Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
Further 2010 Opener Deduction
Filed under:
This is all pretty pointless since apparently it will be announced in a week or so anyway, but dammit I'm interested and given the message board it appears so is everyone else. So, news items:
It won't be a Pac-10 team, and 2011 is not necessarily the return game. Mark Snyder:
The coach expanded a bit on the game to be added for next season's opener, saying it may not be returned by Michigan for a couple of years, one of the criteria of making it work. He also ruled out playing a Pac-10 school, saying U-M doesn't need to do that. That leaves Virginia and Pittsburgh as primary BCS school candidates with an open date early next year.
Cal and Oregon State are dead, then. However, Virginia and Pittsburgh as favorites directly contradicts a previous piece stating that…
The list of Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Oregon State was just wrong, and the team already has a game scheduled for the opener. Chengelis:
The prevailing thought among the media was that the team would be among these four that have an open date next fall -- Virginia, Duke, Pitt and Oregon State. A Michigan official told me today those schools are not candidates and suggested it's very likely the team involved will be making changes to its already existing schedule to make room for Michigan.
So, it's a non-Pac-10 team with an opener scheduled already (ie: not Oklahoma State) and it's not Virginia, Duke, or Pitt. And the implication from Rodriguez above—Michigan "doesn't need to do that," where that is jet out to the West Coast to play a legit team—rules out the super-elite across the country, not that we were going to line up Texas in 2010 anyway.
If you go back to the UV from yesterday that included a list of five teams that had some rumor buzz behind them. Four of them have been debunked; the last school standing is UConn. UConn has an opener lined up against Northeastern already, isn't in the Pac-10, hasn't been specifically ruled out, and wouldn't trip anyone's "we don't need to do that" sensors. Also my inbox has a couple of emails asking if I've heard anything about UConn and one stating "it's definitely UConn." My inbox has another email stating "it's definitely Cal," so the inbox is not exactly definitive. The UConn email says it's from the Michigan side of things and the Cal email says it's from the Cal side of things, FWIW.
I'm still pretty skeptical of the idea that Michigan would give up a precious home game to play UConn when the return trip would be at a 40,000 seat stadium, but a lot of teams have fallen by the wayside and the Huskies meet all the criteria we've heard so far. They're the best guess at the moment, which I guess is better than another MAC school but not by a whole lot.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:26 PM | 
Trying to find the quote, but
Trying to find the quote, but
July 29th, 2009 at 12:32 PM |
You should continue scouring
You should continue scouring
You should continue scouring the Googles to find the quote. It's definitely not highlighted above in the article you are commenting on or anything.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:26 PM |
maybe the huskie home game would be played in patriots stadium*
maybe the huskie home game would be played in patriots stadium*
I cannot recall M ever playing at a small out of conference stadium, and maybe there would be enough interest that the game would be played at Patriots stadium to overcome the small Storrs gate.
Certainly not a game to get very excited about though.
our package is our package, and it’s pretty big. - Greg Mattison, Bowl Practice Presser Tr. 12-13-11.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:41 PM |
Boston College - 1991 (?)
Boston College - 1991 (?)
We did a 2-1 or maybe a 3-2 with Boston College that resulted in Michigan paying a visit to Alumni Stadium (~44k) back in the early 90s.
Checking: http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Michigan.htm
Yup - twice we went to BC.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - J.Lebowski
July 29th, 2009 at 2:09 PM |
It was a 2-and-2 with BC
It was a 2-and-2 with BC
Funny how our OOC schedule really started to nosedive not long after 1997. I guess winning the MNC meant we could start scheduling more cupcakes.
And while I have a great deal of respect for Lloyd Carr, I think the idea of UConn joining the B10 is simply goofy.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:28 PM |
the return game
the return game
for Uconn could be at foxborow or in NYC. this depends on their home schedule, however, as i've heard the Conn. state legislature ruled that Ucoon has to play 6 games a year at their home field.
Harvard: The MICHIGAN of the East
We're not arrogant, we're just better.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:34 PM |
Exactly
Exactly
what I was thinking. If it is UConn, which clearly is not anybody's first choice, the return game would almost HAVE to be at a stadium that holds more than 40,000. The smallest place I remember Michigan playing is Oregon.
"Better to have died as a small boy than to fumble this football" -- John Heisman
July 29th, 2009 at 12:51 PM |
I was just about to write the
I was just about to write the
I was just about to write the same thing. Michigan could fill any NYC/Boston area stadium for one game.
They're the #14 university in the world and also they're really low on tight ends right now
July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM |
What happened to OK State and
What happened to OK State and
What happened to OK State and the Fighting Pickenses? Were they deductively removed from the list at some point?
Edit: Never mind, obviously I didn't read the entire post.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:31 PM |
They were removed because
They were removed because
They were removed because they have an open date and would have no need to move games around to accommodate a trip to Ann Arbor.
EDIT: Beat me to it.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM |
Color me not impressed. As a
Color me not impressed. As a
Color me not impressed. As a west coat alum (with season tickets I'm proud to point out) I would have loved to have seen a Pac10 school scheduled for the 2010 opener and an eventual away game.
I also agree with you Brian that UConn is maybe one click above a MAC school. I would be fine with playing them this year but for 2010 I think the optimist in all of us would see this as a no-win game next fall as by then we should be a well oiled machine that should have no business even winning a close game against the Huskies.
go blue.
“Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.” - Benjamin Franklin
July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM |
A UConn opener would just plain blow!
A UConn opener would just plain blow!
It's a lose/lose for UM! We win and no one really cares outside the fan base. We lose and we just lost to a middling to low BCS team from a weak, weak conference. I'd rather schedule a true pansy and just annihilate them. Meh if this goes down.
There are no corners in space.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:56 PM |
A return game played in
A return game played in
A return game played in Yankee Stadium or the Meadowlands would make this deal very worthwhile.
On top of that, week two next year is probably on the road at ND, who should be at least very good by then.
They're the #14 university in the world and also they're really low on tight ends right now
July 29th, 2009 at 12:32 PM |
I must say, guessing the 2010
I must say, guessing the 2010
I must say, guessing the 2010 opener has proven a nice little distraction while we wait for the season to start. We have rumors, quotes from people in the know, debunked ideas, emails, and the whole gamut.
I also doubt that RR would schedule an elite opponent, if only because Michigan has tough away games at ND, PSU, and OSU next season, but UConn would be a little disappointing nonetheless.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:36 PM |
Does anybody else feel like
Does anybody else feel like
Does anybody else feel like they're waiting for the release of a Halo game here? I'm expecting Michigan to start planting agents in forums to direct us to websites about how much they love bees.
"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."
July 29th, 2009 at 12:40 PM |
It just figures...
It just figures...
After living in Connecticut for the past few years, I'm packing up and moving back to the midwest next week. Of course NOW is the time they talk about actually playing a game out this way. Grr arrrgh.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:01 PM |
Same here
Same here
I actually left Connecticut right before the hockey regionals in Bridgeport (only four miles from where I lived). It would have been a blast to watch them out there.
July 29th, 2009 at 2:42 PM |
OT
OT
If only. Did you catch the part about getting shut out by Air Force? (I went -- it was miserable, followed by Yale's miserable loss to Vermnt, followed by me giving away my tickets for Saturday;s game).
But, as a CT resident, I guess I should be cheering a possible UM visit to the Nutmeg State. Doesn't feel right, though.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:38 PM |
Yeah, I made it down for that
Yeah, I made it down for that
Yeah, I made it down for that one - and as a New Haven resident, I was pulling for Yale too. That was a fun 0-fer weekend, dammit.
July 29th, 2009 at 12:42 PM |
UConn
UConn
I don't think the size of UConn's Stadium is a big deal here. You may recall that the last time Michigan played an out of conference preseason road game against an East Coast team was its giddy blowout of Boston College. The seating capacity for that stadium was and still is 44,500.
mgoblat
July 29th, 2009 at 12:46 PM |
I have to agree with the masses here
I have to agree with the masses here
Man UCONN would be a HORRIBLE game. We all had illusions of grandeur for a huge opponent and per usual they get blown to bits.
Also I don't think that it makes economic sense for UCONN to demand a return game since they could probably make more money off of a 1 and done deal with Michigan...
