CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on June 25, 2019, 11:06:00 AM
-
There has been abundant discussion of THE GAME and the tOSU/M rivalry in my B1G-E Race thread (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/2019-b1g-e-race/). I'd rather if that discussion took place here so as not to take over a thread that is supposed to be about this year's B1G-E race.
Some of that discussion, along with Ohio State having a new coach got me thinking about inflection points in the history of the rivalry. Looking back, we didn't see these for what they were. At the time they just looked like blips but looking back they were major changes in the relative strength of the teams. I'll go back through time from most recent to oldest.
November 24, 2001: I went to the 2001 Game in Ann Arbor. After Ohio State won the Michigan fans I met were all pretty gracious (with only a few drunken exceptions). I think part of that was that they just didn't see that result for what it was. At the time, to a Michigan fan, I'm sure it just looked like a blip. Coming into that game Michigan had gone 12-3-1 over the previous 16 years. Thus, even after the 2001 loss, Michigan was still 12-4-1 over the previous 17 years.
I think that Michigan fans at the time were disappointed with the result, obviously. It cost them a Rose Bowl but they had no way of knowing that it wasn't just one game. Their team's domination of the rivalry was over.
I'll put it another way. If some all-powerful sports god had come up to me outside of Michigan Stadium right after the 2001 game and offered me a deal: Ohio State would be guaranteed nine wins from 2001-2018 but not have a chance to win any more, I'd have probably taken the deal. Conversely, if that same all-powerful sports god had approached a random reasonably well informed Michigan fan and offered them the inverse, 9 wins for Michigan from 2001-2018 he probably would have turned it down. In retrospect I would have been stupid for taking the deal and the Michigan fan would have been stupid for turning it down but we didn't know that then. The thing is that nobody knew on November 24, 2001 that Ohio State would wind up going 15-2 from 2001-2018.
November 23, 1985: When Michigan won the 1985 game it didn't feel like that big of a deal to fans of either side. From Bo's arrival (1969) through the 1985 game the rivalry had been very equal. The Buckeyes and Wolverines had each won eight games with one tie. Nobody knew then that Michigan's win in 1985 would be the start of 16 years of Michigan dominance to the tune of 12-3-1 from 1985-2000.
November 22, 1969: Even relatively well-informed fans tend to forget how bad Michigan was prior to Bo's arrival. For most of the 1950's and 1960's Michigan wasn't very good. From 1951-1968 they only won one league title in 18 years. Michigan was great right after WWII with a NC and four straight league titles from 1947-1950 and we all know about the TEN YEAR WAR in the 70's but in between they just weren't very good. Over those 18 years while Michigan was winning just one league title the Buckeyes won five, the Illini, Badgers, Hawkeyes, and Spartans won three each, the Gophers and Boilermakers won two each and even the Hoosiers matched Michigan's one title.
The 1969 loss obviously sucked for Ohio State. In those days teams from our league only went to the RoseBowl and there was a "no repeat" rule so Ohio State couldn't go. The Buckeyes had won the 1968 NC with a #1 vs #2 RoseBowl win over OJ Simpson and the Trojans then been ranked #1 all year in 1969. The Michigan game was effectively a NC game for the Buckeyes so the loss REALLY stung. That said, I'm sure it didn't feel like it had long-term implications at the time. In the previous 15 years the Buckeyes had dominated the rivalry 11-4. Nobody knew then that the 1969 loss would be the beginning of 16 years of relative parity.
November 20, 1954: Woody lost in his first two trips to Ann Arbor (1951 and 1953) and heading into the 1954 game the Wolverines had dominated the series for more than a decade. The Wolverines had a commanding 7-1-1 record from 1945-1953 and an 11-3-2 lead over the 16 years from 1938-1953. Nobody would have expected heading into the 1954 game that the Buckeyes would win 11 of the next 15 for a record of 11-4 from 1954-1968.
November 24, 1945: For the 17 years from 1928 through the end of WWII the Buckeyes held a slight lead over the Wolverines at 9-7-1. Nobody would have guessed that Michigan's win in 1945 would be the first of four in a row with two more after a tie in 1949.
