Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry

"Accomplishments" table

An IP editor has revised the table under "Accomplishments" to break out the various flavors of national championships (AP, BCS, Poll, CFP etc.) in addition to the totals claimed by the two schools. These edits are confusing (are these other titles included within, or in addition to, the totals that were already showing?), too detailed for a table about the rivalry (the broken-out information is captured in the articles relating to each of the schools), underinclusive as well (each school can claim championships from still other selectors in those years), and cluttered (the edits add 5 rows to the table, for a total of 17). I have been undoing these changes, and attempted to engage the editor on their Talk page, but to little effect. What are the views of others on the expanded table? JohnInDC (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree in keeping it the way it was. In the end, this article is about the rivalry, not the schools' respective overall accomplishments. Hammersbach (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with keeping it simple too. Those charts are to show a general comparison between the two rivals, not a detailed synopsis of every minute accomplishment. "National Championships" generally means those that are claimed by each school. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all here. Keep it simple and clear. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

New headings with Harbaugh's entry

The IP editor is right that the current caption ("Two schools, two new coaches, 2011-present") is obsolete, but I'm not quite sure how to tweak it - and account for Harbaugh's arrival. Let's talk about how to split that up, year-wise, and what makes sense to call these new divisions. (Let's please avoid "era" in any case. Even Meyer's only been there, what, 4 seasons? Too soon.) Go! JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just - for clarity's sake. Hoke arrived for the 2011 season. Tressel was out by the summer of that year, with Luke Fickell installed, provisionally, in his place for the 2011 season. Meyer was hired to succeed Fickell and took the reins for the 2012 season. Hoke lasted at Michigan through 2014, and now Harbaugh's there. Describing the 2011-2014 period, in a caption, by reference to the coaches does not seem like it would add clarity at all. As for today, I would wager that both schools have found coaches they want to keep for a while, but of course at this stage, who knows. I would think twice about a section that describes "Harbaugh vs. Meyer", when they haven't met up yet, and - as much as the schools may like them, neither really has significant tenure. Anyhow, just some more thoughts. JohnInDC (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I've done two things. First is to restore an older caption to describe Rodriguez's brief time at Michigan - IMHO, he, individually, doesn't rate a separate section; that if anything of that period is caption-worthy, it's Michigan's brief (and quickly reconsidered) notion to look beyond the borders of Ann Arbor for a coach. During the following period 2011-2014, the two schools each had two coaches - an unusually unsettled number for either, not to mention both, and so I have recaptioned that period (through to the present) as "Carousel of Coaches". That may be a bit, I dunno, too thick a statement for what was happening but I do think that the unusual flux in the two programs seems to characterize the period. Now, going forward I (personally) believe - as I said above - that both Meyer and Harbaugh are here for the long haul, and in a couple of years (heck, maybe even after this one) we should break out the Harbaugh - Meyer (Meyer - Harbaugh if you prefer) contests. Now all that said, I agree that Meyer's arrival is - even standing alone - a watershed for OSU (or will be, if he doesn't suffer heart problems again and retire, again); as is Harbaugh's hiring at Michigan, and maybe we need to capture those events instead. Anyhow, more food for thought. JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, even if (eventually) it just marks the stretch from 2011-14 to bridge the gap between the era of Tressel's dominance and what appears to be an intense rivalry between two strong coaches who are here to stay (although Wikipedia is not the place to speculate, so for now, the Carousel title could easily encompass 2011 to the present). Frank Anchor^Talk 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of matches my thinking. Make this do for now, in anticipation of adjusting it later, as the story unfolds. JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a nice article that may help guide us in revising / updating the article after another year or two - I link it here so we'll have it handy when the right time comes: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18100659/jim-harbaugh-urban-meyer-born-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2012 game

