Let me reiterate what I said since you clearly have a really hard time reading. I think anytime you see anyone even write the words OSU your radar just goes up and you start blabbering garbage. I said OSU needs to start scheduling TWO tough OOC games - just in case you are wondering, 2 is the number that comes after 1. TWO as in 2 as in T...W...O... Yes you guys have always scheduled a great game and no doubt you can't predict what a team will be like in 5-6 years but I think the committee will start to reward teams that now start to play a tougher OOC schedule. No doubt when you schedule VTech they were supposedly a consistently good team and that is not OSU's fault that they suck, but that does not matter. Seriously chill dude.
OSU/MSU/ND
- Thread starter scfanblue
- Start date
Let me reiterate what I said since you clearly have a really hard time reading. I think anytime you see anyone even write the words OSU your radar just goes up and you start blabbering garbage. I said OSU needs to start scheduling TWO tough OOC games - just in case you are wondering, 2 is the number that comes after 1. TWO as in 2 as in T...W...O... Yes you guys have always scheduled a great game and no doubt you can't predict what a team will be like in 5-6 years but I think the committee will start to reward teams that now start to play a tougher OOC schedule. No doubt when you schedule VTech they were supposedly a consistently good team and that is not OSU's fault that they suck, but that does not matter. Seriously chill dude.
Chicago, you're the one beating the dead horse and if you really want to look who is slow, look in the mirror. But I'm willing to appease you the way I would a small child. Yes, Chicago, Michigan's wins at the turn of the century count. Every bit as much as Army's, Havard's, and Fordham's.
I know you feel that you are carrying some kind of banner for the Maize and Blue by arguing with me, but it's as failed an attempt as your accusations that I only want to count wins in my desired time frame.
The funny thing is the board agrees with me because if I was making egregious remarks about UM, or braggadocios remarks about OSU, your fellow Wolverine fans would be jumping on board to come after me as well. The fact that they haven't tells me that they look at this thread and say, "Yeah, I don't like it but that OSU fan is right, and I sure wish Chicagofan would stop getting run over like he is."
I know you feel that you are carrying some kind of banner for the Maize and Blue by arguing with me, but it's as failed an attempt as your accusations that I only want to count wins in my desired time frame.
The funny thing is the board agrees with me because if I was making egregious remarks about UM, or braggadocios remarks about OSU, your fellow Wolverine fans would be jumping on board to come after me as well. The fact that they haven't tells me that they look at this thread and say, "Yeah, I don't like it but that OSU fan is right, and I sure wish Chicagofan would stop getting run over like he is."
Quick question-when your boss yells at you for making another idiotic mistake (I assume this happens a lot), do you make the same lame explanation 4-5 times in a row? Also throw in random references to the Wright brothers, the moon landings, and the battle of Hastings?
Apparently you really are this slow. I had hoped it was an act, but you're just not very bright.
Thanks for trying to interact with us normal folks. I applaud your effort.
Last edited:
I do repeat myself when the person I'm speaking to doesn't get it. Here's a summary of our conversation:
dallasdomer's- OSU has a weak schedule.
ME- Yes, because OSU doesn't get credit for playing Michigan or PSU right now. If those teams played like their potential, OSU's schedule would be fine.
Chicagofan- Michigan leads the all time series.
ME- yes, but only if you go all the way back to the beginning of college football. In the last 50 years, 25, and 10 years it starts to favor OSU.
Chicagofan- typical OSU fan, you only count certain games.
Me- I give credit to Michigan's wins at the turn of the century, but if you look at more recent times OSU has more wins.
Chicagofan- you only count wins you want to. Michigan leads the all time series
me- there's reasons why OSU had a diminished schedule the last several years.mthey played against good competition the past 15 years OOC and for the next 10 years going forward.
Chicagofan- yeah, you only pick the games that you want, boy are you slow.
