Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry/Archive 3

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

Page Protection

This page is semi-protected. Could the person that did this please state why and when this protection will be lifted? -- 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This page should be semi protected because that prevents students from inflicting "drive by" vandalism without being registered users of Wikipedia for 4 days before hand. Basically eliminates childish behavior, but allows legitimate edits. Gvharrier 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Can we decide what order the title should be in please? This switching between Michigan-Ohio state and Ohio State-Michigan is getting out of hand and is very immature. Lets keep it in the standard alphabetical order, Michian-Ohio State rivalry.

Wolverine318 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The order has already been decided. If anyone wishes to have it changed they MUST go through the proper process which involves requesting a move on the Requested Moves page. Moves made outside of this procedure are considered as vandalism. Terryfoster 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The order is Ohio State-Michigan. Everyone says that. Crazy coincidence that Wolverine want it Alphabetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

    • "The order is Ohio State-Michigan. Everyone says that." Well, given that there is a lot of disagreement on this, and internet searches reveal it is almost 50/50, I think all we know for sure is that you are wrong. The rest is still up for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


The "bloodless" battle between Ohio and Michigan wasn't truly bloodless: a teenager stabbed a deputy in the leg with a penknife and ran away. (unregistered)

There has been no explanation for the revision of the last paragraph of the History section. --Xombie 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

just finishing up my reasoning as I accidently pressed enter on the edit page, explaining my reasoning. I took out the last sentence..."This is, not surprisingly, also the highest point total by a Wolverine team in one game.", because Michigan's Highest score ever is 130-0 vs. West Virginia on October 22, 1904, not 86-0 over OSU.

User:icuwoot- 19 October 2006

There was no mention that the rivalry is referred to simply as "The Game" so I added it.

The currently listed rankings for the 1997 game (Michigan #4, Ohio St. #2) are wrong, as an undefeated Michigan was was ranked higher than one-loss Ohio St. But Michigan was ranked differently in the AP (#1) and Coaches (#2) polls (Ohio St. was #4 in both). I want to correct the rankings, but what would be the best way to list the split rankings? The part about Michigan jumping Nebraska in the rankings after the game is wrong as well, since Florida St. was ranked #1 in the coaches poll until they lost to Florida the week after the Michigan-Ohio St. game, at which time Michigan claimed the top spot in both polls (Nebraska was #3 in both and moved up to #2 after the FSU loss) --Wilee8 20:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Game

Taken from The Game (college football) talk page:

The Game (Harvard-Yale) would be more appropriate than the current one. As is noted, there are other schools with notable histories that have rivalries called "The Game." It is not an issue of which is the best, but clarifying that there are multiple uses of the phrase. An alternate claim is the University of Michigan-Ohio State University game. It was first played in 1897 (H-Y in 1875) and has been an annual event since 1918 (H-Y since 1945). There are 102 meetings of UM-OSU and 122 of H-Y.
Over the last 2 years there have been 73 uses of "the Game"+Harvard+Yale in headlines, lead paragraphs, terms of major papers on LexisNexis and more than 1,000 of "the Game"+Ohio State+Michigan. Looking at the teams and players in the game, one can see the importance of the UM-OSU side: 18 national championships (Ohio State does not claim an additional 7), 9 Heisman Trophies, both have won a national championship in the last decade, 72 Big Ten Championships (some shared), and a combined record of 1,623-581-89 (72.72%). They also played in the famous Snow Bowl. ESPN has called the game the greatest rivalry in college sports. As I've said, I propose The Game (Harvard-Yale) and The Game (Michigan-Ohio State). Rkevins82 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Rkevins82 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have NEVER heard of the OSU-Michigan game referred to as "The Game" within the state of Ohio. Being bold and removing this until a citation is brought forth (which won't happen since this is completely factually inaccurate). --- RockMFR 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have heard it being called "The Game" before and it was used in a Lantern article last year with the discussion about the SBC sponsorship deal. [[1]]. If you really want I could dig up a Michigan reference, or you could revert your edit. Terryfoster 03:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's another example, straight from a Ohio State fansite in an article released today, no less. [2] "Won't happen since this is completely factually inaccurate," huh? -TheMile 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Two sources calling incorrectly calling it "The Game" does not prove the assertion that most people in Ohio and Michigan call it "The Game". --- RockMFR 05:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But they do prove that people in Ohio use the phrase. You might consider instead of blanking out a part of the article, rewording it to be more flexible. Something like "Some in Michigan and Ohio simply refer to this rivalry as "The Game."" which acknowledges the fact that the phrase is used, but doesn't assume that everybody uses it. The statement removed isn't "completely factually inaccurate" since the phrase has been proven to be used, it is just too assuming and needs to be reworded. Terryfoster 14:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Ohio State-Michigan game is THE Game. We entitle it "The Game" because every year it's "The Game." No matter what records are, throw it out because it doesn't make a difference. Any team can win this football game." Quoted from Archie Griffin on ESPN College GameDay 11:14, 18 November 2006 (EST)
Hard to argue against Mr. Archie Griffin. Is that proof enough for you? Terryfoster 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course we can argue against Archie Griffin - he's one person, and I have not heard anyone of significance refer to this game in such manner until recently. It's been fairly disturbing to see the media refer to this game as "The Game" or "The Big Game", mostly due to the recent hype surrounding specifically this year's game. In 7 years I spent on UM campus (1997-2005), I've never heard of this game referred to in any specific manner. I've never heard Bo or Archie or anyone refer to this game as "the Game" or otherwise until recently. Referring the game as "The Big Game" is disturbing enough - any college fan should know that name belongs to Cal-Stanford game. Whether that game deserves such moniker is a different question, but that's been the tradition. Archie can say whatever he wants now, but I'd like to see an older reference. Jxyama 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like someone opposed to the use of "The Game" to respond to my post. Rkevins82 17:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's definitely referred to as "The Game" around OSU. I read about it, people talk about it, etc. Many people at OSU do not like to say or print "M*ch*g*n", so they simply call it "The Game". It does not matter how the season goes, this is the game that matters (unless the team wins the National Championships, but the UM game is still as eventful, because one team won't go if they lost to the other). нмŵוτнτ 16:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I go to OSU and have NEVER heard of it as The Game except in the context when any game can refer to that (such as "are you going to the game this weekend?) and it is never capitalized. The only "The Game" game is Harvard - YaleFrank Anchor 17:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I went to Michigan in the 1970s and 80s and have followed the game closely since, and I've never heard it referred to as The Game except perhaps ironically. I agree with Frank Anchor that if any contest is associated with that phrase, it's Harvard-Yale. JohnInDC 18:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, all right. Not "expressly rejected" or whatever I said in the edit summary. But the points made here stand. "The Game" is, plainly, a term used locally (in this context - Michigan, Ohio, and I gather in some parts of Chicago) to refer to a contest of local importance. I bet in Austin "The Game" refers to Texas-Oklahoma, in Pullman to Washington-Washington State, and in East Lansing, to Michigan-Michigan State. It strikes me as essentially meaningless to claim that title for this paritcular contest, out of all the big games that take place every year, when pretty much only the residents of two states plus Chicago might correctly surmise the precise game to which the term might refer. (On top of which, having grown up in Michigan, I take issue with the premise anyhow. In Ann Arbor "The Game" might as easily refer, in a given season, to Michigan-Notre Dame or Michigan-Michigan State.) If *any* contest deserves the appellation nationally, it is probably Harvard-Yale (as discussed above).

If it must be included here then it needs to be properly qualified, something along the lines of "referred to by residents of Ohio and some other midwesterners as 'The Game'". JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright... seeing as you are one of the few people who've (allegedly) attended one of the two aforementioned mentioned universities who hasn't heard it referred to as The Game, here's a few links --
  • Slate article featuring two rival alumni discussing about why they hate each other [3]
  • ESPN article referring to it as such... [4]
  • A Michigan based/themed article calling it the game -- you argue only in Ohio is it called The Game[5]
Furthermore, you argue for qualifying the population referring to it as The Game as though it were a small number of people calling it that. Well, the combined population of Ohio (at 11+ million on its own) and the rest of the Midwest (although Ohio straddles more than one geographic region depending on which system you go by) accounts for over 40 million people... Fact of the matter is, OSU-UM is one of the biggest and oldest rivalries in American sports. You 'take issue' if you like, but Wikipedia isn't a platform for personal issues. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal issues. This matter fortunately is factual. Your references notwithstanding, you haven't made the case that the phrase "The Game" is anything other than a parochial reference (largely limited to fans of these two teams or alumni of the schools) to this particular contest. (The ESPN article refers to a single episode of the rivalry, not to the rivalry in general.) If "The Game" means something different depending on whether the listener is in Columbus, Berkeley, Norman, New Haven, Lincoln or Bethlehem (Pa.) (where *the* oldest rivalry is played), then it is simply incorrect to appropriate the term wholesale for *this* matchup.

