It's got my vote.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
It's got my vote.
sounds like a great matchup
I wouldn't count Western Michigan or Notre Dame in that group. Those games only have a competitive quality because our program is down so bad.
But Boise State would, indeed, be an excellent opener.
Western was 9-4 last year. They are solid on offense. There's no way Lloyd's teams would have blown them out. It's exactly the kind of team that Michigan would struggle with the past 10 years.
And your Notre Dame comment is just silly. Look at the rivalry over time - it's always competitive.
And, gee, I forgot to mention another game in 2007 which was a tough out of conference game.....
Boise has name cache with a national audience in addition to residence in the Top 25 for the last few years. Western just does not have much beyond regional recognition, though may still be a fine football team.
Boise counts in the "Big" column
Did you even pay attention when just two or three years ago, the MAC was what the MWC is now? MAC teams are NOT pushovers, even at their weakest. In fact, until Toledo came in last season, Michigan was, I believe, the ONLY Big 10 team not to have lost to a MAC team.
I have a hard time believing that Ohio State has ever lost to a MAC team.
I know that they haven't lost to a MAC school since the mid-90's (when they began playing them consistently). They've had several scares/close games, but a MAC team has never been able to knock them off. Like M, but uh, pre-Toledo.
The post classified Western as a high quality or "big" program. The fact that MAC teams are not pushovers and have beaten most B10 teams at one point or another, does not change the fact that no sober college football observer would classify any MAC team at any record as a high quality opponent, a term IMO generally reserved for BCS programs with winning records.
western michigan is a pushover school. they were 9-4 last year but they got hosed by rice. being 9-4 doesn't make them comparable to utah or notre dame or oregon
Last year Western Michigan beat Illinois. The same Illinois that kicked the shit out of us. Give them a little credit. Also, Rice wasn't a bad team last year, a solid bowl team.
"Competitive" doesn't mean "big" out of conference game. A big game is one that gets a national audience and impresses voters on a national scale if you win. Notre Dame hasn't fit that category since 2006 and beating them hasn't been a feat to brag about for most years since the Lou Holtz era ended. Western Michigan doesn't and never will. USC, Oklahoma, Florida, LSU, Texas, Virginia Tech, Oregon, etc. Those are big games.
Boise State, given how they have consistently ended up in the Top 15-20 and won a BCS game a few years ago, is a very good game from both an entertainment standpoint and in terms of getting us in the national picture early on. I would be tickled pink if they would schedule that game.
I'd be ok with Boise State. But only if we did not have to do a home and home with them. No way do I want to see Michigan playing on that blue field.
I linked to would give away that BSU does not require a home and home, though it would be AWESOME to have Michigan play on the blue turf. That's the kind of game that makes college football so unique. Too bad.
Hmmm. I interpreted the Murphy's comments (and the title of the article) to suggest we should be looking for a home and home when I first read it. But after reading it again, it appears what they were saying is that Boise would like a game at home, but because of stadium size it might not be profitable. My bad.
OMG! Maize Uniforms under the lights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, I'd like the Boise State game. Chris Peterson has done a great job with that program, and they love playing the big boys. They reload pretty well every year, so it should be a good game.
Our offense should be firing on all cylinders by that time, and Boise State always has an explosive, wide-open offense. Should make for a very entertaining game that would give some credibility to the schedule.
of Rhona Mitra sitting on my face. Nice pic.
The only thing I like about Boise State is the color of their field/turf !!! Nothing more to me than a MAC team that gets somewhat lucky........
Oregon - good
Utah - good
Western/Boise - Meh...
I would rather SEC, Big 12, ACC type match up... I could give a rats ass about the home game money... Martin will find another way for revenue source... lets play some competition and get rid of the cupcakes....they are a waste of my season ticket (25 years this year!!)
Teams that are ranked in the Top 25 fairly consistently (as Boise State has) can hardly be considered "somewhat lucky." To me, that sounds like sour grapes. I suppose Utah has been somewhat lucky as well, what with their #2 finish last year and all. Beating teams like Oklahoma and Alabama require skill and (with the exception of Florida) is not something Michigan has done lately.
You might "give a rat's ass" about the home game money, but I guarantee that Bill Martin does. He must find a way to produce sufficient revenue for the department, and I am sure he would love to hear your ideas for replacing millions in revenue from filling the Big House for a weekend.
Lastly, I always hate the "they are a waste of my season ticket" complaint; it irks me greatly because many people would be thrilled to attend those games, and season tickets are a privilege. Sure, some games are better than others, but the reality is that neither Michigan nor any other team will be scheduling BCS teams exclusively for non-conference games. As fans, we have to accept this.
You can characterize the "complaints" of season ticket holders any way you want, but we have every right to demand a quality product in return for paying a large amount of money. Delaware State, Bowling Green, UMass and Eastern Michigan simply don't cut it. I'm not saying we schedule four powerhouse ooc opponents every year, but two out of four isn't asking too much I don't think.