October 20, 1928: Prior to the 1928 game the Wolverines had flat out dominated the "rivalry". In the very early days it wasn't much of a rivalry as the Wolverines were playing in the new Western Conference and playing high-end national games against the powers of the day while Ohio State was just trying to beat Wesleyan and Case to be the best team in Ohio. Ohio State had only beaten the Wolverines three times (1919, 1920, 1921) and after that Michigan reasserted their dominance and reeled off six straight wins from 1922-1927. Thus, heading into the 1928 game Michigan had an all-time record of 16-3-1 against the upstart Buckeyes. Since then it is a very different story with the Buckeyes owning a 47-39-4 advantage dating back to the 1928 game. On a more micro-level, in the 19 years starting with the 1928 game the teams were even at 9-9-1 from 1928-1946.
-
Nice.
-
This is well done. And indeed timely, not for guarantees but 2019 has interesting potential to fit the pattern and belong here.
This thread prob won't last enough years that we ever prove it by analysis at this URL. Heck, I'm not even predicting a win, but after the last 20 years of "hope-gambles," I'm heartened by the ways this feels different. Of course ... That could prove to be another dime a dozen nothin'.
Anyway, this is a bad post that could have been summed up thus:
"🤞"
-
I knew when Tressell arrived things would change but not like that.Followed him at YSU where he went to 6 Div II NC games and won 4 of them.Fundamentals,technique,mechanics,Xs & Os don't change from Div II to Div I just the size of the players/stadiums/interest.I counted how many players Michigan and Ohio State had drafted during the Cooper years and I think it was dead even at 64(not counting Free agents).That tells you all ya need to knowI pretty much detested Cooper from the start.He lost the 1st 4yrs to M and took him 7 to finally beat them.Most of us diehards had our skin crawling at the sight of him - "I down't havv a Kle-e-e-w".Only Gordon Gee with his tie on too tight couldn't see it,SMDH.Talk about F-Up,move up
-
I knew when Tressell arrived things would change but not like that.Followed him at YSU where he went to 6 Div II NC games and won 4 of them.Fundamentals,technique,mechanics,Xs & Os don't change from Div II to Div I just the size of the players/stadiums/interest.I counted how many players Michigan and Ohio State had drafted during the Cooper years and I think it was dead even at 64(not counting Free agents).That tells you all ya need to knowI pretty much detested Cooper from the start.He lost the 1st 4yrs to M and took him 7 to finally beat them.Most of us diehards had our skin crawling at the sight of him - "I down't havv a Kle-e-e-w".Only Gordon Gee with his tie on too tight couldn't see it,SMDH.Talk about F-Up,move up
I agree on Cooper generally, but I think there needs to be some context. Cooper took over a program that had really dropped off in Earle Bruce's last few years.
Bruce went 5-4 against TTUN but again, context is important. He started out 4-2. Bruce's last season of 1987 was a terrible year for the Buckeyes with the surprise upset win over Michigan being the only bright spot. In spite of that upset the Buckeyes were clearly inferior to TTUN and the cabinet was bare. Cooper's 1988-1991 losses were at least partially the responsibility of Bruce.
From 1993 through the end of Cooper's tenure the Ohio State program had caught (or arguably passed) Michigan but Cooper just couldn't win the damn game. That is completely on him and, as I've said on these pages before, the losses to clearly inferior Michigan teams (see 93, 95, 96) were incredibly frustrating.
I will give Cooper credit though for setting the table for Tressel's later success. Tressel took over a program that had the foundation needed to accomplish what he did in the early 2000's.
-
Actually recruiting started to wane after coop increasingly faffed the last two games on the schedule.Tress took an undermanned Buckeye team up to AA in a game you saw in person.I had a Keg Party and it was glorious
-
October 20, 1928: Prior to the 1928 game the Wolverines had flat out dominated the "rivalry". In the very early days it wasn't much of a rivalry as the Wolverines were playing in the new Western Conference and playing high-end national games against the powers of the day while Ohio State was just trying to beat Wesleyan and Case to be the best team in Ohio. Ohio State had only beaten the Wolverines three times (1919, 1920, 1921) and after that Michigan reasserted their dominance and reeled off six straight wins from 1922-1927. Thus, heading into the 1928 game Michigan had an all-time record of 16-3-1 against the upstart Buckeyes. Since then it is a very different story with the Buckeyes owning a 47-39-4 advantage dating back to the 1928 game. On a more micro-level, in the 19 years starting with the 1928 game the teams were even at 9-9-1 from 1928-1946.
Just a minor nitpick here. Prior to the Big Ten series Michigan dominated. No doubt about that.
