Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Maybe the AD's just voted for the obviously better team:

Opponent	Conf-W	Conf-L	Conf%	L8-W	L8-L	L8-%	tOSU-O	tOSU-D	tOSU margin	M-O	M-D	M margin	Off	by	Def	by	Margin	by
Minnesota	6	2	0.75	6	0	1	56	7	49	34	7	27	O	22	even	0	O	22
Michigan State	4	4	0.5	4	2	0.666667	35	0	35	31	0	31	O	4	even	0	O	4
Illinois	4	4	0.5	4	2	0.666667	30	0	30	21	6	15	O	9	O	6	O	15
Purdue	4	4	0.5	4	3	0.571429				34	9	25
Northwestern	4	4	0.5	4	3	0.571429	60	0	60
Wisconsin	3	5	0.375	3	3	0.5	24	0	24	35	6	29	M	11	O	6	M	5
Indiana	0	8	0	0	6	0	37	7	30	49	13	36	M	12	O	6	M	6
Iowa	0	8	0	0	6	0	55	13	42	31	7	24	O	24	M	6	O	18

If I were the AD for Ohio State or Michigan I would advocate for my school.  If I were one of the other eight AD's I would vote based on which team I thought gave my conference the best chance to win the Rose Bowl and I just can't see how anyone can argue for Michigan on that basis even without the QB injury issue.  
As you know, in our power rankings I look a records against similar teams.  That is what I created the above chart to do for the 1973 season.  the Conf-W, Conf-L, and Conf% columns are pretty self-explanatory.  The L8-W, L8-L, and L8-% columns are Wins, Losses, and winning percentage in conference games not against Ohio State or Michigan.  I did that because in 1973 the "Little Eight" went 0-season against the Buckeyes and Wolverines.  In fact, none of them even got very close.  Illinois got the closest to Michigan, "only" losing by 15.  Wisconsin got the closest to Ohio State, "only" losing by 24.  
Note here that the three places where Michigan did better than Ohio State (Offense against Wisconsin and Indiana, Defense against Iowa) were against the three worst teams in the conference.  Additionally, the teams that Ohio State and Michigan missed (Purdue for Ohio State, Northwestern for Michigan) were reasonably equivalent.  They both went 4-4 in the conference and 4-3 against the Little Eight.  Ohio State's 60-0 win is thus much more impressive than Michigan's 34-9 win.  
Michigan's defense was almost but not quite as good as Ohio State's.  Ohio State's offense was clearly superior.  Anybody who voted for the best team voted for Ohio State.  

My point didn't require numbers. Even if Burt Smith could have voted for OSU on merit, he all but admitted to voting against Michigan out of pettiness.

What's more important, valuing the interdivisional games or valuing the divisional games? Either way, one gets shorted. And since we are calling them "Division Champs," my primary interest is that nobody ever, under any scenario, goes undefeated in their division but misses the CCG.
If Indiana beats Michigan, PSU, OSU, MSU and all the rest but loses to Wisconsin and Nebraska in the West, Indiana should still be in the CCG, even if one or more of M/PSU/OSU/MSU only lost to Indiana and was otherwise unbested in conference.

i think of it a little different. to me, you were/are part of the conference first, and the div is just the mechanism used to determine the ccg participants.
were these 2 groups that joined to form a conf, i might feel more inclined to agree with you, but they aren't. alabama is an sec member, not an secw member.
though it is next to impossible to argue against the inequity in schedules. and i'll admit these superconf are pushing the boundaries of that train of thought.

Pettiness?  Maybe revenge.  Granted he was a UM alum, so I'm sure that revenge push came from elsewhere within the university.

When is revenge not petty? Revenge is petty. 
Even if you disagree, deciding on the basis of revenge is not deciding on the basis of merit, which is all my post was about.
I think your guess about the push from "elsewhere" in the community is correct, by the way

When is revenge not petty? Revenge is petty.
Even if you disagree, deciding on the basis of revenge is not deciding on the basis of merit, which is all my post was about.
I think your guess about the push from "elsewhere" in the community is correct, by the way

I think it goes above, I know there was some issue involving tv rights.money between UM/MSU that was going on around that time.  So while I'm sure the number of times UM had voted against MSU both academically and athletically was a factor, I think there were additional reasons that UM being left out were good for MSU as well.  There had been a recent battle over tv rights splits for the UM-MSU game that I believe went in UMs favor, where UM got a greater than 50-50 split for games in AA< but it was 50-50 when the game was in EL.  So there was some amount of fighting against their argument that UM was the vastly superior product, in an argument for increased tv revenue money.  But yes, revenge was the largest factor I have to assume, for both MSU (who had been voted against repeatedly by UM) and Northwestern (who had been targeted by Canham a couple of times, once with a new rule mandating minimums to be paid to visiting opponents, that Northwestern couldn't reach, and against by spearheading a drive to prevent Northwestern from allowing the Bears to use their stadium.

I think it goes above, I know there was some issue involving tv rights.money between UM/MSU that was going on around that time.  So while I'm sure the number of times UM had voted against MSU both academically and athletically was a factor, I think there were additional reasons that UM being left out were good for MSU as well.  There had been a recent battle over tv rights splits for the UM-MSU game that I believe went in UMs favor, where UM got a greater than 50-50 split for games in AA< but it was 50-50 when the game was in EL.  So there was some amount of fighting against their argument that UM was the vastly superior product, in an argument for increased tv revenue money.  But yes, revenge was the largest factor I have to assume, for both MSU (who had been voted against repeatedly by UM) and Northwestern (who had been targeted by Canham a couple of times, once with a new rule mandating minimums to be paid to visiting opponents, that Northwestern couldn't reach, and against by spearheading a drive to prevent Northwestern from allowing the Bears to use their stadium.

Yeah my point isn't to say it was "bad." It was a petty thing that was also smart. Perhaps unprincipled, but objectively who cares? I feel the same way about Michigan diminishing as many of MSU's strivings as possible between 1900-1950. Petty. Brilliant. Perhaps unprincipled, but this is not religion or philosophy and is a zero-sum game; I'd definitely prefer my side try to max out its game strategy.

Yeah my point isn't to say it was "bad." It was a petty thing that was also smart. Perhaps unprincipled, but objectively who cares? I feel the same way about Michigan diminishing as many of MSU's strivings as possible between 1900-1950. Petty. Brilliant. Perhaps unprincipled, but this is not religion or philosophy and is a zero-sum game; I'd definitely prefer my side try to max out its game strategy.

Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing, I just think it was double pronged.  I'm sure he, as a UM alum, cared little about revenge for those past votes.  I'm sure others in the administration let him know.  But considering the onging tv rights battles between UM and MSU, I think he also had a legitimate stake in reducing UMs visibility.

What was Michigan's position when it came time to vote on MSU for AAU membership?

I'm not sure those votes are public?
The known roadblocks were (1) trying to convince the state to add the new ag school to the existing UM campus rather than create a new one, which the Agriculture Secretary disagreed with; (2) after the Civil War, and the signing of the Morrill Act, against trying to convince lawmakers to combine the two schools in Ann Arbor, as UM was actually struggling mightily financially at the time, and was in danger of closing, while MSU (MAC) was flush with federal money.  UM submitted to the merger proposal to the floor 4 times over a 6 year period, and it was voted down each time; (3) trying to prevent MAC from adding an engineering school in 1908, which the Morrill Act actually required; (4) trying to prevent MAC from removing Agriculture from its name in 1925, and change to MSC; (5) Big Ten membership in 1949; (6) changing from MSC to MSU in 1964; (6) acquisition and eventual merger of Detroit College of Law into MSU Law School in 1995