BTW, as evidenced by my post regarding today's Freep article, the athletic dept. is doing just fine thank you very much, even in this economy. I don't have much sympathy for the "Bill Martin needs to worry about sufficient revenue" argument.
taking the mindset.... "As fans, we have to accept this". You have the right to disagree.... but I have been the one shelling out almost $2K per year for 25 years for these tickets.... As the old guy in older Merrill Lynch commercials said... I did it the old fashioned way... I've earned it... .I have earned the right to say that scheduling cupcakes for OOC games diminishes MY Saturday Michigan football experience....what would you rather have.... Colorado or Savannah State? Texas A&M, or Eastern Michigan?
I certainly remember the days when ESPN would set up shop on the golf course, right down from my tailgate area... the excitemnt and experience was fantastic. Why do you think they have not been to the Big house in a while??? Because the rest of the fans and their audience would do a big shout out...." WHO CARES !" because of the match up.
so... YOU can accept mediocrity. It does not mean that I have to.
As for the money issue... Martin can find a way... hey.... he just kicked the MDEN out of the Big House for a Texas firm.. let him outsource other marketing and operational activities... he'll squeeze the $$$ somewhere.
ESPN actually came to the OSU-Michigan game in 2007, so it hasn't been a while. Gameday has also only been in Michigan for two out-of-conference games in its history that weren't against Notre Dame, against Colorado in 1997 and against Washington in 2002.
Michigan still schedules Notre Dame (as we all know), and games against Colorado or Texas A&M would not be big enough to draw the Gameday crew today. We would all love to see Michigan schedule someone like Alabama or USC, but that isn't going to happen. Boise State is both a great team and one that would likely fit Martin's scheduling plans, so I say make it happen
EDIT: I forgot my source
I actually contend GameDay would show up for a Boise/UM game, especially if its a season opener unveiling the new Big House.
If this game gets slated--and let's be clear, there has been zero facts put in play that it would, we're talking hypotheticals--but if it gets slated, I will bet a dollar with anyone who wants to take the action that GameDay will be there.
Michigan consistently schedules quality non-conference opponents, including Notre Dame. Utah and Oregon are some more recent examples. This is not about accepting mediocrity. We cannot expect to play top-notch opponents each and every week; having two solid non-conference foes (Notre Dame and whoever else) is more than sufficient.
Also, as another poster mentioned, the basketball facilities are badly in need of a makeover, which will cost serious dollars. And I highly doubt that changing suppliers at football games will make up for 110,000+ seats plus concessions.
Would you pay more for that Ohio State ticket than for other games? I bet you would. So, yes, perhaps the Delaware State ticket is not worth the money to you, but over the course of a season, that is a small price to pay to see the likes of Wisconsin, OSU, PSU, Notre Dame, and the like. In the end, the package itself is well worth it, even if the ticket to one game is not.
Wait - you're advocating that Michigan play a perrenial 6-win team like Colorado rather than a perrenial 10+ win team like Boise St., and you're accusing US of "accepting mediocrity"?
I don't even know how to respond. I guess there's no point, because you wouldn't recognize "change since 1994" if it walked up to you and slapped you across the face.
of a big name opponent. This game epitomizes the high risk, no reward scheduling that has taken over. If Michigan beats Boise State, so what? But Boise State is more than capable of coming into newly renovated Michigan Stadium and beating us. Given that, why not schedule a BCS power (and even get crazy and play a return game on the road Bill Martin!) and then at least you earn the respect of playing a "name" school?
jg2112, no offense but to put Utah and Western Michigan on a list of "high quality ooc opponents" is buying the bullshit scheduling that Bill Martin is selling.
The "easy money" cupcake scheduling really bothers me... think about it... What is there to look forward to on Football Saturday with Delaware State in town? To me... just my tailgate, friends, family and beer. I would rather watch UM play Saline HS if we are stooping that low.
Utah has won more BCS games than Michigan has. Boise St. has won an equal number. Utah has two undefeated seasons in the past 4 years, and their conference is more competitive than the Big East, and arguably as competitive as the Big 10 or ACC.
If you put them in the Big East, they'd win every single year, and if you moved them to the Big 10, they'd be a top 2 or 3 team.
but you can't convince me that playing Boise State or Utah is equivalent to playing Georgia, USC, Nebraska, Virginia Tech, etc. and it simply doesn't compare to the tradition the big programs bring, and the associated build-up and excitement for big ooc games. As a season ticket holder, that's what I want.
Wow, we're disagreeing a lot lately. First, Carr treats bowls as rewards, Utah as grounds to prove themselves. I'm not taking anything away from Utah - they earned those wins - but luck was kind to them last year. Read Matt Hinton (Dr Saturday's) take on them. 4 games by a FG or less, including BYU, Oregon State, and Michigan. Skoda was 11-11 on FGs in those games.