This is kind of a stupid disagreement, but the stupider a disagreement the better it is to take it to Talk I suppose. An IP editor has been adding the factoid that Michigan did not make it past midfield in the second half of the 2012 game. This to my eyes is a mildly interesting, but immaterial, fact. I reverted it a couple of times as unsourced, and have now removed it again as kind of trivial, immaterial, shoehorned in, and hard to integrate into a summary of a game that, in keeping with the rest of the article, is short and succinct. There are more detailed game summaries in the encyclopedia that do include this snippet, e.g. 2012_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_football_team#Michigan; and there are more interesting and better-covered facts than this that aren't anywhere in this article (e.g., Desmond Howard's 1991 Heisman pose). Rather than edit-war I throw it out to the group, with the only request that if you all decide you like it, write it well. I can't seem to do it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this: "In the 2012 game, No. 20 Michigan led at the end of the first half but could not move the ball past midfield in the second half, and fourth-ranked Ohio State prevailed 26-21 to cap a 12–0 season." JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

I would like to update the overall series record through the 2016 season, please. Kmefferd (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, the record was changed following yesterday's match. Bear in mind that one of the OSU wins doesn't count - JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 game information

Hi

why are you not letting the world know about the truth. The truth is not that it is speculation. The referees during the game were not giving penalties to OSU and that is the truth. Why are you naming it as vandalism.

How is it vandalsim? vandalsim means - action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. There is no destruction to public or private property. The truth is that penalties were not called when they needed to be. There is no indication that referees were biased or that OSU won becasue of penalties. I stated the truth that penalties against OSU were not given.

Please explain this. If I do not get a decent explanation I am willing to take this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9: The preceding was posted on my talk page, and I'm redirecting it here. First of all, I protected the page due to a history of chronic vandalism—yes, vandalism. That doesn't necessarily mean your contributions were vandalism. They are, however, unsourced and therefore unverifiable. Airplaneman ✈ 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's "sourced" in that there's a reference supplied, but the ref is to a discussion board posting which in turn links to an opinion piece on a sports website. It's opinion, speculation that the game would have turned out differently; not NPOV. It's not properly included. Indeed I'd have loved to see better officiating, as well as a Michigan win, but this article is not the place for Michigan fans to vent. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about better officiating, however let go of the opinion piece, but he penalties not called are penalties and that is video proof and that is the truth, how can you not agree to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

First, the video's aren't by themselves "proof". If perhaps the Big 10 or another organization were to review them and declare them wrong, then - that'd be proof, or proof enough. But a video where we can all look at it and wonder "how isn't that a call?" isn't proof of anything except the opinion of the person watching it. Second, I'm sure it's the rare college game that doesn't feature a blown call or two. So what. IMHO Michigan was on the short end of a few important calls in the game. But you can't hang the outcome on those alone, when UM threw two important interceptions, and fumbled at the goal line. Or maybe, OSU makes those 2 FGs and the game is out of reach to Michigan earlier. Who knows. Indeed, that's the point. Who knows. No one in fact. It's speculation, and hasn't got any place here. I hope that helps. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The below is from my talk page: Airplaneman ✈ 21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thanks for letting us know that you think officiating could have been better.

Now yes of course I cannot say questionable officiating since it is opinion.

However the plays that could have been penalties against Ohio State are actually non-calls. "Holding The hand(s) and arm(s) shall not be used to grasp, pull, hook, clamp or encircle in any way that illegally impedes or illegally obstructs an opponent. PENALTY—10 yards Penalties for Team A fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line [S42]."

By the definition the non-calls in the video should have been calls. Now that is the truth that is not opinion. The world talks about OSU won the game and that they need to be in the playoff I accept that. ESPN is giving very little coverage to Michigan now that they will hear a frustrated voice. However the same world needs to know the truth. This is not opinion by clear definition of the foul.

