Talk:Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Trivia edits

I see that the recent edits to the trivia section by Murphyle have been changed back. In anticipation of some further discussion on this, I'll just say that I was prepared not to like the (fairly substantial) streamlining of the article when I first encountered it (diff here: diff), but after looking through it I realized that it was a pretty careful job and that the stuff that was excised was in fact fairly low-grade trivia, or stale. I think most of what needed to remain in the article did, and I'd support a change back mostly, if not entirely, in that direction. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I incorporated some and removed what I thought was unnecessary. Feel free to change what you think should be. NewYork483 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MichiganWolverines.png

The image Image:MichiganWolverines.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This sentence deserves a chance

OSU won the Rose Bowl that year, over the University of Southern California - their last victory of the Trojans to date. It ties in somewhat to this page. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to have more to do with the Rose Bowl or the history of OSU - USC matches than with UM/OSU. It's not entirely off the point but not quite on it either. JohnInDC (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Revision needed

It is clearly obvious that the page has the "personally invested tone" from both sides of the rivalry. This is next to unavoidable and adds some richness to the page, however, I will give fair notice that I will edit John Cooper and Jim Tressel sections due to a very un-encyclopedial inbalance. There are three seperate games from the 1990s that are highlighted as momentus games in the rivalry, when in fact they are only momentus to Michigan. I will either delete or reduce these sections, or add seperate momentus games to the Jim Tressel collections. Any thoughts? Suggestions? --The-outlaw-torn (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete these sections but the content could be slightly reduced. I don't see too much bias on one side or the other but this page definately suffers from recentism. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All-Americans

The number was getting jacked around a lot by vandals and rather than revert it to an earlier one that could as easily be wrong as well, I set out to find the right one for both schools. (The linked article does not give any figures and I'm not sure it belongs there as a cite at all.) Following a bit of admittedly brief research, I found two articles - one for Michigan here and one for OSU here. The Michigan one is from a plainly reliable source (the school itself) but is a bit out of date. The OSU one is more current but I'm not sure how credible 'coachtressel.com' is.

I made this edit just to get a bit closer to the truth (the figures I added are 126 for Michigan and 130 for OSU) and invite anyone with a bit more time, or a bit more knowledge about where this kind of data can be found, to improve on my effort. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

Most incipient edit wars are over pretty silly things and this one is no exception. So rather than continue to push the article back and forth I am soliciting comment here.

My thinking is, injuries to key players in a particular contest - particularly in a storied rivalry such as this - are all part of the retelling. If one of the teams was playing without a star player who was suspended for rules violations, or broke his leg the week before, you'd say so. Why not? It's the same when key players are playing hurt. Who's "key" and who isn't is certainly grist for debate but there can't be much dispute about the starting quarterback and star running back.

It doesn't "qualify" or "taint" the victory. It's just something that one of the teams had to contend with. In some cases they succeed ("despite being forced to start its 2d string quarterback, OSU managed to pull off a resounding upset . . .") and in some cases, as here, they don't. In either case it's part of the story and, in some instances, bears mention.

Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed mention of Chad Henne and Mike Hart injuries for 2007 game, as the way it is worded makes a qualification of Ohio State's defensive performance that is mentioned in the same sentence. This seems rather POV as Mike Hart was quoted after the game saying that his ankle was no factor in his performance, and that Chris Wells' ankle injury (chipped bone in ankle) and wrist injury is not mentioned at all. I don't object to injuries being mention, as JohnInDC says they are part of the lore of the game, but they should be mentioned in a way that doesn't appear to give an "excuse" for one teams' loss or poor performance, especially when the other team was also playing with injuries to their star players. 152.131.8.133 (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, if the injury was important and material, then add it. I found several newspaper articles in the days leading up to this game wondering whether Hart or Henne would play at all. Carr was tightlipped, as usual, and no one knew what was going to happen until the game started. Their injuries and questionable status were big news leading up to the game - which in my view makes them worth mentioning. I looked (briefly) for similar concern about Wells but found none.

