Watch 'Tiebreaker' clip & see Twitter reaction

BTN Originals premiered Tiebreaker, the network’s first feature-length documentary, Saturday night. The 60-minute show painted an indelible portrait of college football’s most storied rivalry and examined the aftermath of the 1973 Ohio State-Michigan game that ended in a 10-10 tie. With both teams tied atop the standings, Big Ten Athletic Directors voted to send Ohio State to the Rose Bowl. Michigan’s Bo Schembechler called the decision “the lowest day of my athletic career.”

Watch game footage and interviews with the key players from the 1973 game at BTNTIEBREAKER.COM and choose the team you think should have represented the Big Ten Conference in the Rose Bowl.

See what Big Ten fans had to say about Tiebreaker on Twitter:

Check out all of our Tiebreaker videos below.

Watch our Tiebreak trailer:

Watch our Tiebreaker promo:

Michigan AD and 1973 Wolverine Dave Brandon:

Michigan QB Dennis Franklin:

Ohio State RB Archie Griffin:


Your Opinion?
Show Comments (9 Comments)
John D. Hinckley on 11/16/2013 @ 8:56pm EDT Said:

In 1953, Iowa played Notre Dame with a possible national championship on the line. The Hawks outplayed the #1 Irish until late in the 4th quarter when Notre Dame started faking injuries to stop the clock and keep their drive alive. They eventually scored the tying touchdown and the clock ran out with Iowa driving. The final score was 14-14 and may have cost Iowa the national championship that year. Why don’t you do a documentary about that game? Obviously it’s because that Ohio State or Michigan isn’t involved. You guys make me sick because you forget there are other teams in the Big 10 besides Michigan and Ohio State. Also, in 1956 Ohio State came to Iowa City ranked #1 and the Hawks beat them 6-0 with a defensive performance that is legendary in the Big 10. Why not do a documentary about that game?

greg on 11/16/2013 @ 11:54pm EDT Said:

WWaaaaaaaaa1 on 11/17/2013 @ 2:55am EDT Said:

John D Hinckley says:

“In 1953, Iowa played Notre Dame with a possible national championship on the line. The Hawks outplayed the #1 Irish until late in the 4th quarter when Notre Dame started faking injuries to stop the clock and keep their drive alive. They eventually scored the tying touchdown and the clock ran out with Iowa driving. The final score was 14-14 and may have cost Iowa the national championship that year. Why don’t you do a documentary about that game?”

National Championship for who? Sure ND was number one, but it was Iowa’s last game of the season and the tie left them 5-3-1. The Hawkeyes had -zero- chance of winning the mythical NC that year by time Iowa showed up in South Bend.

Mr. Hinckley further states:

“Also, in 1956 Ohio State came to Iowa City ranked #1 and the Hawks beat them 6-0 with a defensive performance that is legendary in the Big 10. Why not do a documentary about that game?”

You are once again playing very fast and loose with the facts. When Ohio State visited Iowa City in the second-to-last game of the year they were 6-1 and ranked 6th, not 1st. Iowa had the identical record and was ranked 7th going into the game. the Hawkeyes weren’t the heavy underdog you imply so a closely contested game with few points scored could hardly be considered legendary.

I know it is tough being an Iowa fan, but I didn’t know it was so tough that you had to make stuff up to justify the making of a documentary. I’ve seen the one that runs on BTN about Iowa’s 1985 season centered mostly around the 1 versus 2 game with Michigan. Of course it also has to go and mention how Iowa lost the top ranking in the rain in Columbus and then got murdered by UCLA in Pasadena.

Frankly, if you can’t see the historical significance of the 1973 OSU-UM game and the unprecedented vote which sent Ohio State to the Rose Bowl as the first ever team to repeat as the league’s representative, or, appreciate the remembrances of some of the finest ballplayers to ever play in the Big Ten, or don’t believe that the human drama and intrigue involved justifies this very fine film then you are just not much of a fan.

    John D. Hinckley on 11/17/2013 @ 11:01am EDT Said:

    I can tell you are either 15 years old or have the brain of a 15 year old. If I got some of the facts wrong then I apologize. I was there for both of the games I mentioned. I am 73 years old and am more of a sports fan than I think you will ever be. I am sure when you watch a sporting event you are in a bar somewhere half drunk and really don’t know what’s going on at all. When I watch sports it is with family or friends that don’t have to use alcohol as a crutch like you obviously do. The biggest thing I get out of your worthless post is that you are from Ohio and can do nothing about it. I am proud to have been born and raised in Iowa (although I don’t live there now). The main point I was trying to make is that the Big 10 Network is so biased towards Michigan and Ohio State that they have no room for the rest of the schools in their schedule. The 1985 Iowa-Michigan game you mentioned was a classic in Hawkeye history and they spent most of the entire hour talking about Michigan and their pouty cry-baby coach Shembechler(sp). Of course I realize that Brent Mustardfaceburger has always been anti-everybody in the Big 10 except Michigan and Ohio State and he always will be. By the way my brother and I drove all night the night before from Denver so we could meet our Father and go to the game. I wonder if you would drive almost 1000 miles to watch your “beloved Buckeyes”. I am also sure that it makes you feel really good to watch Urban Meyer leave his regulars in the whole game and run up outlandish scores every week.

David Esper on 11/18/2013 @ 12:12pm EDT Said:

As usual, the B1G Network is promoting the two perceived “brands” in the conference – – tOSU and UofM. It is all about marketing, fan base, television audience and mon$y. While we like to think of the B1G as a conference of institutions of higher education, for the purposes of athletices it is a money game. The B1G Network is simply a marketing arm for the programs it believes will respond with viewership and coin. Another nail in the coffin of true college athletics.

