I've been to few ND/MSU games. I'd go with them begin fun and respectful while the UM/ND games had more of don't like you feel between the school's...that vibe can be more intense but maybe that isn't what ND wants. I'd guess ND plays 1-2 big 10 games per year with MSU and Purdue getting the slots. Looking at MSU future schedule with Alabama, Miami, boise and Oregon, that's a 8 year span of probably no ND for MSU, so ND-Purdue probably gets a lot of games in the near future with MSU-ND getting later games. Of course, i think MSU should probably drop miami and boise series and stick with ND. The alabama and oregon games work as good replacements for ND series taking a break but the other 2 really don't' bring the beef.

Notre Dame game is a friendly rivalry for sure, not much hate between fan bases. and the "more of don't like you feel between the school's" works the same with our rivalry with Michigan (Though being from the Ann Arbor area I hate every piece of trash Michigan fan who wants to talk smack to me for wearing a Spartan t-shirt.)

Just FYI. Something I posted on another thread about why the NotreDame/MichSt game is so important to both institutions: bonded by similar mistreatment from UMich.

(05-14-2013 11:20 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Sea Blue is going to disagree, but here is my viewpoint:

Michigan is a team that blocked ND from the Big 10 in the 1920s, refused to play ND for over almost 4 decades (twice!) after ND started beating them and often lobbied their Big 10 brethren to also blackball ND from their schedule.

Their former coach, Bo Schembechler, often publicly bitched and whined about ND for years.

Michigan tried to pressure ND into joining their conference, renewed its efforts to encourage its conference brethren to boycott ND, and then signaled its desire to drop ND.

Basicly a fair synopsis of the UMich treatment of NotreDame. Their similar treatment of MichSt also explains why they can't get the Big10 boycott of NotreDame either - and why the MichSt series is more dear to NotreDame than the UMich one.

UMich blocked MichSt's attempts to get in the Big10 for decades as well - fearing in-state competition. MichSt became a member of the Big10 anyway - over the objections of UMich (which actually made the Big10 "10" for the first time in a while) in the 1950s. But UMich still insisted that they not be allowed to represent the Big10 in the RoseBowl until they finished their "probationary" period. This period was instituted largely because MichSt was the far superior FB program at the time.

On the non-sports side, UMich actively worked to block MSU from becoming a "University" for decades. MichSt was formerly called Michigan State College - and Michigan Agricultural College before that. UMich argued people wouldn't be able to tell which school was actually the "U" of Michigan if MichSt was called a University too.

These are some of the reasons why NotreDame and MichSt have played each other so many times in their series. Since neither was allowed into the Big10, they naturally played each other. The two schools were the only major FB programs in the Great Lakes area that were not in the Big10 for a long while.

But what goes around comes around:

In the 1970s when the Big10 had a tie between UMich and OhioSt (who tied in their head-to-head game), it was MichSt who cast the tie-breaking vote to decide who to send to the Rose Bowl and who stayed home (back then - the Big10 sent their champion to the RoseBowl and no one else was allowed to play in a post-season bowl). MichSt voted for OhioSt.

And repeatedly under Schembechler (and since), UMich wanted a Big10 boycott of NotreDame; MichSt always decided that they'll continue to play NotreDame.

Few thoughts:

1. There is absolutely zero push from the Big Ten to avoid playing Notre Dame. Those are big games and the conference wants them. Anything online saying otherwise is either misunderstood (taking teams wanting occasional breaks due to a 9 game conference schedule as not wanting to play) or flat out wrong.

2. Glad this is continuing. The Michigan/Notre Dame series was bigger in attention and the fanbases hated each other a lot more (oddly that aspect of rivalries also killed A&M and UT), but Notre Dame is giving up a lot of their schedule flexibility for the new set-up and them wanting to keep the more traditional aspects makes sense.

3. My guess is Purdue and Notre Dame work out something similar if both schools can hit right so they have 7 home games in the same season (or 6 home and 1 neutral site game in Notre Dame's case).

Notre Dame has 12 games, 7 of which must be on NBC or an NBC Sports. The 8 locked games (5 ACC games, USC, Stanford, and Navy) produce 4 home and 4 away games each year. That means of the remaining 4, 3 must home games or neutral site games controlled by Notre Dame. If Notre Dame has one neutral site game they control every year, that means they can have 2 home and home series remaining with 1, one and done.