The series took a hiatus from 1913-17, so OSU won three of the first four "Big Ten" games once the series resumed, with the lone loss in 1918, which can arguably be attributed to Chic Harley and Pete Stynchcomb taking the year off to go fight in WWI.
So when OSU moved into the Shoe in 1922, they likely believed that they had turned the page in the budding rivalry. Instead they fell off of a cliff, and were mired in mediocrity there for a while.
-
I was at the 2001 game. It was miserable for Michigan fans. Rain and scoreless at the half if memory serves me. Lloyd tried putting a true freshman in at QB, Gonzalez I think, and it got even more ugly. The experience so whacked him the youngster changed positions the following year and later transferred.
-
This sort of back and forth seems to be common to many rivalries that exist in CFB. You'd think in general a rivalry would be a roughly 50-50 split, but they seem to run in streaks. Obviously, some of that is because Team A is better than B for a while, like Clemson and South Carolina, or Alabama and Auburn.
I wonder if each of them has similarly pivotal games where things changed.
-
I was at the 2001 game. It was miserable for Michigan fans. Rain and scoreless at the half if memory serves me. Lloyd tried putting a true freshman in at QB, Gonzalez I think, and it got even more ugly. The experience so whacked him the youngster changed positions the following year and later transferred.
I was there too. Scoreless at the half sounds right. That was actually my freshman year. I'm not sure I understood the intensity of the rivalry at all (maybe not until 2002), let alone was I capable of comprehending both its past and how much had just changed and for how long.
-
I was at the 2001 game. It was miserable for Michigan fans. Rain and scoreless at the half if memory serves me. Lloyd tried putting a true freshman in at QB, Gonzalez I think, and it got even more ugly. The experience so whacked him the youngster changed positions the following year and later transferred.
That was my second to last UM-OSU game.
It wasn't scoreless at the half, Michigan was down quickly. Mike Doss almost pick sixed Navarre on Michigan's first drive, and OSU scored on I think the very next play. Navarre had three first half turnovers, and OSU was up 21-0. After the third Navarre turnover, Michigan got the ball right back, and that's when Carr put Gonzalez in. It was a disaster, I think there were like two false starts and a negative QB rush. Then, out of the shotgun, the ball was snapped when he wasn't looking, and went out of the back of the end zone for a safety and an OSU 23-0 halftime lead. That was the only series Gonzalez got.
Michigan still almost came back and won. They only lost by 6. Epstein missed a chip shot FG, UM had a turnover on downs in the red zone, where they would have been attempting another chip shot FG if Epstein hadn't missed the first.
I also don't think Gonzalez transferred, he was just never a good enough passer to be a QB, and once they moved him fully to WR after his freshman year, he was never quite athletic enough to see the field in a stacked WR group with Braylon, Avant, Breaston, Tabb and Arrington.
-
That was my second to last UM-OSU game.
It wasn't scoreless at the half, Michigan was down quickly. Mike Doss almost pick sixed Navarre on Michigan's first drive, and OSU scored on I think the very next play. Navarre had three first half turnovers, and OSU was up 21-0. After the third Navarre turnover, Michigan got the ball right back, and that's when Carr put Gonzalez in. It was a disaster, I think there were like two false starts and a negative QB rush. Then, out of the shotgun, the ball was snapped when he wasn't looking, and went out of the back of the end zone for a safety and an OSU 23-0 halftime lead. That was the only series Gonzalez got.
Michigan still almost came back and won. They only lost by 6. Epstein missed a chip shot FG, UM had a turnover on downs in the red zone, where they would have been attempting another chip shot FG if Epstein hadn't missed the first.
I also don't think Gonzalez transferred, he was just never a good enough passer to be a QB, and once they moved him fully to WR after his freshman year, he was never quite athletic enough to see the field in a stacked WR group with Braylon, Avant, Breaston, Tabb and Arrington.
This is about how I remember it. I found a partial box score here (https://www.espn.com/college-football/game?gameId=213280130). Scores:
- tOSU TD 11:35 1Q, 7-0 tOSU: Jonathan Wells rushed for a 1 yard TD. The drive was two plays, four yards. That was the almost pick-6 that ELA referred to above.
- tOSU TD 14:15 1Q, 14-0 tOSU: Jonathan Wells rushed for a 46 yard TD. The drive was eight plays, 85 yards. IIRC, the scoring play was a 4th and short that Tressel went for and once Wells got through Michigan's front line there wasn't anything behind that so he scored.
- tOSU TD 4:39 2Q, 21-0 tOSU: Jonathan Wells rushed for an 11 yard TD. The drive was four plays, 28 yards so this had to come off of another Michigan turnover.
- tOSU safety 0:40 2Q, 23-0 tOSU: This was the snap over Gonzalez' head.
- M TD 12:48 3Q, 23-7 tOSU: Jahn Navarre pass to Marquise Walker for a 21 yard TD. The drive was six plays, 65 yards and the entire time from halftime to this point so Michigan came out looking good early in the second half with a quick score on their first series to knock the deficit down to just 16 (and theoretically two possessions).
- M TD 11:00 4Q, 23-13 tOSU: B.J. Askew rushed for a two yard TD. The drive was 91 yards in three plays. I don't remember the BIG play but there had to be one that got most of that 91 yards. Michigan was down 16 so they went for two to make it a one-possession game but didn't get it but they still had 11 minutes to play.
- tOSU FG 6:30 4Q, 26-13 tOSU: Nugent kicked a 33 yard FG after a drive of negative 7 yards so this had to come off of yet another Michigan turnover. This was really a back-breaker. It was still a two-possession game but after this FG Michigan needed two TD's.
- M TD 2:47 4Q, 26-20 tOSU: Navarre pass to Walker again for an 11 yard TD. The drive was 45 yards in 10 plays and took just 0:26 seconds (per ESPN) but I don't remember this and don't think any team could actually run 10 plays in 26 seconds so I think something is wrong there.
I remember walking out of the stadium that my brother was ticked because he felt like Tressel had played "not to lose" after Ohio State got the big 23-0 early lead. He wasn't yet familiar with Tressel-ball and was thinking more of Cooper's typical overly-conservative playcalling in big games.
-
Just a minor nitpick here. Prior to the Big Ten series Michigan dominated. No doubt about that.
The series took a hiatus from 1913-17, so OSU won three of the first four "Big Ten" games once the series resumed, with the lone loss in 1918, which can arguably be attributed to Chic Harley and Pete Stynchcomb taking the year off to go fight in WWI.
So when OSU moved into the Shoe in 1922, they likely believed that they had turned the page in the budding rivalry. Instead they fell off of a cliff, and were mired in mediocrity there for a while.
I thought about adding 1919 (Ohio State winning then winning the next two in a row) and 1922 (Michigan winning then winning the next five in a row) as additional "inflection points" but note that all of the others led to changes that lasted at least a decade while those two changes only lasted three and six years respectively. In the 100+ year history of the rivalry I don't really see those two as major changes. Ohio State winning three in a row from 1919-1921 was just a small bright spot for the Buckeyes in the otherwise miserable first 31 years (1897-1927) and 24 games of the rivalry. The inflection points that I picked are based on long-lasting changes.
-
This sort of back and forth seems to be common to many rivalries that exist in CFB. You'd think in general a rivalry would be a roughly 50-50 split, but they seem to run in streaks. Obviously, some of that is because Team A is better than B for a while, like Clemson and South Carolina, or Alabama and Auburn.
I wonder if each of them has similarly pivotal games where things changed.
I think one thing that helped to build THE GAME into such a major rivalry is that for a very long time, even in periods of relative dominance by one team or the other, neither team just completely ran away with it.
Michigan won nine in a row from 1901-1909 and that streak was only broken by ties in 1900 and 1910 and then they won another six in a row from 1922-1927. However, starting with Ohio State's win in 1928 neither team ever won more than four in a row until Ohio State won six in a row under Tressel from 2004-2009.
That is a pretty amazing ~80 stretch of relative parity. When I have looked at the history of other rivalries I haven't usually seen that. Usually they are more "streaky" even if they are relatively even overall.
-
OSU and Michigan have large fan bases and have storied histories in CFB. Some of the other rivalries are more "in state" things, like say Clemson-South Carolina (often not really significant outside the state, and for a long time Auburn was a distant second cousin also). ND-USC is perhaps close, and I'd say Texas-OU is close.
I've stated my preference to drop GaTech from our schedule because it's boring, and it means they can't schedule someone else interesting.
-
How different would that 2001 game and season have been for Michigan if Henson never bolted on his senior year?