Many years ago I saw someone wearing a sweatshirt that said "The Law School" in big letters on the top. Beneath it was a map of Texas with a large star showing the location of Austin. It made me laugh, because if you have to identify which "The" law school you are talking about, then it is simply "a" law school. Same thing here.

Perhaps you are correct that I am one of the few people who attended one of the two schools ("allegedly"? WP:AGF) who did not hear the term applied exclusively to this rivalry, but if that is the case then those very few of us are well represented on this page. But again, it doesn't matter whether *everyone* in Ann Arbor and Columbus refers to it as "The Game", if sports fans in other places, who don't follow the schools specially, don't use the term that way. Again, if it is going to be included here then it needs to be appropriately qualified - better than my suggestion above would be, "...often referred to by fans of the two teams as 'The Game' ". That would not be quite so overreaching.

(PS - I indented your comments for the sake of legibility. I hope you don't mind.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not you, personally, have called it The Game, it IS called that. Please keep a WP:NPOV, and don't let WP:OR get in the way of additions to articles. Just because you never heard it does not mean it's not said. You must have gone here a long time ago, because The Game is all anyone calls it now, and they called it The Game in the 70s when my parents went to OSU. Although you think it's not said, there are sources to prove otherwise, and it's a verifiable fact. Therefore, it stays in the article. нмŵוτнτ 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I left in the edit but amended it to reflect the support proffered here for the addition. JohnInDC (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And I must ask as well - what of the prior discussion above? I am not the only editor from Michigan or Ohio who contends that the term is not / was not in common use. This issue had been discussed and a prior similar edit not made. I would presume that in order to make that edit now, the various editors of this page would need to reach a consensus on the issue. Why is that not the case here? JohnInDC (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the admonition recently added to my own Talk page to try to reach consensus on this issue, let us please try to do that before anyone reverts the non-reversion edit I made to the text. My point is pretty simple. I will stop disputing (the foregoing disagreements by other Ohio residents notwithstanding) that people in Columbus refer to this game as "The Game". My own experience - in Michigan, and yes, a while ago - is that it was rarely, if ever referred to as such. "The Ohio State game" was much more common. But that is of course not the point if people there nowadays refer to it as The Game. I don't see any indication above that that is the case, other than a citation to a Michigan football fan site; but the assertion is at least plausible so it's not worth arguing about. More broadly, I also don't see any indication that the phrase is routinely and umambiguously used outside the Michigan / Ohio State fan base to refer to the contest, and that finally is the nub of my objection. If people outside that (or some other circumscribed) community do not understand "The Game" to refer to this contest, then the blanket statement is incorrect. I have edited the text of the article to reflect what appears to be established here so far, namely, that fans and partisans of the two schools often refer to the contest as "The Game". Nothing more. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with that. I'd say more "locals" than "fans". I mean, there are people who don't care about either schools (such as Notre Dame fans). But "locals" isn't accurate either, because that doesn't include fans that don't live in the area. There's no perfect way to put it, but I think the way it's worded now is our best bet. нмŵוτнτ 23:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Countdown Clock

Can this page be modified to carry a countdown clock?

No, that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#MYSPACE. нмŵוτнτ 23:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Big error


No, that's not correct. They were both undefeated in 1973 heading into the game, but Michigan was ranked #4, while Ohio St was #1. From ESPN’s Page 2: [6] "No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Michigan. 1973. Each team is undefeated. Big Ten title and Rose Bowl trip on the line. The teams play to a 10-10 tie, and share the title. Who goes to Pasadena? Big Ten ADs voted on it, and the Wolverines stayed home."

A better question is how many times have the 2 schools entered the game undefeated? I believe that was the case at least 2 other times in the early 1970s, and maybe earlier. I don't have ready access to their seasonal records to do this task. Gvharrier 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop posting during game

It seems some Wikipedians updated the game result table during the game. However, it is not how Wikipedia is edited, nor the way Buckeyes & Wolverines fans cheer their teams. Don't waste versions for such reportings. Don't jinx your teams, either.

