The Basketball Game Of The Season

Michigan Versus Michigan State Basketball Game

On January 17, I attended the Michigan versus Michigan State basketball game. It was, and still is, the only basketball game I have attended so far. One of my friends has season tickets, yet was not in town and thus offered me the ticket, insisting I experience this game. I was in the third row behind the student section, which was actually right behind the Michigan State team bench. It was a sold out game and there were fans packed into each side of the stadium. From my perspective, it looked as if there were more Michigan than Michigan State fans, but that’s just selective attention on my behalf. I have never been happier that I went to this game, as nothing is more competitive then a Michigan versus Michigan State sporting event.

            Right at the beginning, Michigan took the lead. That was the only motivation needed to rile up the fans, the competition as clearly already there. Reflecting on Garcia, Tor, and Gonzalez’s article on the “The Theory of Competition,” it made sense that throughout the entire stadium, you could feel the tension between schools (970). Michigan and Michigan state are rivals, both competing for the same goal: to win the Big Ten. Furthermore, Michigan is climbing up the latter, getting closer to the top, or at least to Michigan State, as they are No. 9 right now while Michigan is 15.  These rankings only compound the competition between these teams that are rooted in a lifelong rivalry between the schools. The rankings influence competition through what is described as a unidirectional drive upwards, which is a drive to reach the top (Garcia, Tor, and Gonzalez 971). The social comparison theory can explain why it was such a close game throughout. Yet, despite the close game, Michigan had a comfortable lead by second half, 47-36. At this point, no one could stop talking about Trey Burke, a freshman who had thus far scored 7 points and would be the one to help score the win at the end. Only once did Michigan State take the lead, at 50-40, for a short time during the third quarter, before Michigan won it back. Also during this quarter, everyone couldn’t help but fix their eyes on the one sports player not on the court, Denard Robinson. Showing his school spirit, Denard was sitting in the back of the student’s section cheering on the basketball team.

            An interesting effect I noticed is that, not only was the competition high between the two teams, but it was also high within the teams, especially for Michigan. As one of my basketball crazed friends explained to me, Michigan’s center, Jon Horford, injured himself and thus didn’t play in the game, which meant that the team only had one post man and no center. Furthermore, the head Coach, John Beilein, removed a key player, Smotrycz, and instead had Douglass start, which was definitely a change for the team. I believe the idea that they were playing with less people, and even less talent, actually increased the competition between the players. This idea can be described with the N-Effect, which states that competition actually decreases when you increase the number of players (Garcia and Tor 871). Thus, the decrease in their normal amount of players in certain positions on the court likely increased competition, as players were seen yelling and prompting each other, which ended in a success. This competitive edge definitely motivated the players, especially the new players brought into the mix, to play the game the best they could.

            The ending score of the game was 60-59, Michigan’s victory. Thus, the last minutes, and even seconds, of the game were crucial. With just second’s left to play, with the help of Trey Burke, Douglass made a layup that put Michigan ahead by one point. It was at this moment, that the crowd went wild. I believe it was through the crowds radiating energy, that at the last second of the game, Michigan was able to rush to their defense and block Keith Appling’s attempt at final shot that could have turned the game in Michigan State’s favor. The buzzer sounded, and it was a decisive victory for Michigan. This win will go down in history, as it is the best win since the 2006-7 basketball season, and not to mention, it was a win against our biggest rivals. The game was over by 8:45, yet I couldn’t seem to get out of the stadium. The dancing and congratulations in the crowd kept every fan cheering long after the buzzer. Circling back to Garcia’s theory of competition, this win affected much more than just Michigan and Michigan State. With this win, the gap between the top teams in the Big Ten and the other teams continues to get shorter, and as teams get closer to the top ranking, the competition will only increase (Garcia, Tor, and Gonzalez 974).

            It is worth comparing the rules observed by sporting games, such as basketball, with those governed by what Huizinga describes as a magic circle, distinct from ordinary life (Huizinga 4). While watching the basketball game, it didn’t remind me of “play,” but rather it was a strict set of rules very much based in reality. The boundaries at a basketball game aren’t limitless and there are repercussions. If a player breaks a rule, for instance, by fouling another player, then the other team gets free shots at the basket. When a player dribbles the ball in the other court in front of all other members of the opposing team, they are penalized. There is a strict code that defines basketball. It can be seen by the players in the game, and also, by real life observers.  In the magic circle, play is more established in our minds and less in reality; the rules of the game are known for “its spatial separation from ordinary life” (Huizinga 19). Thus, I think it is important when discussing and observing the concept of games, that we recognize the diversity of forms in which it can take. Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that, essentially, a game that can be established in reality is mostly defined by society, whereas a game that would appear in the magic circle is one normally defined by an individual’s own imagination, not forced to be grounded in reality.  


By: Taylor Rothman