Thursday, October 31, 2013

 

 
 
AN MSU SALUTE TO BRADY HOKE
 
 
HAPPY HALLOWEEN!



THROWBACK THURSDAY:

HATE WEEK -- A History of the 

MSU/UofM Rivalry


Leon Halip - Getty Images
(Bump: Heck wrote this prior to the 2011 game, but it's still very relevant. Plus, he put a ton of work into it. Nothing has been changed in the body, so some stats might be off. - Chris)
--

Author's note: For those unfamiliar with our background, at different times MSU was known as M.A.C. (Michigan Agricultural College), and MSC (Michigan State College), as our size and mission grewThis is only tangentially about football, but very much about the rivalry swirling about our game for Paul Bunyan.

"So, what's the deal with you guys?"


It's been called an inferiority complex. It's been called jealousy. Mike Hart infamously labeled us 'Little Brother'. Michigan State University does
not like the University of Michigan. But why?

Having two major institutions in the same state and conference is a good start, as closeness and familiarity almost always breeds contempt.

A football rivalry first dominated by one side before the second half of the 20th century, that then turned pretty close in more recent times (35-26-2 UM since 1950) with several epic and controversial games in the past decade, has helped build animosity. The biggest cheating scandal in NCAA history, perpetuated with the knowledge and consent of UofM officials, held back MSU's basketball progress for at least a decade, hurt a great coach's legacy in Jud Heathcote, and only increased the dislike from MSU fans. And as Coach Dantonio and Mark Hollis have each remarked several times, you're either blue or green in this state.

But few of these criteria are unique to MSU-UM.  Rivalries are fairly common among college teams. Everyone has a rival, every school has a school (or three) they hate, at least in theory.

But I'd argue what I and scores of other Spartan fans feel towards University of Michigan Ann Arbor is something a little different. It's hate with a long history behind it, the type of history only the best of rivalries can claim, one that folds in and out of athletics, academia, and other bad blood.


The University of Michigan, tried, for a long time, to wrap its hands around the neck of our university at nearly every turn, displaying the type of arrogance, elitism, and anti-competitive policies of subterfuge and sabotage that has made the university reviled throughout all of the Big Ten.


Opposition to our very creation
 
Our story begins over a century and a half ago in the 1850's. The state of Michigan had a big problem: inferior agriculture. In 1837, a law was passed upgrading the state's premier university, which, of course, was the University of Michigan, to its current location in Ann Arbor. UofM, which was already eager, willing, and able to train the state's new lawyers, doctors, and theologians, also promised that, "there shall be a department of agriculture, with competent instructors..." that would study the theory, physiology, chemistry, and practice of farming and agriculture. (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 1)
As you might guess, over the following dozen years, the University of Michigan absolutely did not do this, at the very least, not to the quantity or quality they promised. We can prove this, not only with oratorical record (Kuhn quotes E.H. Lothrup, the speaker at the first Michigan state fair, as pleading for an agricultural institution that would train hundreds of men each year, not just the 20-30 that the University of Michigan was graduating, in 1849), but with agricultural data and food production decisions at the time (Kuhn notes wheat yields had declined, railroads had threatened Michigan's livestock farmers with competition from the East, and that the lure of California and the American West might depopulate Michigan of its rural farmers unless things improved). (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 2)

Rising to this call for action was the Michigan State Agricultural Society. Several sources of revenue were sought but each ran into roadblocks. Private funding wasn't available, the State government was too poor to assist, and the average taxpayer too poor to tax for the cash.

Seeing that the Wolverines weren't going to solve the problem and that the state didn't have the money to start a new college on its own, it made the first petition to the national Congress that would eventually result in the Morrill Act of 1862 being passed. (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 7)

But that wasn't for 12 more years. And here in 1850, they had a problem on their hands now. So the group and their allies included a clause in Michigan's second Constitution which read simply: "The Legislature shall... as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment of an Agricultural School." The money wasn't there yet. But there was a gift of land of about 1,400 acres of so-called Salt Spring Lands for whatever institution choose to form the agricultural school. (Kuhn, pg. 5-6)

A floundering, cash strapped ancestor to what is now Michigan State University, then based in Ypsilanti, jumped at this opportunity for land. So too, did the University of Michigan, leaping into half-assed action like the roommate late on rent for four straight months, but promising that, 'he'll get it to you this time bro. He promises.' (Kuhn, 1955, pg. 7)

Both institutions sent proposals to the State legislature, who couldn't decide, and took a 'wait and see' approach. So each institution then set up competing agricultural programs, but the school in Ypsilanti didn't have the size, and the University in Ann Arbor lacked the staff, commitment, and audience to maintain their agricultural program, folding it after only a little over a year. (Kuhn, 1955, pg 7)
After these failed bids, it was pretty clear to the head honchos of Michigan agriculture that they needed an exclusive, separate agricultural institution to perform the function needed and guaranteed by the state constitution. (Kuhn 1955, pg 8)