Why don't you just sit down on your seat at the stadium or in front of TV, and watch the game while it is in progress? Edit the article AFTER the game is over. Yassie 00:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


In the interest of fairness, I added the note that the rivalry was not even judged as best in college football by ESPN. Also, keep in mind that any ESPN poll is not statistically valid and the results can be dominated by those who vote repeatedly.

The first P of the history section is complete conjecture, and I therefore removed it. One person's claim (a non historian) does not equal "some". The rivalry didn't begin until 60+ years after the boundary dispute and very few people would even have been alive who remembered it. Jeeb 16:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the claim entirely. It is sufficient to say it is a great rivalry. Who really cares where it ranks? And what gives ESPN the authority to decide anyway? As far as Big Ten Country is concerned, OSU-Michigan is the greater rivalry, while the Iron Bowl undoubtedly ranks higher south of the Mason-Dixon. Ryecatcher773 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the opening paragraph. This is an article on this particular rivalry. There is reason to mention both the polls (ESPN is a major sports news organization) but no reason to mention the Iron Bowl at all. The point of mentioning them is to establish the importance of the rivalry within college football. Xombie 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? People who read the article are presumably interested in college football rivalries, and when it's stated in the lead paragraph that OSU-UM was judged 2nd best by ESPN, people will naturally wonder what rivalry was #1, so why not tell them? Then they go read about the Iron Bowl if they want. But Ryecatcher's points are more generally valid and ESPN's opinions (or polls) deserve no special recognition in the first place. Jeeb 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a rule in Wikipedia that invalidates the poll, then please present it. Until that time, ESPN is a major source of sports news and analysis (and the the most prominent one in the United States), and is therefore a valid source for public and expert opinion. News is a valid source on Wikipedia. I am removing the Iron Bowl reference because it is irrelevant to anything in the article itself, and those interested in college football rivalries can click on the "college football rivalries" category, which is what categories are created for. If you wish for people to be able to see who was #1 in the news article, you are welcome to add a proper citation. Xombie 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I find the rule in common sense. Any "poll" in which an individual can vote a zillion times if they want, is a useless excercise in partisanship, and essentially meaningless. Do you need a "rule" at Wikipedia to tell you that? The problem is you want to "prove" how great the OSU-UM rivalry is by citing ESPN when it suits your opinion. I suggested removing mention of ESPN, Ryecatcher implemented it, but you seem to need justification from ESPN about the rivalry for some reason. Jeeb 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Look, I'm a Buckeye born and bred. Do I think the Iron Bowl is a bigger game? Of course I don't. I couldn't care less about what happens in the SEC -- especially in Alabama. But, while you are correct that ESPN is a major news source, and yes, it is a fact that The Game was named in their poll as the biggest rivalry, the bottom line still remains: it doesn't matter what ESPN or NBC or Sports Illustrated have to say about anything. It is ALL opinion based. There is no real way to prove what the biggest rivalry is outside of an opinion based poll -- and if you have ever voted in one of ESPNs polls, you'll know that you can vote 10, 20 or even 30 times if you like, which (unless you live in Chicago like I do) is not considered a legitimate voting tally. You guys go ahead and do what you want, but my suggestion, which airs on the side of keeping the article non-controversial -- which IS a Wikipedia aim BTW -- is that you just put that it ranks among the greatest rivalries in North American sports and be done with it. Everyone is happy that way. Otherwise, you are engaging in a pointless pissing contest... and I don't know what grade you are in, but I'm quite a bit past the age where such things as who really is the greatest at anything -- an unprovable feat to say the least -- really matters. Whatever. Go Bucks! Beat those Gators! Ryecatcher773 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The poll being cited is not the type of SportsNation poll that you guys are trying to refer to. I'm not even sure it's correct to call it a poll, since it's an editorial article by the ESPN editorial board. Xombie 18:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Michigan BlockM.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Michigan BlockM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

