Let me start by saying that I believe that Clarence Munn is (at least until and unless Mark Dantonio wins a National Championship or two) the greatest head coach in the history of Michigan State football. His winning percentage, his undisputed National Title, his role in getting Michigan State into the Big Ten, and his years as Athletic Director put him into the status of a legend.
That said, I believe that it is not entirely true that he was (as a single man) the person who built Michigan State University football. First, it is impossible to underestimate the role of John Hannah, who began to work for Michigan State's admittance into the Big Ten even before he hired Munn. Second, this success was concurrent with an enormous increase in the school's enrollment (leading to it becoming a university. All of these are obvious. However, the third element that is commonly missed is the reason for my post. MSC football was not "at the level of Central Michigan." Heck, it might be easier to say it was at the level of Central Michigan in the Perles years when Michigan State lost to Central in consecutive years. Even Dantonio has lost to Central.
While it is fair to say that Michigan State was not playing Big Ten level competition in the years before the mid-1930s, the process of schedule strengthening began long before Munn became the Head Coach. In fact, by 1940, Michigan State regularly played a majority of its schedule against teams that are currently among the 65 Power 5 Conference teams (treating Notre Dame as a member of the ACC). While it might be possible to suggest that Charlie Bachman's teams did not play a tough schedule, and that Munn built the program by strengthening the schedule, 59 of the 114 games played by MSC during this time were against Power 5 teams. I believe this schedule is comparable to a Mountain West schedule far more than a MAC schedule. It is fair to say that 1930s and 1940s Michigan State was more like 1990s and 2000s Utah before they joined the PAC-12. As further evidence of this, MSC was 32-21-5 (.602) in the 59 Power 5 games. Of course, they were 38-13-5 against lesser competition.
By the way, MSC's .602 winning percentage against Power 5 schools in 13 years under Bachman is better than the .459 (61-72-1) in the 13 years before Dantonio (I am crediting MSU with their forfeited wins in 1994 in order to indicate on field performance). Imagine if Dantonio had inherited a team that 13 solid years under ever-increasing schedule strength (this is the Dantonio replaces Saban in 2007 alternative history), instead of spending three years getting to that point.
None of this is to insult Munn. Vanishingly few coaches can out-perform their respected predecessor. Duffy Daugherty was amazing for doing as well as he did. Clarence Munn, though, brought to fruition a goal that was long-standing for people who love Michigan State. But he stood on a few shoulders.
That said, I believe that it is not entirely true that he was (as a single man) the person who built Michigan State University football. First, it is impossible to underestimate the role of John Hannah, who began to work for Michigan State's admittance into the Big Ten even before he hired Munn. Second, this success was concurrent with an enormous increase in the school's enrollment (leading to it becoming a university. All of these are obvious. However, the third element that is commonly missed is the reason for my post. MSC football was not "at the level of Central Michigan." Heck, it might be easier to say it was at the level of Central Michigan in the Perles years when Michigan State lost to Central in consecutive years. Even Dantonio has lost to Central.
While it is fair to say that Michigan State was not playing Big Ten level competition in the years before the mid-1930s, the process of schedule strengthening began long before Munn became the Head Coach. In fact, by 1940, Michigan State regularly played a majority of its schedule against teams that are currently among the 65 Power 5 Conference teams (treating Notre Dame as a member of the ACC). While it might be possible to suggest that Charlie Bachman's teams did not play a tough schedule, and that Munn built the program by strengthening the schedule, 59 of the 114 games played by MSC during this time were against Power 5 teams. I believe this schedule is comparable to a Mountain West schedule far more than a MAC schedule. It is fair to say that 1930s and 1940s Michigan State was more like 1990s and 2000s Utah before they joined the PAC-12. As further evidence of this, MSC was 32-21-5 (.602) in the 59 Power 5 games. Of course, they were 38-13-5 against lesser competition.
By the way, MSC's .602 winning percentage against Power 5 schools in 13 years under Bachman is better than the .459 (61-72-1) in the 13 years before Dantonio (I am crediting MSU with their forfeited wins in 1994 in order to indicate on field performance). Imagine if Dantonio had inherited a team that 13 solid years under ever-increasing schedule strength (this is the Dantonio replaces Saban in 2007 alternative history), instead of spending three years getting to that point.
None of this is to insult Munn. Vanishingly few coaches can out-perform their respected predecessor. Duffy Daugherty was amazing for doing as well as he did. Clarence Munn, though, brought to fruition a goal that was long-standing for people who love Michigan State. But he stood on a few shoulders.
Last edited:
