<![CDATA[rivarly gone!]]>i know that this is off topic and there are people that arent buckeye fans on here but from a football stand point this is a heart brake and sad to see that money can do this

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news...=dw-umosu082310

Michigan and Ohio State first played football in 1897. Never once has it taken place outside Columbus or Ann Arbor. Since 1935, it’s served as the final game of each team’s regular season.

It’s not just the culmination of a football campaign, but an unofficial, yet beloved, holiday in the Midwest. It represents a Saturday afternoon in late November, after the crops are in, touched by faint sunlight and a crisp wind that occasionally drives flakes of snow.

It’s meaning is everything. To this day the final segment of practice at Ohio State is called the “Maize and Blue Period” complete with the Michigan fight song, “The Victors,” blaring over the loudspeakers to infuriate, and motivate, the Buckeyes. Beating Michigan or beating Ohio State is what the teams work toward. It represents seeing the season through, either for their own glory or to ruin their rivals.

“They build their seasons up to it,” said Michael Rosenberg, Detroit Free Press sports columnist and author of “War As They Knew It,” a book about the 10 years of games between Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler.

Through it all, going on 104 years, it’s become one of the greatest rivalries not only in college football, but also in all of American sports. While that’s a debatable title, there’s no question Michigan-Ohio State would be in the discussion.

It’s not just about who wins and who loses or what is won and what is lost. It’s a celebration of a culture, a day both look forward to and look back on, a feeling of time and place, of memories and roots that run deep in the Midwest soil. You watched with your grandfather. You’ll watch with your grandchildren. No matter when things are good or things are bad – and with both football and the economy, these two states have seen both – it is always there, always the same. To play in it is to play in something bigger than yourself, your team and even your school.

“A remarkable festival,” the announcer Keith Jackson described it on its 100th birthday.

It’s special. It just is.

nd now the Big Ten wants to pretend it isn’t?

They are going to move the game to October and they are going to split Michigan and Ohio State up and put them in opposite divisions of the new 12-team Big Ten to allow for the possibility of a league title game rematch starting in 2011.

This hasn’t been announced. It’s all but certain though, the drumbeat of public relation leaks assuring it. Commissioner Jim Delany has talked about it. So too has Ohio State coach Jim Tressel and Michigan athletic director David Brandon.

They want the idea to float out there so it isn’t a shock to the system when it becomes official next month. It may not shock, but it should sadden.

Ohio State and Michigan should be placed in the same division and meet in the final game of the regular season. It works for Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Texas A&M and a host of other great rivalries that have survived the super conference era. It’s a nod to the concept that these are more than just games, that they aren’t just a product to package for television, that in college football, tradition should be honored, not reworked in the hope of a ratings bump.

“One of the best things that could happen, in my opinion in a given season, would be the opportunity to play Ohio State twice,” Brandon told Ann Arbor radio station WTKA.

No, it wouldn’t be the best thing that could happen. It might be fun the first time. It might be unique. It might be new. And then soon enough, it wouldn’t be.

Everything else about it diminishes an event built and maintained for five generations. When you control a 100-plus-year-old tradition, you don’t make decisions based on a four-year television contract. To do so is symbolic of the NCAA run by MBAs, where a projected spreadsheet means more than a history book. It is about selling out a century plus for an overnight rating and then trying to explain it away with specious and short-sited reasoning.

The game is the game because they don’t play twice a year. You get one crack and that’s it. It can make or break the season. Careers, both playing and coaching, are defined by it because the lack of a rematch raises the stakes. The single game increases the urgency of the present. Then the location on hallowed grounds – either the glorious Horseshoe or the brilliant Big House, not some corporate event at Lucas Oil Stadium – adds the perspective of the past. As such, the nature of the rivalry should be protected at all costs.

Instead, not only does the Big Ten want to split the teams up to assure a potential second game, but it also wants to move the annual clash to midseason in case both teams win their division. Otherwise there might be back-to-back meetings that could cost the title game broadcast casual viewers. This is the butchering of the regular season in an effort to protect the postseason.

There is no other reason to do it. It isn’t for competitive reasons, since it actually stacks the deck against Michigan and Ohio State – their cross-over opponent is a historic powerhouse.