ME- I give the Wolverines credit for winning back when Army and Fordham were perennial championship contenders,but what hurts OSU's schedule is that the teams you count on to be powerhouses haven't been.
Chicagofan- you sure are dumb because you keep repeating yourself. Your boss must hate you. Michigan has won more games all-time.
I admit to having average intelligence. But I love interacting with you on this board because in comparison, you make me seem as intelligent as Stephen Hawking.
dallasdomer's- OSU has a weak schedule.
ME- Yes, because OSU doesn't get credit for playing Michigan or PSU right now. If those teams played like their potential, OSU's schedule would be fine.
Chicagofan- Michigan leads the all time series.
ME- yes, but only if you go all the way back to the beginning of college football. In the last 50 years, 25, and 10 years it starts to favor OSU.
Chicagofan- typical OSU fan, you only count certain games.
Me- I give credit to Michigan's wins at the turn of the century, but if you look at more recent times OSU has more wins.
Chicagofan- you only count wins you want to. Michigan leads the all time series
me- there's reasons why OSU had a diminished schedule the last several years.mthey played against good competition the past 15 years OOC and for the next 10 years going forward.
Chicagofan- yeah, you only pick the games that you want, boy are you slow.
ME- I give the Wolverines credit for winning back when Army and Fordham were perennial championship contenders,but what hurts OSU's schedule is that the teams you count on to be powerhouses haven't been.
Chicagofan- you sure are dumb because you keep repeating yourself. Your boss must hate you. Michigan has won more games all-time.
I admit to having average intelligence. But I love interacting with you on this board because in comparison, you make me seem as intelligent as Stephen Hawking.
Tarun, Tarun, so hostile. I do respond on threads about OSU. That's what message boards are designed to do. You make a statement, then someone else does, sometimes there's agreement, sometimes not. But surely I don't need to explain that to someone like you.
I do admit that I missed the T-W-O tough game mention by you. That's a legitimate argument. As a fan I would love that. I looked at the OOC schedule of a few other usual top ranked teams. Alabama, Auburn, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Florida State, And Oregon. It turns out that they only play one tough OOC game too. You should start complaining about them too. It turns out that some of these teams get a pass because of the teams they play in conference.
Oh wait, that supports my original point. If Michigan and PSU had been better the past several years, so would have OSU's schedule.
I checked Michigan's OOC schedule through 2027. Guess what, you don't play T-W-O tough OOC teams in almost each of those years.
This is too easy.
OTHER FUTURE NON-CONFERENCE OPPONENTS
• 2020: Sept. 5 at Washington, Sept. 12 vs. Ball State, Sept. 19 vs. Virginia Tech
• 2021: Sept. 11 at Virginia Tech, Sept. 18 vs. Washington
• 2022: Sept. 10 vs. UCLA
