Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

University of Michigan Project[edit]

University of Michigan is not represented with a project at Category:WikiProject Universities. Please comment at Talk:University_of_Michigan#Should_University_of_Michigan_have_a_project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Subheadings for 2011 forward[edit]

We're in a pretty interesting period right now, both teams first-year coaches. I wonder if that's ever happened before? (Surely the answer is somewhere within Wikipedia - I'm just too lazy at the moment to find out.) Anyhow it may be too soon to do it but I was thinking that we could change the caption back to "Sea Change at Michigan and Back Again" and then start a new section beginning with the Tressel resignation and going forward from there. Maybe a caption along the lines of "Two Fresh Starts" or "Starting from Scratch" or - well, I dunno.

I say it may be too soon, because nothing in the rivalry has happened yet under these coaches - and won't until November - but when it does, these circumstances seem to present a pretty good place to mark a new period in the rivalry. Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that with Tressel and Rodriguez gone, that this is a transition period for both schools. 2010 ended a period of dominance by Tressel, and possibly ended a period of dominance by the Buckeyes (we'll have to wait for the next few games to see). This will surely be a new era in the rivalry and 2011 should probably start a new section. I would suggest something simple for now like "2011: Starting from Scratch" or just simply "2011-Present:" without a subheading. Fickle is just the interim coach for the Buckeyes next season, so Ohio State could have a new coach, possibly someone from a different system, in 2012, so there are likely more changes on the way for Ohio State.
Although not related to this speific article, I saw on SportsCenter that the last time both schools had a new coach the same year was 1929, so you're right it has been a very long time. Frank AnchorTalk 04:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, unrelated to the coaching changes, 2011 is a good spot to start a new era because it marks the first year that OSU and Michigan will be in different divisions in the conference. This may affect the way the rivalry is played (i.e. the teams have a chance to meet in the conference championship game as well) Frank AnchorTalk 04:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OSU vacated victories (July 2011)[edit]

What's the best way to handle this? The games were played, OSU won them - you can surrender "credit" for the victory but you can't change what happened that day. The vacated victories need to be reflected here somehow but we need to figure out the most sensible way. Any insights about how this has been handled in similar circumstances would be helpful. In the meantime, until we sort this out, I think we should leave the page as it is (which at least has the virtue of historical accuracy). Thoughts, comments? JohnInDC (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think listing the win under game results is perfectly fine, but there is not way it should be shaded in red. The win has been vacated. Officially, the win no longer exists. Also, please stop removing properly sourced content which is clearly relevant and notable to the subject of this article. Levdr1lp (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Officially the win no longer exists, but for what purposes? "Officially", for whom? Tressel could sure still list it on his resume! The Dispatch source doesn't say anything about any of this, and I suspect it's because no one knows. We should put in a note that the wins have been vacated - and as for the implications for various streaks, records, etc., leave it be until we aren't simply speculating. I'll make suitable edits. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohio State has forfeited the wins from the 2010 season and the 2011 Sugar Bowl win. I'm not sure it gets any simpler than that. If you're looking for a similar situation to compare this to, consider Michigan Basketball re: the Ed Martin scandal from the mid-1990s. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It can't get simpler, no, but it can get more complicated if we start to add things like Tressel's "official" record against Michigan, or OSU's "streak" of wins against Michigan - what happens, for example, if OSU wins again in 2011? Is the streak 7? Or 1? For *now*, let's stick to the basic facts, which are that OSU appears to no longer claim credit for those wins - and leave the cascade of implications for when the implications are known, and not just supposed. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Look, I'm trying to reach some compromise and consensus with these edits. Please discuss them here before reverting my efforts. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
When there is a reliable source that says "Tressel's official record against Michigan is now 8-1 and his win streak is 6", I will be *more* than happy to acquiesce in the edit. But for now it's conjecture. We don't know. JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Ohio State does not "appear" to have vacated the 2010 wins. Ohio State did vacate those wins in an official response to the NCAA. That's more than official enough. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I think it is entirely appropriate to list the vacated game and its results. However, as the winner of that game no longer recognizes its own win, it shouldn't be recognized as a win here. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This topic has been the subject of much discussion recently at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Dealing with vacated awards, records and wins. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(e/c - thanks for that info) Just to recap, Levdr1lp - I agree that properly sourced and relevant material should be included, so I've left in your edits re the vacated victories, while adding appropriate notations to indicate clearly that they are not counted in certain tables (as you did with the head-to-head chart). The Dispatch source does not say much more than "OSU has vacated these victories" and so the implications for Tressel's official record against Michigan (or anyone for that matter) along with other nuances like the length of his win streak against them are uncertain. I think this is a good place to pause until we can figure out 1) how OSU's announcement will be treated by, e.g., the NCAA or the Big 10; and 2) how similar situations have been handled elsewhere in Wikipedia. Your suggestion re Ed Martin was a good one. What do you know about that one? JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You're reaching here. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
No he's not. Hammersbach (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, he is. Let's get serious, people. This isn't some grand philosophical debate. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll also add that, for the time being (and while this is being sorted out here on Talk), I'm going to quit on the back-and-forth edits to the article. I would hate to have to sort through the edit history to figure it out precisely but I am confident that both Levdr1lp and I are perilously close to an edit war, and one more would surely do it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm done with the back-and-forth for now, too. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there are some very serious implications for Wikipedia on this topic, i.e. do we have to go along with an organization's attempt to whitewash its history. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we all might be taking this a little too seriously. Keep it simple. Did Michigan and Ohio State play a game last November? Yes. Did Ohio State win? Yes. Did Ohio State vacate that win today? Yes. Does Ohio State have the authority to vacate a win? You would be foolish to argue no. Levdr1lp (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Whitewashing, plus having to contend with the difference between reported, verified fact and what later becomes the "official" meaning of those same facts. BTW - I wonder if the infobox isn't getting a bit confusing now, with what appears to be a pastiche of material that sometimes does, and sometimes doesn't, include vacated wins. I'm not sure what it means for example to say that a 'vacated win' by OSU is still a loss by Michigan. Doesn't that mean if the W/L record were stated from OSU's point of view, it wouldn't be the exact converse of what it says now? JohnInDC (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
JohnInDC, what does "e/c" mean? Edit conflict? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
(Yes. Though no one has ever told me that. Probably I am completely misinterpreting the use I've seen made of it, sigh. Nevertheless: (e/c)): I'd say, sure, OSU can decide not to credit itself with one or more wins. How the NCAA and the Big 10 (who presumably are the actual arbiters of "the record") will treat that is an open question today, though one may suppose they'll probably go along. It gets a little murkier, I think, when you get beyond. This news is only a few hours old, the article reflects the rough outlines of it (out to the edges of the sources) and there's no harm in waiting a bit to see what other shoes drop. JohnInDC (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
For now, the 2010 win should be mentioned if and only if accompanied by a note that Ohio State has vacated that win. Levdr1lp (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think we might be able to do it a bit more artfully than we are at the moment - things are starting to get a little clunky - but OSU has surrendered the W (which BTW is apparently not the same as a "forfeit", which would move the W to Michigan) and it is appropriately noted. I rather preferred my solution of putting "includes vacated results" (or you could say "includes 2010 win vacated by OSU") just to avoid repeating the same thing 3x, and sometimes ambiguously, in the infobox; but I suppose this too will sort out in time. JohnInDC (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've updated the infobox-type box to give equal weight to including and not including the result as vacated by Ohio State. If this isn't satisfactory (too "clunky"), I recommend listing totals without the vacated result (along with a note stating the 2010 vacated result is absent), RATHER than listing totals with the vacated result (along with a note stating the 2010 is included). It is highly, highly unlikely that the NCAA will choose not to enforce the 2010 result as vacated by Ohio State. Levdr1lp (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone with no vested interest in the rivalry, I think it is a little premature definitively deciding a final version, because ultimately the Big Ten and the NCAA will have an official say on the records, and it is yet unknown whether the NCAA will accept OSU's vacation of its wins. The NCAA's Official Records Book would be the definitive source, although I don't believe it tracks series records between teams, so official recognition of the record and streaks in this rivalry may ultimately be left up to the Big Ten and OSU and UM. However, in the meantime, my opinion is that it would be appropriate to remove OSU's vacated win from the total (but not Michigan's loss). The series streaks would be set to zero (or none), but the number of meetings would be 107 and the series record would be 57-43-6*. The teams played, Michigan lost, but only OSU vacated their win. Thus OSU's win totals are the only thing that should change until something more official is released from the B10/NCAA. All of the records with win totals should include a asterisk or footnote describing the vacation of OSU's win. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for offering some good points. I've updated the infobox-type box accordingly. To avoid confusion, I have changed the "series leader" field to "series record", and then broken it down according to each team: Ohio State has 1 fewer win, while Michigan still has the same number of losses (i.e., until NCAA and/or B10 release something official). Levdr1lp (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for those good edits, Levdr1. I am still struggling with the "logical" implications of the OSU action, because logic quickly flies out the window when you deliberately undertake to mis-record actual events. My preference, pending definitive resolution from "official" sources, is to confine things as narrowly as possible, if for no other reason than to avoid having to introduce asterisks into the school and coaching records of every team that happened to play (and lose to) OSU in 2010. Also part of the problem is the "one hand clapping" aspect of this - it's easy to change, e.g., OSU's win totals wherever they happen to be reported, but the opposite side of each of those (vacated) wins was a loss, which *wasn't* vacated, and I'm not sure what's worse - asterisks appearing like snowflakes in the record books, or "all-time series records" that differ depending on which team's perspective you're writing from (e.g., Michigan is 57-44-6 against OSU but OSU is 43-57-6 against Michigan). I suspect, finally, that "official" records will be only minimally changed (to the extent "official" records are kept at all of a lot of these things that can, in fact, be tallied) but of course that all remains to be seen. JohnInDC (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm updating the series record (and other fields accordingly) based on the following post via ESPN.com:

I've had several questions from fans wondering what it means for other teams in the SEC now that Alabama has to vacate 21 wins from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons... The short answer is... nothing. Alabama has to give up those wins, but the other teams don't get the wins. And in terms of the series record, it's as if those games were never played.

Levdr1lp (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Two thoughts there: 1) Who is Chris Low of ESPN.com and why are we crediting his 2009 post as even a reliable, let alone the definitive, source on this issue; and 2) if the games were "never played" we had better start back and adjusting the season statistics of the players whose yards gained, tackles for loss etc. have heretofore been included in the record books! I think that's the opinion of one fellow blogging at ESPN.com - he doesn't offer a source and there's no indication that his thinking has become the standard on this issue. Let's wait until we have something reliable from the NCAA or the Big 10 about how the NCAA and the Big 10 intend to treat OSU's action. JohnInDC (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This just underscores that there is no logic to this issue, just decrees; and we haven't got any decrees yet. What we know, and all we know, is that OSU no longer holds itself out as having won those games. That is all that OSU can offer up. Before we push the issue further out let's please wait and see what the official agencies have to say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
What Low says, BTW, would make sense for vacated results versus vacated victories. But OSU can't vacate the entire result - just its own win. It could offer up a forfeit instead but then its record really would be 0-13 for the year and I am sure that the administration wasn't ready to propose that. If the NCAA has its wits about it, it will complete the job that OSU has started, wipe the losses along with the wins, and we'll wind up where Low suggests. JohnInDC (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
ESPN is a major media outlet, and Chris Low is one of its many online contributors. Profile for Chris Low via ESPN.com blog page:

Chris Low - Low joined ESPN.com in 2007 after 10 years with The (Nashville) Tennessean covering the University of Tennessee and SEC. The Rock Hill, S.C., native lives with his wife in Knoxville and has three sons.

Levdr1lp (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have asked quite so rhetorically. I meant, what are Chris Low's qualifications to state what it means to the NCAA when a team voluntarily vacates its own victories? I don't see any that he has in particular, and he seems to offer nothing but his own say-so on the question. I don't see how he can be qualified as any sort of authority or source on this issue. JohnInDC (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Chris Low's is an online contributor for ESPN.com, and formerly served as a sports reporter for a major Tennessee newspaper. His focus is college football. Levdr1lp (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed here we have another sports writer - the well-known Grant Wahl, who actually quotes an NCAA official as saying that vacated victories come off only one side of the ledger. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/grant_wahl/news/2002/11/13/mailbag/ . Since the columnists disagree and the NCAA has yet to act, how about we wait, as I've suggested, to see what the NCAA actually does instead of hauling out old and possibly irrelevant sources to support one or another interpretation of this still-unresolved situation. JohnInDC (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Sports Illustrated link is from 2002; the ESPN link is from 2009. Grant Wahl is commenting on college basketball; Chris Low is commenting on college football. Wahl does not explicitly state anything on a "series record"; Low does. Levdr1lp (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there are differences between what the two are discussing, and we could debate their importance endlessly. Does quoting an NCAA source trump unsourced opinion? Even if the NCAA source was speaking 9 years ago about a different sport? Does it matter that the sport was different - do we really believe the NCAA would treat "vacation" differently in football than in basketball? But our debates are rather beside the point, and a classic example of OR. Let's leave the article be. JohnInDC (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You agree there are differences between the 2 articles. You acknowledge the SI article is relatively outdated and is referring to a different sport. If you can find a more recent and/or more relevant source, please do so. Levdr1lp (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Levdr1, you don't seem to understand that when sources disagree, and editors can endlessly debate the meaning or import of those sources, then there isn't properly sourced material to be included. You've made the same edit three times on the strength of a highly questionable source - his qualifications, his sources - and in the face of what appears to be highly credible material to the contrary. I'm not going to get into (another) edit war with you and will leave the reversions to another editor - but you need to understand that you're really pushing the envelope of editing propriety. JohnInDC (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
How is an online contributor for ESPN.com (and former college football reporter for a major Tennessee newspaper) a questionable source? Levdr1lp (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That isn't the question. The question is, how is he qualified - and how does a single opinion column citing no sources - stand as a reliable source for what the NCAA has already done in a matter that's about 24 hours old? It doesn't. That's my point. Neither does Grant Wahl, whom I introduced only to demonstrate that there seems to be a range of (irrelevant) columnist opinion on this subject. Chris Low is not a reliable source on this matter, and the article should not be edited based on his two-year-old unsourced opinion. JohnInDC (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Chris Low is a sports journalist who has covered college football both regionally (as a reporter for a major Tennessee newspaper) and nationally (as an online contributor for ESPN.com); college football is and has been his profession. As such, we the readers can expect that his publications (both online and in print) are well informed, and have not only been thoroughly researched by himself, but others as well. He isn't posting his "opinion" on some amateur blog. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a professional journalist's reporting -- in the absence of any other relevant source -- crosses the threshold of reliability. As for the SI article, I reiterate that the focus of that article is on college basketball (a different sport entirely), and that its date of publication is 7 years older than the one I have presented. I welcome any more relevant and/or more recent reliable sources here. Levdr1lp (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Info is conflicting, so one side had better have overwhelming credibility. Information from a blog by a not-so-notable writer isn't so overwhelming. In fact, it's not very strong at all. My two cents. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The source isn't jello, but it's not exactly a rock. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/grant_wahl/news/2002/11/13/mailbag/ is a rock. So, does the age of the article make a difference? I don't know football, so I can't say. Maybe I'm not being too helpful here. I'm just trying help you two resolve things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not question the reliability of SI article whatsoever. I question its appropriateness. The problem is that it deals with college basketball, not college football. The 7 year gap doesn't help. Levdr1lp (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I know nothing of such sports. I should probably butt out at this point. I hope you guys work this out. If you are ever having a dispute over pies or hamsters, let me know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Anna. Your observations, as well as Levdr1's arguments about which of the two articles is "better" for the purposes of this article, all go to reinforce my essential point that, while both these men seem to be qualified in some fashion, each of the articles has its strengths and weaknesses, and neither purports to address the issue underlying Levdr1's edits here (that being, how the NCAA will treat these vacated victories if it elects to accept OSU's offer to do so). Absent a reliable, definitive source on that issue, the edits should come out. JohnInDC (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Anna- thank you for contributing here. John- my stance is simple. Ohio State has every right to vacate those wins. The ESPN.com post explicitly defines what a vacated win is with respect to a series record. The outcome of the NCAA investigation will either overrule or reinforce the actions already taken by Ohio State. Until then, for the purposes of this Wikipedia article, the 2010 result is vacated (because OSU says it is!). Overwhelmingly, media outlets have recognized the actions taken by Ohio State. I haven't found a single source online or in print to question Ohio State's authority here. Low is simply defining what it means to vacate a win w/ respect to a "series record" -- and in the absence of any other source, he'll have to do for now. Levdr1lp (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Grant Wahl, facing the same issue in basketball in 2002, called up an NCAA source who said that a vacated win did not erase the other team's loss. Precisely *not* what Low reported (or more accurately, "said"). I can't think of a single reason that the NCAA would treat football in 2011 differently than it did basketball in 2002. The essential point *remains*, until the NCAA says what a vacated victory means, we have no business fussing with *any other record* but wins claimed by OSU - which is the only thing that is within OSU's power to give away. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Ohio State has every right to vacate, or forfeit, any/all of its wins. As the governing body of college football, the NCAA has the right to reject, overrule, support, reinforce, etc. actions taken by its member schools. Until the NCAA reaches a decision, however, all we have to go on in Ohio State. Again, the media has overwhelmingly recognized Ohio State's right to vacate those wins. Again, Low has defined what a vacated win is with respect to a series record. For the purposes of this Wikipedia article, Ohio State's actions suffice. Levdr1lp (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh good grief. Chris Low can't "define" what the NCAA will do here. Only the NCAA can. And we have a reported source *from the NCAA* contradicting Low. But neither controls anyhow because both articles were written long before these events and right now *no one knows* what the NCAA's decision is or will be. Right now we know that OSU doesn't claim its wins, and they should be taken out - but that's all, and your edits - solely on the strength of Low's assertion, go beyond that to affect the records of schools that aren't OSU. But I'm done - I can see that I'm not going to make any headway here. JohnInDC (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I never meant that Chris Low himself is defining what a vacated result means with respect to a series record, so I apologize for the confusion. What I meant is that Chris Low is offering a definition for what a vacated result means with respect to a series record. As a sports journalist, we can rely on his answers to factual questions in the absence of another reliable source. I can find nothing in Wahl's article that says anything about vacated wins with respect to a series record. Levdr1lp (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No, but Wahl quotes an NCAA source to say that losses aren't erased along with the vacated victory. Which is inconsistent with what Low claims (that as between the two it was as if the game had never been played - thereby erasing the loss). They can't be reconciled. For that reason - and the fact that they both predate the current matter - neither should form the basis of any edit here. The fact that we can argue ad infinitum about which we think is "better" for these purposes underscores, rather than settles, the problem. JohnInDC (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We are arguing 2 different things here. A vacated loss has the following implications: 1. The winning team no longer counts the win; 2. the losing team retains the loss; 3. the series record overall no longer counts the game. Reread Low. You're looking for a universal answer where one doesn't exist. It's a matter of perspective (Michigan, Ohio State, or overall). Given that, Wahl and Low are compatible. Levdr1lp (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea that when the dust settles this isn't going to make any sense. My point throughout has been that where the "line of nonsense" falls is up to the NCAA, and not Chris Low, or Grant Wahl, or most particularly, which of those two essentially irrelevant points of view an individual Wikipedia editor finds more convincing. JohnInDC (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Both Low and Wahl are reporting, not offering viewpoints. While we wait for the NCAA, we'll have to make due with what's available. We note that the series record does not include the vacated result. I understand why it would be premature to remove the 2010 vacated result w/o some kind of accompanying note. Hence the note "2010 vacated result not included". Levdr1lp (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As a side note, I think it's worth pointing out that this article is about the rivalry (Michigan vs Ohio State), not Michigan alone, not Ohio State alone. The series record is from neither Michigan's nor Ohio State's perspective. The 3 numbers in the series record field refer to: Michigan's wins (57); Ohio State's wins (43 after vacating 2010); and ties (6). Traditionally, one team's win was the other's loss, however, the introduction of vacated wins means that wins and losses between opponents will not always match up. Therefore, the overall record cannot always account for both the wins AND losses of both simultaneously. Levdr1lp (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of vacated wins has changed the nature of a series record. Before vacated wins, a series record's 3 numbers represented 1. the leading opponents wins/trailing teams losses; 2. the trailing teams wins/the leading teams losses; 3. ties. Vacated wins complicate that. Enter Low, who reports that games w/ vacated wins are removed entirely from series records (presumably for the very complication noted here). Levdr1lp (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Source? JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
For what? Levdr1lp (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, any luck finding another source which comments on the impact a vacated loss has on a series record? Levdr1lp (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
A source for what I now take to be your own interpretation of how "series records" should now be read. Levdr1, it's bad enough that you're taking a sports blogger to speak for what the NCAA will do here (since that's the only entity that can change the records of schools other than OSU), but you can't just make stuff up to support your edits! JohnInDC (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
My two cents: I think the previous revision of this article is correct. The game last year was still played, and its results should count. Diverging the stats for OSU and UM is the only way to do it, IMO. It wasn't a "forfeit", it was a "vacation"; the losing team shouldn't get credit for now "not losing" the game. They still lost. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC
There is only 1 series record. Yes, Michigan still retains the loss. However, the record from the perspective of Michigan and the record from the perspective of Ohio State are no longer compatible with each other: Michigan's losses no longer equal Ohio State's wins. Chris Low notes in 2009 that games with a vacated win no longer count toward the series record-- see link here:

I've had several questions from fans wondering what it means for other teams in the SEC now that Alabama has to vacate 21 wins from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons... The short answer is... nothing. Alabama has to give up those wins, but the other teams don't get the wins. And in terms of the series record, it's as if those games were never played.

Levdr1lp (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Because Low is sports journalist writing a blog does not necessarily make him an authority in defining what a vacated win means, particularly since he doesn't directly address what it means to the series records and how exactly the NCAA interprets that. In this instance, his article is focused on describing the difference between forfeit and vacated win, and he seems to be using "as if it never happened" metaphorically, to emphasize that the opposing team does not get a win as it would in the case of a forfeit. No losses have been vacated, and as far as I know, never have been in the history of the NCAA. There no indication in his blog article anywhere that the loss is removed or the game is otherwise wiped out of the records...only that the win has been removed, and this seems to be how the NCAA treats it in its records book. CrazyPaco (talk)

OSU vacated victories, interim summing up and poll[edit]

We all agree that OSU can vacate its own victories. We seem to agree that OSU can only vacate its own victories, and that it will fall to the NCAA to determine the effect of that vacation on the records of opposing teams. (The general consensus seems to be that a forfeit means that the W changes hands and that a vacation removes the victory but not the loss.) OSU's action is about two days old and the NCAA hasn't acted yet. In my view that makes any change to any record other than OSU's own wins to be premature, and speculative to boot. We need to wait for the NCAA.

Prior to OSU's action, the series record (stated from Michigan's point of view as series leader) was 57-44-6. After OSU vacated its wins, the article was amended to show the series records from the from the POV of both schools, which differ because OSU loses the win but UM doesn't get back the loss. I think that was appropriate, pending official resolution of the issue.

Levdr1 located a source, Chris Low, who blogs for ESPN.com. Low says in a 2009 column (without citing any source) that as between two teams in the case of "vacation", it is as if the game was "never played" - in other words, both the win and the loss are erased. Whatever his qualifications may be, Low does not speak for the NCAA and so edits based on his reporting (or in my view, his opinion) aren't appropriate yet. Nevertheless based on Low, Levdr1 has amended the series record to 57-43-6, erasing the 2010 game altogether. In addition to citing Low as a reliable (and the definitive) source on the issue, Levdr1 defends the edit by claiming that nowadays, with "vacated victories" in the mix, the series record line is now read differently - rather than W-L-T, it's "School 1's wins-School 2's wins-Ties." This seems to be Levdr1's own interpretation.

As I said, we should wait for the NCAA before tinkering with other schools' records, and Low isn't the NCAA. Nor does he claim to be reporting what the NCAA would do. But even if he were, another source contradicts him. Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated, writing in 2002 about basketball, says that the vacation does not affect the loss record of the opposing team - and quotes an NCAA official on the matter. Levdr1 dismisses the Wahl article, saying that Low is the better source on this issue because he directly discusses "series records", and Wahl, while providing what appears to be an authoritative source, was writing about basketball and 7 years earlier still.

It's possible to argue for quite some time about whose column is "better" here. Low is more recent and more on topic; Wahl cites sources, and, is the NCAA really going to treat football in 2011 differently than basketball in 2002? - but ultimately the ability to go back and forth on this simply underscores my view that any conclusions we reach from these sources, in addition to being premature because they are not authoritative, are only the opinions of particular Wikipedia editors and as such not a proper basis for edits.

