This post isn't to analyze the match-ups for the game or predict a winner, though I am excited for a competitive game. Not much has changed for MSU's season, they still need to win them all for a shot at the playoff. Michigan has looked solid, obviously, but beyond shutting out three teams of various offensive talents, the argument for Michigan seems predicated on who they've lost to. But we'll see what happens. It will be fun.
Instead, I chose to take a look at the entire series of MSU-UM college games and ask the question, "Who owns the series?". There's no one way of answering the question and your preferred criteria likely depends on which team you root for. For most Michigan fans, the argument starts and ends with the overall series record of 68-34-5 (in UM's favor, duh). A knowledgeable State fan would then point out that 42 of those 107 games were played before what is generally regarded as the beginning of modern college football in 1950. The next relevant win-loss statistic would be the record in the battle for Paul Bunyan's Trophy which began in 1953- Michigan leads 35-25-2. If those are the numbers you prefer, then the argument is already over. I would only discount them by saying that they are mostly padded by two periods of extreme Michigan dominance (from 1916-1933 and from 1970-1983). In my arithmetic of the series, I don't discard any eras or particular wins but with this series as with any sport, I think recent history matters more than games that no living person recalls and should be accounted for in such a way. To answer the question, I divided the series up into several slices of 5 and 10-year intervals with the shorter intervals being more recent. I then weighted them according to my philosophy that recent results trump those from long ago. Using the same weights, I calculated a relative score for each point in time- so if you were to ask the same question in any year, the past results over a given interval would hold the same weight. With apologies for the chart not reading chronologically from left to right, the results are below. (click for a larger view)
How to Read the Chart
At any year, the graph shows "who owns (owned) the series" and to what magnitude. Positive numbers show MSU dominance and negative numbers show UM dominance with the x-axis (0) signifying relative parity. A higher number signifies greater dominance with an absolute value of 1 being total dominance. I have also added in each school's national championships (sans asterisks) to illustrate how each school was dominating ALL competition in those eras. The vertical blue line shows the beginning of modern college football in 1950. To restate, the only thing used to make the graph were wins/losses and their recency.
Take-Aways
Michigan absolutely dominated in the early days of college football. As evidenced by the graph and stockpiling of national championships between 1901 and 1948 UM was one of the early powerhouses of the sport and bullied the MSC Aggies accordingly.
Michigan State picked up where UM left off- stockpiling their own series wins and national championships between 1951 and 1969. The series flip-flopped from Michigan's firm grip established in their dominant years to MSU's favor.
After briefly gaining control of the series, MSU was a no-show for over a decade which swung the series back into Michigan's control. Beginning in 1984 MSU would only win every third or fourth game creating a status quo for the next 20 years. I believe it is this period more than any that shapes the modern perception of the series.
Michigan escaped the status quo by winning six-straight from 2002-2007 but those Michigan gains were short lived due to MSU's recent series-dominance which has brought the series to near parity in my model.
Defense of the Model
As previously stated, personal criteria for this argument is just that, personal. I believe that last year is more important than ten or fifty years ago and my model reflects that. My model still includes every win and every loss back to 1898 but weights recent wins more than long-past victories. The weights I have used are admittedly arbitrary but tinkering with them only makes the graph more or less volatile, it doesn't change the basic shape.