• 2023: Sept. 2 at UCLA
• 2024: Aug. 31 vs. Texas
• 2025: Sept. 6 at Oklahoma
• 2026: Sept. 12 vs. Oklahoma
• 2027: Sept. 4 at Texas
Looks rather solid to me
• 2020: Sept. 5 at Washington, Sept. 12 vs. Ball State, Sept. 19 vs. Virginia Tech
• 2021: Sept. 11 at Virginia Tech, Sept. 18 vs. Washington
• 2022: Sept. 10 vs. UCLA
• 2023: Sept. 2 at UCLA
• 2024: Aug. 31 vs. Texas
• 2025: Sept. 6 at Oklahoma
• 2026: Sept. 12 vs. Oklahoma
• 2027: Sept. 4 at Texas
Looks rather solid to me
2 0 1 6
Date Opponent
Sept. 3 HAWAII
Sept. 10 CENTRAL FLORIDA
Sept. 17 COLORADO
Sept. 24 Open
Oct. 1 WISCONSIN*
Oct. 8 at Rutgers*
Oct. 15 PENN STATE*
Oct. 22 ILLINOIS* (HC)
Oct. 29 at Michigan State*
Nov. 5 MARYLAND*
Nov. 12 at Iowa*
Nov. 19 INDIANA*
Nov. 26 at Ohio State*
Dec. 3 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 7
Date Opponent
Sept. 2 vs. Florida (Arlington, Texas)
Sept. 9 CINCINNATI
Sept. 16 AIR FORCE
Sept. 23 at Purdue*
Sept. 30 Open
Oct. 7 MICHIGAN STATE*
Oct. 14 at Indiana*
Oct. 21 at Penn State*
Oct. 28 RUTGERS* (HC)
Nov. 4 MINNESOTA*
Nov. 11 at Maryland*
Nov. 18 at Wisconsin*
Nov. 25 OHIO STATE*
Dec. 2 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 8
Date Opponent
Sept. 1 ARKANSAS
Sept. 8 Open
Sept. 15 SMU
Sept. 22 NEBRASKA*
Sept. 29 at Northwestern*
Oct. 6 MARYLAND*
Oct. 13 WISCONSIN*
Oct. 20 at Michigan State*
Oct. 27 Open
Nov. 3 PENN STATE*
Nov. 10 at Rutgers*
Nov. 17 INDIANA*
Nov. 24 at Ohio State*
Dec. 1 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 9
Date Opponent
Aug. 31 at Arkansas
Sept. 7 Open
Sept. 14 Open
Sept. 21 at Wisconsin*
Sept. 28 Open
Oct. 5 IOWA*
Oct. 12 at Illinois*
Oct. 19 at Penn State*
Oct. 26 RUTGERS*
Nov. 2 at Maryland*
Nov. 9 Open
Nov. 16 MICHIGAN STATE*
Nov. 23 at Indiana*
Nov. 30 OHIO STATE*
Dec. 7 Big Ten Championship Game
Date Opponent
Sept. 3 HAWAII
Sept. 10 CENTRAL FLORIDA
Sept. 17 COLORADO
Sept. 24 Open
Oct. 1 WISCONSIN*
Oct. 8 at Rutgers*
Oct. 15 PENN STATE*
Oct. 22 ILLINOIS* (HC)
Oct. 29 at Michigan State*
Nov. 5 MARYLAND*
Nov. 12 at Iowa*
Nov. 19 INDIANA*
Nov. 26 at Ohio State*
Dec. 3 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 7
Date Opponent
Sept. 2 vs. Florida (Arlington, Texas)
Sept. 9 CINCINNATI
Sept. 16 AIR FORCE
Sept. 23 at Purdue*
Sept. 30 Open
Oct. 7 MICHIGAN STATE*
Oct. 14 at Indiana*
Oct. 21 at Penn State*
Oct. 28 RUTGERS* (HC)
Nov. 4 MINNESOTA*
Nov. 11 at Maryland*
Nov. 18 at Wisconsin*
Nov. 25 OHIO STATE*
Dec. 2 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 8
Date Opponent
Sept. 1 ARKANSAS
Sept. 8 Open
Sept. 15 SMU
Sept. 22 NEBRASKA*
Sept. 29 at Northwestern*
Oct. 6 MARYLAND*
Oct. 13 WISCONSIN*
Oct. 20 at Michigan State*
Oct. 27 Open
Nov. 3 PENN STATE*
Nov. 10 at Rutgers*
Nov. 17 INDIANA*
Nov. 24 at Ohio State*
Dec. 1 Big Ten Championship Game
2 0 1 9
Date Opponent
Aug. 31 at Arkansas
Sept. 7 Open
Sept. 14 Open
Sept. 21 at Wisconsin*
Sept. 28 Open
Oct. 5 IOWA*
Oct. 12 at Illinois*
Oct. 19 at Penn State*
Oct. 26 RUTGERS*
Nov. 2 at Maryland*
Nov. 9 Open
Nov. 16 MICHIGAN STATE*
Nov. 23 at Indiana*
Nov. 30 OHIO STATE*
Dec. 7 Big Ten Championship Game
More accurately-
Me-all the games count.