Standing in the way was Michigan president and historical Wolverine shithead Henry P. Tappan, a man who made a career out of opposing any threat to his university's monolithic control of higher education in the state of Michigan (also, as it happens, a man far too cultured to take a stance on the slavery question, and, I kid you not, a man who basically said that people could not get intoxicated from drinking wine. That's a century and a half old buttress holding up UofM's 'wine and cheese crowd' reputation folks) Tappan was clear, when it came to an Agricultural College, it was in Ann Arbor, or nowhere. The State Legislature, under the watchful eye of 'friend of MSU' John C. Holmes and his allies, was equally clear: "Fuck off, Wolverines." The Agricultural College of Michigan was established, separate from the UofM. (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 8-9)

But the college wasn't in the clear yet. Several provisions in the bill looked to kneecap the institution, some coming from self-interested state senators, some undoubtedly coming from Tappan's faction. The most painful of which was a change from Holmes' recommendation of authorizing the M.A.C. $25 with which to purchase each acre of land, to only authorizing $15 per acre, a reduction that drastically reduced the quality of land available. As Kuhn puts it, this was "dooming the college to commence in the forest", hardly suitable farmland for an agricultural institution! (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 10-11)

The second stipulation ordered that the College be established within 10 miles of Lansing, something that doesn't seem like a big deal now, but was considerably tougher when the land 10 miles outside of Lansing was a road-less, infrastructure-less wild, functionally ruled by undergrowth, bears, and 6-foot long mosquitoes that would often carry away small children[citation needed]. (Kuhn, 1955 pg 10)

But as tough as things were, what would eventually become MSU was established, and though it struggled and pushed its way through its first half a decade of existence, it had shown that it wasn't going to back down to Ann Arbor. All the school needed was a big break. And the opportunity for that break arrived, from the aforementioned Morrill Act, in 1862.

Attempted theft of our Morrill Grant, destruction of our independence
 
President Lincoln and the U.S. Congress recognized that the nation's various agricultural institutions, like M.A.C., needed the type of boost other public schools had gotten from the government. With this in mind, they passed the Morrill Act, which, as Kuhn writes, "...gave to agricultural colleges a promise of permanence which had been lacking previously." (Kuhn, 1955, pg 71)

The Morrill Act offered a massive grant of land, pretty good land, to one institution in each state. Given it's purpose and the letter of the law, it was to be available for schools where "the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies... to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the agricultural arts..." M.A.C. administrators, teachers, and students, had to be ecstatic. That was them! It was right in the curriculum, the purpose, heck, the name! They were finally going to get some help and be able to do what they were established to do. (Kuhn, 1955, pg. 71-75)

As you might expect, the University of Michigan, not having pissed all over us for half a dozen years now, saw a clear opportunity for R. Kelly levels of degrading urination.

'Well, there's no way in hell, we're going to get that Morrill money allocated to us,' they corrected surmised, probably while stroking comically evil mustaches, 'Unlesssssss...'

"A merger." They proposed. "We should merge M.A.C. into the Uof M system."
They would transfer agricultural education to Ann Arbor, and the land from the Morrill land would be assigned to the University of Michigan. (Kuhn, 1955 pg 76-77)

"Why?" people asked.

"Shut up." they responded, trying to hide the places on their plan where they'd been doodling themselves carrying big bags of money. If they couldn't stop M.A.C. from getting established, and if they couldn't stop it from getting the Morrill money, they could steal it without doing much more work than lobbying legislators. Apparently, in the UofM administrator’s version of the 'little red hen' story, all of the farm animals who didn't do any work making the cake, sneak in and gobble the cake all up, after the hen leaves the room.

The committee probably rightfully seeing that merging the colleges was not cost effective, or educationally preferable, decided to award M.A.C. the land grant in 1863. This, of course, did not stop the University of Michigan from try, try, trying again, and re-introducing the merger proposal on three more occasions in 1865, 1867, and 1869. Kuhn writes, "Even though they failed of passage, their following was numerous enough to defeat all proposed building appropriations" to M.A.C. If U of M could not stop our creation, or steal our land grant, they would do there damnedest to strangle our funding. The College's single residency hall was subject to such crowding that half of a new year's admissions applications were denied (think of how much USNWR would like us with that kind of rejection rate!) (Kuhn 1955, pg. 78)

