Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching the B1G semi-final game and a thought hit me: U-M vs. MSU is a big game in football, in basketball, anywhere it's played.
And the thought also occurred to me that Michigan-Michigan State rivalry/connection is perhaps the most interesting and best between what are essentially two flagship universities in any state.
Now I might be full of crap on this one, but to me, U-M - MSU just feels different. I'll give some reasons why I think so.....and would be interested if any of you can see wha I'm getting at and if you think I'm right or wrong on it.
Let's start with location. Michigan is the only state in the urbanized northeast quadrant of the nation except Indiana with two such prominent state universities battle each other in sports (and academics and reputation, as well). And let's face it, IU-Purdue is nowhere near the level that UM-MSU is.
And while many states have the "Univ. of ___", the oldest and most classical school and "____ state Univ", the land-grant, heavy into agriculture and engineering. Interestingly U-M was the first true "comprehensive state university" who set its mission differently from schools like UVa and UNC. Michigan became the model for a flagship state university. Indeed, when Cal was founded, Michigan was its model. And your state also is the leader in land grants as MSU is usually credited as the first one.
But it seems to me that MSU, far more so than other schools so named, has, since WWII, built itself into a comprehensive, all encompassing university that has the full feel of what would be a flagship in virtually any state because it basically functions like one.
So MSU is different from Iowa State, Kansas State, Okla State, Miss State, etc....schools that are not as wide in curriculum and who come off as a second fiddle compared to the original state flagships in their states. Now, U-M, of course, is way up there among the finest public universities, but it is very clear that MSU does not see itself in anyone's shadow and frankly holds up to Michigan pretty well. Unusual for this to be, but U-M and MSU are both high profile schools, both athletically and academically. And not too many states have them (I would, of course, include ones like Texas-TAMU, Cal-UCLA, maybe a few others).
If you get into athletics, I can't think of any matchups where both universities are traditionally strong in both football and basketball and that seems to add to the allure of the matchup.
As I said, this is a loose connection of ideas, so bare with me if they seem a bit goofy, like.....the symmetry of the this rivalry. There is an M and there is an S....and they don't do it that way anywhere else. In fact, MSU pretty much is the default "State" for the letter S. Then you get the whole blue vs. green thing. The nearness of the two campuses and the nearness of both to the state's biggest metro area.
Look, I'd be the first to say that U-M is in an elite class of public universities (arguably with only Cal, UVa and UCLA as its peers), but Michigan's two top public schools have an incredible profile. And that MSU was able to accomplish that with the one of the most difficult tasks a school could face....having to share its state with Michigan.....is to its credit.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Michigan-Michigan State is just not like the rest. It is special in its own right.
I have heard that before. Also I have heard Michigan is unique or nearly so in the number of upper quality universities per person.
Even the tier below MSU U-M has some really great schools, especially in specialty areas. WSU is a nationally ranked research university (how many States our size have three?) WSU also has a top notch Psychology graduate school - among other things. Some of the specialized engineering schools are great (Larewence, MIT, I forget what they renamed the GM and Ford engineering schools). GVSU is the big time climber trying to get into the U-M/MSU league and proceeding admirably in that direction. NMU is also a decent school (I think). EMU is purportedly the largest teaching college in the USA. Schools from all over the nation recruit teachers from there. Even lowly Ferris State has a great construction management school.
I would agree, Edsg25, Michigan is generally different for having 2 separate (separate historically and operationally) public universities that are as high profile and high quality, academically... I would say UC-Berkeley and UCLA are a bit different because UCLA was developed as a branch of Cal; it was originally, in 1919, founded as the Southern Branch of the University of California; the first separate UC campus strategically located mushrooming southern California at the time.
I have heard that before. Also I have heard Michigan is unique or nearly so in the number of upper quality universities per person.
Even the tier below MSU U-M has some really great schools, especially in specialty areas. WSU is a nationally ranked research university (how many States our size have three?) WSU also has a top notch Psychology graduate school - among other things. Some of the specialized engineering schools are great (Larewence, MIT, I forget what they renamed the GM and Ford engineering schools). GVSU is the big time climber trying to get into the U-M/MSU league and proceeding admirably in that direction. NMU is also a decent school (I think). EMU is purportedly the largest teaching college in the USA. Schools from all over the nation recruit teachers from there. Even lowly Ferris State has a great construction management school.
GVSU has grown, metaphorically, from 0-60 mph in about 5 seconds, thanks largely to all that DeVos $$$$; it is the pet family school; seemingly half of GVSU's shiny big new buildings has the DeVos name on it.
I'm assuming by MIT you mean Michigan Tech, a really fine engineering university; I believe either the 2nd or 3rd oldest in the country; founded 1885. Western always seemed to be strongest of the "directional" schools, although Eastern is pretty good, too, the oldest teacher-training school west of the Alleghenies. I think Eastern unfairly loses points in some Michiganders' minds because it is, supposedly, rundown Ypsilanti, which always seems to be compared to vibrant, shiny Ann Arbor next door.
I have heard that before. Also I have heard Michigan is unique or nearly so in the number of upper quality universities per person.