You-I agree, except the ones I don't think count. Random reference to world events/history.
Me-So clearly you're not counting them all.
You(not following because you're slow)-Sure I am, except for the ones that I don't think count. More random references to history/famous people.
You're not even normal intelligence, based on what you post. Maybe for a TUOS fan you're really smart, but you seem to have some sort of reading disability.
OK, here are some more random things/people you can reference for no apparent reason: Watergate, French and Indian War, Ken Burns, Battle of Midway, Buster Keaton, Woodstock.
I'm done arguing with the slow guy. Please try to get smarter. Thanks.
I never said Michigan's schedule wasn't solid March. My comment was in reference to Tarun saying that OSU needs to schedule two tough games per year. I responded with most top programs only have one tough opponent and looking at Michigan's future schedule, on most years they only have one tough one as well. I apologize to Chicagofan for repeating myself, but sometimes it's warranted.
As I said to Tarun, sometimes it's just two easy. So I say I'm Of average intelligence but compared to you I look like a genius. Your witty retort is "you're not even of normal intelligence...". OK,so that would put you even further behind in the IQ line. LOL. I am having so much fun here.
Then you try to get me by using the, or should I say copied, the same method of rehashing the conversation. For someone complaining about repeating a conversation, you sure seem to like redundancy.
Now going back to your examples of historical context and the W/L records among the two teams:
Watergate: Close but OSU may have the advantage in wins. But to be fair Michigan may, I haven't checked.
French and Indian War: Football wasn't invented yet.
Ken Burns: If you are referring to his landmark series on the Civil War, definitely more wins for the Buckeyes.
Battle of Midway and Buster Keaton: Definately an advantage to Michigan, but I've said that all along.
Woodstock: Just like when we go back to Watergate, it probably close, but the more we approach 2015, the advantage swings to the Buckeyes.
Since you enjoy this so much I'll add another one. Since the invention of the Internet, Ohio State has beaten Michigan more times. To be fair, except for the last couple of years and with hiring of Harbaugh, most of those don't matter either.
Thank-you BigHouse. I know that your post is intended to "put me in my place", but that is exactly what I've been saying.
This all started out because there was a question about OSU's schedule. All I said is that if Michigan and PSU had been playing to each of their program's potential, then just like the teams in the SEC and PAC-12 South, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
In answer to that, ChicagoBlue started this ridiculous argument that Michigan has more wins overall. It was never relevant to the discussion. The only relevance is recent history because that is what the strength of schedules are based upon. And even that will change as the season progresses. That was my point. Chicago doesn't understand.
This all started out because there was a question about OSU's schedule. All I said is that if Michigan and PSU had been playing to each of their program's potential, then just like the teams in the SEC and PAC-12 South, it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
In answer to that, ChicagoBlue started this ridiculous argument that Michigan has more wins overall. It was never relevant to the discussion. The only relevance is recent history because that is what the strength of schedules are based upon. And even that will change as the season progresses. That was my point. Chicago doesn't understand.
Goodness, you ARE this stupid.
You said something stupid about TUOS beating UM and PSU, I said you much not attach much importance to it as you lose more than you win. I know the math is going over your head, but bear with me.
You then stupidly responded that the games all count, while strangely contradicting yourself by implying they don't all count.
I insisted they all count, while you kept agreeing they do while making it clear you don't think so, while randomly throwing in historical events and figures for no apparent reason.
This is "two" easy, I agree. Not just one easy, two easy. Maybe it's just your reading disability and inability to reason, I'm not certain. Please try to get smarter. It's frustrating arguing with someone as slow as you seem to be. Is English not your first language?
Last edited:
I've given up on these tools, you really should too, they're incorrigible. .
AGP. Stupid people who wrongly insist they're right irritate me, for some reason.