2005: 7-5, T-4th Mtn. West (three-way tie, 4th-6th)
2006: 8-5, T-3rd Mtn. West
2007: 9-4, T-3rd Mtn. West
The Penn State of the Mtn. West in my opinion (every 4 years an excellent team).
Also, there is no reward to playing Boise State. The average fan has no fucking idea, and scoring points amongst the elite fans isn't really necessary. Playing Virginia, Colorado, or Washington would be a much bigger name, even if it would be a worse game, and wouldn't carry the massive downside risk associated with Boise State.
I don't see how we can summarize the state of mind of a 100+ man roster, and their relative levels of motivation going into a nationally televised game so easily.
every single year." Sorry, as Shock points out, they don't win their own conference, so unless you're prepared to argue the MWC is as good as the BE, got to disagree with that one.
I'm confused. Utah and Boise State were both champions of their conferences. What are you talking about?
Shock's post showed that prior to this year they (Utah) haven't been exactly dominating their own conference, which I referred to. So it seems a bit stretchy to say they'd dominate the BE, unless, as I said, you want to argue the MWC is an equal to the BE
Well, coaches do it all the time and we assume their accurate when they asses their own play. I think they're qualified to do so.
When did a coach say his team didn't care?
You questioned whether its possible to properly asses the state of mind and relative motivation of 100 man rosters. I replied that coaches and players do it all the time. They know when they were not properly motivated for whatever reason and often tell us--that's how "we were flat" got into the sports lexicon. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that Ok and Bama were less motivated in those games than Utah and Bama, as the poster you replied to had said.
But, like, you see the difference between a coach saying "they didn't care" (which no coach did) after spending weeks with them in preparation and being on the sideline with them, and someone who watched the game with a beer in their hand from a couch saying it, right?
I must not have read a post closely (no sarcasm) because I never saw the words" they didn't care" except in your replies. Nonetheless, do you believe it's possible to watch a team from the couch with a beer in hand, knowing that one team, Utah, has no national respect despite an unblemished record, and the other team, Bama, is disappointed to not be in the title game (which because of our crap system has devalued the other BCS bowls) and to conclude that a top SEC team would not exactly by hyped to play Utah? I think its a pretty fair assumption to make--not conclusive from any guy like any of us, but a pretty fair guess.
Well, it's an interesting system you've set up.
When a non-BCS team beats a BCS powerhouse, it's because the BCS team lacked motivation - because, why would they want to win a game that doesn't have national title implications?
It's a tidy way convince yourself that the non-BCS team, regardless of the degree of ass-whipping, is always better.
It makes me feel warm and safe.
And not "always better" for sure... but "usually"... yep. That's why they call them upsets--the better, more talented team doesn't always win. That doesn't make it less of an upset.
So why bother playing? You've decided who's better already, right? Let's just give Tebow another NC trophy and cancel the whole thing, because if somebody beats Florida, it's all just noise, right?
because he can do no wrong. Any setback is truly only temporary.
But for anything else, well... I'd support including the champs of the MWC, WAC, MAC in a playoff system should we ever get that. But the current BCS system by it's nature is exclusionary, and outside the 6 conference champs I have 4 other spots to fill, Since the polls and BCS ranking themselves are perceptual, meaning not entirely based on record alone (polls decide most of it), the final choice will itself never be "fair" by many people's definition. So on that basis, if I'm choosing between say, the 2nd place B12 team over the winner of say the WAC, I'll look at those two conferences, one that had a grand total of 9 guys from the entire conference picked in the NFL draft last year, and the other being the 2nd place B12 team, and I have little trouble deciding that it's probable--not definitive but probable-- that the 2nd place team from the B12 is superior. Until we get a playoff system, and even to a point afterwards, the choices are always going to be based on opinion and probability.
That's great. We're not talking about BCS bowls. I'm arguing that Utah and Boise State are good teams. Everyone seems to want to engage in mental gymnastics in order marginalize their tangible accomplishments (like pistol-whipping Alabama) with completely unverifiable, unmeasurable voodoo theories about how major teams don't give a shit a bowls, or something. USC doesn't seem to have this problem when they annually slaughter a Big 10 team like a sacrificial lamb every year, even when it's an underwhelming Illinois team. So why doesn't 'Bama give a shit again? USC barely missed out on the MNC game as well.
Boise and Utah are good teams--they are. The thread started by talking about the merits of those teams for future games. So I'm arguing that excluding future non-BCS conference champs--under the system we have--from playing in those BCS bowls in the first place is no more unverifiable or voodoo than any other subjective decision in the current world of college football. As far as Boise or Utah being better than many BCS schools in a given year, check. And I don't think that two wins out of three in BCS bowls recently is conclusive proof they belong in he elite, or that they would dominate the BE. You do. Ok.
I could not disagree any more regarding Boise.
They will be in the preseason poll and probably comming off another double digit win season.
