It was interesting reading a recent Forum post questioning the legitimacy of Michigan’s claim to having the most wins in college football history.  The poster pointed out the dubious nature of some of Michigan’s earliest opponents.  But someone else pointed out that Ohio State’s early years also had some suspect opposition.

And that got me to thinking about other benchmarks we traditionally look at.  First and foremost is the number of national championships.  But, let’s face it: there has been so much subjectivity in how that has been determined over the years.  I started following college football as a kid in the 1960s and, quite frankly, I’m still not sure how coaches and writers made their assessments back then with so few games being televised.  And, even in later years, unless the voters had the opportunity to watch a good number of each team’s games, how was a truly fair determination being made?

And then we have Big Ten titles: until the recent championship setup, the title was determined by the results during regular season play—which would ordinarily be fine, except that the teams weren’t necessarily playing common opponents.  In other words, it wasn’t a balanced schedule  (I suppose that is still a flaw even in the current divisional setup.)

Which brings me to: the one and only major “title” that is determined year in and year out on the field without any extraneous factors is the battle for supremacy in The Game.  There are no ifs or buts.  The ability to earn the Gold Leaf Pants and bragging rights for a year are totally in the players’ control.  And maybe that’s one thing that reinforces and/or adds to the significance of the rivalry game.