Go back to posts 22,23, and 24. Someone mentioned OSU's pathetic schedule. I answered "True, if only beating PSU and Michigan carried any worth" which the reality is that it hasn't the last several years. Otherwise, no one would be complaining about OSU's schedule.
And Chicago started this whole thing by saying something along the lines of "Michigan has beaten OSU more times"
Bottom line, it was totally irrelevant to the conversation.
And Chicago started this whole thing by saying something along the lines of "Michigan has beaten OSU more times"
Bottom line, it was totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Real bottom line, you're really stupid. Probably "two" stupid. Thanks for playing. Stick with those ESL classes.
Last edited:
Now if we're going on a tangent off the original discussion, I have been right. You said Michigan has won more games overall in the series. Several times I have said I agree, but OSU has won more recently.
You counter with but all the games count. And complaints about repeating.
I answer with yes they do, but the more recent games are more relevant.
You answer with, yes,but Michigan has won more games and they all count, followed with a bunch of insults, and complaints about repeating.
When I clarify my point you answer with yes but Michigan has won more games, followed by complaints about repeating.
my guess is that you'll follow this up with complaints about repeating, as you repeat that Michigan has won more games and they all count.
You're safer not trying to use antiquated means like reason and logic with this ND fan base.
True, but I've been enjoying my interactions with ChicagoBlue. I use reason and logic and ChicagoBlue responds by calling me stupid. I think that says it all.
No, wrong again (kind of a trend with you). I explain something repeatedly and you, being stupid, just don't get it. Meanwhile, you repeatedly make stupid assertions like all the games count, except for the ones you've decided don't count.
Stick with the ESL classes. I only hope they're not "two" hard for you.
This will be my last post on this thread because you're now really starting to bore me. I'm sure we'll have interactions in the future though.
Yes, all,games count in terms of won and loss records. I've agreed to that since the beginning. What you fail to acknowledge is not all wins are equal in the context of today. (I know, this is where you call me stupid and say all wins are equal).
Well, they don't give trophy for an opening win against a MAC team like they do for a conference or national championship. Beating a team with a winning record is given more consideration when they are part of your strength of schedule than beating a team with a losing one. The original reason for my post, before your brilliant retort of all games count the same.
TCU and Baylor are national title contenders because they have won more times more recently. Nebraska, Texas, Navy, Harvard, and the Carlisle Indians, are not.
So go ahead and get your last word in with the same comments as you complain about repeating.
Maybe we can agree on this- win or lose the Michigan football team will do better against the Buckeyes than you do against me in a debate.
Now go ahead and give all of us a compelling reason why I am wrong.
Yes, all,games count in terms of won and loss records. I've agreed to that since the beginning. What you fail to acknowledge is not all wins are equal in the context of today. (I know, this is where you call me stupid and say all wins are equal).
Well, they don't give trophy for an opening win against a MAC team like they do for a conference or national championship. Beating a team with a winning record is given more consideration when they are part of your strength of schedule than beating a team with a losing one. The original reason for my post, before your brilliant retort of all games count the same.
TCU and Baylor are national title contenders because they have won more times more recently. Nebraska, Texas, Navy, Harvard, and the Carlisle Indians, are not.
So go ahead and get your last word in with the same comments as you complain about repeating.
Maybe we can agree on this- win or lose the Michigan football team will do better against the Buckeyes than you do against me in a debate.
Now go ahead and give all of us a compelling reason why I am wrong.
The series has been marked by streaks and pendulum swings ever since UM beat OSU the first dozen or so times they played. OSU is in a nice streak the last 15, UM was in a nice streak in the 15 before that, things were back and forth for about 20 years before that, OSU won majority of games in 60s, 50s were even, UM won majority of games 40s and so on. If you actually looked at the decade breakouts, only the 60s and present streak have been dominated by OSU, while 80s and 90s were UM's. Your simplistic conclusion that the series "continuously shifts" to OSU since the invention of the TV is, graciously put, an unsatisfying statistical analysis.