Who gives a shit if the average Scout/Rivals/GBMW/ESPN comment poster thinks this is a weak OOC game. Frankly, I am stunned that anybody who call themselves a legit CFB fan would think Boise is a bad OOC foe, so I feel you're overexagerating, to some extent, the average fan outcry that would ensure with this game.
We would be putting a team ranked in the top-20 in the Big House for the 2010 opener. I dont see how thats a bad thing, except in your INTANGIBLE world of perception. I could care less about that because I, and most others including yourself, would know that this is a legit game and one we would be excited about.
I loved seeing Utah get scheduled because as one of the best 'mid-major" programs out there, that puts them ahead of about half the BCS schools. If not more. Boise is even better than that, IMO.
though I think the "intangible world of perception" is mostly accurate. I'd rather have Utah and Boise than a MAC team any day because I consider them, in an intangible perception way, to have more prestige. and they do. Just like BCS schools have more than non-BCS schools, and that's true as well, and for good reason (he types, opening up can of worms)
Jamie, I would prefer to play Boise. My point was that the risk/reward is slanted against that ever happening.
"Who gives a shit if the average Scout/Rivals/GBMW/ESPN comment poster thinks this is a weak OOC game." This is equivalent to the average poll voter.
If you put them in the Big East, they'd win every single year, and if you moved them to the Big 10, they'd be a top 2 or 3 team.
So you're saying....Utah or Boise State (year in and year out) would be better than every team in the Big Ten except OSU?
Once again, I couldn't disagree with you more.
I cant speak to what Chitown meant to say, but here is my take. I doubt they win the title every year, or if ever, but Boise could more than hold their own in most BCS leagues, notably the Big East, Big 10 and Pac 10.
Other than OSU, and mostly because their excellence speaks for itself in recent years, I would not expect a single Big 10 team to be able and go into Boise State and win that game this season. Double for the Big East teams. Sure, thats at home, but thats more than a good start towards being competitive in these leagues.
Look, Boise has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt thay they are on NO WORSE than EQUAL FOOTING with Oregon and Oregon State in the Pac 10. Those are annual first division, bowl bound teams from the Pac 10.
and win." Wow. Unprovable on either side of course, but I would expect at minimum, 5 teams including us to do that. And IMO, saying that Boise is on equal footing with Oregon is close to saying that because CMU beat MSU two years in a row, that those two are on equal footing (at the time). Couldn't disagree more.
1.) I did say this year. I'm pretty well versed on the league teams this year and only OSU would I expect to win out there in 2009. There is no way Michigan would win on the Smurf Turf this season. Michigan is, frankly, not good enough. Michigan would not be favored to win that game according to the experts in the desert. Boise would also be favored at home against most of the Big 10 schools.
2.) What exactly does Boise have to do then to prove themselves? If you're not going to accept their series with Oregon and Oregon State as proof that they're on equal footing and compare it to obviously fluky results from almost 20 years ago, then what do they have to do? That kinda sounds like the arrogance of the "Have's" trying to keep down the "have Nots" if you ask me.
3.) Chew on this: Oregon State and Boise played each other four years in a row from 2003-2006. Here were the results.
2003: at OSU, Beavers 26 Broncos 24 (OSU was favored by 4)
2004: at Boise, Broncos 53 Beavers 34 (Boise was favored by 7)
2005: at OSU, Beavers 30 Boise 27 (OSU favored by 3)
2006: at Boise, Broncos 42 Beavers 14 (Boise was favored by 7)
So, Boise woodshedded them twice at home and lost close games in the waning moments on the road. Boise was favored by twice as many points at home as OSU was when they were at home. The experts in the desert more than feel Boise is on at least equal footing given those lines.
In all four of those seasons, OSU went to a bowl game out of the Pac 10. I dont think the teams OSU finished ahead of the league would have fared any better against the Broncos. I have no doubt they would be a bowl elgible team every year in the Pac 10.
Since then, Boise has beat Oklahoma in a BCS Bowl and stomped on Oregon on the road at Autzen. Those teams represented a BCS League Champion and a BCS team that wins 7-8 games in a down year and is always in a bowl game from another BCS league.
This is not even close to CMU beating MSU teams that had a losing record.
You forgot to mention the fact that Boise is currently holding on to a 44-game home winning streak. They haven't beaten anyone huge in that span (Oregon State and BYU), but that is still the longest active home winning streak in the country
And as I said, I would love Boise here and I do agree that we would likely be underdogs at Boise, though that's not the same as not being able to win.
1- Again, this is all speculation so I can't go back and forth. I do agree that they would beat some B10 teams at home, the only question is how many.
2. To prove themselves they have to switch conferences. Obviously that won't happen, but that is the reality. People don't trust the WAC. And perception, despite your contempt for it, matters. And it's not all intangible. The entire conference had 9 players drafted last year by the NFL, and Boise had none. The MAC had more players drafted. That is an indicator, at minimum, of talent level. It proves nothing, I'll hasten to add. But it shows that people don't trust the champion of a conference that is inferior to top level conferences.
