FiveThirtyEight rates this UM-OSU matchup the fourth biggest in series history
November 21st, 2018 at 3:03 PM ^
It’s been 32 years since Jim Harbaugh last led the Michigan Wolverines to a win over the Ohio State Buckeyes. Ever since the consummate Michigan Man made good on his guarantee in 1986, the maize and blue have largely been muzzled by the scarlet and gray. To some degree, Harbaugh must have returned to his alma mater for games like Saturday’s. But he has fumbled each of his three chances at the Buckeyes.
Do the 1990's not exist anymore?
November 21st, 2018 at 3:19 PM ^
Poor journalism without fact checking.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:27 PM ^
Harbaugh wasn't leading the team between 1986 and 2015.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:23 PM ^
Yes, but the point is that we had a stretch of total dominance over OSU (1988-2000) during that time that the author neglected to mention.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:03 PM ^
I'm surprised this would be behind 2016's top 3 matchup
November 21st, 2018 at 4:31 PM ^
Exactly. That was a slightly bigger game.
November 21st, 2018 at 5:37 PM ^
I would put that game ahead of this one. OSU was better in 2016.
November 21st, 2018 at 10:32 PM ^
This year's suckeye team isn't much off that one--they've just been disguising it by winning fugly.
I think we are at least as much ahead of our 2016 team as they are behind theirs.
November 21st, 2018 at 5:19 PM ^
Speight's injury and uncertain status lowered the hype a bit I think. This year you have both team's at basically full strength and no other teams even in the conversation in the East division.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^
Surprised to see 2016 so far down that list. What accounts for the large difference between then and now? Both games for the B1G Championship game, both for a playoff spot (though less so if OSU wins Saturday).
November 21st, 2018 at 4:18 PM ^
Just spitballing here, but maybe since PSU had the division tiebreakers over OSU, it knocked it down a little bit?
November 21st, 2018 at 3:09 PM ^
To me it all depends on the weather..... what's the weather going to be like?....Haven't heard..
November 21st, 2018 at 4:29 PM ^
Good news -- I was just about to start a much-needed thread about that . . .
November 21st, 2018 at 6:54 PM ^
I hope that the thread that I am going to post has the same information as your thread.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:11 PM ^
I would have thought that '73 (when both were undefeated, Ohio was #1 and Michigan #4) would be ahead of '75 and '97. I would put '03 in the running for #3 behind '06 and '73. EDIT: what makes '73 special is that Ohio won the Rose Bowl that year. Whereas in '06 both teams lost their bowl games, and in '75 Michigan finished 8-2-2. '16 was another year the teams fizzled in the bowls.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:22 PM ^
Bowl performance isn't relevant to their analysis, which is about hype going into The Game. The elo scores are calculated based on performance before the game.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^
But why would a Michigan team with two ties ('75) be ranked higher than a 10-0 team ('73)?
November 21st, 2018 at 5:50 PM ^
Only because they are using ELO as the basis of their rank, which isn't only about record but about the relevant rankings of each team that you beat or lose to.
November 21st, 2018 at 10:42 PM ^
75 must be a clerical mistake.1973 tie game changed the Big Ten's Bowl policy.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:17 PM ^
538 is dead to me.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:18 PM ^
Like everyone else I’m shocked 2016 always gets overlooked. It was literally 2 vs 3. I’d assume it was because we had recently lost to Iowa and Speight was injured, but still.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:30 PM ^
Just based on their precious Elo rating. That stat has not liked us very much since Harbaugh got here. Now, however, it likes us similar to other rankings, but also likes Ohio State more than other rankings like the CFP and a little more than S&P.
November 21st, 2018 at 7:23 PM ^
For one, Michigan and osu were pretty clearly not the second and third best team going into that year. And the second point was the game wasn’t for the title, since psu had the tiebreaker the game meant less division wise to osu
November 21st, 2018 at 5:07 PM ^
Stats aside, on a gut level it didn't seem like #2 versus #3 going into the game. Michigan looked wobbly against Indiana, and the offense started a slow slide with the Newsome injury in the Wisconsin game.
November 21st, 2018 at 3:19 PM ^
So these stat geeks don't remember 2-10-1?
November 21st, 2018 at 3:26 PM ^
Soooooooooooo it's been since 1948 since UM won in an evenly matched game in Columbus..............
November 21st, 2018 at 3:28 PM ^
but uh they were national champions that year so maybe it is a good omen.
November 21st, 2018 at 9:47 PM ^
1996.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:13 PM ^
2016 was unquestionably hyped more than this game
November 21st, 2018 at 4:21 PM ^
Thanks for posting.
I have to say I was surprised to see 1975 up there.
That team was very offensively challenged and had 2 consecutive ties filled with field goals.
I would not have thought advanced stats would be impressed with that team.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:23 PM ^
Yeah, this article is . . . iffy.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:25 PM ^
1973: 10-0 and #4 Michigan vs 9-0 and #1 Ohio State
1975: 8-0-2 and #4 Michigan vs 11-0 and #1 Ohio State
I was in school during those years, and anybody who says the hype was bigger in 1975 than it was in 1973 is an idiot.
However, I don't think the Elo measurement measures "hype" anyhow, and the article isn't really about hype per se.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:32 PM ^
Correct.
The article is about the mean team strength, not hype.
Reading between the lines, 538 thinks this team is considerably better than 2016 - and almost as good as 2006. That's a nice sign.
November 21st, 2018 at 7:24 PM ^
"and almost as good as 2006."
If we're not better than 2006, there will be a lot of very disappointed Michigan fans on Saturday. And after whatever bowl game we play in.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:43 PM ^
I don't think they even invented hype until 1980.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:35 PM ^
I love me some 538 normally, but I am not a big fan of the "ELO" ratings. This certainly the kind of ad hoc, zero-expertise take that Nate Silver hates, but I find it to be more confusing and generally less accurate than DVOA and other fancy stats. I have no idea if that's true, but it seems that way. I do know that every year, the I have to figure out what the heck ELO is trying to do, sorta understand it, then immediately forget it.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:38 PM ^
I'll check back in an hour, at 5:38, to see if they got it right yet.
(Edit @ 5:50: I even gave them an extra 12 minutes and they still have many basic facts wrong and/or ignored)
November 21st, 2018 at 4:44 PM ^
I wasn't aware of this publication. Thanks for the lead!
November 21st, 2018 at 5:28 PM ^
Biggest since this...
November 21st, 2018 at 8:54 PM ^
Paging Naked Bootlegger!!!!
November 21st, 2018 at 5:28 PM ^
I don't think Nate Silver and his gang are particularly fond of their memories regarding the year 2016, so maybe that explains their lack of appreciation for that game.
November 21st, 2018 at 7:50 PM ^
Biggest game in a decade. UM wins and they are finally over the hump. They need to beat OSU.