So to sum up, I think the article should report the series record as it did before, i.e. from the POVs of each the two schools, appropriately annotated. My sense from the comments (e.g. Anna Frodesiak, X96lee15, CrazyPaco) is that other editors generally agree but I figure it's best to lay it out expressly here. What're others' views? JohnInDC (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC, great summary. My opinion is that at this point we should emphasis the actual game result with parenthetical notation or footnotes to indicate the vacated win, e.g.: "Series record: Michigan leads, 57–44–6 (including 2010 vacated result)". Jweiss11 (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. How about "(losses include opponent's vacated wins)", as a bit more of a mouthful but a little clearer on what's included in what? (The ambiguity that accompanies the fewest words there is one reason I suggested returning to the separate listings for each school.) JohnInDC (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Or even more succinctly (until there's more than one win vacated) - "losses include OSU vacated win"? JohnInDC (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No offense, but "losses include opponent's vacated wins" or similar doesn't make any sense at all, and it is extremely confusing from just a pure language point of view for the reader to understand what you are trying to convey. I think you either leave in or take out the win for OSU and say "including" or "excluding" vacated wins. There is no precedent for loss to get changed. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NCAA's policy on forfeits and vacancies[edit]

I stumbled across this NCAA document this morning. I highlighted the parts that seemed pertinent. I am not sure this is as enlightening as it could be but I offer it up for discussion. I would note that 1) coaches' all-time records are changed (so Tressel's record against Michigan will indeed need to be amended at some point) but also 2) none of this real until the NCAA Committee on Infractions says so, which they presumably will, but haven't yet. This current version of the article appears to be consistent with this statement, other than the Tressel thing - and the fact that the article is a bit ahead of the NCAA on this. Anyhow here it is. The original link is here: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/Stats/Statistics+Policies

Forfeits and Vacancies
For many years when issuing penalties to a school, the Committee on Infractions handed out forfeits for regular season games and vacancies for NCAA tournament games. Now, usually the Committee vacates both NCAA tournament games and regular season victories. The only time NCAA statisticians change an official record is when the case is ruled on by the Committee on Infractions.
To record vacancies for NCAA tournament games, the wins and losses of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record and treated as if no games had been played. To record vacancies for regular season contests, the wins but not the losses of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches' records. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to vacate four wins and a loss, then Team A's record would now stand at 14-9 for the season. All records that are changed should be asterisked with the footnote stating something to the effect of “Later vacated by NCAA action.”
The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics and the opponents' records are not affected by this action. Since the team’s participation in the NCAA tournament is vacated, any team or individuals receiving NCAA tournament honors, such as being named to the All-Tournament Team or a tournament record, shall be asterisked with the footnote stating “Later vacated.”
To record a forfeit, the wins of the penalized team must be changed to losses, and the losses of its opponent must be changed to wins. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches' records, and should be changed whenever and wherever these records are referred. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics are not affected by this action. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to forfeit five wins, then Team A's record would now stand at 13-15 for the season and the won-lost records for each of the opposing teams affected also would be changed.
Individual records and performances of other players (teammates and opponents) who participated in these contests shall not be altered except for those players who were declared ineligible.
Only when forfeits and vacancies are declared by the NCAA Committee on Infractions will the official record for schools be reversed. Games later forfeited due to post-game administrative actions but not declared by the Committee on Infractions do not alter any NCAA statistics and/or records. It is suggested schools and conferences denote such games by using an asterisk and a footnote, but continue to list the actual contest results.

JohnInDC (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good find, however this still does not say anything about a series record (both teams). Levdr1lp (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

NCAA source from 2009 confirms Chris Low ESPN.com post[edit]

We checked with a person in the know at the NCAA, and it was confirmed that, while Alabama does indeed lose their win against Hawaii — provided the sanctions are upheld on appeal — Hawaii will not get to pick that win up. Additionally, the game does not count in any type of series record between the two teams.
posted by John Taylor, NBCSports.com College Football Talk (CFT), July 4, 2009

Now we have an NCAA source (from 2009), speaking on the subject of college football, that confirms what Chris Low posted (also in 2009). From the perspective of the winning team, the vacated win is removed from the winning team's own series record (though JohnInDC rightly points out that an asterisk should be added to note the change). From the perspective of the losing team, nothing changes-- the loss is retained in the losing team's own series record. From the perspective of both teams, the game does not count in the series record between the two teams (again, an asterisk should be added noting the change). I'm okay with leaving infobox-type box as is for now; it's best to wait until the NCAA has ruled. However, when the NCAA does rule, the series record ought to reflect what John Taylor has reported. Levdr1lp (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that you not until we can figure out how to represent a single series record, meaningfully, where one team has one more loss than the other team has victories. JohnInDC (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I still do not buy into (what appears to be) your personal interpretation that the columns in a series record represent Wins, Wins and Ties rather than W-L-T, as such 3-figure representations are traditionally read. JohnInDC (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
NM, you said later. Plenty of time to hash it all out in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Please disregard my earlier "personal interpretation" of Win-Win-Tie vs. Win-Loss-Tie. This new post from NBCSports.com has shown that such a distinction is unnecessary. It's no longer relevant as, according to this report, the game is wiped entirely (the losing teams losses and the winning teams wins match). And there really is no need to "hash it out". We have a source from the NCAA in 2009 who states that, in a series record between 2 teams, games with vacated wins are not counted. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this can be captured, if awkwardly, in a single asterisked series record W-L-T line, but the NCAA in its official statement is quite clear: "The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated." If what you claim is right then the official W-L-T records of the two teams against one another, which (again officially) retain the 2010 Michigan loss, will not match the official "series record" between the two, which of course simply sums up wins, losses and ties between the teams. I suppose the NCAA can do that if it wants. But I think we need to wait to see what the NCAA actually does rather than reason our way through to such a nonsensical result. JohnInDC (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Levdr1's new find from John Taylor would seem to confirm his previous opinion of Chris Low's blog on the series record, and, in light of that, I have reversed my opinion on removing the Michigan loss. I think there is an important distinction here between the series record, and the season or coaches' record. For the actual number of games played, I'm not sure what I'd do. The NCAA does not list series records between teams in its Official Records Book, but does list the total number of games played for the "Most Played Rivalries"which includes OSU/Michigan, so I think it would be decided by waiting to see how the NCAA handles that. The game was played, although there will not officially be no win or loss. I suspect the NCAA will still list 107 meetings in its next record book, and honestly, may not even occur to them that it needs to be notated. Here, an asterisk is appropriate in listing 106 or 107, but even though the win and loss are removed, I'd think I'd still list 107*, but I don't have a strong opinion. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
JohnInDC: The key phrase in that NCAA statement is "for each of the opposing teams". For the series record between two teams, the game is not counted per the NCAA source in John Taylor's report. Levdr1lp (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but think we'd be making a mistake by trying to reason our way through to an answer in an arena where the NCAA has abandoned reason. If the NCAA adheres to its unequivocal statement that "the won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated" then the Low / Taylor interpretation is hard to reconcile, their sources notwithstanding. I have enough trouble with the idea that the official W-L-T results between two teams would no longer sum up to, well, their sums in the form of a series record; I have even more trouble with the notion that a tally of wins, losses or ties won't even add up to the official number of contests - or that the question of whether they do depends on which of the two team's records you tally. All that being said, we are a long way from where we were two days ago, when we were proceeding based on no more than surmise and speculation. So in that sense all this talk is good - JohnInDC (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Talk is good, edit wars are bad. Having said that, you continue to overlook a key phrase in the NCAA statement: "the won-lost records... for each of the opposing teams. A series record represents the history of outcomes for both teams, and that NCAA statement says nothing about a series record. Moreover, Chris Low from ESPN.com, John Taylor from NBCSports.com (who contacted the NCAA directly), and Dave Paschall from TimesFreePress.com all say that a series record does not include a game with a vacated win. This does not require any lengthy discussion or debate; it is what it is. Unless we find another source from the NCAA directly contradicting Taylor, we ought to remove the 2010 game from the series record (assuming the NCAA rules to enforce the vacated win, assuming no appeal overturns the ruling). An asterisk will suffice to indicate the game with the vacated loss has been removed. For now, though, I'm okay we leaving it as is. For now. Levdr1lp (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
If we do that then we have to indicate somehow that "series record" no longer reflects the sum of wins, losses & ties between the teams but rather some other thing that may or may not include certain games, the results of which do remain, in some fashion, in official records. Reiterating my comment at the College Football Project page: Blick. JohnInDC (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I reiterate: "An asterisk will suffice to indicate the game with the vacated loss has been removed." To clarify, I don't mean an asterisk alone, but an asterisk accompanied by an appropriate note (obviously). And what is "Blick"? Levdr1lp (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Onomatopoetic commentary on the hash that the NCAA makes of things with asymmetrical "remedies" like vacated wins (vs. vacated games or forfeits). JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah. As for the asymmetry-- again, it is what it is. I don't like it. I find it confusing. However, I recognize that in the absence of anything else from the NCAA on the subject of a series record, Low/Taylor/Paschall (Taylor especially) are all we have to go on. Levdr1lp (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