3. I don't say Boise isn't a quality team. But as I'm sure you're aware, during this time period the PAC 10 had the title the B10 now holds, that of national perceptual punching bag, (as an aside, why do we get it and the conference that should take all the brunt, the BE or ACC, does not?) with the usual exception of SC. And other than in 2006, it's fair to say that OSU was an average to mediocre team at best. And I believe I said "almost" like CMU.
as an aside, why do we get it and the conference that should take all the brunt, the BE or ACC, does not?
Society has more fun ragging on the ones that fall from its upper echelons than it does ragging on those that have always been impoverished.
You don't need to sell me on Boise. I LOVE Boise State (and Utah). I totally believe they are legit top 25 programs. I would love to see us schedule Boise. I won't argue any of your points because frankly, I agree with them all. I am a big fan of both programs.
However, I have a problem when someone makes the leap and says that they would definitely be THE top team in the Big East or one of the top two teams in the Big Ten, year in and year out. That's just too big of a leap.
They are where they are because of the conference they are in.
You can't just say that because they beat OSU and Oregon, they would finish behind USC every year (if they played in the Pac 10). You can't just say they beat Oklahoma in a bowl game, so they would win the Big 12 every year. Utah beating Alabama in a bowl game does not equal "regular season SEC champ". Hell, we beat Florida in a bowl in Florida, and that doesn't mean we'd be a top 2 team in the SEC.
I know that's over-simplifying it, but I seem to recall PSU thinking how easy the Big 10 would be when they first joined. How'd that turn out for them? The Hurricanes joining the ACC? Most people thought they would dominate, but it hasn't happened. These were two legit power programs before they joined their respective conferences.
My point in short: beating a team from a BCS conference is different than playing a BCS conference schedule week in and week out.
I don't believe they have the depth to go through a BCS conference schedule week in and week out, but do I think they can compete with any team in any of the BCS conferences on a given Saturday? Absolutely.
....is that they would be a year in, year out bowl eligible team in those leagues. And, their winning record this decade against the Oregon schools, who are always in a bowl game, is strong evidence to support that.
Never said they would win any titles or automatically be the seocnd best team in the league. Some years they might be that good, but in the other years I think they're a solid enough program where if they were in the Pac 10, Big 10 or Big East, they would win enough to fill a bowl spot.
I do feel that no Big 10 team other than Ohio State would beat Boise this season in a game on Smurf Turf.
And, they would roll every Big East team that came out that way. You dont think Boise could stand up to the rigors of the Big East?
post. Not yours.
Would they ROLL THROUGH the Big East this year? Maybe.
Would they be THE top team every year like chi is proposing? Not likely.
I mean which teams would you rather play?
SOUTH FLORIDA (8-5)
UTAH ST (3-9)
I know my answer.
At this point, when the threads get this long, I cant seem to figure out who is responding to who. I just wanted to be clear up that I was not touting championships for those teams, just bowl eligibility. Frankly, by the time of the last post of mine, I had even forgotten that it was a chitown statement that even started the sub-thread.
Roll through? Not the whole slate. Just their home dates. As far as I am concerned, on the Smurf Turf, the burden is on the other team to prove they can go in there and win. I assume a Boise win at home against every Big East team, and the hypothetical line on the game would bear that out. With a puncher's chance on the road against the better teams.
Obviously the WAC provides an easier slate. My hope, more so than Big 10 expansion, is the Pac 10 expands to 12 and somehow Boise sneaks in there. They're not going to go away. I feel like I've been arguing their virtues for years now. All they do win, but the powers that be want more proof.
And, therin lies another subtle reason I'd like to see UM schedule them. It gives them a chance to add more proof to the pot of their legitimacy.....and I kinda like the thought of Michigan being big enough or less afraid than the others, to give them that chance.
Also: to really everyone in this thread, this has been a good discussion. Are we ready for the season or what?!?!?
OSU and maybe PSU, yes.
OSU and maybe PSU, yes.
Looks like this group is split. Although Boise St. is a legit program.. I still want a BCS team for that opener. The reality is that opening with a non-BCS program doesn't attract the positive attention we want (2008 Utah was a great example...) even if the program is a top-25.
There was a post about Pitt the other day. That would be perfect. Washington (traditional matchup with recent home-and-home and Rose Bowls), UCLA (same as UW), Texas A&M would be great to see.
Point being, even though Boise St. would more than likely beat any of the above teams... Pitt, UW, UCLA, and T A&M "sound" so much better.
But what BCS conference team would not want a return visit? The question is not Boise St v BCS, it is Delaware St v Boise St as posed by Rittenberg. I hate lousy scheduling as much as the next guy, but there are some logistical issues that affect the decision besides "let me eat cupcakes!"