I think that hurt Michigan football a lot as well. He was a superstar, #1 overall pick in the making and he just gave it all up because he wanted to be a baseball player more than he had wanted to play football. Kinda the reverse of Kyler Murray. Murray is probably a better MLB prospect than he is an NFL one. He has limited size and arm strength, but he just loved football more than baseball. Henson was a better NFL prospect than he was MLB but he just didn’t love football the way he loved baseball. That guy was amazing in those 9 starts his jr year. He shredded Ohio State in Columbus. Last time Michigan won a game in Columbus actually. 6’4+, 230 pounds and mobile with a gigantic arm. He was basically Andrew Luck before Andrew Luck but with a bigger arm. Same frame, same build, similarly sneakily athletic and fast. Accurate as can be. Gigantic arm. Henson was a freak QB talent.
-
How different would that 2001 game and season have been for Michigan if Henson never bolted on his senior year?
I think that hurt Michigan football a lot as well. He was a superstar, #1 overall pick in the making and he just gave it all up because he wanted to be a baseball player more than he had wanted to play football. Kinda the reverse of Kyler Murray. Murray is probably a better MLB prospect than he is an NFL one. He has limited size and arm strength, but he just loved football more than baseball. Henson was a better NFL prospect than he was MLB but he just didn’t love football the way he loved baseball. That guy was amazing in those 9 starts his jr year. He shredded Ohio State in Columbus. Last time Michigan won a game in Columbus actually. 6’4+, 230 pounds and mobile with a gigantic arm. He was basically Andrew Luck before Andrew Luck but with a bigger arm. Same frame, same build, similarly sneakily athletic and fast. Accurate as can be. Gigantic arm. Henson was a freak QB talent.
2001 was an odd year for the conference in general. I strongly believe that Michigan (even without Henson) was by far the best team in the league but they had an early OOC loss on the West Coast, then lost inexplicably in East Lansing (to a team that finished 2-6), then obviously lost to Tressel's first Buckeye squad.
It was odd because Ohio State (finished 5-3), Wisconsin, and Penn State (both finished 4-4) were all down at the same time. Then, on top of that, Michigan lost two games to inferior teams (including a VERY inferior MSU) and Ohio State lost two games to inferior teams as well.
Thus, at the end of the year our third best team (Illinois) represented us in our most high-profile bowl and got embarrassed by LSU. It probably didn't matter because our best (M) and second best (tOSU, by the end of the year) teams lost their bowls as well.
-
This sort of back and forth seems to be common to many rivalries that exist in CFB. You'd think in general a rivalry would be a roughly 50-50 split, but they seem to run in streaks. Obviously, some of that is because Team A is better than B for a while, like Clemson and South Carolina, or Alabama and Auburn.
I wonder if each of them has similarly pivotal games where things changed.
Comparing to the WLOCP:
Overall, Georgia leads but it is relatively close at 52-43-2. Thus, Georgia's overall lead is just nine games out of almost a hundred so an "average" decade would be on the order of 5-5 or 6-4 just slightly favoring the Dawgs. Of course, that is not how the UF/UGA rivalry has played out. Instead:
- Georgia flat out dominated the early days with a 24-5-1 advantage in 30 games from 1904-1951.
- Florida then took over and dominated most of the 50's and 60's with a 13-5-1 advantage from 1952-1970.
- Gerogia then took over again and dominated most of the 70's and 80's with a 15-4 advantage from 1971-1989.
- Florida then took over and dominated the 90's and 2000's with an 18-3 advantage from 1990-2010.
- Since then Georgia has a slight 5-3 advantage from 2011-2018.
ND/USC is another relatively equal rivalry with the Irish owning a 48-37-5 advantage but it has been VERY "streaky":
- ND won four of the first five (1926-1930)
- USC won three straight (1931-1933)
- ND won three of four (the other was a tie) (1934-1937)
- USC won two straight (1938-39)
- ND won 10 of 12 (a tie and a loss) (1940-1954)
- USC won two (1955-6)
- ND won eight of ten (1957-1966)
- USC dominated going 12-2-2 (1967-1982)
- ND dominated going 12-0-1 (1983-1995)
- USC won three straight (1996-1998)
- ND won three straight (1999-2001)
- USC won nine of 10 (2002-2011)
- ND has won five of the last seven (2012-2018)
-
This is almost weird. Thanks for doing the work.
-
OSU and Michigan have large fan bases and have storied histories in CFB. Some of the other rivalries are more "in state" things, like say Clemson-South Carolina (often not really significant outside the state, and for a long time Auburn was a distant second cousin also). ND-USC is perhaps close, and I'd say Texas-OU is close. . . .
I'm obviously biased, but I think that OU-Texas is the best since the end of WWII.
Texas leads 62-47-5, with Texas building a large lead with an 8-1-1 start to the series, 1900-1907, and a 15-3-1 run, 1922-1945. At that point, Texas led 27-11-2.
Since then, OU has gone 36-35-3.
It's been a streaky series.
In addition to the streaks I mentioned above, OU went 9-1 from 1948 through 1957, Texas went 12-1 from 1958 to through 1970, OU went 5-0 from 1971 through 1975, OU went 4-0 from 1985 through 1988, Texas went 4-0 from 1989 through 1992, OU went 5-0 from 2000 through 2004.
Since then, not so streaky. The longest has been a 3-game streak for OU.
-
I'm obviously biased, but I think that OU-Texas is the best since the end of WWII.
Growing up it seemed like OU-Nebraska and UT-Arkansas were more relevant.The focus seemed to shift as the 'Skers and a lessar extent the Hogs stars began to fade.
-
A rivalry can be more relevant for a period of time nationally. A true rivalry remains intense no matter the significance.
Clemson-South Carolina is pretty intense inside that state. Texas-Arkansas did indeed used to be significant, 1969 I think it was the game of the century.
Nixon was there, maybe 1970. I think Arkansas changed conferences or something.
-
Not saying it wasn't intense,from a national perspective at the time Huskers-Sooners had more interest,the other more regional
-
Was it 1970 or 1971 that Nebrask/Oklahoma/Colorado finished 1-2-3 all in the Big 8?
-
Have to look it up but I remember the '71 game Mildren,Pruitt,Rodgers,Tagge,Glover,Kinney.Rodgers returning that TD 70+ yds prolly cemented the Heisman for himself
-
Was it 1970 or 1971 that Nebrask/Oklahoma/Colorado finished 1-2-3 all in the Big 8?
1971 it was.
-
The discussion about "trends" in rivalry series is quite interesting, thanks for all the work here.
-
I'm obviously biased, but I think that OU-Texas is the best since the end of WWII.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel that being in the same conference has changed that rivalry?
I remember that as a SWC vs B8 game, it was different then. In a way I think it was more nationally relevant when it was.
-
Interesting thought about whether they are more "relevant" if the games are OOC rivalries, or more interesting?
The only major national rivalries today that are of that ilk are ND-USC, I think. UGA-Tech and Clemson-USC are one sided, and often not of national import.
UK-Louisville, meh.
-
Out of curiosity, how do you feel that being in the same conference has changed that [OU-Texas] rivalry?
I remember that as a SWC vs B8 game, it was different then. In a way I think it was more nationally relevant when it was.
It's different, that's for sure. If nothing else, it's harder to wish that Texas would lose every game they play, as that would reflect on the record of every other team in the conference.
I'm not sure it has been less nationally relevant since the Big 12 was formed. It usually wasn't relevant in the 1960s, because Texas was good and OU was not. And it wan't very relevant from 1986 through 1995, the last year before the Big 12 was formed, as first Texas, then OU, went through some tough years. But from 2000 through 2010, it was nearly always for the championship of the Big 12-S, and that nearly always meant the Big 12 championship. The lack of national relevance since then (after the Big 12 nearly cratered but stabilized at 10 teams) has been because, with the exception of 2011, at least one of the teams has had at least one loss. Or so it seems to me.
-
It's different, that's for sure. If nothing else, it's harder to wish that Texas would lose every game they play, as that would reflect on the record of every other team in the conference.
I'm not sure it has been less nationally relevant since the Big 12 was formed. It usually wasn't relevant in the 1960s, because Texas was good and OU was not. And it wan't very relevant from 1986 through 1995, the last year before the Big 12 was formed, as first Texas, then OU, went through some tough years. But from 2000 through 2010, it was nearly always for the championship of the Big 12-S, and that nearly always meant the Big 12 championship. The lack of national relevance since then (after the Big 12 nearly cratered but stabilized at 10 teams) has been because, with the exception of 2011, at least one of the teams has had at least one loss. Or so it seems to me.
My thinking is that the OOC games are often more nationally relevant because they tend to be big factors in determining which conference champion gets to the CFP (and previously BCS) where the conference games are more about which team wins the conference.
As a fan of a team that isn't OU or UT, if my team is in the NC hunt, the result of OU/UT usually doesn't matter much. Either way, some team will win the B12 and that team will have an argument for a CFP spot. I think it is the same for most outsiders view of tOSU/M. Either way, somebody will win the B1G and have an argument for a CFP spot.
In that way, major national OOC games like tOSU/OU in 2016 and 2017 are a bigger deal. Both years the winner got into the CFP and the loser did not and both years the result of that game was, at least arguably, the deciding factor. In 2016 Ohio State was NOT a conference champion but owning a win over the B12 Champion obviously helped. In 2017 Oklahoma was a 12-1 conference champion but they had a somewhat questionable loss (at home to a mediocre ISU team). Their big win in Columbus over the B1G Champion helped to prevent anyone from doubting them and they got in.
-
Big OOC games indeed are relevant, no doubt, even "one step away". Let's say UGA beats ND and then loses to LSU in the CG, and LSU is 11-2, that win over a team that beat ND (if ND is in the mix) is a factor.
If Clemson is say 12-1 and ACC champ but lost at home to A&M who LSU beat, it could be a factor.
-
Big OOC games indeed are relevant, no doubt, even "one step away". Let's say UGA beats ND and then loses to LSU in the CG, and LSU is 11-2, that win over a team that beat ND (if ND is in the mix) is a factor.
If Clemson is say 12-1 and ACC champ but lost at home to A&M who LSU beat, it could be a factor.
This is exactly the kind of example I was thinking of. Back in the SWC/B8 days if Texas beat OU and aTm won the SWC with a win over UT that Texas win over OU might REALLY help aTm. Similarly, if OU beat Texas then Nebraska won the B8 with a win over OU, Oklahoma's win over Texas might REALLY help Nebraska. I think that the ripple effects are smaller in a conference game.
-
Good points, Medina.
-
The game I always think of in this context is Colorado's miraculous hail mary in Ann Arbor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nt6HjqtJt8) to beat the Wolverines.
As it turned out, neither team won their conference and neither team ended up seriously in the NC discussion. Colorado lost to a Nebraska team that ran the table in the B8 while Michigan lost to Wisconsin, Ohio State, and a Penn State team that ran the table in the Big11Ten.
That said, I strongly believe that this result ended up deciding the NC of Nebraska over Penn State:
When the game was played Michigan was #4 and Colorado was #7. That result moved Colorado up to #5 and Michigan down to #7.
When #1 Florida lost to Auburn, Penn State moved up to #1 in part on the strength of their win over #5 Michigan but Colorado and Nebraska were 2/3 and had yet to play each other. Penn State was doomed. A few weeks later Nebraska beat #2 Colorado and moved up to #1 despite the fact that PSU annihilated a ranked team (#21 tOSU) that same week.
If you flip the Colorado/Michigan result I think that Penn State holds on to #1 because Nebraska's win over the Buffaloes wouldn't have been as impressive.
-
I don't often root for Ralphie, but when I do................
-
Therein lies of course the issue with how rankings happen, a team you beat might lose one on a miracle and it hurts your ranking and perception.
We often see some 7-2 team ranked say 12th lose a close game on the road to the #3 team and DROP to 16th at 7-3, or lower. Or conversely, they win a game on a miracle play and suddenly jump to 6th on the basis of beating that #3 team which then goes on to lose 3 more games and drops out, but folks forget, somehow.
-
That said, I strongly believe that this result ended up deciding the NC of Nebraska over Penn State:
If you flip the Colorado/Michigan result I think that Penn State holds on to #1 because Nebraska's win over the Buffaloes wouldn't have been as impressive.
Prolly right that's how they figured it back in the day
-
Syllogism, it really doesn't work well for rankings. And it remains an issue that beating a team ranked say #5 early does you more good than if they have faded to unranked and you beat them late.
-
Syllogism, it really doesn't work well for rankings. And it remains an issue that beating a team ranked say #5 early does you more good than if they have faded to unranked and you beat them late.
That's a tough one. Maybe they faded to unranked because they really weren't very good to start with. Or maybe they really were very good at the start of the season, but they faded because they had some key injuries and/or morale collapsed after an early loss or two.
It's tough for poll-voters to account for this, because their human tendency is to adjust their votes each week based on what happened that weekend, and not to go back and rethink their votes earlier in the season.
With computer ranking systems, the formula could include a factor for "game-day rating."
-
Yes, the could have had injuries, often as not they were over rated early. Beat #3 early as a #18 team and you will vault to #7 or so and stay even if the #3 ends up 7-6.
Having the committee not rank, or announce anyway, until later is a good thing. Maybe that win over #3 was good at the time and they lost their QB.
-
Therein lies of course the issue with how rankings happen, a team you beat might lose one on a miracle and it hurts your ranking and perception.
We often see some 7-2 team ranked say 12th lose a close game on the road to the #3 team and DROP to 16th at 7-3, or lower. Or conversely, they win a game on a miracle play and suddenly jump to 6th on the basis of beating that #3 team which then goes on to lose 3 more games and drops out, but folks forget, somehow.
The worst ever example of that was BYU during their MNC year. In their very first game they played a highly ranked Pitt team and that helped catapult BYU up the rankings. The thing is that Pitt sucked in 1984 and finished 3-7-1.
It gets worse. BYU only beat Pitt by six points. At the time the margin didn't matter. Pitt was highly ranked so the win was a big deal and BYU moved from unranked to #13 while Pitt dropped from #3 to #17 (back then only 20 teams were ranked).
Pitt lost that year:
- by 1 to Temple
- by 6 to BYU
- by 6 to Syracuse
- by 18 to WVU
- by 20 to Miami, FL
- by 24 to USCe
- by 32 to Oklahoma
In retrospect, BYU's six point win over Pitt was nothing special at all.
-
The worst ever example of that was BYU during their MNC year. In their very first game they played a highly ranked Pitt team and that helped catapult BYU up the rankings. The thing is that Pitt sucked in 1984 and finished 3-7-1.
It gets worse. BYU only beat Pitt by six points. At the time the margin didn't matter. Pitt was highly ranked so the win was a big deal and BYU moved from unranked to #13 while Pitt dropped from #3 to #17 (back then only 20 teams were ranked).
Pitt lost that year:
- by 1 to Temple
- by 6 to BYU
- by 6 to Syracuse
- by 18 to WVU
- by 20 to Miami, FL
- by 24 to USCe
- by 32 to Oklahoma
In retrospect, BYU's six point win over Pitt was nothing special at all.
I'm going to expand on this because it is a pet-peeve of mine. Per the 1984 Final Poll, BYU played exactly ZERO ranked teams. The closest they came was a five point win over Air Force. Air Force finished fourth among "others receiving votes" so they would theoretically have been ranked #24 if the poll had been a top-25 (not necessarily because other teams might have gotten more 21-25 votes).
Among teams that were ranked in at least one 1984 poll, BYU played:
- Michigan was ranked in 6 polls in 1984, getting as high as #3 and BYU beat them 24-17 in the Sun Bowl.
- Pittsburgh was ranked in 3 polls in 1984, getting as high as #3 and BYU beat them 20-14 in their opener.
That is it.
Pitt: The Panthers were ranked #3 in the 1984 preseason poll. They were ranked #17 in the 9/4 poll after losing to BYU (2nd poll). Then the Panthers had a bye week and they were still #17 in the 9/11 poll (3rd poll). The following week the Panthers lost to Temple and they were not ranked again in 1984.
Michigan: The Wolverines were ranked #14 in the 1984 preseason poll. They didn't play Labor Day weekend and they were still #14 in the 9/4 poll (2nd poll). Then they beat #1 Miami, FL (who ended up 8-5) and moved up to #3 in the 9/11 poll (3rd poll). They lost to Washington on 9/15 and dropped to #16 in the 9/18 poll (4th poll). They beat Wisconsin on 9/22 and Indiana on 9/29 and moved up to #14 and #13 respectively in the 9/25 and 10/2 polls (5th and 6th polls). Michigan lost by 12 at home to Michigan State on 10/6 and they were not ranked again that year on their way to a 6-6 record.
The bottom line is that BYU played the most ridiculously weak schedule ever for an alleged National Champion.
-
Some good work here. Georgia had a pretty weak slate in 1980 along with some miracle escapes, but not that bad.