TimesFreePress.com Sports writer confirms 2009 ESPN.com Chris Low post[edit]

A forfeit takes a win away and awards it to the losing team both in the single-season and series records. Ole Miss went from a losing season to a winning year in '93 after the NCAA forfeited Bama's 19-14 win over the Rebels. Vacated games can get more confusing. While Alabama will not be credited for 21 wins, neither will the 21 victims in their season records. So while the Tide will be 0-2 in 2005, Tennessee still will have to accept its 5-6 record. The Volunteers will get a break, however, in their series record against Alabama because the '05 game in Tuscaloosa no longer will count.
David Paschall, TimesFreePress.com Sports, June 16, 2009


Levdr1lp (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Note" re vacated victories (or not) and the series record[edit]

OSU has vacated its victories from the 2010 season. The NCAA has not accepted that vacation, yet, though presumably it will. When the NCAA does so - again presumably - it will also presumably apply its existing policies re vacated victories, and with luck, might even say something about the various implications that those policies have on inter-team records. Until that time I think that extensive notes in a particular article specific to that rivalry that 1) fork based what the NCAA may, or may not, do; and which 2) describe in really pretty extensive detail the interpretation that some - maybe even several - Wikipedia editors have placed on these issues is premature and confusing. Accordingly I am removing the footnote as speculative, unclear, contrary to WP:CRYSTAL and to WP:OR as well pending sourcing for these various scenarios as applied to this rivalry. At most, the footnote should just reference the last go-round of discussion on this matter at the project page, and leave it at that.

Please discuss it here for consensus before restoring it again. (My apologies for removing the series record altogether - that was inadvertent.) JohnInDC (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the note also presents WP:Synthesis problems. None of the sources (which date to 2009) say how the NCAA will record the series records of this rivalry, or how it will affect winning or losing streaks as between these two teams. JohnInDC (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
We have already discussed this ad nauseam. We reached a general consensus months ago: Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories#Anomalies_and_their_resolution. I have done nothing to contradict what is established (mostly by you) on that project page. If anything, these edits were long overdue. Readers ought to understand what may or may not happen in the next few weeks: either the NCAA upholds the vacated win (in which case we remove it from the series record in the infobox-- unless some other "reliable" source surfaces); or the NCAA overturns/fails-to-recognize Ohio State's voluntary vacation of the 2010 win (in which case the data in the infobox remains as is). As for the note, it is made thoroughly clear that changes to Ohio State's record occur if and only if the NCAA says so. The winning/losing streaks are only specialized versions of the series record. The Chattanooga Free Press is clear on this-- if the NCAA accepts the 2010 win as vacated, the 2010 game doesn't count in any record.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
"... it is the consensus of the editors that treating "vacated wins" as wholly "vacated contests" for purposes of series records, when properly annotated, is cleaner, more concise and more easily understood than posting separate series records from each team's point of view; and that, barring contradictory statements from the NCAA or other reliable sources, series records should be reflected in that fashion."  Levdr1lp  (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I welcome any "contradictory statements from the NCAA or other reliable sources."  Levdr1lp  (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The note is confusing and far too lengthy. And that's just for starters. The "2010 vacated win" is now described in the infobox without any predicate, as though the novice reader would already know about it, rather than introducing the notion as the prior version did. Then the note goes on to describe what would happen if this unexplained vacated win is *not* upheld by the NCAA, then supporting itself not with a link to any Wikipedia essay but rather to a series of articles that all appeared a year before the vacated wins were even played. So rather than the prior simple statement ("here is what the record is, assuming that OSU's 2010 vacation of wins holds") we have in the infobox - a summary of the article's essence - an series record that is not official (inasmuch as the NCAA hasn't accepted it yet) accompanied by a seemingly irrelevant discussion of what might happen if the NCAA doesn't do what it hasn't yet (but which everyone expects it to). It's a morass, far more confusing than enlightening. On top of which, the note is presented as reliably sourced fact rather than as the opinion, expressed in an essay, of some Wikipedia editors. I think the essay is a good one - having, as you note, written most of it myself - but I don't consider myself a source. A note might be helpful there but this one is hasty and confusing and fails in its main goal of clarifying things. JohnInDC (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Seeking extra eyes here. JohnInDC (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The one unfinished part of that essay is on "editorial guidelines" - i.e., even if we agree on what "vacated victories" means, then what should be done about it in the articles? But that's precisely what you're adding here, citing that essay as support. See the essay's Talk page for (not much) more on that problem. JohnInDC (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Given that the previous sub-section ends w/ "resolution", one would think the issue has been resolved (it has been). That Editorial Guidelines section appears largely irrelevant.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The existing general consensus in the media is that games w/ vacated wins don't count in records between teams at all. Period. No editor, including JohnInDC, has yet to provide a single source to contradict that. We can question the reliability of the sources we have indefinitely. For now, though, they are all we have to go on.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The "Guidelines" were a major reason for drafting the essay. They were hardly irrelevant. Just difficult. And - you know, since the NCAA has not in fact acted - still! - on OSU's proposal, there didn't seem to be much urgency to wrapping it up. Just as there remains no urgency to adding a note describing what the NCAA hasn't yet done and has no timetable for doing.

As for the note. Here's another way it's confusing: Right now OSU has vacated its wins but the NCAA hasn't acted on OSU's move. So, "officially", the wins still stand. Now the infobox reports the still-existing NCAA records, not as "the official position" but as the "official position" if (speculatively) certain undescribed vacated wins offered up by OSU are in fact rejected by the NCAA. So it's both counterfactual *and* speculative. Plus, nowhere in the new material does it say what the record would be if the NCAA accepted the vacated wins. It's a *mess*. It would be much better to say, "here is the official series record", and "here is the official win streak", with a note dropped that says, "OSU has vacated its 2010 wins. If the NCAA concurs, then the official records will be / may be changed to [whatever]. See (Wikipedia essay) for more". I could live with that. JohnInDC (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with JohnInDC here on pretty much every point he's made. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Over the course of this multi-part discussion, many have not agreed with JohnInDC-- feel free to sift through this talk page and other related pages. Most recognize that there is something worth considering in the sources I have provided (particularly that no one has provided a single source to contradict their concurring views). Regardless, I've further simplified the infobox noting that the series record and win streak line include the vacated win. The note was, admittedly, long and complex, largely because this debate/discussion, admittedly, has been overly long and complex. The issue shouldn't be as complicated as some have made it out to be.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Levdr1lp, I've followed this the issue for a while and I realize it's been exasperating at times. The infobox looks good now, at least for time being. Thanks for simplifying it. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the lengthy footnote (again) that cites to a variety of external sources generally discussing the meaning of a vacated win. Those issues are fairly fully examined and explained at Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Vacated_victories - albeit in draft form - and should not be repeated here. Even this partial explanation is too long, plus, being only partial, it leaves the incorrect impression that a vacated victory is the same as a forfeit, which those of us who have been following the issue know not to be the case. The footnote may also be confusing to the naive reader, because none of them actually discuss this vacation of games. I thought we had agreed to leave the supporting note alone for now. I've also changed back the "streak" to 6, minus the vacated victory, not because that is necessarily the correct answer but because of of all the several possibilities set forth at the foregoing essay, "Neither, 1" was not one of them. That statement is confusing and / or wrong. If the 2010 vacancy ended the streak then then streak is zero. No one won or lost the last game because it "wasn't played". Can we please just leave the cumbersome footnotes out of this article? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also note that since the NCAA does not track series records, it does not really matter for series record purposes what the NCAA ultimately does or doesn't do with OSU's unilateral decision to vacate its win. As far as the series record goes, it's done. OSU does not claim the win. It shouldn't be counted between the two schools. (How it isn't counted is a different matter of course, but we seem to have general agreement on that - it is if it was not played.) JohnInDC (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree the footnote is a big drag on the article page. Stuff like that should really just be on the talk page. Hammersbach (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem w/ the lack of a footnote in the infobox-- just as long as the information is consistent from one line to the next.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I remain concerned about the links to the articles with quotes describing the effect of vacated victories on series records - the quotes by virtue of their breadth, and the context, leave the implication that "vacated victory" games are wiped from the record book for all purposes, when in fact the "series record" treatment is just an exception-by-omission from the official (and in many ways unintuitive) position of the NCAA on such games more generally. It would be easy for someone to come away from this article, with those footnotes, with entirely the wrong impression about what a vacated victory means. Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove the quotes from the footnotes (which are uncommon in refs in the first place) and leave them in otherwise. JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