You forgot to mention TO WHOM wins over Pitt, UW, UCLA, etc. would "sound" better. To the average "mom and pop" season ticket holder? Perhaps. To any fan with his ear to the ground, pollsters with the Associated Press, coaches (with votes that matter), or any other knowledgeable football viewer, a win over Boise St. will, for a respectable stretch of recent years, trump a win over UCLA. Consequently, the match up becomes something of substance, with a degree of national appeal. I simply refuse to agree with the proposition that a matchup against Boise St. "sounds" pitiful to those who actually matter (at least in comparison to the luke-warm opponents you posit taking its place).
Bringing up the polls -- that cuts both ways.
Writer with an AP vote in Dallas sees the two following scores:
UM 27 Boise St. 20
UM 27 UCLA 20
What is more impressive to him --- assuming (which is more than an assumption) that he spent all day watching Texas play N. Texas and A&M lose to New Mexico and thinks that Boise St. is in Montana!
Also, what game is ESPN going to show first in its highights?
Just goes to the perception over reality argument.. because in reality you are right... which 10% of fans understand.
AP Poll is irrelevant as it has zero bearing on the BCS Standings. That poll is not part of the equation.
The coaches poll is. And, given the biases involved in the coaches poll, I trust that a voter like Bob Stoops would probably say Boise is the better win. After all, he has some experience with that outfit.
But, why not compare the BCS points and ranking of UCLA and Boise. Its not much of a comparison. A 1-loss Boise team will be in the BCS top 20. A 5-loss Texas AM, UCLA, or UVA team would not. So, a win over Boise would indeed help Michigan in BCS standings, not that we really need to worry about that just yet.
That said, I would be very excited about a UCLA, A/M or UVA matchup as well. I just dont think there's a legit argument out there that says scheduling Boise is an example of soft scheduling, a waste of a season ticket or something that could do more harm than good.
I'd be stoked to see that game.
OK, so, 0-12 Washington is preferable to 12-1 Boise St.
5-7 UCLA is preferable to 12-1 Boise St.
Got it. Youre guys are right - don't accept mediocrity!
Right, because it's not like Utah went undefeated and finished the season #2 in the AP poll or anything.
But most people consider a Utah, TCU, or Boise St. finishing in the top-10 more like George Mason in the Final Four. Essentially, "how cute and fun"... and no matter what those teams do (beating OU in a bowl for example) most people (right or wrong) would assume a 7-5 Nebraska or Miami is a better team.
It's perception over reality. And consiering we are in reality, coming off a 3-9 season, I want to play the perceived better teams.
EVEN IF IT MEANS A HOME-AND-HOME
Fair enough, although I'm not sure that was UM Indy's point.
Most of us would like to see better games on a yearly basis, but right now a winning season is far more important. For the next season or two, the "cupcake" scheduling won't bother me too much.
I agree with what you are saying, especially the last sentence. I think the problem with Boise is that IF they come to AA and beat UM, they become the next App St. (perception). I think UM needs to find a BCS team with a decent name, but that should also be a "W" for UM. Tough to find??? Maybe. Impossible??? No.
So basically, if UM loses, it can't look bad. And if UM wins, it can't look like a cupcake victory.
Do you really think a loss to Boise State would be looked upon as worse than, say, a loss to UVA, Texas AM, UW, Wassau and teams like that, meaning subpar non-winning season BCS teams?
Or that beating those teams is a better win than beating Boise?
Honestly, I dont care how retards at RCMB would respond. Real college football followers would know otherwise.
I have now disqualified myself from being a real college football follower
No, you have not disqualified yourself.
The retard comment (a regretful one, mind you) was geared towards the notion that we're worried about how fans of other teams, message boards and what not respond to either a win or a loss. I frankly could care less about any of that.....I mean, it cant get any worse than it now towards our team. The knowledgeable fan comment came right after that. No knowledgeable fan would say a loss to Boise is something to laugh at and no knowledgeable fan would say a win over Boise is 'meh' and I know you're knowledgeable. Prefering to beat another hypothetical foe over another hypothetical foe is generally a matter of taste. While I would love wins over UW and the Aggies, I must ask the following:
If you could, say, choose to sub Delaware State with Boise or UW this year and be guaranteed a win, you would really choose UW? I think that would hurt our BCS standing, where a Boise win would elevate us.
Not that BCS standings will matter for the 2009 Wolverines.
Perception matters, as I said, but I'm with you in that I could give a shit how other fans, message boards, etc think. I do concern myself with national media (MSM and knowledgeable blogs like this one) because a perception of "quality" wins affects the intangible prestige, which impacts reputation, which impacts future recruiting, the lifeblood of the program. And using your example, I would also agree that I would choose Boise. I do admit however, that if possible, there are a ton of BCS schools I'd rather have here over the Broncos, but as we know that won't likely happen.
But, you understand that Washington is complete and utter shit, right?
They've gone 1-10, 2-9, 5-7, 4-9, 0-12 in the past 5 years. Washington State was called the worst team in the history of BCS football last year...and then beat Washington.