Looking at those 3 open spots (not counting the one and done), we know Michigan State will play Notre Dame 4 of 6 years in one of the spots. If Notre Dame/Purdue can work out their scheduling issues so both can fit their 7 home games (or 6 home and 1 neutral), then I'd guess they'll also be 4 out of 6. That means Notre Dame would have the following schedule flexibility each year (assuming Michigan State misses the last 2 years and Purdue the first 2 years at random).

Year 1-2: 1 One and done, 1 neutral site, 1 home and home
Year 3-4: 1 one and done, 1 neutral site
Year 4-6: 1 one and done, 1 neutral site, 1 home and home

If we instead assume the Purdue series is over, they have:


Year 1-2: 1 One and done, 1 neutral site, 1 home and home
Year 3-4: 1 one and done, 1 neutral site, 1 home and home
Year 4-6: 1 one and done, 1 neutral site, 2 home and home

(05-15-2013 10:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 09:24 PM)mj4life Wrote:  Guess they didn't get the "Don't schedule the Irish" memo

They did. I think that the Spartans just told Brady Hoke, David Brandon, the rest of the Wolverines and the rest of the Big Ten to shove it.

More likely the "don't schedule the Irish" memo was a figment of the overactive imaginations of some fans.

(05-16-2013 09:01 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Notre Dame has played Michigan State twice as many times as Michigan and I think ND owes Michigan State because they were willing to play them when several Big Ten schools like Michigan were not. I think this makes perfect sense.

Agreed.

There is a history of a ton of bad blood (off the field) between Michigan and ND from about 1910 until today.

Michigan has tried to kill ND's program in the past. There were boycotts and attempts at boycotts. That is not opinion. That stuff happened.

Michigan went three decades, twice, refusing to play ND and trying to marginalize the Irish in the Midwest.

Big Ten guys say "Big deal. Ancient history It is not important. Move on".

The anti-Michigan sentiment at ND has always been there and always been very strong. It never left and it is not ancient history.

It never went away just because Michigan finally agreed to play ND in the Seventies.

Michigan refused to play ND for decades. The series only really began in 1978. That is like yesterday to an almost 56 year old guy like me.

It is not like USC or Navy, schools who have played ND since the 1920's.

Michigan is a huge reason that ND fans dislike the Big Ten and don't ever want to be part of that conference.

Was there a big desire to beat Michigan when they played? Damn right, sure.

But, I won't miss Michigan and would say the same if ND had beaten them ten times in a row.

Something had to give with the five game ACC move. Why not dump Michigan?

Michigan was making noises about canceling the series or have big gaps in the games, anyway.

The quotes from David Brandon are there. He kept talking about how Michigan may need to shelve the ND games.

Swarbrick beat him to the punch. "Here, read this letter. ND canceled first before you could". Too bad.

I'd rather ND look South, West and Southwest for its future, not towards the Midwest.

People accuse ND of being stuck in the past then chide ND for breaking with the past and making changes.

What outsiders think about the series is not important. It seems a much more significant match up to them.

I'd rather ND play someone like Texas, Oklahoma etc...

(05-16-2013 10:45 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 09:01 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Notre Dame has played Michigan State twice as many times as Michigan and I think ND owes Michigan State because they were willing to play them when several Big Ten schools like Michigan were not. I think this makes perfect sense.

Agreed.

There is a history of a ton of bad blood (off the field) between Michigan and ND from about 1910 until today.

Michigan has tried to kill ND's program in the past. There were boycotts and attempts at boycotts. That is not opinion. That stuff happened.

Michigan went three decades, twice, refusing to play ND and trying to marginalize the Irish in the Midwest.

Big Ten guys say "Big deal. Ancient history It is not important. Move on".

The anti-Michigan sentiment at ND has always been there and always been very strong. It never left and it is not ancient history.

It never went away just because Michigan finally agreed to play ND in the Seventies.

Michigan refused to play ND for decades. The series only really began in 1978. That is like yesterday to an almost 56 year old guy like me.

It is not like USC or Navy, schools who have played ND since the 1920's.

Michigan is a huge reason that ND fans dislike the Big Ten and don't ever want to be part of that conference.