history sections seem a bit POV

Most of the sections under history are named after OSU coaches. Surely these can be better-labeled by decade or era? 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I had the same thought a few weeks ago and then came to the (personally) satisfying conclusion that in its weird way it fits. Reflecting on it I realized that, since the mid-1960s at least, OSU has been defined far more by its coaches than has Michigan. Hayes-Bruce-Cooper-Tressel had different coaching lineages and philosophies and all brought very different things to the place. Michigan, however, has been just - Michigan. Or maybe it's that the school is *still* in the "Schembechler era", years after his retirement and even now after his death. (Moeller and Carr were assistants to Schembechler and Carr was an assistant to Moeller.) The way I see it, since 1969 at least, the only real variation in the rivalry between the two schools has resulted from changes in OSU coaches, and even for me - a Michigan fan - it's sort of the way I mentally categorize the past four decades of the rivalry. "Michigan" on the one hand, and OSU and its succession of coaches on the other.
That said, when you look at the captions, it does sort of look like it's been written from an OSU point of view. Maybe for that reason it should be revised. But there is a risk that some useful latent information will be lost in the process. JohnInDC 23:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the captions are biased toward OSU. I've made edits that I think bring more balance. However, I do agree that the OSU coach changes have been more important since Woody left than Moeller and Carr's changes (but I don't think Carr will last after this year....) Gvharrier 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Good. I particularly like "Enter Jim Tressel". I tweaked them a bit more. I agree that Carr is probably gone after this year, a convergence of events plus his own obvious inclination. Michigan may wind up with yet another Schembechler protege, though, in which case captions may reflect OSU changes for another 20 years or so. JohnInDC 22:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This article currently has a far biased view point towards Michigan, especially during the 1990's. Nearly every heading is pro-Michigan. Also, why does Michigan get a heading for their shared national championship, while Ohio St. gets their 2002 national championship as an afterthought? Horcruxman (talkcontribs) 23:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Ohio State Buckeyes logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I've never heard it called the "Michigan-Ohio State" game/rivalry. I've always heard the "Ohio State-Michigan" rivalry, from both Michigan and Ohio State fans. Why did Michigan get prominence in the name on Wikipedia? Just curious. Is there a standard naming convention for rivalries and such, to put a certain name first? нмŵוτнτ 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed above, under "Order". (I always heard it as "Michigan / Ohio State", FWIW.) JohnInDC 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and no consensus was achieved. One person voiced his opinion (a visibly UM fan, with the name Wolverine). Let's try to get some consensus. Others, voice your opinions... now. нмŵוτнτ 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, weird that you heard it that way, as I live a half hour from Ann Arbor, and people still say it that way (much closer than I live to Columbus). But I wouldn't know what non-Midwesterners would call it. нмŵוτнτ 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There won't be any consensus on what sounds right. There are enough people who always say "Michigan - Ohio State" to whom "Ohio State - Michigan" will always sound funny. Some matchups, I think are pretty well spoken of the same way by everyone - "Army - Navy" comes to mind, maybe "Harvard - Yale" too - but Michigan and Ohio State is not one of them. Indeed here's a quick sanity check: Googling " 'army navy' football" and " 'navy army' football" produces a 10:1 "results" ratio in favor of the former. The ratio is 3:1 for Harvard-Yale over the reverse. Michigan-Ohio State is .8 to 1, or pretty close to even. The only workable solution where the answer isn't obvious (and therefore driven by the side with the most vocal supporters) is to pick a neutral rule and stick to it. Like alphabetical. (Which, who knows, is maybe how Army-Navy and Harvard-Yale got to be the common expressions.) JohnInDC 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

JohnInDC is right, there likely will never be a consensus which is required if we're going to move this page. Since this article is already established and doesn't conflict with the article naming guidelines, I don't see any reason to change. As a reminder, with this game soon approaching, moves made without consensus are considered to be vandalism and will be handled appropriately. Terryfoster 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Because I'm from Ohio, I usually hear "Ohio State - Michigan" however I dont know how Michigan people really say it. Also the national media says both interchangibly, often putting the visiting team first. Therefore, alphabetical order is the most sensible way to put it. Other rivalries, such as Army-Navy, or Yankees-Red Sox are almost always said in that order, even by fans of the second team listed. Michigan-Ohio State is not like thatFrank Anchor 01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I would never move without consensus. I never said I was going to move it. As for "just keeping it like it is", well, it had been going back and forth between the names for a while apparently, and this is simply the version on which it is currently. I just want enough neutral consensus that this can be solved once and for all, without objection. нмŵוτнτ 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason you hear Michigan fans say Ohio State-Michigan is because, and this will shock some people, the rivalry is more of a big deal in Ohio then in Michigan. The reason is nothing to do with Michigan fans, it has a lot to do with there being more Michigan fans in Ohio then Ohio State fans in Michigan, creating a more vicious atmosphere. Also, in Ohio everyone loves the Buckeyes. Even students at other schools cheer for them. In Michigan, that's not the case. So the reasoning becomes thus: A large amount of UM fans are from or live in Ohio and have accepted the parlance or they don't care about the rivalry (or football in general) enough to care whose name is first. -MichiganCharms (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa? __earth (Talk) 10:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tressel's arrival

