Shocking! ESPN tells us how irrelevant UM and Notre Dame are

Submitted by poseidon7902 on

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11465494/notre-dame-mich…

 

Snipet:
 

All of which brings us back to Notre Dame Stadium on Saturday night. The Fighting Irish and the Wolverines conclude a stirring 35-year rivalry with a lot of fanfare and not much else. Tickets on the secondary market are more expensive than ever, an economics lesson in artificial shortage. If the Irish and Wolverines were playing next season, tickets wouldn't be so costly.

I'm like everyone else. I wish Notre Dame hadn't pulled the plug on the rivalry. There may come a time, in the distant future when this rivalry is resumed, when more than bragging rights are at stake. But the truth is, Notre Dame and Michigan are groping about for national relevance.

It has been 26 years since Notre Dame won a national championship, nearly a decade longer than the previous longest drought (1949-66). How long ago? In 1988, Irish coach Brian Kelly was an assistant coach at Grand Valley State. How long ago? Four days after the Irish completed the regular season at 11-0 by defeating No. 2 USC 27-10, Seahawks quarterback and Super Bowl XLVIII MVP Russell Wilson was born.

Notre Dame stayed nationally relevant into the mid-1990s under Lou Holtz. They came back to the top five as recently as two years ago. But they have yet to make it clear they will stay.

It has been 17 seasons since Michigan won a national championship and that's not even the jaw-dropper. It's been 10 years since Michigan won a Big Ten championship. In the 10 years before that, Michigan won four Big Ten titles. In the 10 years before that, Michigan won six. In the 10 years ... you get the point.

So we say that college football is an oligarchy, because we know that the last 40 national championships have been won by only 22 schools. But there are some different names among the powers that currently be. Yes, Oklahoma and Alabama are there. But so are Oregon and Stanford. So is Baylor. Florida State has just returned to the top after a decade in the wilderness.

Michigan and Notre Dame will play for the last time in many years on Saturday night. It's a blow to anyone who likes neighborhood rivalries. But the national news being made has more to do with the end of an era than it does the top 25.

 

In other news, ESPN thinks the SEC is the Bees Knees and no, they have no reason to be biased.  

Yeezus

September 5th, 2014 at 10:56 AM ^

Truer words have not been said.

In one of ESPN's articles that highlighted the big games this weekend, ours was the third mentioned.  It didn't even say what network it was on (while, of course, anything on the ESPN family was noted).  I hate that shit.  

BlueInWisconsin

September 5th, 2014 at 12:40 PM ^

It's all about self promotion for them.  People who think of them as just a sports version of the news are fooling themselves.  By and large SportsCenter and their web page are just advertising for themselves.  Amazing concidence how when ESPN stopped broadcasting NHL games years back SportsCenter suddenly acted like the NHL didn't exist anymore.  Strange how ESPN is tied in the the SEC Network and SportCenter keeps beating the SEC drum. It's crap and I've pretty much tuned out ESPN as a result.

814 East U

September 5th, 2014 at 10:26 AM ^

The article makes some valid arguments. That is why we need to just keep winning games and shut everyone up. The no BIG titles in 10 years is the stat that probably pisses me off the most. We need to be better and I think we will be.



And I hate Notre Dame.

alum96

September 5th, 2014 at 10:32 AM ^

Yep.  People can get emotional and scream and yell but it's been more about 2 programs than 2 great teams more often than not of late.  When Holtz was around this game had more of a national impact as both programs were generally top 10-15ish with 1 or the other closer to #1 then #15 most years. 

If the playoffs had been around since 2000 UM would not have been in serious discussions for it other than 2006.  For ND other than 2012.  It is the reality.  Hope it changes soon.

GoWings2008

September 5th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^

it certainly is a pun, as opposed to an inside joke only known to the board.  Its a term I heard Robin Williams, of all people, use once in one of his stand-up routines.  But the names replaced were intended to be such an outlandish mix of people that it couldn't help but be recognized as a joke, but as I've learned not everybody gets it.  Its also a social commentary on the importance, and potential behavior by disrespecting, the boarder that separates the North from the South. 

Everyone Murders

September 5th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^

That's only a fare to Midland explanation if you ask me.

(Isn't "Manson-Nixon" a malapropism, like "Unverified Voracity", rather than a pun?  Another word for it is a "Dogberryism" - I don't know the history behind that word, although I like the sound of it.)

nowayman

September 5th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^

I'm sure the Scar Aggie game write up mentioned the last time the Gamecocks won a conference championship (1969), or a national championship (never), or the Aggies' last conference championship (1998), or their last national championship (1939 ?) when ESPN did a preview of the SEC network channel opener.  

I'm surprised they didn't mock ND for the 0 conference championships ND has in football.  

