Interesting take on the UM-UConn series from UConn's perspective and the impact it might have on Notre Dame. UConn's motivation to bend to ND's wishes and play multiple neutral site games as part of the series has basically evaporated. With UConn also getting Tennessee to play a home-and-home series, our decision to do so might be seen as a little more legitimate than previously thought?
UConn Perspective on Scheduling UM and Impact on Notre Dame
If it's true that the 20-yr agreement with ND is on a handshake basis with nothing contractually written in stone, then BM should work out two or three 2-yr hiatuses (hiatii?) in the series so we can schedule somebody else for some variety.
if it were me, i'd have ND off for one year to play team X, then play ND 2 straight, then the return game for team X. or every other year for a 4 year cycle.
Yes yes yes. I love this idea and think 95% of the fan base would be supportive of this type of scheduling. It would allow us to play our ND rivalry without any long layoffs and would also allow us to play top competition from other BCS conferences. This would give our schedule some more variety, would appease our alumni across the country (assuming home and home), and would keep us in a title chase without an overly difficult schedule.
I'm all for it.
I don't like the fact that since we have Notre Dame on the schedule we can't schedule other big teams. We should take a couple breaks every so often and schedule a home and home with a big team.
We should play ND around six times a decade, and play other marquee programs the other four years. Guarantee each four-year class at least two games (one home, one away) against ND, but four is unnecessary.
From the article:
"But Tennessee and Michigan gave UConn hand"... Sounds like my prom night.
You only got hand? How unfortunate.
in his name is just to compensate for what he couldn't get on prom night.
But she did have hands that went to two straight bowl games.
I broke into my date's apartment after prom
(because she was locked out)
Look, i ante'd up for new club seats in 2010 and there is no way in hell I am venturing back to Michigan for a f'ing Delaware State game..(It is the first time I am an official ticket holder as an alumnus, but i have been buying 2 season tickets from a close friend's father, who is a legit long time donor, for the last 10 years)....as it is, i will make it to 2-4 games if am lucky with my work schedule and give the rest of the tickets away to friends or Mott's Hospital. But let's face it, ND is no longer an elite program...they are a competitive team that would be in the top third rung of the B10, Pac10, SEC in good seasons and middle of the pack other seasons.
We should be regularly scheduling a MAC team for a regional local game, a patsy, ND and a top BCS conference foe in 2 year increments and a middle of the road BCS conference foe in the subsequent 2 year increments. If BM wanted to spread this out between 4 yr cycles, fine. But if the athletic dept wants me to pony up year after year, get rid of the 3 patsies and ND scheduling formula. It's BS and eventually is going to alienate the new blood of money that needs to feed the athletic dept budget for the next 20-30 years...
We can make all the excuses about not wanting too hard of a non conf schedule b/c it can impact our BCS championship chances, but I don't care. Once Coach Rod gets the team where it should be, we will be winning 75-80% of the non conf games with regularity.
i'd happily take your spot on the season ticket roster, as i'm sure hundreds (if not thousands) of others would as well.
I don't care if we play EMU, Wayne State, Wayne County Community College, or Cass Tech each week. I go to see UM play (and hopefully win), and could care less about the opponent.
I agree 100%. Take 1991 for example - we opened on the road at BC, then had ND and Florida State at home. Both teams were elite at that time. Bc wasn't too bad either. We also had OSU at home that year. Now that was a ticket package worth buying! Yes, FSU kicked our ass, but at least we played a real team. Besides, the whole pansy thing has biten us in the ass twice, so screw it. Grow a pair and bring Alabama, USC, Texas, or the like in here.
If the problem is money, charge me 10 bucks extra a ticket and schedule a home and home with a real team. I would rather pay 900 bucks for a schedule with great teams, than 800 bucks for a bunch of cupcakes in the 0CC.
I don't get the "we can't play any big-time opponents because of ND" rationale. Once we're back to our winning ways again, who's to say we couldn't go 4-0 against an OOC schedule made up of (for example) EMU, Notre Dame, Georgia, and UTEP?
Then why is UM 3-4 against them this millenium?
I will answer this rhetorical question myself. I see two reasons.
First, it is a rivalry game.
Second, ND has had an ex-UM player or coach as an assistant every year they played them this millenium. It won't matter anymore because RR has changed the system, but having Mattison and Brown made it pretty easy for them to predict what Carr would do.
Michigan does lead this rivalry 20-15-1, and might be able to really put the pedal to the floor the next five years or so while Weis is failing and then ND is rebuilding with another coach. 24-16-1 in five years would be cool with me.
Also, the "two winningest programs" schtick goes far in the national media. Plus only a half-deaf badger (or Robin Hood) would deny that the two greatest fight songs in the land are matched up for UM-ND.
Wonder if the writer dislikes ND?
#1 UConn was added by our past AD who was intentionally trying to weaken our schedule. The big east ties make the football games more convenient. If they (Uconn) feel there above playing ND, I would say "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and I would not be so lonely with those statements.