Just ask Oklahoma how to schedule. They played TCU and Cinci last year, two programs "perceived to be soft." All those opponents did was vault Oklahoma in front of Texas in the BCS.
Cincy went to BCS bowl (won the Big East) and TCU went 10-2. Wouldn't call them soft.
that Boise has moved beyond the George Mason Cinderella type of story now, and is a bit more like Gonzaga. If you schedule them, you know you better bring your game or they're going to get you. Though I suppose that could be my perception of BSU foisted on the general CFB audience. At any rate, George Mason was relavant one season. Boise has put together a pretty good run.
I would "like" this.
...and then go tell someone to Fuck Shit Up
is particularly enlightening. Thank you for this.
for your post above. So you really think Bill Martin should just schedule a home and home with a big name school? I mean, just, WOW! Bravo. That's the kind of original, enlightening thing that we need more of around here. You've opened doors for me that I never knew existed.
Let's compare our posts and objectively discern which is more relevant. Thanks for playing.
what you said was relevent. It was also relevent the first thousand times someone else said it. So which post is more worthless? One that repeats something for the thousandth time or an attempt at humor that, clearly, goes over the head of some people?
But hey, next time I want to say that I like something I'll ask your permission first. Until then you can keep your douchey comments off my posts. Kthanks
Boise State does not represent a traditional powerhouse football team. Their history is OK, and they are not BCS. However, I think most fans realize that they are a strong team who will play extremely well.
The reason I vote no, is that this game will mean more to BSU than it does to M. We will be their 1 big BCS opponent game, and that doesn't help M as much. Also, BSU understands this, as they are not asking for a home/ home.
M needs to play an average (#20-50 or so) BCS opponent with historical ties to M, or at least a strong football history of their own.
We won the NC against them. Too easy unless Wulff is capable of actually turning the program around. Or how about Nebraska, just to settle the score, even though that has already been done in the Alamo Bowl?
I really like the Washington idea. We played them a number of times in the Rose Bowl and in regular OOC games, plus they could be on the upswing under Sarkisian. Two great public universities with history and tradition.
offers further support for the proposition that UM can AFFORD to schedule better teams and not dismiss out of hand the notion of home and home series.
"U-M athletic department projects budget surplus of nearly $9 million"
Keep in mind that we have some of the worst basketball facilities in the Big Ten. Beilein and the program deserve a practice facility. It's shameful that we have gone without one for this long.
Bill Martin's job is to make sure that the athletic department is profitable. If you really want Michigan to schedule tougher opponents, organize a boycott of cupcake games. If the attendance for the Deleware State game is below 100,000, maybe that would be enough of a PR hit to force the AD to make a scheduling change.
I wouldn't mind playing Boise State, but it doesn't have the "big name" appeal to it that facing a Texas or USC carries. For the first game at the remodeled Big House, I'd much prefer an opponent of the latter's stature.
As for our "high quality" non-conference schedule, I honestly don't even consider ND a non-conference opponent since we face them every friggin' year. I mean, every year when they release a new schedule, do you even bother to see when we face them or do you go straight to looking to see what "other" opponents we face? Probably the latter.
Did some folks just start watching football?
Boise State would be a great matchup. Very worthy.
And, there's a good chance that with Boise in the Big House for an opener that GameDay would even show up. Trust me, they would drool over this game.
This team has lived in the top-15 for about 6 years now. If they dont require or hold a hard line on a return game, I say sign them up.
I would be very excited to see this game. Nobody would opine that UM is playing a soft slate or ducking anyone if they brought Boise in for the opener. If anything, it would be one of the most aniticpated games of opening weekend.
They have had series with Oregon and Oregon State this decade and they have been some of the most entertaining OOC during those respective seasons....well, except for the games played IN Boise, which were Boise blowouts.....this team can play and its legit.
And, to folks who say, it's a lose-lose because we're supposed to win, but if we lose people will mock. Whatever. Grow a pair and get tough. Thats short sighted analysis anyway. People who follow this sport from coast to coast know exactly how tough Boise is and what sort of hisotircal matchup it would be. I think folks are underestimating the reward here, when they say this is high risk, low reward....but even if it is, are you really going to argue we should not bring Boise in because we might lose? Why bring anyone in then?
I would love to see home and away with SEC, ACC and Big 12 teams, but you need two to tango. A lot of those programs are not seeking out road games at big programs, so you cant pin this all on Bill Martin.
I dont know what to tell people who think scheduling Boise is some example of soft scheduling or a waste of a season ticket.
Honestly, if you aren't excited about Boise playing at the Big House, you are either new to college football, have not bothered to really analyze the national landscape or you need to find a new favorite sport.
I couldn't agree more, or say it any better.
to be an awesome game. It will be a different matchup and I don't get to see Boise State play often so it will be interesting. I think we could get a better matchup with a bigger conference opponent, but this has to be an option for the season opener.
Works for me.
This game should definitely help with our national perception (so long as we win, or don't get blown out), without creating the stressful atmosphere of an early season visit from LSU or USC or what have you.
