We have received a TON of great press nationally; we even have a lot of local outlets gushing over recent MSU accomplishments. After listening to the Sirus First Team program this morning I found myself questioning their overall tone while describing their thoughts for this coming football season.
Both hosts felt that at number 9, this was the first collective ranking where they were concerned to have placed us too high. I have no problem with this ranking nor do I care if this is too high or too low. They pointed to our lack of proven offensive playmakers on offense, pointed out that we no longer have a known lock down corner, and pointed to how difficult our schedule was. They both felt we were still a very good team and praised Coach D and staff. The thing that got to me was their continuous concern over the possible longevity of our success.
Throughout their analysis there was still a tone of concern that perhaps we have reached our ceiling and will soon settle back in the pack. They immediately followed the segment up with a question to listeners whether we will struggle to maintain our level of success considering the expectation of B1G east foes UM and PSU.
Although this is just one radio show, I have heard this concern in many programs, articles and press. Maybe I am simply sensitive to this tone but I do not understand why we are continually questioned while others are not. Take Baylor for instance. Most media gush over their recent success and the only item they point to as an issue with Baylor is their weak non-conference schedule. Have they not enjoyed their success while the historically dominant foe (Texas) has been down? What is their success shelf life? Why is their longevity not questioned? You could make similar points for UCLA, Louisville and Oregon yet I rarely hear this concern when they are mentioned.
Both hosts felt that at number 9, this was the first collective ranking where they were concerned to have placed us too high. I have no problem with this ranking nor do I care if this is too high or too low. They pointed to our lack of proven offensive playmakers on offense, pointed out that we no longer have a known lock down corner, and pointed to how difficult our schedule was. They both felt we were still a very good team and praised Coach D and staff. The thing that got to me was their continuous concern over the possible longevity of our success.
Throughout their analysis there was still a tone of concern that perhaps we have reached our ceiling and will soon settle back in the pack. They immediately followed the segment up with a question to listeners whether we will struggle to maintain our level of success considering the expectation of B1G east foes UM and PSU.
Although this is just one radio show, I have heard this concern in many programs, articles and press. Maybe I am simply sensitive to this tone but I do not understand why we are continually questioned while others are not. Take Baylor for instance. Most media gush over their recent success and the only item they point to as an issue with Baylor is their weak non-conference schedule. Have they not enjoyed their success while the historically dominant foe (Texas) has been down? What is their success shelf life? Why is their longevity not questioned? You could make similar points for UCLA, Louisville and Oregon yet I rarely hear this concern when they are mentioned.
