Because it's supposed to be the Thursday night season opener. ESPN can't have their first game starting at 10:30 or something.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
no no no no no no no no no
BTW: you can only admire Rodriguez's daughter if you are <18
Let's schedule Arizona!
I read with interest your article on “Who replaces Notre Dame?” and was wondering if Arizona might qualify as a worthy replacement. Seems to me they’d be a step down from Notre Dame but my guess is that RichRod would do just about anything to get Michigan on his schedule. I’m not even sure if we’d want to play him but I suspect that this matchup would generate a lot of interest.
I didn't think a team that hasn't won more than 8 games since 1998 was going to be a hot ticket, even if Rodriguez is there. FWIW, the Wildcats have a game at Nevada in 2015 but nothing else on the docket in the relevant time frame.
I'm opposed to an Arizona series, because the upside is low—you beat a team that hasn't won more than 8 games since 1998—and the downside is high. By 2015, Rodriguez will presumably have some fleet-footed bastards to scare the crap out of you (or he'll be fired, but… probably not). Casteel will still be there and they'll have a weird defense that's kind of like playing Air Force on the other side of the ball. And Rodriguez will start gameplanning for the thing as soon as it's announced. That is a dangerous situation leading to much mirth if it comes off poorly, and you're just a bully if it doesn't.
It is a very Dave Brandon thing to do, though. Not including them was a wishful-thinking-based oversight.
Thanks for putting the thought into the open scheduling date; interesting stuff (as always).
But is the MGoBook putting odds on the open dates turning into additional MAC snacks? And the better question; given the incentives that the current BCS/limited playoff creates, wouldn't it be completely irrational (and, frankly, negligent) to actually schedule a competitive opponent?
Also: I pledge the first $1K to whatever institution (charity, UM, MGoBlog) that would help apply enough influence/pressure to turn this into an Arizona-Michigan home-and-away. Do you think Brandon could ignore a pledged collective $500K to Mott's Children's Hospital by fans if Michigan were to schedule a home and away with Arizona? I think he'd find a way to ignore it, but I would revel in the all the headlines if the story gains traction. And I'd also be interested to see how much fans would be willing to pledge to see these games take place (I realize there is a difference between "pledge" and "pay," but perhaps there are ways around that as well). And we already know RichRod would take the games in a heartbeat ...
Why? Why do you people want this? For revenge? Revenge on a guy Michigan fired after three years? I know Rodriguez was a disaster here but it's not like he was trying to be. Playing Arizona is beating up on the guy we already beat up on for three years… or losing to that guy. Just say no to Arizona.
As far as the 2015-2017 ND games turning into MAC games—snacks is out the window after last weekend—they might be able to get away with it in 2015, when they've got Utah and Oregon State already on the docket. 2015 is an ND/Nebraska home year. In fact, expect that slot to be filled with a one-off guarantee game.
2016 needs a marquee home game. The current home schedule: Colorado, MSU, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa. Unless the Buffs get it turned around in a major way, that's a repeat of this year's lame schedule minus the Dallas game. The Dallas game may have been a stupid thing to do but it was at least a hook for donors. Michigan needs one of those in 2016 and will have to return a trip in 2017.
As far as the limited playoff structure's incentives, I think the new system will be more inclined to reward quality nonconference schedules. Moving to a committee from polls makes it much easier to come to an agreement about the importance of tough schedules and promote last year's Oregon team over Stanford. Polls would never do that because no one is talking to each other and no common goal is settled upon.
Most years there will be a throng of one-loss teams arguing for one of two or three playoff spots, and those teams will be sorted out by schedule strength.
Let's not schedule Arizona!
Brandon won't schedule Arizona because…
I don't think Brandon would schedule Arizona because the risk / reward isn't there. If Michigan loses or splits with Arizona and Brandon's decision to replace RR with Hoke looks very bad. If Michigan sweeps Arizona, he's somewhat vindicated but given the number of down years Arizona has had, the expectations to win will clearly be on Michigan. Just my two-cents.
P.S. If RR came back to A2 with AZ, I would give him a standing ovation. Three years can change a lot of things, but if the game were played tomorrow, I'd probably be (secretly) rooting for RR to upset my own team. Does that make me a bad fan? Am I the only one who would feel that way? I wonder, though I doubt we'll ever know.
This is the thinking of a rational man. The first bit, anyway. I am not down with defecting to Team Rodriguez. Yeah, we screwed him. He screwed us, too. Let's just move on and not have that awkward conversation at the DMV.
In re: why Brandon won't do it, that's the same argument that everyone makes against the Horror II and that's still on the schedule. He does not think like other people. He likes to do things that get attention, no matter what sort of attention that is.
Let's fix our things!
Is Brandon going to take this opportunity to fix the odd-years-good-season-ticket, even-years-bad-season-ticket issues? Perhaps, making it a point to schedule our new games so that they are not away in years we go to Braska and Hell-hole?
Side note: it is amazing how screwed Michigan got in the conference alignment breakdown. Not in OSU's division—which means I'm rooting for the bastards this weekend because it's in my self interest. The four other teams in the division who aren't Minnesota have crossover games with Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, and Purdue. Michigan gets Ohio State. And Brandon couldn't even wheedle out a tiny concession like splitting the Nebraska and OSU games. Hell, when Wisconsin comes on the schedule again Michigan gets all of them on the road in 2016.
The Big Ten division split literally could not have been any worse for Michigan.
They really should flip MSU and Michigan into the other division and hand Illinois and Wisconsin back. That's got better competitive equity now, especially from an intra-division standpoint. It preserves all the relevant rivalries without requiring awkward crossover games and provides a lovely parallelogram of hate between Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. And you can call them "East" and "West".
Gardner slant suck.
This will just turn into more "you love Denard and cannot be trusted", but FWIW:
I don't know if this means much but I played WR at a small college so I have some background when I say that the slant-interception was on Gardner. My HS or college coaches would have chewed my ass for days had I come out of a break that slow.
The key to the slant is your third or fifth vertical step is a hard jab with the outside foot and a sharp turn at less than 45 degrees to the inside. You get low over your toe on the break and accelerate across the middle. The DB is
going to be closing hard and when you round your cut or get out slow they beat you to the ball. I watched that in real time and thought right away it was on Gardner and the replay only confirmed that. He comes out of his break standing straight up and his first two steps are not full speed. Little guys run slants well because they are quicker out of breaks, big guys are better targets because they can block out a crashing DB. Gardner was slow out of the break and he was standing straight up so the jab step wasn't as convincing. That throw was on the money if Gardner runs a good route.
Now, the DB was in great position so that may mean Denard should have gone elsewhere but if Gardner runs a great route the worst that happens is a PBU.
Just my two cents,
Denard throwing it directly at the CB actually lends this credence (also, like, this guy knows what he's talking about) since the DB is expecting the slant to go where he is so he can tackle; Gardner is not there and CB is like "look what I found."
This does not change my depression level because it just moves some of the incompetence to another guy who is critical to the success of the whole thing.
I was wondering how effective you think it is to call for a fair catch when the ball is inside the 10. Shouldn't the returner gamble on the fact that it might bump into the end zone. Is there any real advantage to getting it at the eight instead of say the two?
The conventional wisdom seems to be shifting a bit on punt returns. Previously it was heels at the ten and no steps back. Now punts at the seven or eight often get fair-caught. Until someone charts the percentage of punts that end up in the endzone after landing at the five, six, seven, etc., we won't have a yes or no answer to this, but I think catching punts a couple yards inside the ten is the right move. The value of field position is close to linear for most of the field but plunges once we start talking about the one or two yard line:
The reason for this is obvious: most coaches will trade a down for a yard or two instead of risking the safety. I had the Mathlete take a look at whether this was correct strategy a while back, but unfortunately can't find that post. IIRC, he said that was the right move given the costs of a safety and how frequently you'll suffer one if you just run your usual offense.
By catching the ball at the seven or eight you're giving up the shot at a free first down, essentially, but you're also removing that awkward situation where you're burning a down and still trying to get out from your own goal line. It's the safe play, and probably the right one.
Internet, you are called out.
Amidst all the whining about football refereeing these days, people are STILL complaining about Mike Lantry's kick in 1974.
You would think after almost 40 years of controversy that you or one of your nerdy engineering friends could use modern technology and run a computer simulation to end the dispute once and for all.
This is much more important than the Kennedy assassination.
West Bloomfield, MI
Well? I mean, he's right. Computer engineers, assemble!
Because it's supposed to be the Thursday night season opener. ESPN can't have their first game starting at 10:30 or something.
Had seen the wordy mgo meanderings when the "Extravaganza" was announced, and it may mean that kick-off is 4:30 local time, to a bunch of paying fans dressed as empty benches...
So an 8 pm game would start at 6 pm. And who knows, they may go with 8:30 pm. But even at 4:30 pm I'm guessing for Michigan coming to THEIR stadium a lot of people would take some time off to get there for kickoff.
And hey, I know it's not what Brandon was going for, but if they don't want to "I'll" be glad to play in a road venue with no fans cheering against us.
Utah kicked-off at 7:15 EASTERN this year (albeit against N. Colorado).
I remember them opening with Pitt on Thursday the year before. ESPN usually schedules their first Thursday game of the year at 7:30.
EDIT: http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=302450254 it was 8:30 ET in 2010
It's not like it will be the only game that day. Don't be too surprised if ESPN has a 7 & 10:30 ET doubleheader, with Michigan-Utah as the second game, starting at 8:30 MDT.
As someone who attended the UCLA game in 2000 I totally agree. It was a nightmare to survive that one. So friggin' hot. Avoid the west coast / desert in September.
Totally agree about switching up the divisions. Not only does having the protected game with Ohio only make it harder for Michigan to win the Big Ten, but it is also in the process of doing significant damage to one of the greatest rivalries in college football. Look at what happened to the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry when they were split into different divisions.
If the divisions stay how they are, I don't see how anyone can claim the Michigan-Ohio rivalry is one of the best in college football anymore. Not when the winner of that match-up may just play again the following week or the result of the game is irrelevant because either team has already clinched a spot in the title game. A good rivalry has a lot at stake depending on who wins and you just can't say that is the case anymore with how the Big Ten champion is now determined.
I've started to wonder this:
If it's going to be an obvious fair catch play (either it's a shorter field and you know the punter is going to be skying the ball to let his downers get under and around the ball or you've been fair catching all day) why do punt returners not position themselves a yard or two back to where the ball will land so that it comes down right where the defender is holding up to surround the returner? I realize this wouldn't work every time in hitting the defender but if it does a few things happen:
1. You'll get the ball where it was first touched (where you would have gotten it anyway had you caught it out of the air).
2. You'll have the opportunity to advance the ball without fear of fumbling and the other team recovering since they already touched the ball, so even if you run back to the opposing 5 yard line and you lose the ball and do not recover, you'll still retain posession where the kicking team originally touched the ball.
I'm sure there are some funny bouces that would be bound to happen but it would seem in the long run you'd be better off taking a chance for a big reward with minimal downside if the kicking team does touch the ball.
Too many things can go wrong once the ball hits the ground. The shape of the ball makes bounces inherently unpredictable, and I think you are as likely to have the ball bounce right at and off of the receiver as you are to have it bounce off of a defender and turn into a positive play. I would hate that kind of strategy.
I am, however, quite cool with the catch inside the 10 for the reasons already raised. Punt coverage, especially with the spread-punt in college, has improved, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in the number of punts that are downed inside the 5. Those situations not only limit the playbook, but a 3-and-out often leaves the opponent already in or near field goal range. Just the five yards there makes a huge difference.
I'm not saying this would be an every punt strategy but if you need a play and you're in a bind you may be willing to take some chances. I think the return team knowing the ball will not be caught will prevent crazy bounces hitting them before the defense since they'll be anticipating plus they should be far enough away given the position of the punt returner where the ball is approximately going to fall which will give them time to either avoid the ball or go get it if it hits a defender since it's a no lose situation at that point aside from any possible penalties on the play.
Why the hell is the stadium empty? Have the blue hairs and tin foil hatters joined the students in pregame bachnallia? Loyalty points for NOBODY!!
Wait, it depends. How old will Rich's daughter be in the year of this alleged possible game
Dont look at me that way, I am asking for a friend
You know, because you said this, it makes it seem even more wrong, but that's because I have all the stories from your MGoProfile running around in my head. :-)
In response to the divisional alignment, that was my first reaction when PSU got cratered. Maybe this year it won't matter as much because the B1G sucks, but part of the whole basic division was that PSU is a traditional power. Now they aren't, and won't be fore forseable future. That throws the entire competative balance off, which was the first priority in the alignments. Is there anyway the B1G may re-visit this in the coming years?
I'm stepping into dangerous territory bringing this up, but did anyone else watch the Oregon/Arizona game and get an enormous sense of deja vu? NOT trying to bring up old debates, and yes I know it's his first year and all that, but I just thought Arizona's performance looked really familiar. In the first half especially they moved the ball at will against Oregon and just couldn't score. I think they were something like 0/6 in the red zone, including weird turnovers, special teams gaffes, failed 4th down conversions, crappy fumble recovery luck, etc. I remember watching the first two drives and being envious of the offense design and thinking how familiar it all looked, and then I saw the repeated collapses and continued lack of points and remembered how familiar that felt too.
significantly from our game on Saturday night at ND?
2016 needs a marquee home game. The current home schedule: Colorado, MSU, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa. Unless the Buffs get it turned around in a major way, that's a repeat of this year's lame schedule minus the Dallas game.
Wouldn't this more than likely mean 2015 will be filled with a cupcake or middle tier team then? We already open the season @ Utah, and now our opening is the following week. Would we really open the season with back-to-back away games, against a respectable Utah team and then a marquee team no less? That would be brutal. With Notre Dame being home, going to Utah to open the season wasn't a big deal. Like you said though, 2016 needs a marquee home game now, with Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio all being on the road. We don't want to fill our bye week during Big Ten play with a marquee opponent either, given that it is sandwiched between @Illinois, and Nebraska home in 2015
So we fill 2015 with a cupcake, then start a home-and-home with a marquee opponent at home in 2016, then travel during 2017 when we have we have Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio home.
That is the year we get OSU and Nebraska at home, so we don't have to get a marquee game to make it a good season ticket package. Combining that with the fact that our roster will be loaded with stellar 2012 and 2013 upperclassmen, means we should challenge for the national title that year. I want a big fat cupcake for 2015 to increase our chance of going undefeated.
I'd love to see realignment because the breakdown now just feels silly. UM and OSU should play in the same division; the day when Indiana and Minnesota are being "screwed" out of conference titles because of scheduling will be 1 week before the sun explodes and consumes us all. In the interim, lets make some sense of the divisions and keep the meaningful games intact without resorting to convoluted cross-overs that cheapen the meaningfulness of these games.
why would Brandon have ever agreed to this? I mean, the idea that ever other year we have ND (when this was done) Neb and OSU all the road just seems ridiculous, totally avoidable and almost unfair to the team.
The Big Ten controls the conference scheduling. The AD doesn't get to choose which teams are home or away.
Although I wouldn't go as far as to root for Coach Rodriguez to beat Michigan, if he did win this hypothetical match then I probably would feel good for him. It was terrible to see they way that some Michigan fans treated him and I feel that he would have earned the redemption at that point.
And assuming that Rodriguez has his Death Star fully operational by then, I also think it would be a pretty fascinating matchup in terms of styles & philosophies. The traditional Michigan vs. what-might-have-been-super-innovative Michigan-if-Roadriguez-had-succeeded. Weird & risky, yes, but definitely a must-see game.
Lastly, even without the Coach Rodriguez connection, Arizona would be an interesting team to play just because I don't know if we ever have played them before. And Tucson would make for a rather exotic road trip too.
Is it just me or does Rhett look a bit like eeeee Barwis?
Riiiiitaaaaa, you've got some 'splainin to do!
In that pic with the hair when they were all younger she could be a female mini-me of Rich...same eyes, smile.
(So if seeing her young, then THAT young didn't turn you off...now every time one illicitly lusts after her they can picture Rich).
Somebody needs a life.
It makes me feel good to know that I'm in good negged company. The thing I don't understand is that the chosen negs never make sense. None of your posts are "offtopic" (except, I guess, this one above) yet they are rated as such. At least chose the right option, people! C'mon.
Thats just me. I was bored
Besides, Wednesday is neg M-Wolverine Day.
Tomorrow is Thursday. Not a good day to be ProfitGoBlue
I don't think you'll be alone in celebrating tomorrow . . .
. . . sez the guy who has posted at least ten times in this single thread. As for Profit's comment about inappropriate tagging, please ask Brian to add an "Enough Already" tag -- problem solved.
Might explain why Barwis stayed here and opened his training facility instead of going to zona with RR...
EDIT - Meant in reply to kdhoffma.
I am literally speechless at this response...
You should save a good rant for a time when it fits the abomination. Brian's reference to RR here was entirely appropriate and, really, necessary.
Do you actually read words or just look at pictures and then make arguments?
Forget Arizona. Even if we have to schedule creampuffs for a few years, so be it, but I'd like to start seeing some home and aways with SEC teams. I'd really like to visit some of those schools just to see how the other half lives.
Arizona is miserable, three time zones and a long flight away. The SEC, not so much. There is no upside to playing RichRod.
As for ND, something about how this whole thing went down just has an 'in your face" feeling associated with it. Screw ND.
Brandon's problems. App State was someone else's problem. That is the difference.
I liked RR. I never once rooted against him or said he should be fired. He is getting taken care of now at Arizona. We don't need to stir up anything with that whole situation. Hoke is our coach we are moving in different directions and looking to the future. ND was really cool every year but the last 4 meetings it was just like an exhibition to see which program was the least wounded and in trouble. The program should be running on all cylinders by '15 so we should schedule someone to test ourselves against. I like Stanford if we are going to do the PAC 12 thing or an SEC team that gets great early season rankings like SC or Tenn.
Not interested in Arizona at all - Michigan is usually horrible when it travels to the Far West. No upside. A spread offense with a scrambling QB which gives Michigan trouble ALL THE TIME from Donovan Mcnabb (early 90s) forward. No thanks.
Same goes for Oregon which is like Arizona but good. Forget it. Last thing I want to see is a rout by Ducks. Let's be blunt, we have some nice recruiting classes but it's a wildcard when you play that sort of speed and THEIR stadium is considered the loudest per capita in the US.
Same goes for Washington which is not spread but is West. We just suck in the Pacific Time Zone except for a victory once a decade in the Rose Bowl. I know Washington generally sucks but forget the West unless its USC or Stanford which would be fun matchups.
Of the other options I like Georgia (less sexy) or Auburn (more sexy). Georgia and Auburn to me are the Iowa and Wisconsin of the SEC respectively. Georgia is that cute team that wins its division every so often but gets smoked by the other side of the SEC in the championship game. Auburn is a great team once every 6-8 years and then is decent otherwise. I think Auburn would be more fun for whatever reason.
Alabama - forget it. Either LSU, Bama or Florida is going to be sick good over the next decade. if Michigan ever gets sick good and not "Big 10 good" I'd be happy to play one of those in the Championship game, not a non conference.
The other "fun team" would be Florida State - they are worse than their legacy at this point but maybe are improving. A lot like Miami or Notre Dame - living off a legacy. They'd be equivalent to Notre Dame in talent (but faster I am sure!) I want to get back that pasting at Michigan Stadium in 94 or whateve it was (was there, can't remember! don't want to remember)
Oklahoma State with a gadget offense? It wouldnt scare me so much as an Oregon but a 51-48 game is stupid. If it was Oklahoma and you get a matchup of 2 historic programs - that would be fun. But OK state has all the history of Michigan State.
Everyone else bores me.
My gut? Brandon schedules "safe" Missouri.
I still don't and probably will never understand the love affair some of you have with RR, but ok
This is probably the coolest thing Brian has ever written:
I am not down with defecting to Team Rodriguez. Yeah, we screwed him. He screwed us, too. Let's just move on and not have that awkward conversation at the DMV.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Does anyone have Brian's email address? I wanna ask him what he thinks about scheduling Arizona now that the ND spot in the schedule has opened up.
ND's may be one of those neighbors who you've had good times with, but after they move you realize, "eh, I don't miss 'em that much."
check out the side mirror and who's driving the getaway vehicle.
Won both games, 20-9 in 1970, and 21-17 in 1978. I was at the latter game, and it was a very close contest that AZ had a chance to pull out late in the game.
RR is the third AZ HC with UM ties. Jim Young, one of Bo's assistants at Miami and UM from '64 to '72, was HC in Tucson from '73 to 76. After Young left for Purdue in '77, AZ hired Tony Mason, who had been a UM assistant under Bump Elliott from '64 to '68.