Was there a big desire to beat Michigan when they played? Damn right, sure.

But, I won't miss Michigan and would say the same if ND had beaten them ten times in a row.

Something had to give with the five game ACC move. Why not dump Michigan?

Michigan was making noises about canceling the series or have big gaps in the games, anyway.

The quotes from David Brandon are there. He kept talking about how Michigan may need to shelve the ND games.

Swarbrick beat him to the punch. "Here, read this letter. ND canceled first before you could". Too bad.

I'd rather ND look South, West and Southwest for its future, not towards the Midwest.

People accuse ND of being stuck in the past then chide ND for breaking with the past and making changes.

What outsiders think about the series is not important. It seems a much more significant match up to them.

I'd rather ND play someone like Texas, Oklahoma etc...

TerryD - Here's the thing: I challenge you to find a list of grievances this long about any school that Notre Dame plays (including USC). If that isn't a big-time rivalry, then I don't know what the heck is.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Michigan IS a rivalry for Notre Dame, and pretty heated one at that. I'd say the same thing to Michigan fans that say the flip side of what you're saying ("Pffft... we'll just schedule Alabama and other marquee teams more. Screw the Irish.") I have no issue with ND not scheduling Michigan anymore as a result the terms of the new ACC arrangement, but it's just strange to see both the ND and Michigan fan bases continue to deny that they don't care about the game. The denial by both fan bases here is bordering on pathological. It's one of those situations where everyone can see it except for the two parties that are fighting with each other.

(05-16-2013 11:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 10:45 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-16-2013 09:01 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  Notre Dame has played Michigan State twice as many times as Michigan and I think ND owes Michigan State because they were willing to play them when several Big Ten schools like Michigan were not. I think this makes perfect sense.

Agreed.

There is a history of a ton of bad blood (off the field) between Michigan and ND from about 1910 until today.

Michigan has tried to kill ND's program in the past. There were boycotts and attempts at boycotts. That is not opinion. That stuff happened.

Michigan went three decades, twice, refusing to play ND and trying to marginalize the Irish in the Midwest.

Big Ten guys say "Big deal. Ancient history It is not important. Move on".

The anti-Michigan sentiment at ND has always been there and always been very strong. It never left and it is not ancient history.

It never went away just because Michigan finally agreed to play ND in the Seventies.

Michigan refused to play ND for decades. The series only really began in 1978. That is like yesterday to an almost 56 year old guy like me.

It is not like USC or Navy, schools who have played ND since the 1920's.

Michigan is a huge reason that ND fans dislike the Big Ten and don't ever want to be part of that conference.

Was there a big desire to beat Michigan when they played? Damn right, sure.

But, I won't miss Michigan and would say the same if ND had beaten them ten times in a row.

Something had to give with the five game ACC move. Why not dump Michigan?

Michigan was making noises about canceling the series or have big gaps in the games, anyway.

The quotes from David Brandon are there. He kept talking about how Michigan may need to shelve the ND games.

Swarbrick beat him to the punch. "Here, read this letter. ND canceled first before you could". Too bad.

I'd rather ND look South, West and Southwest for its future, not towards the Midwest.

People accuse ND of being stuck in the past then chide ND for breaking with the past and making changes.

What outsiders think about the series is not important. It seems a much more significant match up to them.

I'd rather ND play someone like Texas, Oklahoma etc...

TerryD - Here's the thing: I challenge you to find a list of grievances this long about any school that Notre Dame plays (including USC). If that isn't a big-time rivalry, then I don't know what the heck is.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Michigan IS a rivalry for Notre Dame, and pretty heated one at that. I'd say the same thing to Michigan fans that say the flip side of what you're saying ("Pffft... we'll just schedule Alabama and other marquee teams more. Screw the Irish.") I have no issue with ND not scheduling Michigan anymore as a result the terms of the new ACC arrangement, but it's just strange to see both the ND and Michigan fan bases continue to deny that they don't care about the game. The denial by both fan bases here is bordering on pathological. It's one of those situations where everyone can see it except for the two parties that are fighting with each other.

That is exactly my point, Frank.

It doesn't matter what others think.

It only matters what the parties themselves think.