Tressel's promise was bold and effective. But the story strikes me more suitable for an OSU-centric page. I think the editors have tried to play things pretty well down the middle on this page. Perhaps I'm being too persnickety and it should remain; if so then a bit of rewording might be in order. His record against Michigan is enviable but one might argue that some events during Tressel's tenure are not altogether a source of pride for the program. JohnInDC (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Either I'm sleep deprived or I have terrible comprehension, but I'm having trouble figuring out to what exactly what you're referring. Is this about the "Enter Jim Tressel: 2001-2006" section? нмŵוτнτ 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask about this - earlier today I was briefly mystified by my own comment here and, vowing to document it with a diff, promptly forgot to do so. Here it is now: —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talkcontribs) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, oh, alright. Your comment makes total sense now. Actually, I think that this should stay. Why? Did you see the HBO special on the rivalry (see HBO Sports: The Rivalry). This was actually significantly covered during the documentary. It demonstrated how Tressel was the first OSU coach in a while who cared so much about "the game". I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'm just pointing out that this documentary thought of it to be important enough for an entire scene. But, then again, we aren't a television network; we're an encyclopedia. нмŵוτнτ 23:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a good documentary. Really nothing new in it for anyone who has followed the teams for a few years, but it was fun to see it all pulled together like that. There was some fun footage too. I think the Tressel story is a good one (as much as it galls me) and as I said before I don't really object to it strongly, other than a kind of self-congratulatory tone toward the end of that particular addition. If I have time maybe I'll tweak it a bit and add it back in. JohnInDC (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it may be swayed a little towards OSU, but again, I thought the documentary was too. нмŵוτнτ 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. I thought the thing pretty plainly favored Michigan. I guess they did a good job if we're both happy with it. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Game" vs. "The game vs. Harvard and Yale"

Frank Anchor, I'm a bit confused by your vehemence over this "The Game" stuff. There is a source elucidating how fans refer to it as "The Game" (even the capitalization). You say you're reverting based on common knowledge, but this is against WP policy. Just to illustrate how "common knowledge" is subjective, people above have mentioned how they've heard "The Game", and I personally concur, having never even heard of "The Game" as it pertains to Harvard vs. Yale. Here's a link from ESPN, no less (in the "TOP 25 OVERVIEW" inset). [7]

