top notch facilities to work with. He has fans and a university starving for a championship football team proved by one of their largest spring game turnouts ever. He's grabbed the attention of many big name recruits with his savvy personality. Ohio ties for recruiting. Believe it or not he has an extremely rich tradition (60's when MSU was one of the countries best) that he can build on and try to restore.

Against: Has Michigan, Ohio State, and Notre Dame to compete with for recruits. Nightmare schedule that might cripple a rebuilding process early. History of disasterous meltdowns to work against. Less talented roster.


Beilein

In favor: Tradition in the past to build on. Big conference appeal. Great academic program. A couple of highly touted talents on roster. Great basketball cities surrouding the area. Michigan State's recent ability to recruit around the country, therefore more talent available in state. Appealing offensive history that will be attractive to recruits.


Against: Has MSU, Ohio State, and Wisconsin to compete with within the area for recruits. Not alot to work with outside a couple players. Premier programs within the conference that must be played twice a season. History of losing to compete with. Shady past of the university to deal with. Not alot of backing from university and even fans (embarrassing attendance).

[Hermy]

May I answer "neither"? I think both will be positives, but not bring their clubs into the elite.

[bball11]

I have to go with Beilein on this one because the Michigan program is about even to the likes of Illinois, Iowa, Purdue, Penn State. With the type of system that Beilein will run I think it is and would be easier to find success in college basketball. He just needs to prove that he can get solid recruits to go with it. Dantonio's Spartans have slipped down to the likes of Illinois, Indiana, and Northwestern(the pit/scum of the Big Ten) as of late. In football there is a wider variety of positions that need to be addressed. A 5 star recruit in basketball makes a hell of a bigger impact than 5 star in football, and for State at the moment there are just too many holes and not enough/if any 5 star recruits.

[Jethro34]

I'm not sure on this one. You probably have to define what reviving the program would consist of first.
One good season? And define good there.
I mean, if you make it to bowl games for 3 years in a row is that good? There are almost 30 bowl games and only 119 D1 schools, meaning that half of all D1 teams go to a bowl. All you have to do to get in is win 6 games. If you do that for 3 years, have you restored the program?
In hoops, there are something like 336 teams, and 65 teams go to the dance. That's more like 20%, and very few are at-large. So it's much harder to make the NCAA tourney. In fact, add the NIT and that's still statistically more difficult than going to a bowl game. And yet, 3 straight NIT appearances is hardly restoring the program.

So, I would say State would have to win 22 games in a 3 year stretch. That's two 7 win seasons and one 8 win season. Is that fair? I don't care if they lose or win bowl games. 22 total wins would do it for me. They've won 14 over the past 3 years. Their best stretch in the past 5 was 18 wins. So we're talking about improving that by 4 wins. It doesn't seem like much, but it would be improving by 8 wins over the past 3. That does seem a bit tough.

Meanwhile, for Michigan, I think they need to win over 70 games, with two NCAA appearances in 3 years. That's better than 23 wins per season, and by requiring NCAA appearances, the wins aren't padded by NIT runs. Over the past 3 season Michigan had 57 wins, so it's a big increase. If you look at Wisconsin, they only have 74 wins over the past three years, and I think you would say they were solid.

If we can agree on those standards first I think it would help.
By the way, to clarify, I'm not putting a minimum on any one year. Example, I said State needs 22 wins in 3 years. If they win 4 this year, but then win 9 in each of the next two years they've made it.
If Michigan wins 20 this year, then 25 the next two while appearing in the NCAA's both of those, they've made it.

Ok, so let's agree on the standard first. I need to be able to weigh this with something more than opinion.

I also think it's not fair to use final rankings, since (as previously pointed out) there are almost 3 times as many basketball teams.

[Fool]

Good thread Tre.

[FillyCheezeSteak]

I agree. This is a good thread and its nice to actually have a real conversation and not just make fun of each other. I'm voting for Coach B only because I feel its easier to turn around a basketball team in general. Look at what Acie Law has done at Texas A&M....if you get a great floor general or an amazing scorer with some solid role players you could easily turn around a bad squad. Hopefully we will have that soon.

[Glenn]

I'm with Jethro, the standard of success needs to be defined first.

[WTFchris]

I think Jethro's standards seem pretty fair.

[Zip Goshboots]

GREAT THREAD!
I like Jethro's standards, and would call for them to be where the bar is set. They are realistic, and for now he discounts the post season (which we Michigan Football fans REALLY like).

Now, for my part of the bias: State's "rich" tradition is more than forty years past. They had a pretty damn solid 20 year run from about 1947 to 1967, but even in that span they had three losing seasons. Having said that, State's tradition was, like Michigan's, hurt by the Big 10 and their old Bowl Game rules.
Michigan's basketball tradition is pretty good. A couple final fours in the '60's, one in the '70's, and the glory years of the '80's capped off with the championship in '89. For the record, I think you have to totally disregard what the Jive Five "accomplished".
So, even though it's older, State's football tradition trumps UM basketball tradition.

Facitlities are a no brainer. State seems to be going for the home run, Michigan basketball is still learning how to bunt.

I think the only thing I would add to Jethro's standards, in light of all this, is extending it to five years, and include a conference championship (but I won;t complain if you guys totally disregard my input).

[Jethro34]

I don't know if either team will win a conference championship in 5 years time, masybe not even in 10 years. I think over the next 10 years, the conference championship in football will go to UM, OSU, Wisconsin, maybe Penn State or Iowa, and if Zook can continue to shake up recruiting, possibly Illinois.
In hoops, it will be MSU or OSU for the next several years. Possibly Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, maybe Purdue at the tail end.

I agree that 5 years would be a better measure of sustaining a level, but I think AD's will want to know within 3. And actually, I don't think either will reach the standards I set in the next 3 years. Maybe in the next 4 years, but maybe not.

If we go on the standards I mentioned, I agree with the majority here and think it should be more likely for Beilein. A more difficult schedule should help them get there on SOS/RPI, but should make it more difficult in terms of getting the wins requirement.

As for State, it's pretty tough there as well. They would have to benefit early on from an easier schedule, which I don't think they have yet. Give them the tougher games at home, and give them a year without 2 of the big boys, and maybe they get it done. Good news is they don't have to worry about SOS. 6 wins for any team in the Big Ten should do it.

The reason I go with Michigan is because you need 8 players to be successful in hoops. Meanwhile, you probably need twice that in football. You can get by with some mediocre starters, but you need a decent line, some talent at the skill positions, and a defense that doesn't lay down.

The other edge I give Beilein is that he accomplished that mark at his last stop, while Dantonio didn't. Dantonio was on track to, with an 8 win season last year, but left before he got the chance.

One edge I do give Dantonio is perception. Like others have mentioned, he's a passionate coach from a good breeding ground with great facilities. You would think that would bring in some solid recruits eventually. Meanwhile, Beilein is older with an old school philosophy that doesn't lend itself to individual recognition too much and he's using crappy facilities. He has to recruit IN SPITE of all of that.