Here's your link if you'd like to rework your conclusion...by the way, some of us think the pendulum may have reached its apex for OSU in the current swing.
Detroitjohn, do you really want to interject yourself in this conversation? I'll play only because you specifically called me out.
At the risk of repeating myself (right Chicago?), I have said all along that if you go back far enough, the wins favor Michigan.
If we go back 50 years to 1965, the record between the two teams is 26-22-2, OSU win-Mich win-tie. I actually said if you go back 50 years ago it's pretty even. If you go back 25 years the record is 14 wins for OSU, 10 wins for Michigan, and a tie. If you go back 10 years, the record is 8 wins OSU, 1 win for Michigan, and 1 vacated win for OSU.
So to repeat myself enough times for ChicagoBlue to turn homicidal:
if you go back 100 years, Michigan has won more games. If you go back 50 years it's pretty even, if you go back 10 years it is a trend towards an advantage for OSU. And if you go back 10 years, it's a clear advantage for OSU.
I do agree that OSU's dominance has reached an apex. I've said even before Harbaugh was hired that eventually Michigan would be competitive again.
Note to Chicago: Detroitjohn is picking and choosing games and eras to count, there's a difference. What I am utilizing is commonly used time frames for evaluation and determination of revelance.
Ha ha. This is too easy.
At the risk of repeating myself (right Chicago?), I have said all along that if you go back far enough, the wins favor Michigan.
If we go back 50 years to 1965, the record between the two teams is 26-22-2, OSU win-Mich win-tie. I actually said if you go back 50 years ago it's pretty even. If you go back 25 years the record is 14 wins for OSU, 10 wins for Michigan, and a tie. If you go back 10 years, the record is 8 wins OSU, 1 win for Michigan, and 1 vacated win for OSU.
So to repeat myself enough times for ChicagoBlue to turn homicidal:
if you go back 100 years, Michigan has won more games. If you go back 50 years it's pretty even, if you go back 10 years it is a trend towards an advantage for OSU. And if you go back 10 years, it's a clear advantage for OSU.
I do agree that OSU's dominance has reached an apex. I've said even before Harbaugh was hired that eventually Michigan would be competitive again.
Note to Chicago: Detroitjohn is picking and choosing games and eras to count, there's a difference. What I am utilizing is commonly used time frames for evaluation and determination of revelance.
Ha ha. This is too easy.
Actually I just described the last 90 years or so of the series, not a word of what I typed was selective. Shall I repeat...there have been runs in the series since the 1920s, OSU is in a current one (13-2). If you chose this conversation 15 years ago, you would have seen that UM was themself in a major one (11-3-1). For the 20 years before that that series was back-and-forth...and so on. If you had stopped with your statistical analysis that OSU has dominated the last 15 years, you would have wowed us all.
Detroit, you're supporting my argument. My original point was that having Michigan and Penn State on OSU's schedule the last several years hasn't helped the Buckeye strength of schedule. ( I see your point Chicago, I am repeating but you guys don't get the basic argument.). So your reference to OSU's domination the past 15 years reinforces that. ChicagoBlue would say that you are wrong. I would have been happy to stop my statistical analysis at 15 years. ChicagoBlue wouldn't let me.
Detroit, you were on a roll but contradict yourself by saying that you are not being selective. By saying, "if you chose this conversation 15 years ago...", then Michigan would have a better recent record.You just became selective.
It's not my intent to say that OSU is better or has a better record.
Detroit, you were on a roll but contradict yourself by saying that you are not being selective. By saying, "if you chose this conversation 15 years ago...", then Michigan would have a better recent record.You just became selective.
It's not my intent to say that OSU is better or has a better record.
I wish I could quote Brad Pitt's German-speaking conundrum while doing menial tasks in Spy Game...it rhymes with "buuuuuuuck".
Last edited:
