Having multiple rivals

Submitted by erald01 on December 7th, 2013 at 9:47 PM
As me and my friends are watching the B1G championship game we were talking about how UofM has a bigger dissadvantage when it comes to rivalry games compared to other big ten teams. We have 3 main rivals who literally hate our guts (OSU, MSU and ND), and is it fair to say that it is a lot harder to prepare for 3 huge rivalry games as opposed to one? MSU's superbowl is against us and also OSU's superbowl is against us, so for them its a lot easier to prepare super hard for that ONE game...as opposed to us or ND that have to prepare for 3 major rival games. Curious to know whats other fans take on this?



December 7th, 2013 at 9:54 PM ^

You can't ask for a better opportunity to play against high level competition. We're not where we want to be matchup wise, but just having the opportunity is huge for us. 


December 7th, 2013 at 9:56 PM ^

I love playing against those guys, but I don't care about them enough to be intensly focused on their games when we aren't playing.  I'm very surprised at how invested in tonight's game Michigan fans seem to be.  I just frankly do not care what happens.

Plus, I've moved on to hockey season.   


December 7th, 2013 at 9:57 PM ^

you eventually get hated.  I think having more rivalry games is an advantage.  It makes it much harder to mail it in - no opportunities to go through the motions.  We haven't handled our rivals very well in the past  7-10 years.  Our easiest rival ND is going away to find an easier schedule.  MSU and OSU have our number over the last 7+ years.

Michigan has to get batter in the trenches and get meaner if they want to strat making these rivalry games true rivalries again.


December 7th, 2013 at 10:00 PM ^

Also with ND exiting we now have 2 rivals we actually play... so less of an excuse.    But really this is lame - Iowa, PSU, Wisconsin, NW are not rivals but have given us dogfights and/or beaten us more often than not the past decade.

If we had players who were developed like Wiscy and MSU does (maybe it will happen down the road, but right now it is lacking), combined with a great coaching staff these type of theories would not need to be discussed.


December 7th, 2013 at 10:07 PM ^

The whole point of playing any sports is competing so offcourse any team will play their hardest to win, no matter who it is...I was talking more about importance of rivalry games.. I gurantee you that we can loose every game BUT if we beat ND, MSU and OSU, no one here will call for Hokes or Borges head


December 7th, 2013 at 10:03 PM ^

Tennessee only has 1 major rival - Florida.  Tennesse has been bad for a decade.  Maybe if they went down to 0 rivals they would do better.

Don't complicate it.  When you have better players, and better coaches it doesn't matter.  Did it matter in the 70s, 80s and 90s?  When UM dominated MSU, played even with ND and more often than not beat OSU.  


December 7th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^

I knew when I typed that I'd get blowback on their rivalry but thats beside the point.  The Spurrier Fulmer rivalry had me thinking that went to the top of the UT rivalry board for about a decade there.  I am sure they have other rivals.  But the larger point remains.  I guess too many rivals has killed UT the past decade whereas too many rivals did not hurt them in the 80s and 90s, etc.


December 7th, 2013 at 10:06 PM ^

It's Hoke's job to get the team motivated and "up" for every game regardless of the name on their jerseys.

Michigan has to equal the hate that they get from all opponents.


December 7th, 2013 at 10:09 PM ^

I think that has been our problem, it feels like we have not wanted as much, but the osu game last week was a little different, we actually played like we had something to prove and thats how we should always play...msu plays like that every game

Team 101

December 7th, 2013 at 11:31 PM ^

Illinois has hated us for decades.  They think Bo sent Gary Moeller there to destroy their football program.  It didn't help when we ran up the score on them after Moeller got fired and what irks them the most is that their best basketball team in history lost to us in the final four.

I'm sure it dates back before that but I don't.

Note they voted to send Ohio to the Rose Bowl in 1973.

gustave ferbert

December 7th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^

it wasn't the rivalries so much as winning the B1G.  We were going to get everyone's best punch, sure.  But we expected to win.  Hell, Ohio's entire tradition of those gold pants has to do with the idea that they need to be reminded that we put our pants on one leg at a time.  Everyone chases us. . . We never overly concerned ourselves with the rivalries back in the day because we always expected to win. .  . 


December 7th, 2013 at 10:24 PM ^

The ND series is ending. Florida has 3 main rivals FSU, Tenn and UGA. USC has ND, UCLA and probably one with Stanford now. Plenty of other schools have multiple rivals.


December 7th, 2013 at 10:44 PM ^

I guess that tonight having multiple rivals means that every highlight shown at every break in the action is one of our team getting clobbered. I know we only lost by 1 to OSU, but you sure couldn't tell that be the horror reel they're running tonight.

Swayze Howell Sheen

December 7th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^

Frankly if you are good people think of you as a rival - just a few years back, after Wisconsin beat Michigan, Alvarez called it a "program win". 

However, if we keep going 8-5, you won't have to worry much anymore.