I agree with Frank. In some ways, it's actually similar to how Ohio State-Penn State has felt to me (although I don't think the fanbase at large). Penn State has been fine in the Big Ten, but I don't care a lick about having a rivalry with them. My preferred divisional align-up had us in opposite divisions. To me, while the series has been good, they are an east coast school in what I still want to be a mostly Midwestern conference and they are also one of the few who over the long run can compete for highest place in the conference. In the current set-up, I'd prefer Wisconsin being good, as I'd rather build up for a more traditional game than for Penn State.

In the end though, that's what makes Penn State into a rivalry. It's the Beast of the East and I don't want to the Buckeyes to lose to them more than others. It's a different type of rivalry than Michigan (where I have to hear it from half my family if the state up north wins, but where I don't want the game to drop in importance), but a rivalry none-the-less.

I think we can think of different types of rivalries here.

1. Rivalries where you want to beat the other side badly, but both sides want the games to remain important: USC/Notre Dame, Ohio State/Michigan, Texas/Oklahoma, Florida/Georgia, Alabama/Tennessee

2. Rivalries where at least one side wants the other team to fade into oblivion (lessening the importance of the rivalry): Notre Dame/Michigan, Texas/Texas A&M, Penn State/Pitt, Michigan/Michigan State

Rivalries in the second column generate a lot of interest, but are also the ones at a lot more risk with conference realignment as we have seen. I'm not sure where to put Kansas/Missouri in this. I think that one is more likely to come back around as I think it might belong more to #1 and to #2.

Perhaps ND/UMich is like UT/A&M. There too much hate and animosity there for it to survive. I'm sure ND fans and USC fans hate each other as well, but from TerryD's posts there's also at least some respect there for USC having been one of the schools who has always been there to play ND when others wouldn't.

Hate makes a series more intense, but without other factors to sustain a rivalry, it's not likely to last that long. Because when you take that hate to an extreme, what's one of the best ways to express hate for another school? Refuse to play them.

(05-16-2013 11:31 AM)TomThumb Wrote:  Perhaps ND/UMich is like UT/A&M. There too much hate and animosity there for it to survive. I'm sure ND fans and USC fans hate each other as well, but from TerryD's posts there's also at least some respect there for USC having been one of the schools who has always been there to play ND when others wouldn't.

Hate makes a series more intense, but without other factors to sustain a rivalry, it's not likely to last that long. Because when you take that hate to an extreme, what's one of the best ways to express hate for another school? Refuse to play them.

What makes the ND/Michigan situation unique, though, is that we're talking about two alpha dog marquee programs. It's one thing where one school is the clear marquee school in a matchup (so Texas can somewhat more easily shoo off Texas A&M), but ND and Michigan are 2 of the 5 winningest programs in history. They're legitimate equals that refuse to admit that the other side is an equal (whereas most rivalries acknowledge that one side is higher up the food chain than the other even if the one lower on the pecking order wouldn't ever state that publicly). The one thing that Notre Dame and Michigan have in common isn't just that they think that they're better football programs than you, but that they sincerely believe that they are actually better than you PERIOD and that their way is the best way (and anyone that challenges that notion is evil). That is distinguished from the attitudes at other football powers like Ohio State, Alabama or even USC. When ND and Michigan have those *institutional* attitudes (not just on-the-field football attitudes), that gives the rivalry a different flavor and why the schools really reserve a lot of extra hate for each other (as they both legitimately believe that they are better *people* for being alums of their respective schools, hence the insular mentality of ND alums and the concept of the "Michigan Man"). That's what makes the game so unique in college football and why I, as a fan, hate to see it go (as this wasn't really an indirect killing of a rivalry by conference realignment, but a direct choice). What I hope is that the bluster of the two fan bases aren't permeating what would hopefully be more cool-headed administrators.

(05-16-2013 11:23 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree with Frank. In some ways, it's actually similar to how Ohio State-Penn State has felt to me (although I don't think the fanbase at large). Penn State has been fine in the Big Ten, but I don't care a lick about having a rivalry with them. My preferred divisional align-up had us in opposite divisions. To me, while the series has been good, they are an east coast school in what I still want to be a mostly Midwestern conference and they are also one of the few who over the long run can compete for highest place in the conference. In the current set-up, I'd prefer Wisconsin being good, as I'd rather build up for a more traditional game than for Penn State.

