ESPN Article on the 2012 UM-OSU game.
A Mark Schlabach piece:
This got my blood boiling:
"In late November, Ohio State lured Meyer out of retirement to restore the image of its program, as well as its dominance over Michigan."
Well...I'd like to see us beat OSU two years running. Then we'll see what they say about Meyer.
This got my blood laughing:
I guess it's going to really suck for them when they lose. Then they get to sit at home watching us win a bowl game.
*another bowl game
How the tables have turned:
"It's Michigan and Ohio," Hoke said. "It has really never been about coaches. It's about two great schools and two great traditions, both academically and athletically. I know one thing -- we'll get our share and they'll get their share. That's the way it's always been."
Moron calls his own school Ohio. Can't wait until Hoke beats Meyers ass and all the OSU fans fall back on their excuses for losing.
GO BLUE
That quote is Hoke’s. Hoke is calling them Ohio, which means you called Hoke a moron. Unless I’ve somehow misread your comment.
Haha, I'm the moron I though it was Meyer's quote calling his own school Ohio. I'm hung over today, that's my excuse.
Actually, Hoke is calling his school "Michigan."
FAIL!
Ebb and Flow, that's a good Robin Thicke song if you like R&B.
in "Sandcastles in the Sand"
The 90s and the 00s were anomolies. Since OSU's first victory it's basically been back and forth.
I think most Michigan fans would be willing to call the Cooper years an abberation if Buckeye fans will go with 2004-2010 as an abberation, 2006 withstanding.
I still think 2006 may have been my favorite game of all time. Michigan lost, sure, but DAMN that was a good game.
I think OSU had the edge in the 2000s, but it wasnt nearly as glaring as the record makes it seem. UM had a mix of terrible luck, and bad coaching for a few years, and it led to an improbable number of consecutive losses, especially considering some of those Michigan teams had quite a bit more talent than OSU
I think OSU had the edge in the 2000s, but it wasnt nearly as glaring as the record makes it seem. UM had a mix of terrible luck, and bad coaching for a few years, and it led to an improbable number of consecutive losses, especially considering some of those Michigan teams had quite a bit more talent than OSU
I think OSU had the edge in the 2000s, but it wasnt nearly as glaring as the record makes it seem. UM had a mix of terrible luck, and bad coaching for a few years, and it led to an improbable number of consecutive losses, especially considering some of those Michigan teams had quite a bit more talent than OSU
what irritated me about Schlabach's comment. It got my blood boiling. It makes it seem as though the recent success they've enjoyed is how it's always been. I couldn't let it go so I wrote Schlabach an email. 58-43-6 overall and in the last 27 years it's 14-11-1 in Michigan's favor.
9-3 in favor of OSU since the turn of the century. That's not just "recent." If you’re really that upset about it, you must not have been watching for the past decade. Objectively, they have been the better team for a long time now.
your definition of a long time and mine are not the same. That probably has a lot to do with the differences in our ages. To you 12 years may seem like a long time for me it does not. Nor does 25 years. But then again I remember watching the Berlin wall come down and that only seems like a few years ago. I also wouldn't characterize what happened in 2006 as "dominate" or 2005 for that matter. So some might say I've been watching a little closer than perhaps you have been.
old but Besse has me beat by a few years. I don't think you have to be 115 years old to appreciate my perspective of time just something older than say 30.
is a pro Michigan number of years. I agree with using this century when referring to recent dominance.
use a nice round number like 25 and it's still Michigan 12-11-1 (+1 vacated).
I get the feeling that Espn favors Urban Meyer because of his ties to the SEC.
It might be simpler than that. Schlabach is from the south, and he's probably inclined to favor schools with that type of flavor. Ohio has way more hillbillies than Michigan (no slouch in that area, of course), so of course he'll favor it. :)
Whatever is easiest to remember, the fact remains, we could go through another decade like this, and still be ahead of Ohio in the series. Restoring dominance implies being ahead.
Not even that. Restoring dominance implies that you actually HAD dominance at some point. You can't restore what never existed.
Tressel was the Senator which is ironically hiliarious. I think Urban should be the Mayor because of the way he throws Florida under the bus to further where he is now.
Tell the bull to stop.
You do know that MIchigan only 5-4-1 during the 10-Year War, right?
I'd like to add (in an OT sort of way ... not in direct response to this) that the Big Ten was 1-9 vs. the Pac 10 during the '70s.
"Ohio State fullback Zach Boren said the Buckeyes will shoot for nothing short of perfection, even if they're ineligible for championships and the postseason." - from the article
I will say that it is nice to see that Zach applies the same high standards to Ohio that he does to plowing.
I had to chuckle over Meyer's intent to reach out to Lane Kiffin about how to handle programs currently under sanctions since Kiffin is typically one of the last people on Earth that you would think would be consulted about the psychological well-being of players, much less players in programs operating under sanctions. He has shown himself to be fairly proficient at getting programs into hot water, of course.
Actually, it's interesting Meyer would talk to Kiffin at all, since Lane tried to out him for NCAA violations in 2009 and instead was reprimanded by his own conference (then the SEC). Sounds like a warped case of "misery seeks company", with the "misery" here being the postseason ban.
Everyone knows they are bias but we all still read. I don't care what anyone has to say about The Game in 2012, all i care about is that Michigan has more points than Ohio at the end of the game.
I've heard we're selling jersey's in Ohio. That seems like a good start.
When Ohio wins fifteen straight and finally catches up in the all-time rivalry, then they can talk about "dominance" over Michigan. Not to diminish the rivalry, but until that happens, Ohio is just another school with a losing record to Michigan.
Ohio has one rivalry game. Michigan has three, and about five more teams that see them as a "rivalry game." Then again, this could play into Michigan's hands a little bit. If Urban Meyer doesn't realize how badly Wiscy and Illinois want to beat Ohio every time they play them, he could have one or two "bad losses" every year.
Ohio State has the same thing about other teams seeing them as a rival though. Illinois does, Penn State does, Iowa did in the mid 2000s, Wisconsin does. It's the nature of being the top 2 programs in the conference.