The Big Ten title game is undoubtedly worth more if Ohio State and Michigan, two big brands with plenty of big television markets, can potentially meet. Nebraska may teem with history, but it doesn’t with people (just 1.7 million residents compared to the 10 million-plus of both Michigan and Ohio).

So what’s the mere possibility of a Buckeye-Wolverine Big Ten title clash actually worth? One television executive estimates it at best fetches an additional $2 million on a game that the Big Ten is seeking $15-$20 million no matter who is in it. “And with the state of (the Michigan) program, I doubt it’s that,” said the TV executive who requested anonymity. “That’s absolute the high end, and I haven’t done any research. It might be half that.”

So best case, the league gets $2 million extra per year, which divided 13 ways (12 teams and the league office) is about $150,000 per share. The Buckeyes and Wolverines are going to sell their one-of-a-kind tradition for a buck fifty per?

That’s the going price of history?

The likelihood of a Michigan-Ohio State rematch isn’t strong anyway (which the TV execs will realize upon research) and not just because the Wolverines went 1-7 in the league last year. Doug Lesmerises of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that had the two teams been split into opposite divisions over the past 17 years, they’d have met just three or four times in a title game. This isn’t the old days of the Big Two and Little Eight, and that’s before Nebraska makes it more competitive.

Lesmerises notes that only five times since 1988 have both teams been ranked in the top 15 on game day. While the 2006 game between No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan springs to mind, the rivalry is mostly about one team trying to ruin the other’s big year.

It’s also a rivalry of swings. Bo and Woody may have gone back and forth – Michigan holding a 5-4-1 lead in that era – but prior to the Buckeyes winning eight of the last nine games, Michigan won 10 of 13.

That the game maintained – if not increased its appeal – during these runs of dominance is a testament about how its value is in the total package. It’s about the people. It’s about the stadiums. It’s about the circle of the calendar. It’s about the often gloomy weather that in its own Midwestern way is beautiful. It’s about all the intangibles that make this game and this sport so great, far greater than some financial metric can measure.

Once there is even the potential for more than one game, once it is moved to a midseason date, once it isn’t the final test, once it isn’t about clearing (or being) the last hurdle to a season, once it is staged in some faux-retro NFL stadium, it becomes a little more like just another game. This is what happened to the once-wonderful Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry that in just more than a decade went from special to likely extinct, one more bit of history sucked from the sport in the name of a small pot of possible revenue.

“It’s always been about the anticipation,” Rosenberg said of Michigan-Ohio State. “It was about working to that final game, about what’s at stake, winning a championship or screwing it up for the other guy. That’s what was always special about it.”

So special it came to define the league. Patience created a brand so strong it could command high broadcast fees and launch its own television network and draw in Nebraska and Penn State to the point where a title game is needed.

Now the suits are ready to think short-term and cash in on its appeal. Now it’s just another product to squeeze out $150,000 from.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/15483/rivarly-goneRSS for NodeThu, 01 Oct 2026 05:16:55 GMTThu, 26 Aug 2010 02:35:23 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:49:13 GMT]]>I would like to salute SJ for his words above .

Muck Fichigan

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189481https://brownsboard.com/post/189481Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:49:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:46:30 GMT]]>rivarly gone!

no it's not. the rivalry won't be gone. the rivalry will still be alive and well. osu and michigan won't let something like this get in the way and neither will the fans. i love tradition and would hate this change if it actually goes through, but i won't let something like that alter my hate for michigan. i'll still be pumped up and root for the osu to beat the crap out of missagain.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189480https://brownsboard.com/post/189480Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:46:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:52:54 GMT]]>

@slowburn said:

Include the the Ivy League and throw in MIT and UCBerkley (sp) while you are at it

Cal-Berkely, maybe. The Ivy League plays in a lower division, so I wouldn't include them. And I don't even think MIT fields a football team.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189418https://brownsboard.com/post/189418Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:52:54 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:29:36 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

No, peen, God forbid I wasn't accusing you of such a monstrous act as being a Michigan fan 😵

I was just giving the data on the rivalry before and after a certain point to show that the apparent dominance the Michigan has in the rivalry was totally front loaded.

Ok....just wanted to make that clear.

