Jack Sawyer, the former Ohio State star defensive end, is widely known for his explosive athleticism and fiery passion on the football field. Having been a pivotal figure for the Buckeyes during his college career, Sawyer often speaks candidly about his experiences, reflecting on moments of triumph and, just as importantly, moments of frustration. One of those moments—etched deeply in his memory—is a particular Michigan game that he feels was distinctly unfair to Ohio State. It’s a topic he revisits frequently, both in interviews and casual conversations with teammates and fans, because to him, the game represented more than just a loss; it was a glaring example of how factors outside of pure athletic competition can sway the outcome, sometimes unjustly so.
From the outset, it’s crucial to understand the backdrop against which this game unfolded. The Ohio State-Michigan rivalry is arguably the most intense in all of college football. The stakes are astronomical every year, not just for the teams but for the entire fan base, alumni, and the broader college football landscape. For players like Sawyer, who grew up knowing this rivalry’s history and weight, each matchup carries an emotional charge unlike any other. When the Buckeyes take the field against the Wolverines, it’s not just another game—it’s a test of pride, tradition, and legacy.
The particular Michigan game Sawyer refers to happened during his tenure at Ohio State, a time when both teams were highly competitive and eager to establish dominance in the Big Ten and nationally. What made this game stand out in Sawyer’s mind wasn’t just the outcome or the statistics, but the way the entire contest seemed to tip unfairly against the Buckeyes due to a combination of questionable officiating, unusual game circumstances, and external pressures. According to Sawyer, these factors coalesced in a way that created an uneven playing field, diminishing Ohio State’s chances despite the team’s preparedness, talent, and effort.
Jack often recounts how the officiating crew in that game appeared inconsistent and at times blatantly partial. This is a sensitive topic in football, especially in such a high-profile rivalry. While mistakes can happen and no official is perfect, Sawyer felt that the errors in this particular game were egregious and disproportionately impacted Ohio State’s momentum. Key calls that went against the Buckeyes were not merely minor penalties; they were pivotal moments that altered drives, shifted field position drastically, and ultimately influenced scoring opportunities. The kind of calls that, in his view, should have been reviewed or corrected but were allowed to stand despite clear evidence on the sidelines and replays.
For example, several pass interference calls went unflagged on Michigan receivers when Ohio State defenders clearly had legal tackles or were making clean plays on the ball. Conversely, minor infractions on Ohio State players were often met with harsh penalties, disrupting the team’s rhythm. Sawyer highlights a few crucial third-down plays where these officiating decisions killed promising drives for the Buckeyes. The emotional toll on the players was evident; frustration built up not just because of the scoreboard but because it felt like the referees were actively working against them, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Beyond officiating, the atmosphere surrounding the game was another element Sawyer mentions as unfair. The environment in Michigan’s stadium is notoriously hostile to visiting teams, but this particular game took it to another level. The crowd noise was deafening, making communication difficult for Ohio State’s offense and defense. While crowd energy is part of the home-field advantage, in this game, there were reports of unsportsmanlike conduct from some fans, including the use of distracting lights and noises at critical moments such as field goals or extra point attempts. Sawyer believes these tactics crossed a line from passionate support into deliberate interference, undermining the spirit of fair competition.
Additionally, the scheduling and timing of the game seemed to compound the disadvantages for Ohio State. The game kicked off late in the evening after a long travel day, leaving the Buckeyes somewhat fatigued before the first snap. Meanwhile, Michigan had a lighter travel schedule and more favorable practice conditions during the week leading up to the game. Sawyer contends that the Big Ten’s scheduling decisions seemed to favor Michigan, whether intentionally or not, and this contributed to an unbalanced contest. It wasn’t just about physical readiness but mental sharpness, both of which were affected by the circumstances outside the players’ control.
Weather conditions also played a subtle role in what Sawyer saw as an unfair tilt. The game day brought unexpected heavy rain and slippery field conditions. Ohio State’s offensive strategy that year relied heavily on speed and precise route running, something hampered considerably by the slick turf. Michigan, on the other hand, adjusted to a more power-oriented ground game better suited to the conditions. While weather is obviously a natural element of outdoor sports, Sawyer believes that Ohio State’s preparation for a dry, fast field was disrupted without adequate time to adapt, something that Michigan capitalized on more effectively.
One of the most disheartening aspects for Sawyer and his teammates was the feeling that, despite all their preparation, effort, and talent, external factors kept stacking against them. It wasn’t just a close game where one team outplayed the other; it felt like Ohio State was fighting an uphill battle not just against Michigan but against a series of unfair disadvantages. This feeling lingered long after the final whistle and colored the way many players reflected on their careers and the rivalry.
What made this experience even more painful for Sawyer was the knowledge that this game had potential playoff and championship implications. The Ohio State-Michigan game often serves as a deciding factor in the Big Ten title race and can influence College Football Playoff selections. Losing under what he perceives as unfair conditions didn’t just affect one game—it possibly altered the trajectory of the Buckeyes’ entire season. That weight is significant for any athlete, particularly one as competitive and driven as Sawyer.
When discussing this game with reporters or in interviews, Sawyer is careful to emphasize that he respects Michigan and acknowledges their skill and effort. His frustration isn’t about undermining the Wolverines’ accomplishments but about calling attention to how the game was marred by elements that detracted from a true test of athletic ability. He wants future games to be played on a level field where talent and preparation decide the outcome, not subjective officiating decisions, hostile interference, or scheduling quirks.
Sawyer’s reflections on this game also speak to a broader issue in college football: the need for consistency and fairness in officiating and game conditions. As the sport grows in popularity and stakes increase, these elements become even more critical to maintain integrity. He has expressed hope that improvements in technology, better training for officials, and stricter enforcement of rules around crowd conduct will help prevent situations like the one he experienced.
In the years since that game, Sawyer has channeled some of his frustration into mentorship for younger players, encouraging them to focus on controlling what they can—preparation, effort, and mental toughness—while advocating for systemic changes in college football that promote fairness. His perspective serves as a reminder that even elite athletes face challenges beyond the scoreboard and that sometimes the greatest battles are those fought off the field.
In sum, the one Michigan game Jack Sawyer points to as unfair is memorable not only for the loss but for the confluence of factors that he believes skewed the competition. Questionable officiating, hostile crowd tactics, scheduling disadvantages, and challenging weather conditions combined to create a scenario where Ohio State’s chances were compromised. For Sawyer, this game stands as a stark example of how external elements can overshadow pure competition and why ongoing efforts to ensure fairness in college football are essential. It’s a story of frustration but also one of resilience and a call for greater integrity in one of sports’ most storied rivalries.