I think it would be great.
In the last 7 seasons they have a record of 80-11 (88%! Taking out last season we are 74% over the previous 6 seasons).
They have beat such teams as Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Oklahoma(!), and lost close games to teams such as (highly ranked) TCU(17-16) and Louisville(44-40) who was 11-1.
They have finished in the top 15 5 of the last 7 years with a top 5 appearance after beating Oklahoma.
Yes, they play in a non-BCS, but they are no scrub. This type of mentality is why we lost to ASU. The BCS schools are overrated. Can you honestly say that you think that BSU wouldn't be able to easily beat at least half of the BCS schools?
We should be able to pull out a win with the right state of mind, which is the biggest thing for the home opener and "opening" of the "new" stadium. And it would give credit to the schedule when they end up in the top 15 again that year, whether we win or lose.
I want to see a team who has more traditional name appeal help us reopen the Big House. It would be a great chance to play a team like Georgia, Oklahoma, Miami or LSU, who are teams we always seem to miss out on playing. Bill Martin ought to be willing to make something like this happen given the budget surplus, even if he has to do a home and two away games. This is a special game, and we should be willing to pay the price to make it special. If we are not going to schedule a powerhouse, then they ought play a directional school from MI.
Boise St., this is what they do, take on the big boys. If we win, we're supposed to win, if we lose, more 'Michigan upset in home opener' talk.
I'd like a bigger name that we have a decent chance to beat but nobody would ,like, know...how about Auburn! They sorta,uh, suck right now! Pick 'em while they're down! Also, they are SEC, hey, hey...
Do they have a spot for us?
you all realize that USC/Texas/Georgia/LSU/other elite school has to AGREE to play Michigan, right? We don't just highlight them in the schedule window and press triangle.
Boise State is really a great game for teams with NC aspirations. They are a great win because they raise your computer and poll rankings, but really shouldn't be a threat beat a truly elite team more than about one time out of ten. Notre Dame has inflated their rankings for years by scheduling teams from lesser conferences with winning records.
It looks like everybody would win here. Boise State would get a fat paycheck and a chance to "put up or shut up," while UM would get a game that should be competitive for a half or so and a victory over a team that should be ranked coming in.
Even the BCS would win here, because a loss to UM would keep Boise State from whining about their bowl slot if they went on to run the table against mostly inferior competition.
For some reason, though, when something looks like a win-win situation in college football, it usually doesn't happen.
DO IT. and make it a night game...
Boise State would be a great match-up, though at this point I think they would be the favorite unless this team shows drastic improvement next year. I know that Boise St. will not be as good as a few years ago when they beat Oklahoma, but they would be a bowl team in any BCS conference, and would be a great test. If UM lost, I do not think people would call it some massive upset, especially if UM keeps it close.
But if UM does play Boise in 2010, is there a chance they would go out to the Blue Tundra and play Boise on their home turf? I would actually like to see that - UM almost never plays an OOC game on the road except against ND and the random Pac-10 team, and I think it would help the program to be seen as one willing to battle a good team on the road (especially considering that other big name teams not in the SEC - USC, OSU, PSU, Texas) have shown a similar willingness.
Many of the above posters see this as all risk and no reward. If Boise State is such a bullshit team, where's the risk? This is all about not being embarrassed (anymore!) by non-BCS schools, especially for such a big occasion. Pity that many posters' BCS-bias prevents them from being able to see reward in beating a quality football team, especially a team has the potential to be the favorite if the game was played at a neutral site or on the smurf turf.
I'm especially surprised by all the negativity because Boise State has been by far the most successful non-BCS team over the last ten years. They have the highest winning percentage of any team (BCS or non), they won the 2007 Fiesta Bowl in dramatic fashion, and they have a fantastic coach in Chris Petersen.
If you doubt that Boise State is a great program, read this:
Good discussion folks, even who I disagreed with.
I want to point out a game worth watching on opening weekend this season.
Thursday, Sept. 3, 10om, ESPN
Oregon at Boise.
We'll see what happens.
But, to folks who dont buy Boise, or who would equate them as not a high profile or worthy opponent, I offer the following bet:
I get Boise, you take Oregon. $1 for each taker.
We will settle up the morning of 9/5 at my WMU tailgate.
You know, other than WMU-UM, that is the game I want to see most on openening weekend (or uh Thursday if you're picky.)
How bout Slippery Rock they always draw well at the Big House.
I agree our OOC schedule isn't the worst but check out Georgia Tech's in the future:
2010 Kansas/Georgia (away)
2011 Kansas/Georgia (home)
2013 - Georgia, Vanderbilt, Alabama
2014 - Tulane, Alabama Georgia
Ohio State has done a 1 and 1 with USC and Texas. I understand our ND Rivalry kind of hurts that, but I really enjoy when we play teams like Oregon. We definitely owe them an ass whooping.
Don't like it.
Huge upside for them, very little for us.