No doubt I am a Gator fan and I don't pretend to hide that. I went to school there and that is my college team, but the Bucks are who I grew up rooting for and it is not very often I am not actively rooting for them ...and even against the Gator's, I didn't root against them. Had the Bucks won those games, I would have slept with a smile on my face, be it a slightly smaller smile.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189374https://brownsboard.com/post/189374Fri, 27 Aug 2010 01:29:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:44:57 GMT]]>

@clevelandfanforlife said:

it's a really easy call on the penalty/no penalty argument. on the play that the interference flag was thrown, there was no pass interference. however, if you go back and look at the play before that, there was pass interference that was not called. the ref knew it. it was a make-good call.

I agree that there wasn't pass interference on the play in question, because the ball was not in the air yet. However, there was a penalty on the play, as the WR was getting mauled by the CB. As such, it didn't matter what the actual call was, just that there was a call at all.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189359https://brownsboard.com/post/189359Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:44:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:18:57 GMT]]>Well I can agree with most of that statement , but it was a pretty even match. If willis mcgahee doesn't get hurt who knows..

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189342https://brownsboard.com/post/189342Thu, 26 Aug 2010 20:18:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:57:55 GMT]]>

@wrrebel said:

Dude there is no asteric but and I'm sure there were other calls that were misseed, but that was a horrible call. I am a huge hurricane fan, let's not forget that's where bernie went.

It wasn't a horrible call, it was justifiable. On the other hand, if the call had not been made Buckeye fans would have had a bitch. So, it perhaps was a debatable call, not horrible. And the right team won. The dominant team won.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189336https://brownsboard.com/post/189336Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:57:55 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:55:22 GMT]]>

@ballpeen said:

I wasn't trying to point that out like I am a Michigan fan, and noted that OSU wasn't in the league until much later. You sometime forget I like the Bucks.

I was simply pointing out the raw numbers to bolster my point about the two programs having dominated the conference for the last 70 years and it makes no sense to put the two of them in the same division.

The article's point was about the change that is going to take place....moving the game date and splitting them in to opposite divisions.

No, peen, God forbid I wasn't accusing you of such a monstrous act as being a Michigan fan 😵

I was just giving the data on the rivalry before and after a certain point to show that the apparent dominance the Michigan has in the rivalry was totally front loaded.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189334https://brownsboard.com/post/189334Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:55:22 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:51:10 GMT]]>

@1-more-season said:

Would this new conference be called the Big Brain? With the occasional blip from ND, BC and Stanford this conference would be just as good if not better than Conference USA or the WAC. ECU should be n the ACC

OK, Big Brain Conference. I like it, though, I doubt those schools would be so arrogant as to use that moniker....though.....on the other hand....they may just be that arrogant!

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189333https://brownsboard.com/post/189333Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:51:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:32:45 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

Yea, right. The fact is, if you don't like the OSU-Mich. rivalry, you don't like college football. Plain and simple.

And if you say OSU/Mich is irrelevent, then what can be said about Notre Dame?

Unfortuneatly I think this is what you can say about ND: (and note my screen name, so don't think I am happy about this):

Notre Dame is about to be placed on a par with other similar institutions like Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford:

quality educations, below average football programs (in terms of winning).

In fact, in my opinion, given the fluctuation in college conferences these days, these schools should form their own new separate conference:

Duke

Notre Dame

Vandy

Northwestern

Army

Navy

Rice

Stanford

Boston College

and maybe a couple more

.

Include the the Ivy League and throw in MIT and UCBerkley (sp) while you are at it

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189318https://brownsboard.com/post/189318Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:32:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:04:44 GMT]]>it's a really easy call on the penalty/no penalty argument. on the play that the interference flag was thrown, there was no pass interference. however, if you go back and look at the play before that, there was pass interference that was not called. the ref knew it. it was a make-good call.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189315https://brownsboard.com/post/189315Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:04:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:55:02 GMT]]>

@wrrebel said:

Dude there is no asteric but and I'm sure there were other calls that were misseed, but that was a horrible call. I am a huge hurricane fan, let's not forget that's where bernie went.

I haven't forgotten that. One reason why I hate BC and Doug Flutie. But the fact is, that call was a good and the correct call. Watch the slow motion replay. The WR got mauled. No matter how you look at it, it should have been some kind of penalty. Perhaps the wrong penalty was called, but regardless, it should have been a penalty, which would have extended the game for at least one more play. That's all it took for the Buckeyes to win.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189308https://brownsboard.com/post/189308Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:55:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:48:44 GMT]]>Dude there is no asteric but and I'm sure there were other calls that were misseed, but that was a horrible call. I am a huge hurricane fan, let's not forget that's where bernie went.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189306https://brownsboard.com/post/189306Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:48:44 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:33:38 GMT]]>

@wrrebel said:

Damn I didn't know people were really still emotional over that pass interf call. That was ages ago.. miami has been poop ever since butch davis left. Coker won the national title but u or I could have coached those players..

