Ohio State/Michigan Final Score

[Rockerbraves]

Trying to determine which team to take in the Rose Bowl. Michigan is only a 1 point favorite over USC?

 

Do you think Michigan's narrow 3 point loss to the Buckeyes was due more to the fact that it was a Big Ten rivalry than Michigan being that good of a football team? I've read this late season annual battle between these two Big 10 teams was ranked #2 in ESPN's best college football rivalries behind the Alabama/Auburn Iron Bowl game. Sort of has me guessing if Michigan a 7 to 7 1/2 point underdog might have just played up abit like UCLA did last week against the Trojans to stay within a FG. That would explain why the Wolverines are only given up a point to the Trojans. Who should I take?

[wildcat2334]

COULD be a good game, but with these two especially, incentive and motivation will be huge, as both will be down emotionally coming in. Mich is a tough squad, and looked it against OSU, while USC certainly choked against UCLA. Rivalry games do not always tell the true story though, these teams are more in the middle and I think USC gets em in the Rose.

 

USC 27

Mich 21

[Rockerbraves]

COULD be a good game, but with these two especially, incentive and motivation will be huge, as both will be down emotionally coming in. Mich is a tough squad, and looked it against OSU, while USC certainly choked against UCLA. Rivalry games do not always tell the true story though, these teams are more in the middle and I think USC gets em in the Rose.

 

USC 27

Mich 21

 

 

As a college student we use to spent more time handicapping football games this time of year than studying. Each year we traditionally held what we called our Big 10 New Year's Day party. We would all wager on the Big 10 team playing in the Rose Bowl and wear their team colors to the party. The matchup seemed to always be a highly touted run oriented Big 10 team vs. a not so touted pass happy Pac 10 team.

 

As I recall it seemed like those Pac 10 teams would school the Big ten teams more often than not and we would find ourselves doubling up on the Orange Bowl. To be honest my perception of the style of ball hasn't really changed that much between the two conferences, yet I find myself wanted to take the Big 10 school once again.

[theeohiostate]

I think this is the most evenly matched contest in the bowls.

 

 

Both teams have a balanced offense and fast/atheltic defense.

 

 

This game will be won by Hart/Manninham or Booty/Jarrett. I don't think the D's will be as much a factor here, although both are high quality. The ability of Manninham is unbelievable and may be the difference.

 

UM 34

USC 31

[Big John]

Wasn't it OSU 42, UM 39?

[Sgt. Ryan]

No way I see SC keeping this close. First they havent seen a offense as balanced as Michigan, nor have they seen a Wr like Manningham, who is practically uncoverable. Sc has great weapons outside as well, but their Qb is suspect at best getting them the ball. For Sc to be shut down by UCLA last week is more proof Booty is the down fall of this team. OSU coudlnt stop Michigan, giving up 39 points to the Wolverines, and I dont see SC stopping them very much either.

 

 

Michigan wins this going away - 34-17.

[darin3]

Michigan wins this one by 7-10 points. 31-24 or 34-24... something like that.

[theeohiostate]

Wasn't it OSU 42, UM 39?

 

 

 

i think he titled his thread incorrectly

[Rockerbraves]

i think he titled his thread incorrectly

 

 

Incorectly? What should I have titled the thread if I was looking for opinions on whether or not the final score was due to two quality teams competing or due to the rivalry?

[detlef]

No way I see SC keeping this close. First they havent seen a offense as balanced as Michigan, nor have they seen a Wr like Manningham, who is practically uncoverable. Sc has great weapons outside as well, but their Qb is suspect at best getting them the ball. For Sc to be shut down by UCLA last week is more proof Booty is the down fall of this team. OSU coudlnt stop Michigan, giving up 39 points to the Wolverines, and I dont see SC stopping them very much either.

Michigan wins this going away - 34-17.

 

Wow, in a shocking development, Sarge thinks USC will get hammered.

[wildcat2334]

Wow, in a shocking development, Sarge thinks USC will get hammered.

 

 

 

Well, it goes right along with all the other blowouts USC has been on the wrong side of . Anyone who thinks Mich blows out USC pure garbage- they have never been blown out under Pete Carroll, and I really don't see Mich blowing em out in any way. If there is one thing I think you can count on is a close game either way.

[Sgt. Ryan]

Wow, in a shocking development, Sarge thinks USC will get hammered.

 

 

lets see you lose to 2 unranked teams, the second of which when you have everything in the world to play for, and still can't get up for your rival, even when a berth to the NC game is on the line. I think it goes without saying Sc is not in the class of Michigan. So expecting Michigan to beat them handily is not far fetched in the least.

[nickspicks]

All Ohio State fans know that Michigan will once again spoil another Buckeye season.

[sacosud]

lets see you lose to 2 unranked teams, the second of which when you have everything in the world to play for, and still can't get up for your rival, even when a berth to the NC game is on the line. I think it goes without saying Sc is not in the class of Michigan. So expecting Michigan to beat them handily is not far fetched in the least.

 

I agree, USC has been to how many Title games??? and now they get to play in a back up Bowl???? USC gonna be fired up for this game???? How about Michigan???? You think Lloyd and the boys going to be a little ticked and out to prove something. Michigan players are gearing up big time and I would take Michigan and the points in this one. I see at least a 7 point victory for the fired up Wolves. Michigan matchs up very well with USC as well. Michigan could make this game ugly. Jarret is thinking about April already winning 2 titles and now playing for nothing???? USC running game is okay and is the key to the game imo, USC must be able to run the ball on Michigan to have a chance. Booty will not beat them with his arm alone. I just can't see USC running on Woodley,Burgess, Branch, and Harris. Michigan offense is very balanced behind huge Jake Long and that powerful o-line Hart is a strong runner who can break ankles and power over you, then you have Manningham, Arrington, Breaston, and Henne to worry about. Michigan is more motivated and one thing I respect is a PO dissed Michigan.

 

USC has Jarret, Smith, Davis and Booty to me that's the dangerous ones. I just don't think USC running game will get it done and as soon as Michigan makes USC that 1 horse team they will be teeing off on Booty.

 

I think this could be a solid bet especially if the Wolves are the Dog.

[LiL10(s)ArEaJoKe]

Michigan wins this going away - 34-17.

 

 

 

I tend to agree with this assement. If I were a coach of a BCS bound bowl team, UM is the one team I would not want to face off with. You have to know that the whole state of MI is pissed that they were left out of the NC hunt. SC was only able to score, what was it 9 pts, vs UCLA. As a bettor I would try to get some time on my $$$. Say you give the house 10-13 pts and get 3-1 time on you money. I'd take MI and give 10 pts, as I believe that UM will roll over SC. If the line is UM -1 then hell I'd better get 3-1 odds if I gvie up 10 pts. Hell I think as a coach I would much rather play OSU right now than UM. JMO

[sacosud]

As a college student we use to spent more time handicapping football games this time of year than studying. Each year we traditionally held what we called our Big 10 New Year's Day party. We would all wager on the Big 10 team playing in the Rose Bowl and wear their team colors to the party. The matchup seemed to always be a highly touted run oriented Big 10 team vs. a not so touted pass happy Pac 10 team.

 

As I recall it seemed like those Pac 10 teams would school the Big ten teams more often than not and we would find ourselves doubling up on the Orange Bowl. To be honest my perception of the style of ball hasn't really changed that much between the two conferences, yet I find myself wanted to take the Big 10 school once again.

 

You have not watched OSU or Michigan this season then or really much Big Ten Football. The Bucks have aired it out more the last 2 seasons than running the ball and Michigan has also started the pass happy format. The key is balance and take what the defense gives you. I can say that's been OSU's format.

 

Come to think about it OSU,Illinois,Northwestern,Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan State all were pass happy this season for the most part. Penn State behind their young gun slinger will be passing alot more next season as well.

 

OSU,Purdue,Northwestern, Indiana and Illinois run the spread offense or some version of it. The Big Ten is going towards the mobile qb that can pass with all these teams except Northwestern.

 

Michigan has Hart for balance but their true weapon is in the passing game.

 

I would have to say you don't watch much Big Ten Football which is fine because your a LSU fan, however your statement about the Big Ten is just what people around the country perceive based on the past. OSU recruited another mobile QB from Georgia and is suppose to be in the mold of TS. The #2 qb right now is not Zwick it's really the pocket passer Todd Boeckman with Wells/Pittman coming back OSU maybe be a running team again next season....That's next season though OSU is a pass first team that leads to a running game. OSU uses the pass to open up the run loosen the defense up and then exploit the running lanes after they have had success passing.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Lets, forget about going back too many years, lets talk about recent years. 90's for one thing. Pac 10 won in 1990, 1991, and 1995. That's it. Big Ten dominated the Rose Bowl. In recent years, when there is a Pac 10-Big Ten match up, the PAc 10 has fielded a national championship worthy team (Washington in 00', and USC in 03'). which were pac 10 wins, as well they should be. So if you want to go back to the 70's and 80's, then be my guest.

[Rockerbraves]

Lets, forget about going back too many years, lets talk about recent years. 90's for one thing. Pac 10 won in 1990, 1991, and 1995. That's it. Big Ten dominated the Rose Bowl. In recent years, when there is a Pac 10-Big Ten match up, the PAc 10 has fielded a national championship worthy team (Washington in 00', and USC in 03'). which were pac 10 wins, as well they should be. So if you want to go back to the 70's and 80's, then be my guest.

 

 

Rose Bowl Results - 1970 to present

 

Pac 10 has 23 wins while the Big Ten has won 11

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Not gonna lie to you, the 70's and 80's were not kind to the Big Ten. But the 90's were dominated by them, and the 00's have only had 2 traditional match ups (both against GREAT Pac 10 teams, Washington in 00' and USC in 03). Not only that, but the Pac 10 traditionally has been a very top heavy conference. There aren't too many years where they have a lot of depth, but usually their champions are great teams. You can think back as recently as 2000 when Washington went 11-1, and beat the same Miami team that people were touting as being the team that shoulda played Oklahoma. My personal feeling was Washington deserved it more, they beat Miami, and played in a much tougher league. Pac 10 in 2000 was very good, going 2-0 in BCS Bowls, and Oregon knocking off Texas in the Holiday Bowl. They had 3 very good teams that could compete with any in the country. Washington, truly suffered from the famed East Coast bias. My point is, the Pac 10 champion is usually a highly nationally ranked team, and had some good teams in the 70's and 80's. The fact that you bet on the Big Ten team every year, proves that you probably just didn't know anything about West Coast teams, because back then, the game was VERY regionalized. I look at that as more giving the Pac 10 a lot of credit, than the Big Ten being somehow an overrated conference, much less a weak conference.

