ijohnb

November 19th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^

analogy, however, that is actually fairly insightful. I don't necessarily think this article is a shot or a slap at Michigan, it is just kind of true. The Game has lost a little pep over the last few years, it will prosper again no doubt, but I don't think it is the biggest rivalry in sports right now. The fact is, both programs have to be relevant in order for that to be the case. Michigan will return to prominance as will this game and it will once again be recognized as the biggest rivalry in sport.

bmiddy

November 19th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^

The author stole the idea for this article from another one by Bruce Hooley on Foxsports.com. Granted, Bruce is a radio personality in Columbus, but take it for what its worth.

MGoViso

November 19th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^

Looking from a national perspective, she's essentially giving an idea of what the game this weekend means for those without rooting interests, and she gives some historical context. Of course I would have loved a clause about lesser national implications doesn't diminish the emotional intensity of The Game, but that column would make a decent read for a nonfan. I think that to cite this as a further example of the national media observing "trends" from aberrations or very recent history is a bit exaggerative.

BaggyPantsDevil

November 19th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^

She definitely hits close to home on that. Can't say the state of things is her fault, though, or that anything is inaccurate. If anything, she gives the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry the benefit of the doubt since she's turning a blind eye to the lopsided Tressel-Carr record.

Besides, she not saying the significance is gone forever, merely that this year, Ohio State goes to the Rose Bowl regardless of the outcome and that Michigan is fighting to not be dead last in the Big Ten. Not exactly and inspiring backstory for a game.