All I really care about is the browns winning.

Damn straight I'm still emotional about it. I'm a diehard Buckeye fan. And whenever someone tries to put an asterisk by that National Championship, it pisses me off, because that was a legit call.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189302https://brownsboard.com/post/189302Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:33:38 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:20:12 GMT]]>Damn I didn't know people were really still emotional over that pass interf call. That was ages ago.. miami has been poop ever since butch davis left. Coker won the national title but u or I could have coached those players..

All I really care about is the browns winning.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189299https://brownsboard.com/post/189299Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:20:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:17:05 GMT]]>

@wrrebel said:

I don't know we have a lot of. Jrs and srs this year... plus there won't be any imaginary pass interference calls

Dude, only a Miami fan would consider that an imaginary call.

1st of all, the CB was all over the receiver. So even if tape proves that the ball was not in the air yet when contact was made, there were two other penalties that could have been called, that would have ended up with the same end result (considering the NEXT play was the TD that won the game.)

1) It was illegal contact. Yes, illegal contact is a penalty in college, although I'm not sure its after 5 yards, or just simply illegal contact or what. You aren't allowed to maul the receiver in college, even if the ball is not in the air yet. The receiver on that play got mauled.

2) It could have been called as holding as well.

So regardless, a penalty would have given them half the distance to the goal whether it was pass interference or holding or mauling. And since they scored on the next play, the pass interference giving them a new set of downs didn't matter, since it only took one down to score.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189298https://brownsboard.com/post/189298Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:17:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:10:59 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

What awesome game was on instead? I was under the understanding that the game has been a nationally televised game on ABC for years.

I am not doubting you, I am only curious as to what they would show in Chattanooga at the same time that would be viewed as a better matchup. They might put an SEC game on, but I think that would be on a competing network. ( I believe CBS carries SEC games, ABC Big Ten

)

I don't know what game was on....I didn't watch when I settled in to watch OSU/Mich...it wasn't a SEC game....those are CBS. Probably some ACC match-up...maybe Ga Tech/Clemson.

I do remember I was a bit shocked it wasn't on...and that was 2 years ago...I wasn't shocked this year given Michigans woes.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189297https://brownsboard.com/post/189297Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:10:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:07:20 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

FYI, of that lead that Michigan holds, note that Michigan won the first 13 in a row between 1897 and 1918 which was before OSU became any sort of a national power. Michigan along with Notre Dame and Army and some of the Ivies were the only big time college teams then. After OSU began developing its program post WWI the rivalry has been pretty even if not in OSU's favor. In fact doing the math, if Michigan won the first 13, then post WWI the count would be OSU 32 wins, Mich. 29.

But...yes, of course we can't go back and revise history. I simply wanted to point out that prior to WWI the programs were not really operating at parity. (maybe if OSU wins 7 more in a row we can say they aren't operating at parity again, only in the other direction!)

I wasn't trying to point that out like I am a Michigan fan, and noted that OSU wasn't in the league until much later. You sometime forget I like the Bucks.

I was simply pointing out the raw numbers to bolster my point about the two programs having dominated the conference for the last 70 years and it makes no sense to put the two of them in the same division.

The article's point was about the change that is going to take place....moving the game date and splitting them in to opposite divisions.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189296https://brownsboard.com/post/189296Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:07:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:48:31 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

Yea, right. The fact is, if you don't like the OSU-Mich. rivalry, you don't like college football. Plain and simple.

And if you say OSU/Mich is irrelevent, then what can be said about Notre Dame?

Unfortuneatly I think this is what you can say about ND: (and note my screen name, so don't think I am happy about this):

Notre Dame is about to be placed on a par with other similar institutions like Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford:

quality educations, below average football programs (in terms of winning).

In fact, in my opinion, given the fluctuation in college conferences these days, these schools should form their own new separate conference:

Duke

Notre Dame

Vandy

Northwestern

Army

Navy

Rice

Stanford

Boston College

and maybe a couple more

.