In the end though, that's what makes Penn State into a rivalry. It's the Beast of the East and I don't want to the Buckeyes to lose to them more than others. It's a different type of rivalry than Michigan (where I have to hear it from half my family if the state up north wins, but where I don't want the game to drop in importance), but a rivalry none-the-less.

I think we can think of different types of rivalries here.

1. Rivalries where you want to beat the other side badly, but both sides want the games to remain important: USC/Notre Dame, Ohio State/Michigan, Texas/Oklahoma, Florida/Georgia, Alabama/Tennessee

2. Rivalries where at least one side wants the other team to fade into oblivion (lessening the importance of the rivalry): Notre Dame/Michigan, Texas/Texas A&M, Penn State/Pitt, Michigan/Michigan State

Rivalries in the second column generate a lot of interest, but are also the ones at a lot more risk with conference realignment as we have seen. I'm not sure where to put Kansas/Missouri in this. I think that one is more likely to come back around as I think it might belong more to #1 and to #2.

The good news is it appears that the new administration at PSU is actively interested in playing this regularly again. As much as some PSU fans want to deny that it's a rivalry, I think now that Paterno's gone, the powers that be recognize the importance of the game. Plus, the overall series is only 48-42-4 in favor of PSU.

(05-15-2013 08:58 PM)TerryD Wrote:  http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130.../305150407

Good deal!

(05-15-2013 10:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Go read what I wrote about Michigan and ND in the other thread. ND/Michigan State has always been a bigger deal and a longer series/rivalry to ND than the tortured ND/Michigan "relationship".

BTW, Michigan State has beaten Michigan four of their last five meetings. Look at the records the past five years or so. State is right there with the Skunkbears.

You just really aren't very smart. I guess Stanford is a better program than Notre Dame now because of the last three years too.

Sure, MSU is as good as Michigan...if you are only using the past 5 years as your reference point.

The Irish got a good deal: keep a "local" competitor to keep the local kids feeling like ND is a local school, keep a team that isn't a total marshmallow, but keep a team that you'll be able to beat 4 out of 5 years easily and beat your chest about "beating up on the Big Ten."

I'm a PSU fan and I resent the "propped up" rivalry the Big Ten has tried to create for us with MSU. MSU is a solid program, but I'd much rather have Wisconsin or Nebraska or even Rutgers as a local rival for us going forward. Pretty ticked that we have to go back to closing with the Land Grant Trophy.

But I'm glad you Irish fans are thrilled about MSU telling the Big Ten to shove it.

The good news is it appears that the new administration at PSU is actively interested in playing this regularly again. As much as some PSU fans want to deny that it's a rivalry, I think now that Paterno's gone, the powers that be recognize the importance of the game. Plus, the overall series is only 48-42-4 in favor of PSU.
[/quote]

It was almost a tied series in 1981. Pitt was ranked #1 and led 14-0 in the 1st quarter. But then PSU scored 48 unanswered points, destroyed Pitt's NC hopes and Marino's Heisman run...and then PSU never looked back, jumping to a 6-game lead through the 80s (2 national titles) while Pitt fell off the map almost completely since then.

Yes, PSU fans still remember that rivalry fondly too....

The concept of the Michigan Man is the most hilarious thing ever.

(05-17-2013 12:54 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  But I'm glad you Irish fans are thrilled about MSU telling the Big Ten to shove it.

I hope that's just intentional hyperbole. While there are strong ties to the conference there isn't an "SEC, SEC"-like mentality when in comes to scheduling.

(05-17-2013 06:28 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  The concept of the Michigan Man is the most hilarious thing ever.

Right along with the name "Big House", if you know the history, respect the man that started it, etc., it's much more than a silly college tradition.

I love almost all college "tradition"; especially those that get handed down from one generation to the next. It's a great part of what sets collegiate sports apart from most anything else in the world.

(05-16-2013 11:02 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  

(05-15-2013 10:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Go read what I wrote about Michigan and ND in the other thread. ND/Michigan State has always been a bigger deal and a longer series/rivalry to ND than the tortured ND/Michigan "relationship".

BTW, Michigan State has beaten Michigan four of their last five meetings. Look at the records the past five years or so. State is right there with the Skunkbears.

You just really aren't very smart. I guess Stanford is a better program than Notre Dame now because of the last three years too.

Two out of three of them anyway.