But despite their best efforts (including actually trying to induce our school president into approving the merger with an offer "that his friends would try to find him [Abbott] a position in the University [of Michigan] if the merger succeeded.", the type of 'join us, and we can rule the galaxy together!' offer I only thought bad guys made in movies), they failed. In 1869, M.A.C. at last fought off the obstructionism and was finally appropriated funding for a new dormitory. (Kuhn, 1955 pg 78-81)

Attempted theft of our forestry program
 
There was a period of peace between the universities for a number of years, but like a kleptomaniac who just can't help himself, within half a century they were back to old tricks, This one is probably less openly dickish than the other attempts by Michigan to steal our programs, as it at least pays some respect to us first, and admits that we're better than them at something, before trying to take credit for it. Due to its surrounding forests, in the early 1900's M.A.C.'s undergraduate forestry program was producing practical, effective, foresters; in sharp contrast to the theoretically skilled, but practically unprepared, graduates of graduate level forestry programs at places like Cornell, Michigan or Yale. A U of M professor wrote a letter to the president of our forestry program complimenting it and its methods. (Widder 2005 pg 162-163)

Then, like clockwork, proposals were made that either one program or the other should drop its forestry program in the unification, either M.A.C. its undergraduate program, or U of M its graduate. (Widder 2005 pg. 164)

Prominent forest expert and Yale grad Gifford Pinchot weighed in on the side of U of M and argued M.A.C. should drop its undergraduate program, saying that moving forestry to the University of Michigan would be "an immense advantage to the progress of forestry in Michigan" and that moving forestry to M.A.C. would be "destructive". This move isn't as villainous as some other moves, particularly if, as proponents argued, such a move would have a net positive effect on American forestry knowledge. But, as it turned out, contra to the thinking of Mr. Pinchot, an undergraduate program was both feasible and effective, training good foresters as well as fulfilling the goals of our land grant background.  

The entire episode smacks of an arrogant attitude -- that if MSU is better than Michigan, Yale, and Cornell at a field of study, then something is wrong with the world. (Widder, 2005 pg 164)

Professor is part of Uof M sleeper cell (not really. maybe.), is sort of traitor to MSU
 
W.J. Beal graduated with degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard. He then proceeded to spend most of his career teaching Botany at M.A.C. and generally did various 'cool dude' things, like setting up MSU's famous botanic garden, curating for our museum, and doing strong and important research in his field of study. He was also kind of a Benedict Arnold. (Widder 2005 pg 62)
One day in 1914, he must have heard his activation code phrase, because he proposed (again!) that M.A.C. be rolled up into the Michigan system to "spare the university [of Michigan] from duplicating courses offered at M.A.C." (Widder 2005 pg 70-71)

As nearly everyone, including the presidents of M.A.C. and U of M said "WTF guy?" A member of the State Agriculture Board noted that Beal had probably confused the college's mission as promoting and producing agricultural scientists (like, well, Beal) and not training farmers. Both were probably wrong, as the college existed to train both, and its independence was key to doing so. The two colleges wisely shot down Beal's bizarre proposal. (Widder 2005 pg 71-72) 

Attempted theft of our engineering program
 
Of course, that didn't stop the Wolverines from trying other to lift other fields. Yeah, this again. In this case, it's the Wolverines showing a slimy willingness to take advantage of misfortune at M.A.C.
In 1916, a fire (though zero evidence indicates involvement of a Michigan Man arsonist, I would not be surprised at this point) destroyed the college's engineering building and much of its engineering equipment. After failing in bids to acquire our engineering department in 1913 and 1915, Wolverines saw now was a good (and by good, I mean dickish) time to strike. (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 266-267)
Like Crassus sending his early fire brigades to burning Roman buildings, they were willing to 'help' us in our time of pain. "Real shame about your engineering program." seemed to be the line, "We uh, wouldn't mind taking it off your hands for you."

Then president of the college, Frank Kedzie, rallied the engineering students and faculty, some of whom had escaped from the still smoldering remains of the old engineering building, and, in a moment of Churchillian swagger before Churchill was Churchill, is quoted by Kuhn to have said, "It is up to you men to keep a stiff upper lip. It lies with you as to whether or not the engineering department will live." (Kuhn, 1955 pg. 267)

Immediately, the students and teachers set about to utilizing other rooms in the campus to continue their instruction. Meanwhile, Kedzie contacted Lansing automaker Ransom E. Olds (winner of the 1916 cool name award), and basically said, "Remember that time we talked about you getting a building with your name on it? Now would be a real, real, good time to make that a reality." Olds' agreed and donated $100,000 to build a new engineering building. Kuhn writes, "Just as the construction of Williams Hall in 1869 ended a fight to move agriculture to the University [of Michigan], so the construction of Olds Hall in 1916 ended the fight to move engineering."
With this, our existence and independence was finally secured from the ambitions of our rivals. But what of our further prominence?