Goes back to the North valuing education and the South not. Most northern states have a ton of public universities. The southern states don't. Historically Northern industrial states poured money into education while southern agricultural states didn't.
Universities per capita, Vermont of all states is #1 cause no one lives there (VT only has twice the population of Washtenaw county...).
Alabama has 37,000 people per college. Vermont has 19,500 people per college. Michigan is at 33,000 people per college.
But that's ALL colleges in the state, not just Research 1 doctoral colleges or top 200 colleges or whatever.
Goes back to the North valuing education and the South not. Most northern states have a ton of public universities. The southern states don't. Historically Northern industrial states poured money into education while southern agricultural states didn't.
Universities per capita, Vermont of all states is #1 cause no one lives there (VT only has twice the population of Washtenaw county...).
Alabama has 37,000 people per college. Vermont has 19,500 people per college. Michigan is at 33,000 people per college.
But that's ALL colleges in the state, not just Research 1 doctoral colleges or top 200 colleges or whatever.
Not so sure it's that the North values education more -- there's some of that, to be sure, but more so, I just think it came down to money, and a degree of populism in the North Central States. Those states saw high industrialism and population growth. Michigan, unusually, is a state that not only valued public education to the masses and the farming classes early on, it also was historically rich in agriculture, woodland and natural areas. Rather than follow the more elitist Eastern formula for higher ed, where state universities were frowned upon and not supported until after World War II, the wealthy classes established and endowed former religious-based seminaries originally tasked to produce New England clergy -- like Harvard, Yale and others -- Michigan specifically followed the Prussian style education system, with a statewide public system from K-12 crowned by a public university fed by these schools -- hence, the University of Michigan. Both agriculture and, then, the auto industry made Michigan ridiculously rich public taxes by the early 20th century.
But the farming and industrial classes also soon felt their sons were neglected and called for a college, not only to teach them scientific farming techniques, but also liberal arts and vocational skills like mechanical arts: hence the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan, founded 1855, which 109 years and 6 name changes, became Michigan State University.
The South was, and still is in many cases, more agrarian, but the oldest state universities were founded there, like UVa, UNC and U. Georgia, with UVa being the first prestige state school, with UNC not far behind. Interestingly the early big-name private Us of the late 19th-early 20 Century: Vanderbilt, Rice and Tulane, were all founded/endowed by Northern industrialists ... Duke, a bit later, was funded by NC tobacco moguls.
I was watching the B1G semi-final game and a thought hit me: U-M vs. MSU is a big game in football, in basketball, anywhere it's played.
And the thought also occurred to me that Michigan-Michigan State rivalry/connection is perhaps the most interesting and best between what are essentially two flagship universities in any state.
Now I might be full of crap on this one, but to me, U-M - MSU just feels different. I'll give some reasons why I think so.....and would be interested if any of you can see wha I'm getting at and if you think I'm right or wrong on it.
Let's start with location. Michigan is the only state in the urbanized northeast quadrant of the nation except Indiana with two such prominent state universities battle each other in sports (and academics and reputation, as well). And let's face it, IU-Purdue is nowhere near the level that UM-MSU is.
And while many states have the "Univ. of ___", the oldest and most classical school and "____ state Univ", the land-grant, heavy into agriculture and engineering. Interestingly U-M was the first true "comprehensive state university" who set its mission differently from schools like UVa and UNC. Michigan became the model for a flagship state university. Indeed, when Cal was founded, Michigan was its model. And your state also is the leader in land grants as MSU is usually credited as the first one.
But it seems to me that MSU, far more so than other schools so named, has, since WWII, built itself into a comprehensive, all encompassing university that has the full feel of what would be a flagship in virtually any state because it basically functions like one.
So MSU is different from Iowa State, Kansas State, Okla State, Miss State, etc....schools that are not as wide in curriculum and who come off as a second fiddle compared to the original state flagships in their states. Now, U-M, of course, is way up there among the finest public universities, but it is very clear that MSU does not see itself in anyone's shadow and frankly holds up to Michigan pretty well. Unusual for this to be, but U-M and MSU are both high profile schools, both athletically and academically. And not too many states have them (I would, of course, include ones like Texas-TAMU, Cal-UCLA, maybe a few others).
If you get into athletics, I can't think of any matchups where both universities are traditionally strong in both football and basketball and that seems to add to the allure of the matchup.
As I said, this is a loose connection of ideas, so bare with me if they seem a bit goofy, like.....the symmetry of the this rivalry. There is an M and there is an S....and they don't do it that way anywhere else. In fact, MSU pretty much is the default "State" for the letter S. Then you get the whole blue vs. green thing. The nearness of the two campuses and the nearness of both to the state's biggest metro area.
Look, I'd be the first to say that U-M is in an elite class of public universities (arguably with only Cal, UVa and UCLA as its peers), but Michigan's two top public schools have an incredible profile. And that MSU was able to accomplish that with the one of the most difficult tasks a school could face....having to share its state with Michigan.....is to its credit.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Michigan-Michigan State is just not like the rest. It is special in its own right.
Now....am I on to something here or full of crap.
I think UNC/NCSTATE, University of Florida/Florida State University, University of Arizona/Arizona State, and University of Washington/WSU are pretty close to UM/MSU.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