Michael Bauer on 11/18/2013 @ 12:34pm EDT Said:

I thought “Tiebreaker” was reasonably well-prodcuced, for what it was. Clearly biased for Michigan (otherwise, why make it?), but technically well-produced. Still, at the end, all I could ask myself is, “Why are these guys still whining about this?” I remember watching the game, and I still think that if they couldn’t win on their own field, they didn’t deserve to go. I really never heard one good reason given other than, “It was our turn,” and, “six athletic directors had Michigan backgrounds, so they should have voted for us.” Really? That was your best argument? It seemed like a bunch of still-bitter Michigan die-hards got their hands on a camera and thought, “Now we’ll show ’em!”

It was 40 years ago…you didn’t win on your home field… you never even led at any point in the game…you were the lower-ranked team…Ohio State went on to dominate in the Rose Bowl…it was the right choice…so let it go. Surely Michigan football has a glorious enough history that you don’t need to wallow in this like it was your one chance for greatness. Every school has had disappointments like this. OSU’s faculty once voted to not let them go to the Rose Bowl. Coaches, players, and fans were really angry at the time, but we’ve move on.

In the end all this did for me was make Michigan football look small and petty.

Jeff Bee on 11/18/2013 @ 1:11pm EDT Said:

Was AT the game, south end zone, thanks to AA/UM relatives. Indiana ’70 grad, (working in Chicago at time till moved to Columbus in ’74). Felt M outplayed OSU in the game. But as a neutral (IU) fan, perception was that the fear of USC (or UCLA and even Washington) over those many years, again dominating another Rose Bowl game at that particular time/season… was THE overriding factor, rightly or wrongly, in the vote given the speculation that Dennis Franklin would not be able to play. Watched the TV docu… nicely done, tho it strongly intimates to younger folk who did not experience that era/1973, that M was clearly, no doubt screwed by the AD voters. But Wayne Woodrow’s coaching certainly had not earned OSU a repeat trip to Pasadena, either. OSU had not “won” the game, M lost it. Ooops, well actually, not really, neither is true, after all it WAS a TIE!
The doc did a super job of digging into the politics of it. If only the MainStream Media of today were nearly as dogged and effective at today’s national level.

TomJ in Colorado on 11/18/2013 @ 1:35pm EDT Said:

I enjoyed the show Tiebreaker but thought it was skewed toward Michigan. I mean Corny Greene had a bad hand in that game and Woody didn’t want him to throw which really affected OSU offensively in the second half. The Bucks had 4 passes in the entire game.

And while I remembered only Lantry’s long FG miss & not the shorter one, I remember OSU’s Skladany trying a 60 yarder at the end of the game too. This wasn’t shown in the documentary and if it was, it would haven give the impression OSU had a chance to win at the end as well.

My first year at OSU was ’73 and I am still amazed at the M fan’s complete delusion that they were the better team. Even Bo was quoted in the show as saying they “won” the game. Uh, sorry fellas, it was a tie.

And even tho Franklin was shown throwing a football on Jan. 1, he was primarily a running QB and the Mayo Clinic says it takes months for a broken collarbone to heal. He would have played sparingly, if at all in the Rose Bowl and likely would aggravated the injury. Anybody know who M’s backup QB was? Didn’t think so.

Hindsight is usually 20/20 and given that Bo’s career bowl record was 0-2 at the time and ended up at 5-12 (.294 winning %), there is no doubt that the conference AD’s made the right decision to send the Buckeyes west for the Rose Bowl where they annihilated USC, 42-21.

M fans, consider this decision and our 4 year Rose Bowl run in the ’73 to ’76 classics to be payback for the ’69 upset and for Franklin mouthing off.

MarkD on 12/2/2013 @ 12:15am EDT Said:

Although the documentary was well done, it was a blatant attempt to get the UM football program some much needed positive PR. In reality, the only thing UM football has won recently in the Big Ten are the mythical Recruiting wars which is even is question. This documentary has aired on the BTN in prime time every night for the last 2 weeks. Prior to that was the documentary on the UM RB Taylor from the early 70s that aired numerous times.

Time to focus on the biggest game the Big Ten has seen in years and not a UM football program that is 1-5 against MSU and 1-10 against OSU in recent years.
If BTN was smart it would air a different MSU-OSU game every night this week.
I would air the 74, 98 and 2011 MSU victories and then 2 OSU wins along with their 17-16 win last year which like the 74 game was very controversial.
I would also air the best played meaningful BT game in recent years which was the inaugural BT championship game, a 42-39 MSU loss to Wisconsin in another controversial finish but extremely well played game.

I love watching the BTN but have been fed up with all the UM hype on years past as I know many other BT fans are as well.
One last thing, if you really want to do another controversy, here are two options

Documentary A – MSU-ND 66 game that was tagged the game of the century featuring 4 MSU players taken in the first 8 picks on 1967 NFL draft. At least Woody tried to pass with a backup QB who threw a pic at the end of the 10-10 73 game giving Lantry another chance. In the 10-10 MSU ND 66 game, Ara sat on the ball in a very similar situation that Woody faced at the end of the game.
If you prefer not to do a documentary on this historic game since ND is not officially a BT team, go for

Documentary B – Evolution of the Big Ten Conference including the voting of UM to not allow MSU into the Big Ten. UM even opposed the changing of the Universities name to Michigan State University. Prior to 1947, MSU had to play 29 of 33 games at UM. I’m sure this documentary could also have other controversial but insightful stories from other universities.

I’d be very curious to know what other Big Ten fans think of the repeated airing of the Tiebreaker show and the relentless promotion of UM football even in down years.
Come on BTN, you are better than this.