... and you are certainly entitled to be "concerned." In the meantime, please provide something -- anything -- to counter the claims made in those sources. Questioning the sources I have provided is appropriate and worthwhile and necessary, but you (JohnInDC) continue to fail to deliver a credible third party source to question the emerging consensus present in those weblinks. I said it in July 2011, and I say it again in November 2011: find a reliable source. Otherwise, stop questioning the relevant sources we do have (i.e., those on Alabama '09) to the point of obstructing their inclusion in this article. FYI -- I WILL CONTINUE TO STOP EDITING THIS PAGE (the article itself, not this talk page) INDEFINITELY; should any objective 3rd parties find my statements on this talk page disruptive, I will gladly cease adding them (though I doubt it).  Levdr1lp  (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to reflect reliable information in the world. Let's try to keep that in mind. I would think the sources I have provided are more reliable than nothing, which is all that JohnInDC has provided.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't propose to change the text or remove the refs, just the pull quotes from them, which as I noted above, are highly unusual in Wikipedia refs. The sources say what the sources say - just like every other Wikipedia ref, which rarely include amplifying quotes. I can't think of any reason to afford these quotes the exceptional emphasis that they are afforded here, particularly since the very same material is discussed within the fuller context at the linked essay. JohnInDC (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Hammersbach (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
1. "... quotes... are highly unusual in Wikipedia refs." Yet another subjective, and largely baseless claim. Jimmy_Wales#References.
2. I'm really, seriously, beginning to question JohnInDC's objectivity here. I call on any editors who happen to read this discussion, and any related, to thoroughly examine the history of this article.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the following reference was removed during the course of recent edits.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Low, Chris (June 16, 2009). "What does vacating wins really mean?". ESPN.com. ESPN Internet Ventures. Retrieved July 9, 2011. 
The following are also worth noting in the interest of establishing a true consensus on the matter.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Current win streak[edit]

The current win streak is Ohio State, 6. If the 2010 win was vacated, then from the perspective of wins, 2010 never happened. Thus the streak is 6. Hopefully, Michigan wins on Saturday and makes this point moot going forward. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. The latest or most recent win streak is Ohio State with 6. There is no current win streak. The game still occured, but no win is recorded for either team. Therefore, neither team holds the current win streak.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Also: while the game still occurred, it isn't counted in the series record.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Your last two points are at odds with one another, hence the absurdity of the interpretation. It's also poor form to sneakily amend Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories to support your position. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The hypocrisy here is stunning. Regardless, I'm done editing this page and related project pages, etc. INDEFINITELY.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, my frustration is not from this section alone, but the whole of all related discussions on how to deal with OSU's self imposed vacated win. Good luck to Michigan this Saturday, if for no other reason than to simplify the work for those editors who choose to make sense of this mess.  Levdr1lp  (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For what it's worth, ABC apparently did not recognize Ohio State's 2010 vacation in their telecast today. At the beginning of the game, they posted the series record as 57–44–6 and Ohio State's win streak at 7. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Michigan's official athletic site appropriately still records the loss (pick OSU from this list): http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/oppnamelist.php - but includes the loss in its series record (you have to count them up by hand). Also OSU's official site still records the win as a win. http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/stats/football/2010/teamcume.htm Hm. I wonder where vacated wins, not yet accepted by the NCAA, are in fact recorded? JohnInDC (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Its still a loss for Michigan even if OSU vacated it. The game counts as a loss for Michigan (keeping them at 7-6, rather than 7-5) and a game that wasn't played for OSU (making them 0-1 after the vacated games, rather than 12-1). The site brought up for OSU specifically references the 2010 season, and may not have been edited since OSU officially vacarted the wins. Frank AnchorTalk 04:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Michigan site reports it about as I would expect it to. The loss stands for Michigan even if OSU can't claim the win. And it only makes sense to include this loss in its cumulative record against OSU. I suspect you're right about the OSU site too but it would seem that the one place in all of college football that would reflect OSU's unilateral and (sort of) voluntary vacation of its 2010 wins would be the official OSU athletic site. JohnInDC (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I would think, but OSU people are sometimes slow Frank AnchorTalk 04:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Only sometimes? ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A new section on Coach Urban Meyer?[edit]

No wine before its time. Hammersbach (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's too soon. Of course, it's big OSU news, and will certainly affect this rivalry - uh, somehow. We'll know next November. I agree too that the captions will have to be adjusted, maybe something about the unusual coaching instability at the two schools, or the two head coaches both landing finally at the jobs they dreamed of. Who knows. The next 12 months will give us some ideas. JohnInDC (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No. A new section started for 2011 with "Two Schools, Two new Coaches." Since Fickell was just an interim coach, I think that the new coaches can be Meyer and Hoke. Hoke has already shown promise in turning Michigan around, and Meyer looks to do the same with OSU (too soon to tell for sure, I mean he's been the head coach for about six hours). But I think just leave the sections as they are right now. Frank AnchorTalk 04:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No need for a section on a game that hasn't happened yet.--JOJ Hutton 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rodriguez firing[edit]

Excuse me, but what is your agenda here. How can you state that there wasn't a connection between the NCAA violations and Rodriguez being fired. The article attests to that. By the same logic, how can you state that Tressell was fired for NCAA violations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article here actually makes no assertion of the reason for Tressel's resignation. It just says that he resigned. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So mentioning Tressell's violations is perfectly NPOV, but mentioning Rodriguez's violation is NOT. Please explain how that is????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.141 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) And why is no one complaining about this statement: Woody Hayes was fired at the end of the 1978 season after punching an opposing player during the Gator Bowl, which ended the "War." Is that NPOV and why no complaints that it's not sourced????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.145 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Because Tressel was fired for NCAA violations, Hayes was fired for punching an opponent, and Rodriguez was fired for a crummy record. His NCAA violations didn't help, for sure, but if he'd been 11-1 those three years I bet he'd still be the coach! JohnInDC (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how do you know? Are you on the UM board of directors? What proof do you have that Rodriguez wasn't also fired for NCAA violations? THose were four major infractions.

And to finish up the foregoing thought, accordingly it is not POV to report that Hayes was fired for punching a player, Tressel resigned under the weight of the NCAA investigation, and Rodriguez was fired for his crummy record. I think mention of Rodriguez's NCAA problems, if made in passing and expressly not connected to his firing, could be included without violating the essential sourcing problem, but I do not believe that those essentially collateral facts really have any place in the coaching history of the rivalry between the two schools. On editorial grounds alone, I'd leave it out. JohnInDC (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, in the forgoing thought, what you're saying is INSANE. Fired only for his record, not being given an adequate chance to prove himself (at least 5 years). Who the hell are you to make that judgement?

Here is a source (as if it were really needed) tying Tressel's resignation to his NCAA problems: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/ncaa/05/30/tressel.resigns/index.html . JohnInDC (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

NO ONE IS DENYING TRESSELL COMMITTED INFRACTIONS. The point is so did Rodriguez, which led to his firing. You are extremely biased toward Michigan to not include Rodriguez's infractions. ALSO: This sentence merely states facts about Rodriguez, people can draw their own conclusions as to the reasons he was fired. Prior to his firing, Rodriguez compiled a poor record and four major NCAA violations for breaking rules with too many practice sessions and other work off the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatcherInTheRye773 (talkcontribs) 22:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Rodriguez's violations did not lead to his firing. As I said above, they didn't help - but they weren't the reason he was dismissed. Rather, it was because he couldn't win. (And if you want a good second reason, it's because the guy wasn't a Michigan Man and the deck was stacked against him to begin with.) Indeed it strains credulity to suggest - as you seem to - that, absent those violations, he'd still be coaching at Michigan today. The contrast with the highly successful Tressel could hardly be more striking (where it strains credulity even further to suggest - again as you seem to - that Tressel's violations played the same kind of role in his dismissal as they did in Rodriguez's). You can't understand Tresssel's departure without the NCAA issues. In Rodriguez's case they were just another one of several things that contributed to his demise, and he'd almost certainly have been gone even without them. Please stop trying to equate the two sets of circumstances - or conversely suggesting that seeing obvious differences between them reflects "bias" or "POV pushing". Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
And to answer your questions above - "how do I know"; well, I read things. And what I have seen is a paucity of sources stating that the violations are what did him in - sources that, by the way, it's incumbent upon you to come up with to support your claim. Indeed the very source you cited to originally to support the notion that the violations led to his firing discussed them beginning in the 34th paragraph of the article, after a long discussion about his abysmal record, particularly against OSU and MSU, and some of the team's other embarrassing lowlights. In that regard, a sidebar listing his lows at MIchigan describes only on-field failures, with no mention of the NCAA issues. Then, when the article finally does discuss the violations, it notes that MIchigan avoided harsher penalties because the coach had not failed to promote an atmosphere of compliance. Again, contrast Tressel - if the NCAA problems had been Rodriguez's only failing (as they were Tressel's), Rodriguez would be in year 4 of his contract. (Here's that link, in case you want to read it again: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5991296 .) So - if you want to insist that Rodriguez was fired because of his NCAA violations, and not because of the team's performance, you'll need to find a reliable source (probably several) to support what seems to be your own personal point of view. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Colors for game results[edit]