Would this new conference be called the Big Brain? With the occasional blip from ND, BC and Stanford this conference would be just as good if not better than Conference USA or the WAC. ECU should be n the ACC

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189293https://brownsboard.com/post/189293Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:48:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:39:16 GMT]]>

@ballpeen said:

Great, you saw it...the last couple I haven't because it wasn't picked up as the network game. I would have had to view it PPV or head to some bar.

What awesome game was on instead? I was under the understanding that the game has been a nationally televised game on ABC for years.

I am not doubting you, I am only curious as to what they would show in Chattanooga at the same time that would be viewed as a better matchup. They might put an SEC game on, but I think that would be on a competing network. ( I believe CBS carries SEC games, ABC Big Ten)

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189291https://brownsboard.com/post/189291Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:39:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:33:35 GMT]]>

@585dawg said:

I find this game the most over rated/boring game of the year.. No one outside ohio or michigan gives a sh*t about this game... I LOVE college football and can honestly say I have never watched more than a quarter of one of these games. The reason the big ten is doing this is because the big ten has NOTHING else going for it! So why not try and make the "biggest" game happen twice a year... Oh.. and GO IRISH!

Yea, right. The fact is, if you don't like the OSU-Mich. rivalry, you don't like college football. Plain and simple.

And if you say OSU/Mich is irrelevent, then what can be said about Notre Dame?

Unfortuneatly I think this is what you can say about ND: (and note my screen name, so don't think I am happy about this):

Notre Dame is about to be placed on a par with other similar institutions like Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Stanford:

quality educations, below average football programs (in terms of winning).

In fact, in my opinion, given the fluctuation in college conferences these days, these schools should form their own new separate conference:

Duke

Notre Dame

Vandy

Northwestern

Army

Navy

Rice

Stanford

Boston College

and maybe a couple more.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189289https://brownsboard.com/post/189289Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:33:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:22:12 GMT]]>

@ballpeen said:

A quick search gave me these numbers, though I can't say they are totally accurate and I am sure on occasion some of these titles were shared titles. I am just taking the numbers at face value.

Michigan....42 titles

OSU...32 titles.

OSU joined the Big 10 in 1912 so some of Michigans titles came before OSU was a member...even throw out 10 which is no doubt a high number and they have 32 each...that is 64 in 98 years.....65%

FYI, of that lead that Michigan holds, note that Michigan won the first 13 in a row between 1897 and 1918 which was before OSU became any sort of a national power. Michigan along with Notre Dame and Army and some of the Ivies were the only big time college teams then. After OSU began developing its program post WWI the rivalry has been pretty even if not in OSU's favor. In fact doing the math, if Michigan won the first 13, then post WWI the count would be OSU 32 wins, Mich. 29.

But...yes, of course we can't go back and revise history. I simply wanted to point out that prior to WWI the programs were not really operating at parity. (maybe if OSU wins 7 more in a row we can say they aren't operating at parity again, only in the other direction!)

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189287https://brownsboard.com/post/189287Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:22:12 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:20 GMT]]>

@1-more-season said:

There is no way that the BIG TEN will allow the OHIO ST. v. michigan to loose its significance.

"For years it was on national television....for the last 2-3 it was a regional game as it wasn't one here in the south." Not true. I live in the South and see it every year.

"Ask many Michigan natives what The Games is to them and many respond Michigan vs Michigan St" I believe many michigan st. fans might say that but not wolverine fans. MI v. MI state is a cute little game but it doesn't compare.

The SEC preserved the Iron Bowl after their expansion. the BIG TEN will do the same with the BIG GAME.

Great, you saw it...the last couple I haven't because it wasn't picked up as the network game. I would have had to view it PPV or head to some bar.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189286https://brownsboard.com/post/189286Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:21:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to rivarly gone! on Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:10:17 GMT]]>

@ballpeen said:

Things change, and the Big 10 needed to change. The OSU/Mich game was getting state.

For years it was on national television....for the last 2-3 it was a regional game as it wasn't one here in the south.

That may have only been because of the decline in the Michigan Program in just the last couple of years. When the teams were like #1 and #2 and played that 42-39 game I bet it was on National TV.

It is still the best...and most relevent rivalry in college football.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/189285https://brownsboard.com/post/189285Thu, 26 Aug 2010 15:10:17 GMT