Lack of support for MSC to the Big Ten
 
In football, despite the great work of Biggie Munn, MSU football was being held back. David Thomas writes then President of MSC John Hannah, thought the problem was, "weak schedules—beating Grinnell, Carnegie Tech, Wayne State, and Alma created little excitement in national football circles. And, of course, potential recruits tended to choose colleges that scheduled games against elite programs. Moreover, the top schools that agreed to play MSC often insisted on playing the games at home, forcing the Spartans continually to play in front of hostile crowds. Prior to 1947, for example, 29 of Michigan State’s 33 varsity games against the University of Michigan took place in Ann Arbor." (Thomas, 2007)

This could be fixed by joining the Big Ten (also known as the Western Conference), and when the University of Chicago dropped athletics to cut the Big Ten to the Big Nine, MSU had a chance to get in. (Thomas 2007)

Did U of M oppose this move on MSC's part? As evidence of Michigan's typical role of obstructionist and saboteur, Thomas writes of the general undecurrent behind the anti-MSC vibe from U of M that undercut previous acts of support, "Despite U of M President Ruthven’s apparent support a few years earlier, the University of Michigan opposed having an in-state school join the conference, believing that the UM’s intrastate dominance would be curtailed." as well as President Hannah's later thoughts on the ordeal, "We knew from the beginning that there would be no friendly consideration of Michigan State’s cause by the Big Ten if the University of Michigan had its way. We anticipated that Ann Arbor would be unfriendly and critical and obstructive, and that is exactly what they were. . . ." (Thomas 2007)

When Hannah wrote to then Michigan Big Ten Faculty Representative Ralph Aigler to get an update on UofM's thoughts to MSC's admission status, he got the 'yeah, I don't think so' reply from Aigler, "There was . . . no definite vote on your application. When the matter came before the Faculty Representatives, I made a statement to the effect that I hoped the Conference would see its way clear to elect Michigan State, but I did not press for a vote, realizing that the temper of the group was to approve the Directors’ recommendation [that no change be made in membership]. I thought it was better to leave the matter more or less in suspense. What, if anything, it may have had to do with the general attitude, I cannot say, but it was not uncommon to hear a remark to the effect that a man or woman ought not to remarry until a decent interval has elapsed after the spouse’s death. . . . After a little more time has gone by, one will be able to tell better what the long range disposition of the group is." (Thomas 2007)

So what about the vote? We obviously were ultimately admitted. But did Michigan vote for, or against, our application? Well, it's unclear here again. But I have a guess.


A Lansing State Journal writer noted, "If there is a vote taken and it’s favorable, you can be very sure that it will be announced as a unanimous one. There will be some kind words spoken. If there is a negative result (and we have no way of knowing if the case will actually be voted upon at all!) there will be no comment." When the vote was announced and MSC was accepted (Hurray!) it was indeed announced as a 9-0 unanimous vote. I repeat, announced. Maybe it really was unanimous. But given Hannah's comments, evidence at the time, and the general swirl of rumors since, I'm inclined to believe that had Michigan been the swing vote or the vote was in favor of voting against us, the Wolverines almost certainly would have rejected us (Michigan's recent back stab of Nebraska in the AAU does nothing to damper this suspicion). The fact that they didn't want to be the only, or one of the few, no votes, combined with pressure from the Big Ten, probably meant even if they had wanted to vote no (or did vote no) it wouldn't show up in the news reports of the result, for reasons of face and faux unity. (Thomas 2007)

Opposition to our name change to Michigan State University
 
In 1954 MSC sent a request to the legislature requesting our name be changed to Michigan State University. The argument here was pretty simple: we'd been functionally operating as a university since the 1930's and most of the other land grant institutions had already been granted university status. In fact, we'd tried twice before, in 1949 and 1951 and failed. But we'd grown since WWII and had the type of athletic and academic success that should have helped our reputation and sealed the name change. Doesn't seem like that big a deal right? (Thomas 2008 pg 251-252)

Wrong. The University of Michigan freaked. The U of M board of regents met a month later and gave as reasons to why we shouldn't get to change our name to MSU (I shit you not): "A name change would confuse the identity of the institutions... it would be unconstitutional because both the University of Michigan and Michigan State College names were embedded in the Michigan constitution, and that it would lead to (Heck: U of M's favorite anti-competition excuse) duplication of programs". LOL, I mean, it reads like satire. (Thomas, 2008 pg 252)

It would be just a hilarious footnote in their regime of stabs at our legitimacy, except that their stupid, spiteful, bitching delayed the name change for about half a year, until the Michigan Congress and government finally got done laughing their asses off at UM's crappy arguments, and approved the name change in a landslide. (Thomas 2008, pg 252-258)

To sum it up
 
The story behind MSU-UM goes beyond the football field, or the basketball court, to something more raw. If Michigan had their way over the years, MSU would either not exist, be severely limited, or be a lobotomized satellite under their umbrella.

It's not all about the sports teams (though that certainly doesn't help matters). It isn't even about the obvious condescension. It's the century of open hostility and behind the scenes sabotage coming from Ann Arbor. The use of political levers and influence in an attempt to keep us down, as though education was a zero-sum game. Maybe this has happened to other schools, but here at MSU, no other program has as consistently, or systemically, tried to undermine our status as an educational institution and athletic program. In the past, they tried to crush my school under their boot heel and probably would have kept trying if we hadn't gotten too good, and too big, for them to pick on anymore.

All we originally wanted to do was fill a gap. Do the work UM wasn't doing, educate the students UM wasn't teaching. It's what we still do. And eventually, yes, we wanted to contribute to the fields that UofM was traditionally strong in too, and become well rounded and nationally respected. And we've done that too. But we've had to do it with the University of Michigan throwing garbage and rocks at us, every step of the way.

And that's a shame, because the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is, and always has been, a good enough school athletically, and academically, to not need to resort to this type of action. Your school is really good, you make, and discover, and teach valuable things. I just wish that could have been enough for you. We were probably always going to be rivals, but it could have been friendly, at least off the playing fields. I guess fair competition was always a little too risky for the Wolverines, so instead, they tried to pull the plug on, or take credit for, various Spartan's hard work, time after time. You don't get to try to bury something that's important to us and then expect us to shrug it off, though they'll probably never understand that.
So, yeah, it' s sort of personal. You thought we’d forget?

Fortunately, the story comes complete with a happy ending. They tried to kill us, but they couldn't. Spartans, so the legends go, don't die easily. We were too smart, too tough, too, well, good. And now, as the past half century has shown, we're done having to deal with the sort of nonsense chronicled in this piece. We're here to stay, free from this sort of petty sniping, political maneuvering, and constant second guessing. So don't forget the heroes and villains of this piece. Hate, because for many reasons hate has been earned, but also, be happy. Be happy because we beat the odds and that means so many good things, for so many good people.

Ultimately, MSU is a success story. Our school has grown from its simple roots to a university where students can feasibly claim they receive an education among the best in the country, while still fulfilling its goals to serve a large cross-section of students from around the country, and the globe. That's pretty cool. And, hey, the sports aren't too bad either.

Bibliography
-Kuhn, Madison, 1955. 'Michigan State: The First Hundred Years 1855-1955' published by: Michigan State University Press
-Thomas, David. 2008. 'Michigan State College' published by: Michigan State University Press
-Thomas, David, 2007. 'How MSU became a member of the Big Ten Conference' MSU Alumni Association Magazine, http://alumni.msu.edu/magazine/article.cfm?id=1154
-Widder, Keith, 2005. 'Michigan Agricultural College', published by: Michigan State University Press


October 30, 2013 at 1:00 am

Michigan State's Mark Dantonio rekindles burning rivalry with Michigan

East Lansing — Mark Dantonio has always made Michigan State’s game against Michigan a big deal.
 
He did so when he took over in 2007, installing a clock that counted down the days, hours and minutes until kickoff, he did so when he announced how the game would always mean something to Michigan State, even after a tough loss in his first season.
 
But the man who has been around rivalries with Michigan for the better part of the last 18 years — first as an assistant at Michigan State under Nick Saban, then as the defensive coordinator at Ohio State and now as the Spartans’ head coach — understands it can truly only be classified as a rivalry if it is competitive.
 
And that’s what he has brought to this series, winning four straight from 2008-2011 before the streak ended with a 12-10 loss last year in Ann Arbor.
 
“I think for it truly to be a rivalry, it cannot be one-sided,” Dantonio said Tuesday as his team prepared to host the Wolverines Saturday. “I mean, it can still be a rivalry, I guess, but I think it makes ... when it’s much more competitive, obviously things take on a whole new meaning. (Otherwise) it’s just words. If you can’t back up the words, it’s just empty words.”
 
Michigan State certainly has made things competitive since Dantonio arrived. Before he took over, the Spartans had lost five straight and had just two wins in the previous 11 years.
But things have flipped since 2008, though some still wonder how Michigan State has been able to do it with such a perceived gap in talent. That, however, isn’t the way these Spartans see things.
“I think if you ask the Michigan players that have played us the last four, five, six years they wouldn’t even know what gap you’re talking about, and I quite frankly don’t, either,” senior linebacker Max Bullough said. “We’re Michigan State, we’ve got good football players here, we always have. We don’t take a back seat to anybody, Michigan or anything.
 
“We can play with the best. We’ve always had as good a talent as you can have.”
And they’ve parlayed that talent into one of the best, if not the best, defense in the nation that has led the Spartans to a 7-1 record, 4-0 in the Big Ten.
 
They’ve been able to build consistency that didn’t exist before Dantonio’s arrival. Evidence to that are six straight bowl appearances that will reach seven after this season and back-to-back 11-win seasons in 2010 and 2011.
 
Doing that with Michigan right down t he road is just part of the deal.
 
“We’ve got great programs throughout the Midwest that have been around for a long time,” Dantonio said. “I think we compete with the University of Michigan every single day, every single week, whether it’s on recruiting, whether it’s fundraising, a lot of different things.”
Much of that competition is magnified this week as the rivals meet on the football field in one of the more intense games each team will play all season.
 
It’s enough that Dantonio did his best to limit what his players might say heading into the game, brining just the team’s captains to the weekly news conference. However, there was no limit for the coach. When asked if he respected Michigan coach Brady Hoke, he got straight to the point. 
 
“Yeah, that’s accurate,” he said. “But I will say this, so you guys can print all this: Just because you like somebody in the family doesn’t mean you like the whole family. But I have a great deal of respect for Brady and his coaching abilities. Very close with his brother back in the day. Good man.”
That’s about as touchy-feely as you’ll get this week.
 
Senior defensive back Darqueze Dennard addressed the media on Tuesday and he made a point to never say the word, “Michigan.”
 
“Yeah, that’s a bad word,” he said. “I’m going to stay away from that. … I don’t want to give them acknowledgment. … It is what it is.”
 
For senior offensive lineman Blake Treadwell, whose first career start came as a true freshman against Michigan, there is no comparison to winning and losing to the Wolverines.
 
“Probably one of the worst feelings I’ve felt,” he said about last season’s loss. “You know, playing Michigan, that’s one of the first times we’ve lost, me being here, and I’ll tell you what, the locker room and stuff I’ll never forget. I can’t explain the feeling.”
 
That feeling has been fostered by Dantonio. Playing and beating Michigan has always been a big deal to him, and that will likely never change.
 
His players have simply become an extension of that approach.
 
I think if you come to a school like Michigan State and you don’t admit that Michigan is our rivalry, if you don’t emphasize it or you don’t point to it and obviously say we want to win that game maybe a little bit more than all the others, then you’re lying to yourself and you’re lying to your team,” Bullough said. “I agree with everything Coach has said and done. It makes us excited because that’s how we feel, and everyone knows that. Everyone knows that we’re excited to play this game, and so are they.”
 
And as Dantonio said, he’ll never shy away from it. To him, it’s about more than just him. Beating a rival that you may  dislike but respect at the same time is important to the entire Michigan State community.
 
“I have a great deal of respect for who they are and the game, a great deal of respect for that, and I think that everybody should understand that,” he said. “But at the same time, I’m a competitor, too, just like our players are, so there are times when I need to stand up and be accountable for who I am and the position I hold because I represent a lot of people. A lot of people have feelings towards this game. I think that’s important to recognize, because that’s a part of it, too.”
mcharboneau@detroitnews.com
twitter.com/mattcharboneau



From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131030/SPORTS0202/310300019#ixzz2jEqLoHyD

Wednesday, October 30, 2013


MEANWHILE IN KENOSHA . . . . .

Drunk Clown Accused 

of Dangling Child from Overpass

(AP) Drunk man accused of dangling child from overpass
KENOSHA, Wis.
A Wisconsin man wearing clown makeup dangled a child upside down from an overpass after coming home drunk from a Halloween party, according to officials who charged him with child abuse.

The Kenosha News ( http://bit.ly/1aodMUu) reports that a woman called police after she saw 33-year-old Antonio Brown dragging two screaming children into woods in Kenosha about 2 a.m. Sunday. The 13- and 8-year-old children said Brown was their mother's boyfriend.

According to court records, Brown invited the children to go for a walk on train tracks when he returned from a Halloween party about 1 a.m. The children had done this before and thought it was fun.

But the 13-year-old boy told police that this time Brown was drunk and he forced the children to drink alcohol as well. The teen said he drank so much that he vomited.

The younger child became scared after they climbed onto the tracks, and the boys tried to run away. Brown grabbed the older child, held him upside down from the overpass and warned him, "If you try that again, I'm going to drop you."

Brown then climbed onto a train car and began hopping from one car to another, the complaint said. When the 8-year-old refused to follow, Brown grabbed him by the hair and tried to pull him up. He later dangled the child from a train car, holding him by the neck and ankle.

Brown has been charged with child abuse and second-degree reckless endangerment and is being held in the Kenosha County Jail. Court records do not list his attorney.
BRING PAUL BUNYAN HOME!



Inside Selection Sunday: Mapnalysis 2013
Inside the MHSAA Football Play-Off Selection Sunday: Mapnalysis 2013




Posted Monday, October 28, 2013
from the MHSAA blog
By Geoff Kimmerly
Second Half editor
At the end of the day – Sunday, in this case – the 2013 MHSAA football playoff field was determined based on a set of numbers we began working with long before the first kickoff of this season.
So to kick off our discussion of how some of the 2013 playoff-selection decisions were made, here are a few numbers that might boggle the mind – or at least surprise:
  • A total of 3,111 high school results were used in determining this season’s field – 2,978 for 11-player and 133 for 8-player games.

  • We inputted and then followed the schedules for 623 MHSAA teams.

  • We also inputted and followed weekly the schedules for 50 teams from surrounding states and Ontario that played at least one game against one of our MHSAA schools.
  • We worked through complicated maneuverings made necessary by seven teams playing a mix of 11 and 8-player games, plus two more teams that played a mix of varsity and junior varsity opponents.
  • And by Sunday morning we ended up with a few more numeric rarities: only 225 automatic qualifiers, the fewest since the current playoff system was introduced in 1999, and also an uneven number of at-large bids from our four classes because only six Class D teams reached the number of victories needed to be considered. (This was balanced by taking more at-large qualifiers from Classes A, B and C.)
And that was just the start of one of our most exciting days of the school year.  

Following are more details. First, I explain some of the history of the MHSAA playoffs – I’ve lifted this in part from our 2012 report, so skip ahead if you’ve already got that down. Next, I touch on five themes that emerged as we built the brackets for this season’s tournament.

The process

Our past: The MHSAA playoff structure – with 256 teams in eight divisions, and six wins equaling an automatic berth (or five wins for teams playing eight or fewer games) – debuted in 1999, as mentioned above. An 8-player tournament was added in 2011, resulting in nine champions total when November is done.
 
That’s a long way from our start. The first playoffs were conducted in 1975 with four champions. Four more football classes were added in 1990 for a total of eight champions each fall. Through 1998, only 128 teams made the postseason, based on their playoff point averages within regions (four for each class) that were drawn before the beginning of the season. The drawing of Districts and Regions after the end of the regular season did not begin until the most recent playoff expansion.
In early years of the current process (or until the middle of the last decade), lines were drawn by hand. Dots representing qualifying schools were pasted on maps, one map for each division, and those maps were then covered by plastic sheets. Districts and Regionals literally were drawn with dry-erase markers.
 
Our present: After a late Saturday night tracking scores, we file in as the sun rises Sunday morning for a final round of gathering results we may still need (which can include making a few early a.m. calls to athletic directors). Then comes re-checking and triple-checking of enrollments, what schools played in co-ops, some records and more before the numbers are crunched and the fields are set.
Those 256 11-player teams are then split into eight equal divisions based on enrollment, and their locations are marked on digital maps that are projected on wall-size screens and then discussed by nearly half of the MHSAA staff plus a representative from the Michigan High School Football Coaches Association. Only the locations themselves are marked (by yellow dots) – not records, playoff point averages or names of the schools or towns. In fact, mentions of those are strictly prohibited. Records and playoff points are not part of the criteria. Matchups, rivalries, previous playoff pairings, etc. also DO NOT come into play. The same process is followed for organizing the 8-player bracket.

Observations and answers: 2013

This doesn’t happen overnight: Preparation for selecting the MHSAA playoff field begins long before the first kickoff of fall, much less the first practice. We load schedules for all 600-plus varsity teams during the summer, and many schedules remain fluid right up until the first Friday of the season – and this fall, a few weren’t settled until Week 2 or 3. 

This summer as in some past we also worked through schools closing (Inkster, Saginaw Buena Vista, Detroit Northwestern, Flint Northern), and others deciding in mid-July and early August they would not field teams because of a lack of players. 

Sometimes we have to take odd paths to find scores for these games. The last 11-player score to be added to our data this regular season came in as a result of tweeting the sports anchor of a Wheeling, W.Va., television station. Our last 8-player score came in via email from a Wisconsin athletic director at 10:30 Saturday night. Thankfully, we get plenty of assistance from some of our friends in the field, who keep an eye on the data and alert us when something appears missing or incorrect. 

Win and advance: This season’s list of 5-4 teams includes a number of heavy hitters that did not receive at-large bids – East Grand Rapids, Utica Eisenhower, Orchard Lake St. Mary’s and Flint Powers Catholic to name a few. All were  solid teams and played strong competition. All missing the playoffs likely raised some eyebrows.
 
But we have to take a look at this from a statewide view. There admittedly can be some argument about what schools qualified for the 226-256 spots in the field – but the important part is that 225 qualified because they all met the minimum win requirement. A playoff is simply that – it decides a champion based on teams winning. For some it’s harder to pile wins, of course, because they play in tough leagues. But the winners of those leagues are in the field – and surely will credit that tough road with getting them prepared to now play the state’s best. 
 
Geography rules: This long has been rule number one for drawing MHSAA brackets in any sport, and is a repeat as well for those who have read this report the last two Octobers. Travel distance and ease DO come into play. Jumping on a major highway clearly is easier than driving across county-wide back roads, and that’s taken into consideration. 
 
Also, remember there’s only one Mackinac Bridge and hence only one way to cross between peninsulas – and boats are not considered a possible form of transportation. When opponents from both peninsulas will be in the same District, distance to the bridge is far more important than as the crow flies. 
 
The best example of this comes this season in Division 5. Grayling clearly is east of both Kingsley and Kalkaska – but also sits on I-75, while those two do not. So while those more western teams are geographically closer to Houghton, Menominee and Kingsford from the Upper Peninsula, we instead paired the three U.P. teams with Grayling because being on a main highway made for a shorter trip. The trip to Grayling for any of those U.P. teams would be 36 miles shorter to Grayling than Kingsley and 13 miles shorter to Grayling than Kalkaska. 
 
Sometimes it’s where the points aren’t: Sure, it would be best-case scenario to have perfect sets of eight dots split into four quadrants from Calumet to Bedford. But generally that doesn’t occur. “Dots determine the map” is a common phrase heard here during this selection process, but that works the other way as well. If there are no qualifiers in a division from a specific area of the state – see Division 1, with none south of Holland or west of the greater Lansing area – there’s no choice but to create the unusual Regional Final possibility of Traverse City West vs. Brighton. Brighton is simply closer to the west side of the state than our other options.  
 
Border to border vs. coast to coast: Should Regions be grouped north to south or east to west? There isn't a right or wrong answer – it just depends on that set of dots. 
 
Whenever we have Upper Peninsula teams in a division, they’ll be grouped with those from the northernmost points of the Lower Peninsula for a District. The next northernmost schools will be grouped into a District, and together those eight will form a Region. 
 
But the tough decision comes with the other six Districts. Look at this season’s Division 5 map: Six Districts are grouped south of U.S. 10 with three near or west of U.S. 127 and three east of that highway, which runs through the center of the Lower Peninsula. We grouped the two southwestern Districts into a Region and the two southeastern Districts into a Region – leaving a final Region that stretches from Muskegon on Lake Michigan to Almont, about 35 miles west of Lake Huron. 
 
That’s a haul. But it’s also the best of our possible compromises. We could’ve instead paired regions that would’ve stretched from Hopkins to Monroe – only 19 fewer miles in distance than Muskegon Oakridge to Almont, but a scenario that could’ve created travel increases for a number of additional teams. Another option included a possible trip from Detroit University Prep to Freeland, which also would take more than two hours.  
 
Bottom line – it’s been written here before – we pour all we have into this process, asking questions often more than once until we come up with a consensus. We do appreciate the arguments that arise once brackets are released to the public: The discussions are proof of how much players, coaches and fans care – and often show us new ways we can look at a system that’s now 15 years old.
But we must remember that the good news is the tournament is still set up to reward nine champions over the next five weeks, and five schools – Auburn Hills Oakland Christian, Coldwater, Detroit Allen, Eaton Rapids and Muskegon Mona Shores – will be competing for those titles for the first time. 
 
It’s not so much how the tournament starts as how it ends. And we’re preparing for nine more memorable conclusions.
 
PHOTO: Each collection of grouped dots is a District on this season's Division 3 playoff map. 

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

MHSAA FOOTBALL PLAY-OFF PREVIEW

Division 6
R1, D1 

Houghton Gremlins, the Movie, (6-3) (43.000) vs. 

 



Menominee Morons, (9-0) (98.667), 
who've somehow managed to win a state championship after the toughest SOB who ever came out of Menominee
graduated in 1988, @
Gary Stewart Field in the Hofer Dome




Monday, October 28, 2013

MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL PLAYOFF 
ROUND ONE PREVIEW 
 
Division 7
R1, D1



 Traverse City St. Bullough   (5-4) 56.333 vs.
 






vs. Iron River- What's a Wykon? (9-0) 81.778 
@ West Wykon/Mike Nelson Field .