Edited December 10, 2006 by GWPFFL BrianW

[Rockerbraves]

The fact that you bet on the Big Ten team every year, proves that you probably just didn't know anything about West Coast teams, because back then, the game was VERY regionalized. I look at that as more giving the Pac 10 a lot of credit, than the Big Ten being somehow an overrated conference, much less a weak conference.

 

 

If I had to guess why I bet on the Big Ten would think it might be more that I was a big ten homer back then since I'm originally from Big Ten country and had to listen to my dad scream Goooo Ohioooo everytime they played on TV.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

If I had to guess why I bet on the Big Ten would think it might be more that I was a big ten homer back then since I'm originally from Big Ten country and had to listen to my dad scream Goooo Ohioooo everytime they played on TV.

 

 

Oh believe me I know all about that. My dad is an even bigger Iowa fan than me, so I know all about it.

[Rockerbraves]

Oh believe me I know all about that. My dad is an even bigger Iowa fan than me, so I know all about it.

 

 

The day after LSU beat Arkansas my dad came strolling into my son's basketball game wearing his old Ohio State cap I bought him back when the Buckeyes won it all. All my friends gave him a hard time asking him if he lost his LSU hat they would gladly buy him another.

[detlef]

Not gonna lie to you, the 70's and 80's were not kind to the Big Ten. But the 90's were dominated by them, and the 00's have only had 2 traditional match ups (both against GREAT Pac 10 teams, Washington in 00' and USC in 03). Not only that, but the Pac 10 traditionally has been a very top heavy conference. There aren't too many years where they have a lot of depth, but usually their champions are great teams. You can think back as recently as 2000 when Washington went 11-1, and beat the same Miami team that people were touting as being the team that shoulda played Oklahoma. My personal feeling was Washington deserved it more, they beat Miami, and played in a much tougher league. Pac 10 in 2000 was very good, going 2-0 in BCS Bowls, and Oregon knocking off Texas in the Holiday Bowl. They had 3 very good teams that could compete with any in the country. Washington, truly suffered from the famed East Coast bias. My point is, the Pac 10 champion is usually a highly nationally ranked team, and had some good teams in the 70's and 80's. The fact that you bet on the Big Ten team every year, proves that you probably just didn't know anything about West Coast teams, because back then, the game was VERY regionalized. I look at that as more giving the Pac 10 a lot of credit, than the Big Ten being somehow an overrated conference, much less a weak conference.

 

Interesting perspective. I followed the Pac-10 heaviest back in the 80s when they were absolutely not top heavy at all. In fact, they suffered from the same thing the SEC does now. There were always enough good teams that it was really hard to make it out of conference with any less than 2-3 losses. Meanwhile, the Big 10 was Mich, Ohio St. and sometimes somebody else. Every year, it seemed that a 8-3 Pac 10 team would come in and beat a 10-1 Big 10 team rather convincingly.

 

Time has certainly clouded my memories, but I do recall at least several years lamenting the fact that a Pac 10 team would never contend for the National Title because the league was so much tougher than every other one. Of course, back then we didin't have the internet so SEC ball may as well be played on another planet as far as I knew.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Interesting perspective. I followed the Pac-10 heaviest back in the 80s when they were absolutely not top heavy at all. In fact, they suffered from the same thing the SEC does now. There were always enough good teams that it was really hard to make it out of conference with any less than 2-3 losses. Meanwhile, the Big 10 was Mich, Ohio St. and sometimes somebody else. Every year, it seemed that a 8-3 Pac 10 team would come in and beat a 10-1 Big 10 team rather convincingly.

 

Time has certainly clouded my memories, but I do recall at least several years lamenting the fact that a Pac 10 team would never contend for the National Title because the league was so much tougher than every other one. Of course, back then we didin't have the internet so SEC ball may as well be played on another planet as far as I knew.

 

 

I dunno, the bulk of the years featured 2 highly ranked teams. There were a few times both ways that one of the teams was a big underdog, but I recall many USC-Ohio State Rose bowls where both teams were pretty highly ranked. For me, to address what you're saying, the ultimate letdown was the 1986 Rose Bowl. Iowa comes in ranked #4 against #13 UCLA, and Ronnie Harmon takes money from the mafia, and fumbles the game away. The ultimate disappointment for any Hawkeye fan was on that day. And earlier that year, the Buckeyes (who we beat even less than Michigan) ended our undefeated season when we were ranked #1, in the rain on november 2. Still, a win over UcLA woulda meant no worse than a #2 finish that year, and possibly with enough votes, coulda taken #1 from Oklahoma who knocked off Penn State in the Orange Bowl.