Excellent choice (as of 12/19/2011).  Levdr1lp  (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They represent the school colors and are not difficult to read. Frank AnchorTalk 20:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag[edit]

A "disputed neutrality" tag has been added to this article without any specific discussion of what the problem is. One of the things I've always appreciated about this article is how team partisans (at least the more experienced editors) seem to try pretty hard to keep things down the middle, without much regard for their own allegiance. I suppose if I were going to get picky I could find a couple of phrases that favor the Buckeyes a little too generously but I bet I could do the same for the Wolverines. But by and large I think it's fine. For that reason I am inclined to remove the tag, unless someone thinks otherwise - and can offer up a few examples of how the article plainly favors one team at the expense of the other. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the neutrality tag. The complaint doesn't seem founded. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Toledo War[edit]

Does this belong in the lead? Maybe not. Does it belong somewhere else in this article if not the lead? Absolutely. The rivalry's link to this bloodless conflict, whether real or imagined, is certainly more prevalent than "one author's fanciful comment".  Levdr1lp  (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an amusing bit of history and a cute parallel to draw, but I seriously question whether that skirmish, in fact, has anything at all to do with the fierceness of the Michigan-Ohio State football rivalry today. If the Toledo War really made a difference today you'd expect this rivalry to be the nastiest in college football (the teams actually play one another with quite a bit of respect, usually), and you'd expect other cross-border rivalries to be swept up in it as well. But lots of other neighboring states in the country have really bitter football rivalries without any history of armed conflict, bloodless or otherwise; and lots of other teams out of Michigan and Ohio seem to play one another without much more than the usual rancor, e.g. half the teams in the MAC. JohnInDC (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
It has little to do with the origins of the rivalry, but it is in fact still an oft-quoted story in reference to the rivalry, especially in media relating to it, so a reference to it belongs in the article. Xombie (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If so then it needs to be clear here that the reference or the association is hypothesized or is tongue-in-cheek. "Fanciful" was a good word. These are sports writers, not historians or sociologists. JohnInDC (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken references[edit]

Refs 6 and 10 are dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.110.93 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I tried to find archived versions of these links, as well as perhaps new addresses within the UWeekly and NCAA sites, but failed and so I've removed them. If someone thinks they can find this text and restore these links, please try your hand! JohnInDC (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Winning team is shown in bold font. Years of a Michigan victory are in blue. Years of an Ohio State victory are in scarlet. Years with a tie are in white. Vacated victories appear in gray[edit]

Whatever - first off, there is NO BOLD - I see inverted text on some teams names. White and gray are indistinguishable. The bottom line - the coloring/shading scheme is WORTHLESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.167.6 (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to "accomplishments" table (moved from User talk:Bnosnhoj)[edit]

Thanks for expanding that table. What were your sources for them though? Let me know and we can add them in a ref somewhere. Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

JohnInDC, Thank you for commenting! I'm glad you appreciate the updated table. I've been working on it in my sandbox, and I'm now applying the finished version on the article with sources. Let me know if you had other suggestions; I'd like to begin putting similar tables on other rivalry pages to aid in uniformity across the project. Bnosnhoj(talk) 3:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You changed a lot of figures - like consensus all-Americans - that I didn't see reflected in the sources you cited; also you gave both schools identical post-season all time records, which I don't think is right either. I restored it to the version before your last edits so that you can pin down the sources better. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
JohnInDC, Sorry this is so belated; I've been terribly busy. You'll notice that I've updated the table once more. This time, I think I have enough citations in the right spots. Some sources (like the bowl records) are applicable to many categories (bowl appearances, bowl record, Rose Bowl appearances, etc). You were right; I had OSU's bowl record off by one. I, too, was surprised by how similar they were! With regard to the All-Americans, the discrepancy is due to many players winning the honor multiple times. I chose the player count approach as the category is "All-Americans" versus "Appearances on All-America teams," though this is really a minor detail. The last thing is the numbering due to the 2010 OSU NCAA vacations. I think it is best that we put asterisks erring on the side of inclusion versus exclusion. Wikipedia is not governed by the NCAA, so even if the school nor the NCAA recognize wins that did happen and bowls that were played, we ought to, as an encyclopedic community. We are, of course, obliged to include the asterisk, but only to tell people that the number is contested. I am an International Relations major, so pardon my analogy, but I think this is similar to, say, the Armenian Genocide or the State of Palestine. Neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan recognize the Genocide, and only a handful of states recognize Palestine. Both, however, are reported in an (attempted) unbiased manner on Wikipedia. These, at least, are my thoughts. I hope you have a good Thanksgiving! Bnosnhoj(talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The number isn't contested at all. OSU voluntarily surrendered the victories. OSU's official record does not include the vacated games, so they are not properly included in the records of the two teams. This was discussed extensively at the article Talk page (see the archives), where consensus was to exclude the vacated games; and the upshot is encapsulated at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Vacated victories. So I'll be revising the table to reflect the school's official wins. Your choice to enumerate players rather than slots is fine, I guess, being annotated as it is - though others might disagree. There may be a uniform approach across CFB pages that I"m not aware of. I think what I'll do in that regard is move this entire discussion over to the Talk page, where other editors can weigh in - let's continue the discussion there. JohnInDC (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've now read the essay mentioned above - thank you for posting that - and you're more than welcome to change those pursuant to the established norm. Thanks for your help! Bnosnhoj(talk) 23:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks BTW for your efforts - JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Last 100 years[edit]

If there was an area for keeping things relevant, there could be a section made that just lists the record through the last century played or even 50 years. This would give a better idea of not counting wins/losses by either team if it's older than 100 years, or when Michigan actually had a opponent in Ohio State (from their first win). For example, ranging from 1914-2014 that would make both teams records equal. Jeydo (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. This would just start endless arguments about which periods were "most" relevant - and ultimately any period is arbitrary, even if it ends in a '5' or a '0'. The entire series is laid out here and anyone who wants to is free to perform any kind of analysis on the teams' relative successes or failures during any given stretch of time. JohnInDC (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Accomplishments" table[edit]

An IP editor has revised the table under "Accomplishments" to break out the various flavors of national championships (AP, BCS, Poll, CFP etc.) in addition to the totals claimed by the two schools. These edits are confusing (are these other titles included within, or in addition to, the totals that were already showing?), too detailed for a table about the rivalry (the broken-out information is captured in the articles relating to each of the schools), underinclusive as well (each school can claim championships from still other selectors in those years), and cluttered (the edits add 5 rows to the table, for a total of 17). I have been undoing these changes, and attempted to engage the editor on their Talk page, but to little effect. What are the views of others on the expanded table? JohnInDC (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree in keeping it the way it was. In the end, this article is about the rivalry, not the schools' respective overall accomplishments. Hammersbach (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with keeping it simple too. Those charts are to show a general comparison between the two rivals, not a detailed synopsis of every minute accomplishment. "National Championships" generally means those that are claimed by each school. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all here. Keep it simple and clear. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

New headings with Harbaugh's entry[edit]

