We should start there, because if your goal is not to win a national title, then we can stop and part ways, and buy each other beers the next time we see each other, and laugh about 99% of this stuff.
But if the goal is to win a title, MSU isn't very relevant, because they haven't done it.
But let's look at the recent history
Saban at Bama - won the title in year 3 (2009) and has won several more since. Won at LSU in year 4 before moving on to the NFL
Meyer at OSU - won the title in year 3 (2014) and has won several others at schools like Florida (years 2 and 4)
Fisher at FSU - won the title in year 4 (2013)
Chizik at Auburn - won in year 2 (2010) and has since been fired and is the DC an UNC
Les Miles at LSU - won in year 3 (2007) and they are ready to run him out on a rail
Mack Brown at Texas - won in year 8 (2005) and has since "retired". He is the one example in the past 20 years of playing the long game on the title
Pete Carroll at USC - split the title in year 3 and won in year 4 (2003 and 2004), but cheated to do so
Jim Tressel at OSU - won in year 2 (2002)
Coker at Miami - won in year 1 (2001)
Stoops at OU - won in year 2 (2000)
That is all of the championships that have been won since we changed centuries. Of the 15 titles in that time frame, 1 has been won for the first time by a coach at that school beyond his 4th year at the school.
That's why I'm not OK with playing the long game, it's not how the vast majority of teams win titles. We're going into year 6. I don't think for 1 second we are capable of winning the title this year. Why? Because Kelly hasn't shown the ability to win one big time game, let alone 2 in a row.
As for what has been said previously, I don't think Kelly sucks, I don't think he's an awful coach either. I think he's very very good. But very very good isn't good enough, he needs to win titles. Competing for them is a good thing, and it's better than his predecessors. But ultimately, it's not good enough.
And I can sum it up very easily. What are the odds you'd put on Kelly winning 2 straight games against the best teams in college football on a neutral field? I've seen nothing in his track record to put those odds very high at all, and we're 6 years in, so I'm not sure what is going to dramatically change those odds. I don't fault you for holding out hope. But I'm tired of the trope that what I've just laid out is some antiquated, it's not 1988 anymore, gold seat bullshit. It's a logical and sound position to take, by all measures.