Ohio State vs Michigan: A look into the series record.

• hoops23

  

  Taken from another poster from another board:
  
  from 1919-2010, the Ohio State/Michigan series is tied at 44-44-4.
  
  That means that Michigan's entire 13 game lead in the overall series (57-44-6) came before OSU's first win against UM. So when any UM fan brings up that stat they're basically bragging about what UM was doing when Wilson, Taft, T. Roosevelt and McKinley were President.
  
  This is also the first time that either team has won 7 in a row since UM won 9 in a row in the 1910's (part of their 13-0-2 run)
• krambman

  

  hoops23;577755 wrote:Taken from another poster from another board:
  
  from 1919-2010, the Ohio State/Michigan series is tied at 44-44-4.
  
  That means that Michigan's entire 13 game lead in the overall series (57-44-6) came before OSU's first win against UM. So when any UM fan brings up that stat they're basically bragging about what UM was doing when Wilson, Taft, T. Roosevelt and McKinley were President.
  
  This is also the first time that either team has won 7 in a row since UM won 9 in a row in the 1910's (part of their 13-0-2 run)

  
  Correct. Michigan also began playing football 20 year before Ohio State which is why they dominated the early part of the series. I have no problem with Michigan claiming the overall record because it is what it is, but it's very interesting to see how balanced the series is once it truly became competitive.
• believer

  

  krambman;577910 wrote:Correct. Michigan also began playing football 20 year before Ohio State which is why they dominated the early part of the series. I have no problem with Michigan claiming the overall record because it is what it is, but it's very interesting to see how balanced the series is once it truly became competitive.

  Exactly. Ohio State leads the series slightly in the "modern era" (call it 1951 to 2010) with 31 wins and 29 losses. Scoring has also been remarkably balanced with Ohio State outscoring Michigan in that time frame by an average score 18 - 17.
• hoops23

  

  Yes, not including todays blowout, the scoring differential is only about 20 total points in that time frame^ Crazy how even this series has been.
• darbypitcher22

  

  saw a stat today that since the 1920's or something that both teams had scored exactly 1309 points coming into today's game... pretty phenomenal stat if you ask me
• dwccrew

  

  If it wasn't for the Cooper years, this would be a lot different. Of course UM fans could say the same about the later Carr years and the RR years. But OSU was a top ten team and the better (on paper) team in the 90's Cooper years, whereas Michigan is pretty much the lesser team in the later Carr and RR years.
• sleeper

  

  14 years from now OSU will have the overall record, and they'll never look back.
• dwccrew

  

  ^^^^Let's hope so
• wes_mantooth

  

  Just more reasons why this is the best rivalry in all of sports. Michigan is down now, but they will be back....too much history and tradition.
• LJ

  

  I really hope Michigan gets their shit together soon. While it's fun destroying Michigan year after year, it's just not right that I felt ok leaving home with 6 min left in the game and finishing listening to it on the radio because I had "better things to do"
• wes_mantooth

  

  LJ;578957 wrote:I really hope Michigan gets their shit together soon. While it's fun destroying Michigan year after year, it's just not right that I felt ok leaving home with 6 min left in the game and finishing listening to it on the radio because I had "better things to do"

  
  I agree. I think college football is a better product when teams like Michigan and Notre Dame are in the mix.
• dwccrew

  

  wes_mantooth;578968 wrote:I agree. I think college football is a better product when teams like Michigan and Notre Dame are in the mix.

  
  I know that some people feel that way, but IMO it doesn't matter. Michigan and Notre Dame can continue to be bad and it won't change anything. Ohio State could go the way of Michigan and Notre Dame and it won't change the college football world (although I hope that never happens) IMO.
• wes_mantooth

  

  dwccrew;579688 wrote:I know that some people feel that way, but IMO it doesn't matter. Michigan and Notre Dame can continue to be bad and it won't change anything. Ohio State could go the way of Michigan and Notre Dame and it won't change the college football world (although I hope that never happens) IMO.

  
  I know...it is just my preference. I loved it when OSU/Michigan played in 06...it was such a great build up to the game. And I loved hating ND in the Tim Brown years....I just love when we(OSU fans) had a legitimate enemy that challenged us.
• dwccrew

  

  wes_mantooth;579697 wrote:I know...it is just my preference. I loved it when OSU/Michigan played in 06...it was such a great build up to the game. And I loved hating ND in the Tim Brown years....I just love when we(OSU fans) had a legitimate enemy that challenged us.

  
  We will when Nebraska joins and Wisconsin is a formidable opponent. I agree that it is more fun when Michigan is competitive, but I do enjoy the Bucks dismantling them year after year.
• wes_mantooth

  

  Yeah, since it looks like Nebraska is coming on....it really add to what the Big Ten is all about.
• krambman

  

  dwccrew;579727 wrote:We will when Nebraska joins and Wisconsin is a formidable opponent. I agree that it is more fun when Michigan is competitive, but I do enjoy the Bucks dismantling them year after year.

  
  But we only get to play Nebraska twice every 10 years under the new conference alignment unless they go to a nine game conference schedule.
• hoops23

  

  krambman;580072 wrote:But we only get to play Nebraska twice every 10 years under the new conference alignment unless they go to a nine game conference schedule.

  
  Or conference championship.
• hoops23

  

  Also, Wisky, PSU, and Iowa are usually solid. MSU looks like a program on the rise as well.
  
  Plus, Northwestern is turning into a respectable opponent.
  
  Michigan doesn't need to be good for OSU or the Big Ten.. Not now anyway.
• dwccrew

  

  krambman;580072 wrote:But we only get to play Nebraska twice every 10 years under the new conference alignment unless they go to a nine game conference schedule.

  
  True, but I'm sure that OSU will meet them in the conference championship a few times. It'd be nice if they went to playing more conference games and got rid of some of the cream puffs in the earlier parts of the season.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Why is 1951+ the "modern era?" Why not 1946+, with the return of soldiers after World War II? Why not 1936+, with the start of the AP Poll not just uncertainty. Why not 1998 with the start of the bogus BCS?
  
  Personally I think it's really ignorant to ignore the 20's, 30's, and 40's when college football was still huge. Sell out crowds existed, the sport was popular. It iss not 1890 and the sport was still in it's infancy, it was a bonafide national interest.
• krambman

  

  sjmvsfscs08;580248 wrote:Why is 1951+ the "modern era?" Why not 1946+, with the return of soldiers after World War II? Why not 1936+, with the start of the AP Poll not just uncertainty. Why not 1998 with the start of the bogus BCS?
  
  Personally I think it's really ignorant to ignore the 20's, 30's, and 40's when college football was still huge. Sell out crowds existed, the sport was popular. It iss not 1890 and the sport was still in it's infancy, it was a bonafide national interest.

  
  I was wondering why the OP chose 1951 as a dividing date too. You almost always see people talk about the AP era (since 1936) or the modern era (since 1946). I've never heard anyone use 1951.