I know you feel that I am taking out my frustration, but it is very dissapointing to not win when you actually do. It is bitterly dissapointing when it will be our best shot in years. However take all that aside the truth is the non-calls should have been penalties. If you accept that then can I post them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4c01:9220:a45a:5987:fce0:bec9 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether you and I may agree that the plays should have been flagged as penalties. It's just our opinion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Have a look at WP:NOTOPINION and see if that helps. JohnInDC (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No how is that opinion, the definition of holding is seen via video proof. that is not opinion that is truth. Now there is talk about neutral point of view. Being a Michigan fan you are saying that I think they are penalties, however by definition of a holding penalty it is one as it can be seen. So it is not really an opinion it is a plain for the eye to see missed call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your opinion on the officiating But you can't hang the outcome on those alone. To comment on this yes Michigan should have protected the ball better. However calls not made are very big in games in terms of mindset of players and following plays. The holding on Jordan Louis not called has massive implication on the 4th and 1 to go for it. anyways I digress. And yes it is better to focus on what you can control vs what you cannot.

Big Ten officiating will not review it because it will dig into their credibility, additionally they are not going to willing to admit the blunders by selecting officials who were banned earlier. However once again it is not opinion because as per the definition it is a holding. And that is a fact. I repect wikipedia and when I always comments from friends that I am the first one to go and check wikipedia. Also I am one of the people who regularly contributes funds and encourages others to do so because I understand the wealth of information one can gain from this.

The statement Michigan could only muster seems highly offensive right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it clearer, but really Wikipedia isn't a place for settling scores (figuratively or literally) or expressing frustration or anything like that. It's an encyclopedia, a place where people come to find objective, reliably-sourced, non-opinion and non-point-of-view information. Now, there's no doubt that OSU won that game, 30-27. So that's what it says. There is also no doubt that some people believe that the game was lost on account of the officiating - but there is equally no doubt that others believe that, bad calls aside, Michigan with its 3 turnovers has only itself to blame for the loss. So even if you postulate that bad officiating is a fact, people don't agree on whether it even mattered - and maybe more to the point, a week after the game, no one is talking about it any more. Old news, the loser's always unhappy, and - hey! Look over there! Playoffs! It's opinion, it's speculation, it's transient - and for all those reasons not appropriate to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061202065926/http://www.swerbsblurbs.com/article_detail.php?id=1010 to http://www.swerbsblurbs.com/article_detail.php?id=1010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020033215/http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/ibleedblackandred/167454 to http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/ibleedblackandred/167454
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901182857/http://www.mgoblue.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=13128 to http://mgoblue.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=13128
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141206172511/http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_history_michigan.html to http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bowl_history_michigan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

IP that comes by to vandalize once a year and only this page

Funny. [1] Enigma^msg 20:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Updated win streak

Article falsely claimed the longest streak of 9 was shattered by both. OSU never won 9 straight. They won 8 from 2012-2019 134.228.38.254 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Michigans back out year counts as a loss 2603:6010:A140:7D:C4E4:8E2:81DB:292E (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"most successful teams"

The wording of this should be changed to "winningest" because it is obviously debatable at the least whether these two teams have been the most "successful". Compiling wins is not one and the same thing as success, as (among other reasons) the former depends on (a) how many total games you've played and (b) who your opponents were. It is obvious and indisputable that these two things, success and total wins, are not interchangeable, or there would be no need to have rankings other than within the clusters of teams having the same record. There would be no distinction in significance between performance in a championship game and in the season opener - a win or loss in either would be equally a win or loss. Neither Michigan nor Ohio State has the most national championships for instance, and one could as plausibly choose that as the criterion of success. The point is that this is equivocal, debatable, tendentious, non-objective language that has no place in an encyclopedia article. 97.41.129.103 (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"The School Up North" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The School Up North has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 3 § The School Up North until a consensus is reached. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Up north.

On local TV & local OSU fans in my area Dayton. We don't say the word Michigan.. They say the team up north, or something else like that. 2603:6011:8CF0:64D0:C907:63B9:B8DF:DA9E (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

2021-2022 Cheating Scandal

Putting * for Michigan wins in 2021 and 2022. 2603:6010:BE00:6AF:25D2:3F30:A421:81D5 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)