Space Coyote

September 5th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^

2004 they were also rated #7 going into the OSU game at OSU and MIchigan only has one loss. USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn all finished the regular season undefeated, so they would have made it (in a very much anomaly year), Utah was also undefeated, Texas had one loss (to Oklahoma), and California only had one loss (to USC).

So a one loss team probably doesn't make it if they beat OSU, but they'd be in the discussion with Utah and Texas and California. The year was just a huge anomaly though, four undefeated teams, two teams with losses only to the top 2 teams. But Michigan started the season at #8 and lost in the 2nd week, most seasons (had they beat OSU at the end) would have ended in them in serious playoff discussion, particularly at that time when the B1G was still viewed in a good light.

alum96

September 5th, 2014 at 2:03 PM ^

Fair points.

What I'd like to see out of Michigan is a 5-6 year period ala USC, Oregon, Bama, LSU, Oklahoma where we are top 10 every year with the potential for 0 or 1 losses.  That doesn't mean all those 5-6 years we accomplish it but what UM had pre RR was the longest string of bowls and non losing years.  To offset that we never had the 5-6 year period post Bo where we came in every year as a team to beat nationally over half a decade.  Those other programs had down periods but they were offset by those 5-6 year periods where they were dominant.  We have not had a period like that since the 70s really, where year in and year out we were a serious national contender.  So as an offset for these past 6 years I'd like to see a period not too far off where we enter every year as an Oregon OSU or Bama is viewed.   We seem to be a program that has that 1 great year and then sandwiched between a lot of 3-4 loss seasons even during our good years in the 90s/first half 00s.

readyourguard

September 5th, 2014 at 12:20 PM ^

Why can't it just be an enjoyable college football match up between 2 storied programs? It's a game played for our entertainment. To hell with ESPN. They've destroyed the college game as much as any AD ever has. I still get butterflies before this game. I don't need some giant ad-generating conglomerate to tell me what or what isn't relevant.

SC Wolverine

September 5th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^

Yes, the article smacks of ESPN's marketing priorities.  But the fact that we have not won a Big Ten title in 10 years is a big deal.  We need to start kicking rear ends week-by-week and winning big games again.  Until we do -- may this be the year! -- let's not be shocked by a lack of respect in the media.

Yeezus

September 5th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^

ESPN catered to the SEC since it became the "dominant" conference in the early part of the 21st century.

Then it completely lost its fucking mind when it created the SEC network and hired Paul Finebaum.  I fucking hate Paul Finebaum, and so should everyone else that went to a non-SEC school.  

The only good thing about ESPN/Finebaum/SEC is that it unites the fans of the other conferences with shared disdain.  

BlueinLansing

September 5th, 2014 at 10:30 AM ^

and their thoughts about college football are irrelevant to me.  They have a strong conflict of interest with their SEC project.  I won't watch any of their pregame or post game shows this year.

Reader71

September 5th, 2014 at 10:31 AM ^

This is going to be the highest rated college football game of the week. It might not have ramifications for the playoff, but people love this game.

I dont care about the playoff at all unless Michigan is involved.

Reader71

September 5th, 2014 at 11:57 AM ^

I know. I miss the best football on the planet every Sunday as well. The NFL doesn't interest me. Neither does a playoff without Michigan.

I'm really not enthused about the playoff in general. I dont really like the idea. If Michigan isn't in it, I have no interest.

Reader71

September 5th, 2014 at 2:10 PM ^

I watch a lot of college football. Most of it is to see what our opponents look like this season. But I'll watch other games that aren't related to Michigan in any way. They just don't really interest me. I don't think football is a game that you can enjoy without having some sort of emotional stake in it, and Bama v Auburn offers me none. I'll watch out of habit and looking for a nice play or whatever. But I just can't get into it.

gmoney41

September 5th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^

I am exactly like you.  I am a diehard Michigan fan, and I will catch a few minutes of other games every week, but I don't care enough to tune into a playoff if Michigan isn't involved.  I'll flip a game on and catch a score, but I wont sit and watch a whole game.  I just don't have 4 hours to waste anymore in my life if its not for Michigan.  The NFl is just a stale boring league to me.  I really have no interest in the NFL.

Blue in Yarmouth

September 5th, 2014 at 12:43 PM ^

I'm with you brother. I have found as I have aged that time is a very precious commodity. Finding the time to sit down in front of the TV to watch an entire football game is tough to justify with so  many other things competing for my attention.

I watch UM games because I love UM, any game they aren't involved in drops down my priority list like a brick. In fact, it's become evident over the past few years that I don't love football, I just love UM and any sport they compete in I'll make the time to watch, but any others teams don't hold my interest. 

MGolem

September 5th, 2014 at 10:38 AM ^

NBC Sports or even Fox Sports becomes a legitimate entity and knocks ESPN from its perch. I have been guilty over the years of watching endless Sportscenters or pregame shows but no more. PTI and actual game coverage is all I can stand at this point.