Your source says nothing about how this "phrase does not have as much meaning to the two schools as it does to Harvard and Yale." Please do not change this unless you can find a source or phrase it in a more neutral way. Thanks. TheMile (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(I wouldn't place a ton of stock in that ESPN citation, which uses the phrase "The Game" a single time on the page and, in context is pretty clearly referring only to the 2006 edition - which, by matching up undefeated #1 and #2 at the season's end, pretty clearly deserved the appellation *that* year. One might also observe, cynically perhaps, that with its affiliate ABC broadcasting the contest that year, ESPN in its preview might have been employing the term simply as good marketing.) JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Here, incidentally, is a link that describes Harvard-Yale as "The Game" more comprehensively than any of the UM-OSU links collected here thus far: . And another from Harvard that describes the origins of the phrase as applied to Harvard-Yale (archive link): . And a passing reference in 2002 from the New York Times: . I expect there are many more references out there for someone who wants to devote more than 15 minutes to finding them. JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Your source really has nothing about the significance of the title and the one that I placed on there is one of the ones JohninDC mentioned about the significance of the Harvard Yale gameFrank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have to agree with Frank Anchor and John in DC on this one. The source is adequite to show how the title of the game is much more signifant to Yale and Harvard than it is to Ohio State and Michigan. Lets agree to not change it from its current state (with the H-Y mention) unless a consensus is reached. <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it's not referred to as "The Game" as commonly as another random game does not mean that's it's not referred to as The Game. That argument bears no weight. It's not like this game is trying to steal a redirect or anything. It's just noted that this game is referred to as The Game, as well. нмŵוτнτ 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact that it is refered to as the game is not what is being discussed. The title is more significant to Harvard and Yale (hence the capitalization) than it is to at least Ohio State, where I go (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with hmwith completely and don't see that the Harvard and Yale mention matters. This page is on Ohio State and Michigan. The Game already lists Harvard vs. Yale first, which seems sufficient. TheMile (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The entire mention of the game should not be in there. I go to Ohio State and I dont hear it referred to as "The game" except when any game could be mentioned as that. I don't know if the phrase is used at Michigan. JohnInDC correctly points out that the source used specifically refers to the 2006 game (#1 vs. #2) which was a very significant game because of national championship. NewYork483 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are we discussing which is more significant? That doesn't matter. Talk pages are not forums. нмŵוτнτ 22:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Frank is not discussing which game is more significant, he is just adding that the phrase "The Game" means a lot more for the H-Y game because that is what almost everyone refers to that game as. For the UM-OSU game, only an alleged few people use the term. If the mention of "The game" remains, this discrepency in significance absolutely should be noted in the article NewYork483 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This little informational squib has never sat well with me. There is precious little non-anecdotal evidence (proffered here anyhow) that this game is regularly referred to even by local fans as "The Game"; and what little there is has been contested, by partisans of both teams. If the claim is simply that *some* fans of the teams refer to the contest as The Game, then it really begins to shade into the trivial. I agree with User:Baseballfan789 and User:Frank Anchor that this thinly sourced and highly qualified assertion does not deserve prominent placement at the front of the article. I also agree with User:NewYork483 that the claim is in any case so localized that it is almost confusing *not* to mention at the same time the one rivalry where the documented usage of the phrase extends beyond actual fans and alumni of the two teams. JohnInDC (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Anticipating possible further debate on the matter of Harvard-Yale, here are more examples of "The Game" being used specifically to mean Harvard-Yale: (a Penn State fan blog which - ironically for this discussion - specifically notes the *lack* of a nickname for UM-OSU); THE_GAME_HOLDS_ITS APPEAL_AT_100 (NY Times, from 1983); (Harvard Crimson). JohnInDC (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In case I missed something, did anyone say that this is called The Game more frequently than the Harvard-Yale game (which, for what it's worth, I'd never heard be called the game until I read the Wikipedia article). I mean, I'm sure it's called that more than this game, but that doesn't mean that this game isn't called that & that it's not worth noting. нмŵוτнτ 02:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more references of this game being called "The Game":

It's also mentioned on the Wall Street Journal's blog and on a site of an ESPN adfiliate. This was just after a quick search. More can be provided. нмŵוτнτ 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those. (Though really, I'm not sure how persuasive the "Absolute Michigan" article is on the point, given that its source for the assertion is *the very Wikipedia article we're debating*.) Fans of both teams, including the Deans of their law schools, use the phrase. The news sources confirm this (though not a lot more given that most appear to be Ohio media or, where nationally syndicated, bear an Ohio dateline).
No one did say that this one had eclipsed Harvard-Yale as "The Game". TheMile did seem to complain that the assertion re Harvard-Yale was unsourced. I think the gripe that arose here regarding UM-OSU is instead that, in light of the fact that the phrase appears to be more broadly and for a longer period associated with that other game, it is confusing to make the claim for this game without at least a nod to that one. JohnInDC (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but it should definitely be in the lead. It's standard practice to put other names for things right after the article name. нмŵוτнτ 02:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No, since it is not an official nickname (which the game currently has none).Frank Anchor, (R-OH) (talk, contribs) 03:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but are any common names for anything in any other articles "official"? I mean, sometimes, there isn't even one official name for something. Also, things don't have to be "official". The term being used in multiple reliable sources is as official as something can get, in terms of inclusion on Wikipedia. нмŵוτнτ 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
What reliable sources? The only sources in the article that asserts the title as "the game" is one that refers to a specific UM-OSU game (the 2006 game), and a couple of blogs that anyone could have written. The note is much more appropriate in the "series facts" section, especially due to its lack of use. NewYork483 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources posted a few lines up in this section. нмŵוτнτ 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)