Having just written the foregoing, I thought of a way to rework the paragraph to emphasize the "concern" and "speculation" aspect of it. Let me know what you think. JohnInDC (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person who made the first-mentioned edit above. I agree that injuries and/or missing players are part of the game, that was never the issue. It was simply the fact that the injuries to Michigan's stars were mentioned in the same sentence as Ohio State holding Michigan to 91 yards of offense, clearly implying some connection between them and Michigan's low offensive output. There are some cases in football where that is clearly the case, perhaps a team loses it's Heisman trophy candidate quarterback, and then loses badly when their freshman backup comes in and throws a number of interceptions, or something similar. But in this case, anyone who watched the game could see that it was Ohio State's dominant defensive performance that held Michigan in check, not Mike Hart or Chad Henne's injuries. Henne did not show any difficulty throwing the ball and was on-target and had enough zip on his passes to be effective, but his receivers dropped many of them. Hart likewise did not favor his ankle and ran as well as he was able, there was simply no room to run. I do appreciate your changing the text to reflect Mike Hart's comments that his injury had nothing to do with his performance. I still think no mention should be made of the Chad Henne/Mike Hart injuries, as we've more or less agreed they had no real bearing on the outcome, but your edit generally indicates that, so I'm satisfied.

Beanie Wells' chipped-ankle-bone injury was fairly well-documented that year, it's just that he came back and played so well despite it that no one bothered speculating that he might not play, because there was no reason to think he wouldn't. I do think if you are going to mention Hart's injury, which he claimed wasn't a factor, then you should also mention Wells' - that would bring a little more balance to the article's perspective, in my opinion. But I think it's ok as it is. Thanks for incorporating my input. 152.131.8.133 (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

separating EVERY SINGLE GAME?

Recently an editor reverted, twice actually, an edit from an anonymous contributor with the explanation, at least on the second reversion, that “separating EVERY SINGLE GAME is not necessary.” This is a fair point. In a rivalry in which there have been as many meetings as there have been between these two programs, I think we can all agree that detailing the particulars of “EVERY SINGLE GAME” would be better left to the pages of the thick tomes that grace the bookshelves of fans who just can’t get enough. Certainly though some games have stood out and deserve more than just an “insouciant” reference in passing. The Snow Bowl and 2006’s No. 1 vs. No 2 are noteworthy examples, and I would also offer that the most recent game in the series, in a general sense, should also be highlighted. So if you are an editor who feels that “separating EVERY SINGLE GAME is not necessary”, I would heartily recommend directing your abundant energies at the section on the John Cooper era, which is a bit overdone and gamey (much like my Thanksgiving turkey). Hammersbach (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree and changed the page. Rodreiguez has accomplished nothing in the rivalry. he has yet to win a game. he very well could over time have significance in the rivalry but as of right now he has no significance in rivalry. Maybe the cooper games could be condensed more too. Baseballfan789 (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why Baseballfan789! The timing and content of your revert and reply are impeccable. But then maybe not so much when the timing and content of your list of contributions are compared next to Frank Anchor’s, nicht wahr? Cheers! Hammersbach (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree re every single game. Those descriptions could be pared down quite a bit. I disagree about Rodriguez. For 40 years Michigan enjoyed a remarkable continuity in coaching and coaching philosophy, beginning with Schembecher and moving through his assistants Moeller and Carr. As I observed somewhere above, I think that is the reason that the bulk of this article's description of the rivalry's recent history is marked by coaching changes at OSU and not at Michigan - MIchigan had, in essence, the same coach from 1967 through 2007. (Or sufficiently so that marking the changes weren't really worth it.) Rodriguez is a big, big departure for Michigan even if he's now 0-1 against OSU. So I created a new section - "A Sea Change at Michigan" - which is accurate, worth mentioning, and certainly more interesting to read than "The Rivalry Continues (still)". I tossed in a little about why this is such a change, took out a kind of pro forma quote from Rodriguez about the rivalry, and left everything else the same. If Rodriguez gets fired and Michigan hires Les Miles instead (another Bo protege) then it can be changed again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of recentism tag

Recently, an “editor” placed a recentism tag on this article with the explanation that… well, actually, they didn’t leave reason. Although I have just recently begun to edit this article I removed the tag as I feel the recent trend here has been to move away from recentism, and as such I found the tag unnecessary. My attempts to remove the tag have met with resistance with the most recent revert demanding “DO NOT delete tag without sufficient explanation on talk page or improvements to this article.” Interesting, you can leave the tag without explanation but if you are going to remove it you have to expain why. Anyway, my explanation for the most recent removal of the tag can be found here. [1] I am off to lunch now where I think I will enjoy some sushi. I just hope that they don’t try to use Uncle Ben’s rice as I think it is just a cheap imitation, nicht wahr? Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Citing John Cooper Day

I noticed a "citation needed" next to the John Cooper Day celebration on Feb. 10, 2001 in Ann Arbor (making light of the Ohio State coach's 2-10-01 career record versus Michigan). I was at this event, but I don't think it was organized by the school or any other official fan organization, and I personally don't have any record of it. I know there were t-shirts made, and that there were plenty of other students present, but it was not covered in the Michigan Daily (Michigan's campus newspaper) or any other voice of record to my knowledge.

