charblue.

November 27th, 2017 at 9:10 AM ^

and similar ratings for Michigan games throughout the season, Michigan will get whatever bowl matchup will draw the biggest audience. So, expect a Michigan-Stanford matchup in the Holiday Bowl.

Brodie

November 27th, 2017 at 9:26 AM ^

Which is also being televised nationally on Fox, so there will be added pressure to take us and the best available Pac-12 school... either Stanford or nationally ranked Wazzou. 

Frankly, given how big of a bomb MSU was in their last bowl appearance and how big of a draw we are I do not think it is impossible that we go to the Outback Bowl. 

Alton

November 27th, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^

Neither is better.  They have about the same payout and about the same TV viewership (especially now that the Outback goes up against a NY6 bowl), and if one has more historical prestige, it's the Holiday.

You have fallen for the Jim Delaney "only January 1 bowls are prestigious" line.  Michigan and Wisconsin and other quality Big Ten schools hated playing in Florida on January 1 year after year in a non-major bowl.  But Delaney's party line was always "January 1 bowls are the most important, and Big Ten fans love going to Florida."

That has finally changed, but too many fans fell for Delaney's party line and are still spouting it today.

Brodie

November 27th, 2017 at 10:07 AM ^

that isn't really how bowl selections work. The whole premise of this thread is that Washington will get into a better bowl than Stanford, a team who beat them in a more convincing fashion than MSU beat us and actually won their division. It is all about the money. 

Tuebor

November 27th, 2017 at 10:42 AM ^

At this point I'd rather have a worse bowl if means a more winnable game.

 

We need a good win to head into the off season.

 

And Washington is 10-2 and Stanford is 9-3.  So the head to head result doesn't really take effect.

 

Michigan is 8-4 and MSU is 9-3.  So the better record also holds the head to head.  They should get picked ahead of us, but I recognize that money often trumps what is earned on the field.

M-Dog

November 27th, 2017 at 9:55 AM ^

When they stop watching is when it gets really bad.

Beth Mowins called Florida-Florida State. 

No offense to her, but she is typically an announcer on the network's tier 2-level games.  Florida-Florida State used to be the network's A-team: Keith Jackson or Brent Mussberger.

If we don't start keeping up our end of the bargain, The Game could go the same way.

 

FauxMo

November 27th, 2017 at 9:56 AM ^

How sad is that? Both those teams have NCs in the past decade, yet quickly fade to nothing with a single (FSU) or a few (UF) bad years. It really does attest to the strength of the Michigan brand, given that really our best year in the past decade was a 10-3 season last year that ended with 3/4 losses...  

Brodie

November 27th, 2017 at 10:15 AM ^

I agree with this. 

Actually, I am quite worried about how long term demographic trends will impact the way this game is perceived. A lot of the reasons for The Game being The Game relate to demographics... the B1G states are bigger than SEC or Big 12 states, more interested in college football than the ACC or Pac-12 states. The schools are, top to bottom, better than schools in other conferences and our alumni take up positions of influence in the media at a disproportionate rate. Baby Boomers, still in control of our national media infrastructure and therefore much of the narratives surrounding sports, grew up in a 10 year stretch where M-OSU determined the national title consistently. With the continuing decline of the Rust Belt relative to the Sun Belt, the increasing academic prestige of universities in those states, and the waning of a generation who can remember Bo vs Woody, I kind of worry that Auburn-Alabama will eclipse M-OSU as the conventional knowledge "best rivalry" in the coming decades.  

LSAClassOf2000

November 27th, 2017 at 10:40 AM ^

There are countless articles written about the best college football rivalries each November, but one thing I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is that while it seemed for a long time Michigan-Ohio State made the top of the list for a lot of beat writers, lately Alabama-Auburn has been creeping up the list and ours and theirs are now trading off #1 and #2 depending on the writer and region. 

The demographic shift to sunnier pastures seems evident in general in how games are covered and who covers some of these games. That is something I've definitely noticed.

Blue_Bull_Run

November 27th, 2017 at 11:28 AM ^

I think one factor that hurts "The Game" is that people can watch or stream any game they want, any time. It used to be that "The Game" was all you could watch for an afternoon. Now, if you're a fan or any other team, you can easily watch their game on another channel. Thus, the audience is no longer captive to ABC's primetime game

yooper_blue

November 27th, 2017 at 10:16 AM ^

I'm not sure about the TV broadcast but at the game the amount and length of commercial breaks seemed nuts, specifically between 1st and 2nd quarters. I would be interested to see the total running time of the game in comparison to previous years on ABC/ESPN.

mp2

November 27th, 2017 at 12:47 PM ^

Did anyone else miss the punt return? I was watching on Foxsports2go or whatever their streaming is called. I'm not sure if the stream jumped ahead or what, but there was a long commercial break and suddenly UM had the ball in the redzone. I didn't know if there was a punt block or a return. Pissed me off.

ST3

November 27th, 2017 at 1:30 PM ^

I dvr'd the game and started watching 1 hour after it started. I fast forwarded commercials and caught up to live action by the end. A normal TV show is 42 minutes long with 18 minutes of commercials. 1 hour of commercials during a 3.5 hour game is reasonable in that context. But I prefer starting late and skipping all that crap.