Michigan will be the biggest name ever to play there, and UConn is lucky to have a big-time team there while only sacrificing one away game. Are you talking about the Yale Bowl here? Because, like, the New York Giants played there for two years.

First off, here's what the full 2010 football schedule looks like with the addition of UConn: 9/4 - CONNECTICUT 9/11 - At Notre Dame 9/18 - MASSACHUSETTS 9/25 - BOWLING GREEN 10/2 - At Indiana 10/9 - MICHIGAN STATE 10/16 - IOWA 10/23 - Bye 10/30 - At Penn State 11/6 - ILLINOIS 11/13 - At Purdue 11/20 - WISCONSIN 11/27 - At Ohio State I think Connecticut is a good team to schedule for the 2010 season opener. The Huskies should be the type of opponent that should be get Michigan's full effort and will be good preparation for the following week's game in South Bend against Notre Dame. If the offense comes around in 2009, it should be in pretty good shape by 2010. I think it'll take a bit longer for the defense. That said, I don't think it made sense to UM to start the season with a marquee opponent, especially prior to a road game at ND. Prior to the 2005 season, Michigan played Penn State/Michigan State at home and Ohio State/Notre Dame on the road during the even numbered seasons. PSU was off UM's schedule in 2003/4, then came back on in 2005. In that season, Michigan played Notre Dame, Penn State and Ohio State in Ann Arbor and Michigan State in East Lansing. During the even numbered seasons, it goes vice versa--that's what Michigan will see in 2010. In 2011/12, Penn State and Purdue fall off Michigan's schedule. I suspect Bill Martin has asked the Big Ten to rectify the schedule and put it back to what it was in 2002 and earlier by 2013 so that PSU/MSU are road games and ND/OSU are home games in the odd numbered seasons and vice versa. That should even things out. Given the BCS format and the fact the Big Ten has no conference championship game, any team from the B10 pretty much has to go undefeated to get to the championship game. As a general rule, it makes sense to schedule "smart", i.e., with only one major non-conference opponent at the maximum. I don't think this schedule would do much to jeopardize Michigan's chances to get into the national championship game (although I think the team will have to wait until 2011 to really get to national championship/BCS bowl game calibre). Is Notre Dame a major or marquee opponent? Despite being #2 in overall winning percentage and #3 in overall wins, the last two decades (since ND's 1989 national championship) have been kind of a mixed bag for the Irish. Their overall winning percentage is .65984. That's good for #17 overall in Division 1-A and #16 among BCS teams (Brigham Young is #16 overall). But there's been a marked drop off at ND since 1994--Notre Dame drops to #34 overall (.59615) and #26 among BCS programs. The reason I bring this up is that Michigan has a scheduling agreement with Notre Dame going up to 2031. While the terms of the agreement haven't been made, it can be assumed that there will be some breaks in the schedule (this has happened three times since the series was renewed--the most recent was in 2000/1). It can also be assumed that the Michigan Athletic Department sees ND as a marquee opponent and shapes the football team's schedule with that in mind. That means Michigan will not play a second major non-conference opponent as long as Notre Dame is on the schedule. The only time UM fans will see teams like Texas or LSU or Miami-Florida on the non-conference schedule will be when ND falls off of it. It makes no sense--its not smart scheduling--for any major BCS program to put two major non-confernece opponents on its schedule unless its conference is weak (the only one I think that hits that criteria is the Big East). Why does the Michigan Athletic Department like having Notre Dame regularly on the schedule? Despite thier recent recent, ND still has the highest name recognition above any other program in college football. That means there are large fan segments who like the game, its easy to promote for the television networks, recruits like to visit during that game, each team keeps their home receipts, etc. In sum, the UM AD seens ND as a net asset to the schedule and isn't willing to change things up. You could argue--and I would agree--that there are a score of programs Michigan could play that would have essentially the same effect, but we aren't in the meetings making the decisions. It will be interesting to see if this series with UConn marks a change in Michigan's overall scheduling strategy. In recent past, UM's had alternating seasons of seven and eight home games with an eye on revenue maximization. But the landscape is changing and the amount of money programs have been asking for to playing games with no return dates has increased. Just recently, New Mexico State University received nearly $1 million to play at Georgia. UM paid Utah $800 K last year while the two MAC teams--Miami-Ohio and Toledo--received a total of $975K. Will the dollars and cents change the way UM does things so that the Wolverines will only play seven home games a year and annually have a second non-conference home and hom series? It will be interesing to see if UM sets up a second home-and-home series as part of the non-conference scheduling (along with the Notre Dame game). If so, I suspect Michigan will be playing teams in the Top 25 to Top 50 of college football--that would be programs like Clemson or Texas A&M or Arizona State. It would certainly be a step up for Michigan if the Wolverines regularly scheduled Notre Dame, a Top 25-50 program, and two lesser/MAC opponents. We'll see what transpires for 2011/12 when Penn State rolls off the schedule.

I'm going to be 26. Hmm...it might be fun to make the trip out there for the return game.

I'm probably being a nitpicky douche here, but it was in 1995 that we beat BC on the road. In 1994 we played them at home. This was a great post though. Very informative and well-researched. My only beef with playing UConn is that with only 40k stadium capacity, it might make it tougher for me to get a ticket -- but I'll still plan on being there.

Being a Connecticut resident (and assuming to still be one four years from now), I guess I should warm up to this. And I'm all for moving the game to the Yale Bowl, which would be even closer. Still would have liked Syracuse-in-Yankee-Stadium better, though, especially because of this: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/a-snub-for-syracuse/

Can't wait for that Thursday night game in 2013! But, seriously, I'm on board for this. I don't know that we could have asked for BM to find a much better team with only a one year notice. Granted, I'm not sure why attempts to schedule this opener hadn't started much earlier (unless they were kept private). It's a solid opponent and should be a good game, with little prosepct of Michigan being blown out for the opening of the new stadium. Could be worse. Could have scheduled MINNESOTA.