Online references: http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/337938-post1655.html (not a good one, though) http://forums.mlbcenter.org/lofiversion/index.php/t9789.html (another board, but post pre-dates the event)

Anyone out there willing to corroborate? Misopogon (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Accomplishments" table

(This discussion has been imported from User talk:JohnInDC and User talk:The Hut concerning a recent series of contested revisions to this table. JohnInDC (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm trying to show all national titles won by both Michigan and Ohio State. Please come up with a way to show the total national titles. Please keep my edits that show how many BCS, Coaches', and AP championships Michigan and Ohio State have won. (signed by) The Hut

First you need to be sure you are logging in when you are making your edits. Right now they are showing up as made by the IP, not you. Second, while it may be a worthwhile goal to explain the number and types of titles each program has won, the table doesn't lend itself to it. Because there were "National Championships" before there were AP or BCS championships (whether or not you want to label them "mythical"), the numbers won't add up. And if the numbers don't add up then the reader will be confused. If you really want to do it in tabular format, then I would suggest leaving "National Championships" as is, and adding some kind of sub-category to indicate that the total figures *include* X and Y numbers of AP, BCS or whatever other titles. Then at least it would be clear that what you're trying to do, and also that the numbers shouldn't be expected to add up. Also please use the phrase "National Championships" rather than the slightly condescending "claimed by each program", because the programs aren't the only ones claiming that number of championships. I'll leave the table alone for a bit while you work at this, okay? JohnInDC (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're also going to have to do something about that double-counting. Right now when you tally up your OSU figures (coaches plus BCS plus AP), you wind up with more championships than they've won. Really the table should say something like, "BCS championships" and "AP championships (pre-BCS)" and "Coaches' poll championships (pre-BCS)". But that's beginning to get ugly. You do see the problem, don't you? By trying to cram everything into a summary table, you either make the table misleading, or so complex that the summary format isn't useful any more. Nevertheless, have at it and see what you can do!

I'm going to copy this exchange to the Talk page, where others can see it and comment. Let's continue our discussion there. JohnInDC (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please link to a cite for Michigan's 11 national championships. I only see the three they won from the AP poll. Where do the other 8 come from? Till you come up with a reference do not remove or edit the BCS, AP and Coaches national championships that Michigan and Ohio State have won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill Bubba Kill (talk • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/misc/natchamp.htm JohnInDC (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war report filed on User:The Hut here. Sockpuppet report filed on User:The Hut along with User:Kill Bubba Kill, User:OhioState4Life and User:76.112.248.224 here. JohnInDC (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sockpuppet charges need to be resolved - serially creating new user accounts is not an appropriate way to resolve editing disputes and avoid 3RR problems - but that said, I thought the most recent round of edits by User:OhioState4Life represented a substantial improvement over his prior tendentious efforts. The best way to keep the "Accomplishments" table clear of national championship clutter appears to be to list the various flavors of championship separately. My only major complaint was the unnecessary removal of particular categories of information from "Accomplishments" like Heisman Trophies and total National Titles [of all varieties - pre-polls]. JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Known by whom

In your edit summary, you asked, ""Known" by whom?" Known by reliable sources. hmwitht 22:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Then those reliable sources should be set forth here - or somewhere - so readers of the article will know that the editors are not just making it up. My recollection, for what it's worth, is that the reliable sources in the prior discussion (fish up the old Talk page references) establish that this contest appears to be routinely referred to as "The Game" by fans of one team or another, very rarely by the national media, and in at least a couple of those instances, only with specific reference to the #1 vs. #2 contest in - whatever year that was. (This is largely from memory so forgive any sloppiness in these representations.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There were no sources stating the it was nationally known as The Game, but that it was simply known as that. Something doesn't have to be known nationally by another name to have it be notable enough for mention. hmwitht 22:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The verifiability policy states that, "any material challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source"

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT  Chzz  ►  23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I first did in April. I had to go find them. This user was aware of the sources (we conversed the first time around). I knew he'd know what I meant. If you'd like to see the sources, they're all listed below. The reliable ones are currently in the article. hmwith☮ 04:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)