Not at all. The mark is how you defined the word "relevance". You defined it at first as a team that regularly plays for the national championship. Later, you changed it to be a team that plays for the national championship or wins the Big 10 title. You made up your definition in a transparent attempt to include OSU and MSU and to exclude all other Big 10 teams -- especially Michigan. Yet, it is such a ridiculous definition that it now excludes OSU, and if MSU loses to Iowa, it will exclude MSU.
By the way, it is a clear indication of a weak argument to attempt to deflect from the point and to use obviously false and hyperbolic terms like "as always".
Remember, my point is that you have a ridiculous definition of "relevant".
Wrong again, YOU said National. Reply#38 - "When they actually make it to the Big 10 Championship on a consistent basis, they might be relevant again. When they can actually win a Big 10 Championship, they might be relevant again."
Now going by your word twisting. OSU is still in the mix of because they do win and were the defending National Champions from last season. Also, it is common sense that in order to even vie for a National Championship, you must win your Conference. Meanwhile, UM slappies want to share the spotlight with MSU playing in its third Conf. Champ. game in the last five years and OSU who went the previous two years. As much as I hate OSU, I respect the program. Now with UM, go back 12 seasons and you were co-champs in 2004 with Iowa.
Jay I have a high opinion of him. I thought he was a good Coach. I think Georgia will do worse not having him. JMHO.
I liked him, but all good things must come to an end. He did get stale in the recruiting and I believe that is what did him in. Not to mention, having issues in some big games.