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"
July 29th, 2009 at 12:45 PM |
How do you get UConn from
How do you get UConn from
"So, it's a non-Pac-10 team with an opener scheduled already (ie: not Oklahoma State) and it's not Virginia, Duke, or Pitt."
That could mean any team with a home opener from 4 conferences minus Duke, Pitt, VA, Oreg St. and you are left with a universe of like ~30, ~35 teams.
"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt
July 29th, 2009 at 12:47 PM |
Did you read his post
Did you read his post
He said that he has had 5 teams that have been said in his inbox... 4 of those are gone... 1 is left.
There can only be 1 highlander!
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"
July 29th, 2009 at 12:51 PM |
Obviously his inbox
Obviously his inbox
has 4 wrong teams (at least) out of 5, so why are we limiting it to that? Hell, I can email him now and say Ohio State, to make his in box have 6 teams. Big deal.
"They're stuck with that quarterback (sophomore Braxton Miller) for the next two or three years, that's fine with me. He throws worse than (Tim) Tebow. - Steve Everitt
July 29th, 2009 at 12:54 PM |
These are people that Brian Trusts...
These are people that Brian Trusts...
It's not like just some random guy it's someone that he's gotten information from in the past.
Ask Brian what their credentials are I don't know
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"
July 29th, 2009 at 12:54 PM |
Why does "Doesn't need to do that" = Not a good team?
Why does "Doesn't need to do that" = Not a good team?
I read Michigan "doesn't need to do that" as we don't need to make a long, draining trip which when we've traditionally had trouble winning away at the Pac-10 after said long, draining trips.
I don't think it means that we don't want to play good teams. I propose a proof by contradition:
- Assume Michigan "doesn't need to do that" means we don't want to play a good team
- Michigan "doesn't need to do that" is then used to rule out Pac-10 teams
- This must imply that the Pac-10 has only good teams.
- Washington. Contradiction.
- QED
Sorry for being such a dork.
Just to point out--Washington has a full schedule for 2010 so they wouldn't be an option but I don't think that really affects the argument--he didn't say "Michigan doesn't need to do that because the crappy teams are taken."
July 29th, 2009 at 1:03 PM |
Agreed- I don't see the jump in logic
Agreed- I don't see the jump in logic
I took the comment to mean - We don't have to schlep out to the west coast to get out asses kicked.
Not- We don't have to play a top-tier team
Not to say that my interpretation is correct, just to say that you can't really make the jump to either one of them.
Is there a possibility that this is some sub-conscious negative interpreting going on?
sparksofattraction.com
July 29th, 2009 at 1:25 PM |
Benjamins
Benjamins
I interpreted the comment as "we don't need to travel that far to clear our minimum payout."
July 29th, 2009 at 2:46 PM |
Except.
Except.
Both of your interpretations are negative.
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
July 29th, 2009 at 12:47 PM |
MIami of FL
MIami of FL
Miami of FL has a open date.....
Believe
July 29th, 2009 at 1:08 PM |
Florida A&M
Florida A&M
is their game on 9-4. Not a big hurdle. But they play at OSU 9-11 and at Pittsbugh 9-25. No way they play at Michigan as well. They're out!
"Don't touch that please, your primitive intellect wouldn't understand alloys and compositions and things with... molecular structures."
July 29th, 2009 at 12:48 PM |
Interesting
Interesting
I took some of the more recent official comments on this to mean that since there will be scheduling shuffling on one part and a while before the return game, that it opened the door to more possibilities that what we're discussing. We'll see. Interested in seeing this resolved, thats for sure.
Count me as being OK with Uconn. Not sure why people are in angst about it.
Is it a big ticket foe we had all dreamed of? No.....but it is hardly a boring cupcake or a MAC team.
They've been to a bowl two years in a row, out of a BCS conference. There seemed to be widespread approval among my fellow masses to schedule Rutgers. What's the difference? They're basically the same team.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:08 PM |
I suspect that Rutgers is
I suspect that Rutgers is
I suspect that Rutgers is preferred because they've gotten significantly more media attention over the past few years than UConn, and because they are in a much, much larger market.
Ann Arbor: now the permanent home of the Little Brown Jug
67-22-3 all-time
July 29th, 2009 at 2:56 PM |
UConn is what, 6 years out of Div 1AA?
UConn is what, 6 years out of Div 1AA?
I think that's why the angst. I think people had their hopes up for a better opponent than the non-cons we've been scheduling recently. I agree that Rutgers is close, but I also think people have a general perception of UConn as not as improved a program as Rutgers. For myself, Rutgers wouldn't excite me either. Not sure why RR thinks "we don't need" to schedule a Pac 10 team. OSU was happy to do so.
"Everyone gets dumped Gabe. Let me give you some advice: a little coverup on your Adams Apple will make it appear smaller. Which will make you appear less like a transvestite."
July 29th, 2009 at 12:52 PM |
How is OK. State out of it?
How is OK. State out of it?
How is OK. State out of it? They're in the Big 12...was that a typo?
Proud To Be An American But Even Prouder To Be A Wolverine!
July 29th, 2009 at 1:01 PM |
They have the date open
They have the date open
They have 9/4 open so they wouldn't need to juggle their schedule which our team is supposedly doing.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:01 PM |
If UConn
If UConn
then disappointed.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:06 PM |
UConn would not play us in Boston/NYC
UConn would not play us in Boston/NYC
UConn got in a huge fight with their state legislature over scheduling home games with Notre Dame in Boston and NYC. Brian just linked the article to this yesterday. http://www.wsbt.com/sports/local/18046769.html
The last thing the UConn athletic department would want to do is antagonize the legislature further by scheduling a home game with Michigan in Giants Stadium.
UConn may see Michigan as a perfect opportunity to show the legislature that they can get top level opponents to play in Connecticut.
And yes, the legislature's involvement and inferiority complex seem incredibly stupid. It's as if MSU grads were running the state of Connecticut.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:11 PM |
If MSU grads were running the state of Connecticut...
If MSU grads were running the state of Connecticut...
They might win the game, Mr. I-have-no-recollection-of-three-and-nine. Get over yourself.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:08 PM |
UConn may have made...
UConn may have made...
a resurgence as of late but they're still not my idea of a marquee non-conf opponent.
I'm gonna take two weeks off, and then quit.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:12 PM |
Given the two pictures Brian put at the top of the OP
Given the two pictures Brian put at the top of the OP
I was kind of relieved it looks to be UConn.
At first I thought it was going to be the Temple Owls.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:33 PM |
I figured FAU
I figured FAU
I figured FAU
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
July 29th, 2009 at 3:53 PM |
I forgot that FAU are Owls too.
I forgot that FAU are Owls too.
But for some reason, I figured Rice had no chance, so I completely disregarded them.
But that really doesn't make sense, as Temple is probably the worse program of the three Owls.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:15 PM |
What About Rutgers?
What About Rutgers?
Rutgers was rumored in one of those articles and a return trip perhaps to the new Giants Stadium or even Yankee Stadium would be interesting.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:16 PM |
My Question
My Question
...is a bit irrelevant, but when the hell is UConn going to change that ridiculous logo?
July 29th, 2009 at 2:38 PM |
I like the logo. I don't see
I like the logo. I don't see
I like the logo. I don't see why something can't be cute when football is involved... when you call the team the Huskies, you should have a Huskie as your logo.
But to answer your question, the football team now uses a block C.
When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing. -- Bo Schembechler
July 29th, 2009 at 1:19 PM |
Mass confusion
Mass confusion
Brian's logic wasn't that difficult to follow.
Actually, it wasn't difficult to follow at all.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:25 PM |
Its Nebraska
Its Nebraska
in a "go to hell" game. That would be the best option I think.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:36 PM |
ESS EE SEE!!!
ESS EE SEE!!!
ESS EE SEE!!!
July 29th, 2009 at 2:26 PM |
Am I the only one getting annoyed by this whole
Am I the only one getting annoyed by this whole
EEEES EEEEE CEEEEE shit? or is it just me?
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"
Trying to find the quote, but if I'm not mistaken, at media days RR said that the opponent will have to make a change to it's 2010 schedule to make it happen. Seems to leave the door open to anyone with an open date anywhere on their schedule next year.