#2 The reason why none of the games are at UConn is because we have a bit larger national following than UConn and the ADs takes advantage of it. ND is not the only team earning money by playing in larger stadiums, if UConn doesn't see the advantages of playing ND than again I say the best of luck to you.
#3 I think the writer is overestimating UConn's pull, we scheduled them to dumb down our schedule, much to ND fans' chagrin. UM seems to have scheduled them because they wanted an "upgraded" opponent for the reopening of the Big House. Would Um have gone and scheduled UConn for the opener in any other year? I seriously doubt it. I don't know anything on the Tenn. game so I won't speculate.
UConn shouldn't think there running with the big boys just yet, they should be excited about all the opponents that have scheduled them, not complaining that the free steak they just received is over done.
I consider myself an ND defender on this forum, but I have one major problem with Notre Dame: "Holier than thou" mentality. (I had to use that term, ha)
But in all seriousness, ND does the same thing to Navy, Army, UConn and tried to do it to Rutgers. ND refuses to play in the opponent's home stadium (because of the stadium's size.) I think it's bogus, but kudos to Rutgers for not caving in.
I don't think it's right to expect Rutgers to play in Giants Stadium. Rutgers is currently expanding its stadium to begin with, so of course they're not going to want to play in Giants Stadium. If ND said "hey we'll play one game or both games in giants stadium," then perhaps I can understand.
As for Michigan, I'll admit, I wasn't happy about UConn, but it wasn't because of the stadium size. I'll concede that UConn isn't a power house, but they're not bad either. Certainly better than booking a non-BCS school.
With Rutgers I would have loved to play against them, and the past AD might have thought he could strong arm them into whatever setting he wanted. I am personally indifferent to the neutral site game replacing the home game of a smaller school. If they don't like it thats fine I am not going to hold a grudge against them.
I also have nothing against UConn and I like being able to play a new opponent and wasn't really surprised that they were selected to play as the UM opener next year. I just didn't think the writer was doing a very good job of addressing some of the more obvious details of the match-ups.
When the Irish played at Rutgers about 7-8 years ago, it looked like a JV game because the setting was so poor. Like no end zone backdrop. Just hedges and the landscape in the distance.
Irish rolled them, obviously.
A lot has changed when I think about Rutgers then and Rutgers now.
" If they (Uconn) feel there above playing ND, I would say "don't let the door hit you on the way out" and I would not be so lonely with those statements."
It's not UConn who feels they are above ND, its the other way around. ND is the one who insisted on a ten game series with none of the games played at UConn. I would be willing to bet that if the ND/UConn series had two or three games out of ten played in Conn., the writer wouldn't have written that article. I'm sure UConn would love to play a 2 for 1 or even 3 for 1 with one neutral site game, but ND wouldn't agree to it.
While you are right that UConn makes some money off of neutral site games, I'd be willing to bet that gate won't be split 50/50, or even 60/40. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if UConn got less tickets to sell in Giants stadium than they do at home, despite their home stadium being half the size.
how many of you will still want another marquee game besides ND after they hire a real coach?
had ND been anything more than a middle of the road BCS team, this wouldn't be an issue w/ 90% of people.
for me, it's about variety.
for me, it's about variety.
So Bill Martin should take some tips from Wilt Chamberlain (RIP) when it comes to arranging matchups?
I want ND to be good, there to be one directional, one mid-level BCS conf. and one other top flight program. If we lose, we lose. At least we play ball.
if we lose, we lose? really? you think florida fans are mad that they play the citadel every year? hell no, they've won 2 BCS titles the last 3 years with that weak-ass "we'll never leave the state of florida" non-conference schedule. until they make strength of schedule a major part of the BCS system, you shouldn't make the road to the title game harder for yourself. especially when almost no one else is.
Take away the temptation of scheduling the cupcakes, the current system rewards instead of penalizes teams for doing this.
Yes, that is the way I (and many other ticket holders) feel. The difference is that I really don't value the whole BSC make-believe thing, especially if the way to win is by packing in as many weak teams as possible. Schedule good teams, win the Big Ten and win the Rose Bowl. Period.
It is simply more fun to be at a GAME, as opposed to where we play cupcakes. Would you really change going to see great games for a bunch of cupcakes and the hopes that, if we go undefeated, we get to play in a game that has more to with TV ratings than who deserves to be there? (See also, Utah).
Besides, the whole idea of scheduling weak has a way of blowing up in your face every now and again, no?
Schedule good teams, win the Big Ten and win the Rose Bowl. Period.
please, take a gander at a calendar. it's 2009. yes, we do have hover cars.
But, I still think the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten and going to watch good football teams matter more than a mythical national championship. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. I guess we will get MAC teams and I-AA rather than top level teams. Maybe Bill Martin knows his customers better than I do.
Amazing what some people will vote you out a point for. I give em back as I can. Deal with it. Unless you speak in text. No points then.