The IP editor is right that the current caption ("Two schools, two new coaches, 2011-present") is obsolete, but I'm not quite sure how to tweak it - and account for Harbaugh's arrival. Let's talk about how to split that up, year-wise, and what makes sense to call these new divisions. (Let's please avoid "era" in any case. Even Meyer's only been there, what, 4 seasons? Too soon.) Go! JohnInDC (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just - for clarity's sake. Hoke arrived for the 2011 season. Tressel was out by the summer of that year, with Luke Fickell installed, provisionally, in his place for the 2011 season. Meyer was hired to succeed Fickell and took the reins for the 2012 season. Hoke lasted at Michigan through 2014, and now Harbaugh's there. Describing the 2011-2014 period, in a caption, by reference to the coaches does not seem like it would add clarity at all. As for today, I would wager that both schools have found coaches they want to keep for a while, but of course at this stage, who knows. I would think twice about a section that describes "Harbaugh vs. Meyer", when they haven't met up yet, and - as much as the schools may like them, neither really has significant tenure. Anyhow, just some more thoughts. JohnInDC (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've done two things. First is to restore an older caption to describe Rodriguez's brief time at Michigan - IMHO, he, individually, doesn't rate a separate section; that if anything of that period is caption-worthy, it's Michigan's brief (and quickly reconsidered) notion to look beyond the borders of Ann Arbor for a coach. During the following period 2011-2014, the two schools each had two coaches - an unusually unsettled number for either, not to mention both, and so I have recaptioned that period (through to the present) as "Carousel of Coaches". That may be a bit, I dunno, too thick a statement for what was happening but I do think that the unusual flux in the two programs seems to characterize the period. Now, going forward I (personally) believe - as I said above - that both Meyer and Harbaugh are here for the long haul, and in a couple of years (heck, maybe even after this one) we should break out the Harbaugh - Meyer (Meyer - Harbaugh if you prefer) contests. Now all that said, I agree that Meyer's arrival is - even standing alone - a watershed for OSU (or will be, if he doesn't suffer heart problems again and retire, again); as is Harbaugh's hiring at Michigan, and maybe we need to capture those events instead. Anyhow, more food for thought. JohnInDC (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This seems reasonable, even if (eventually) it just marks the stretch from 2011-14 to bridge the gap between the era of Tressel's dominance and what appears to be an intense rivalry between two strong coaches who are here to stay (although Wikipedia is not the place to speculate, so for now, the Carousel title could easily encompass 2011 to the present). Frank AnchorTalk 18:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of matches my thinking. Make this do for now, in anticipation of adjusting it later, as the story unfolds. JohnInDC (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a nice article that may help guide us in revising / updating the article after another year or two - I link it here so we'll have it handy when the right time comes: http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18100659/jim-harbaugh-urban-meyer-born-michigan-ohio-state-rivalry JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

2012 game[edit]

This is kind of a stupid disagreement, but the stupider a disagreement the better it is to take it to Talk I suppose. An IP editor has been adding the factoid that Michigan did not make it past midfield in the second half of the 2012 game. This to my eyes is a mildly interesting, but immaterial, fact. I reverted it a couple of times as unsourced, and have now removed it again as kind of trivial, immaterial, shoehorned in, and hard to integrate into a summary of a game that, in keeping with the rest of the article, is short and succinct. There are more detailed game summaries in the encyclopedia that do include this snippet, e.g. 2012_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_football_team#Michigan; and there are more interesting and better-covered facts than this that aren't anywhere in this article (e.g., Desmond Howard's 1991 Heisman pose). Rather than edit-war I throw it out to the group, with the only request that if you all decide you like it, write it well. I can't seem to do it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this: "In the 2012 game, No. 20 Michigan led at the end of the first half but could not move the ball past midfield in the second half, and fourth-ranked Ohio State prevailed 26-21 to cap a 12–0 season." JohnInDC (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016[edit]

I would like to update the overall series record through the 2016 season, please. Kmefferd (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, the record was changed following yesterday's match. Bear in mind that one of the OSU wins doesn't count - JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 game information[edit]

Hi

why are you not letting the world know about the truth. The truth is not that it is speculation. The referees during the game were not giving penalties to OSU and that is the truth. Why are you naming it as vandalism.

How is it vandalsim? vandalsim means - action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private property. There is no destruction to public or private property. The truth is that penalties were not called when they needed to be. There is no indication that referees were biased or that OSU won becasue of penalties. I stated the truth that penalties against OSU were not given.

Please explain this. If I do not get a decent explanation I am willing to take this up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9: The preceding was posted on my talk page, and I'm redirecting it here. First of all, I protected the page due to a history of chronic vandalism—yes, vandalism. That doesn't necessarily mean your contributions were vandalism. They are, however, unsourced and therefore unverifiable. Airplaneman 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's "sourced" in that there's a reference supplied, but the ref is to a discussion board posting which in turn links to an opinion piece on a sports website. It's opinion, speculation that the game would have turned out differently; not NPOV. It's not properly included. Indeed I'd have loved to see better officiating, as well as a Michigan win, but this article is not the place for Michigan fans to vent. JohnInDC (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about better officiating, however let go of the opinion piece, but he penalties not called are penalties and that is video proof and that is the truth, how can you not agree to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
First, the video's aren't by themselves "proof". If perhaps the Big 10 or another organization were to review them and declare them wrong, then - that'd be proof, or proof enough. But a video where we can all look at it and wonder "how isn't that a call?" isn't proof of anything except the opinion of the person watching it. Second, I'm sure it's the rare college game that doesn't feature a blown call or two. So what. IMHO Michigan was on the short end of a few important calls in the game. But you can't hang the outcome on those alone, when UM threw two important interceptions, and fumbled at the goal line. Or maybe, OSU makes those 2 FGs and the game is out of reach to Michigan earlier. Who knows. Indeed, that's the point. Who knows. No one in fact. It's speculation, and hasn't got any place here. I hope that helps. JohnInDC (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The below is from my talk page: Airplaneman 21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and thanks for letting us know that you think officiating could have been better.

Now yes of course I cannot say questionable officiating since it is opinion.

However the plays that could have been penalties against Ohio State are actually non-calls. "Holding The hand(s) and arm(s) shall not be used to grasp, pull, hook, clamp or encircle in any way that illegally impedes or illegally obstructs an opponent. PENALTY—10 yards Penalties for Team A fouls behind the neutral zone are enforced from the previous spot. Safety if the foul occurs behind Team A’s goal line [S42]."

By the definition the non-calls in the video should have been calls. Now that is the truth that is not opinion. The world talks about OSU won the game and that they need to be in the playoff I accept that. ESPN is giving very little coverage to Michigan now that they will hear a frustrated voice. However the same world needs to know the truth. This is not opinion by clear definition of the foul.

I know you feel that I am taking out my frustration, but it is very dissapointing to not win when you actually do. It is bitterly dissapointing when it will be our best shot in years. However take all that aside the truth is the non-calls should have been penalties. If you accept that then can I post them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4c01:9220:a45a:5987:fce0:bec9 (talkcontribs)

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether you and I may agree that the plays should have been flagged as penalties. It's just our opinion, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Have a look at WP:NOTOPINION and see if that helps. JohnInDC (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No how is that opinion, the definition of holding is seen via video proof. that is not opinion that is truth. Now there is talk about neutral point of view. Being a Michigan fan you are saying that I think they are penalties, however by definition of a holding penalty it is one as it can be seen. So it is not really an opinion it is a plain for the eye to see missed call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Thanks once again for your opinion on the officiating But you can't hang the outcome on those alone. To comment on this yes Michigan should have protected the ball better. However calls not made are very big in games in terms of mindset of players and following plays. The holding on Jordan Louis not called has massive implication on the 4th and 1 to go for it. anyways I digress. And yes it is better to focus on what you can control vs what you cannot.

Big Ten officiating will not review it because it will dig into their credibility, additionally they are not going to willing to admit the blunders by selecting officials who were banned earlier. However once again it is not opinion because as per the definition it is a holding. And that is a fact. I repect wikipedia and when I always comments from friends that I am the first one to go and check wikipedia. Also I am one of the people who regularly contributes funds and encourages others to do so because I understand the wealth of information one can gain from this.

The statement Michigan could only muster seems highly offensive right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4C01:9220:A45A:5987:FCE0:BEC9 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it clearer, but really Wikipedia isn't a place for settling scores (figuratively or literally) or expressing frustration or anything like that. It's an encyclopedia, a place where people come to find objective, reliably-sourced, non-opinion and non-point-of-view information. Now, there's no doubt that OSU won that game, 30-27. So that's what it says. There is also no doubt that some people believe that the game was lost on account of the officiating - but there is equally no doubt that others believe that, bad calls aside, Michigan with its 3 turnovers has only itself to blame for the loss. So even if you postulate that bad officiating is a fact, people don't agree on whether it even mattered - and maybe more to the point, a week after the game, no one is talking about it any more. Old news, the loser's always unhappy, and - hey! Look over there! Playoffs! It's opinion, it's speculation, it's transient - and for all those reasons not appropriate to the article. JohnInDC (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)