The complaining on both sides is getting annoying.
i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
On Oct. 1, 1927, Michigan played Ohio Wesleyan in the first game at Michigan Stadium. The game was a success as Michigan started the scoring on a 28-yard pass from Louis Gilbert to tight end Kip Taylor and prevailed easily, 33-0. The new stadium was dedicated three weeks later against Ohio State on Oct. 22, 1927.in 2010, I imagine the dedication will be against MSU. A UConn level opponent is not out of character for an opening game.
The complaining on both sides is getting annoying.
But I pity you for bothering with these people. All that work, and all you get back is "UCONN IS A NO-WIN SITUATION THIS IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THE FUTURE OF MICHIGAN FOOTBALL IF WE DONT SCHEDULE AUBURN WE ARE GOING TO DIE"
Christ, I've never seen so many people get worked up about something that doesn't hurt the team we root for AT ALL. If anything, it helps us, giving us a second-BCS school to play in addition to ND, with the added benefit of the team being pretty darn good and a regular bowl-invitee.
Throw this all on top of the fact that we're coming off seasons in which we lost to the "worst" teams on the schedule, and the audacity some people have around here is astounding.
That's exactly why I've kept myself off the site today.
You are on the site to make that comment but you've, at the same time, kept yourself off the site? Are you some sort of magic man? WITCH!!!!
This post agrees with some of my previously posted opinions, but takes them a step further, and the research is excellent while remaining readable for those who didn't major in stats. Also, I really like the point about the odd-year schedules being so good.
OSU schedules like this: one marquee OOC game and three cupcakes. ND has been getting away with an easy schedule for years, too. And OSU has been rewarded with three NC games while ND has been consistently overrated by the bowl nabobs whenever they manage to win nine or ten games.
Also, even though ND has slipped throughout the years, it is still a rivalry game and is therefore worthy of being the "tough" game of the OOC portion of the schedule.
Scheduling UConn to a home-and-home is questionable because it doesn't seem to help recruiting in the least like FSU, USF, or Texas A&M would have (unless upstate NY has suddenly become a hotbed), but I'll be more than happy with the win.
+1 for nabob.
Between where we play our OOC road games and the recruits in that region. I highly, highly, highly doubt anybody who means anything in the Michigan AD cares about the recruiting appeal of a game - if there was ever such a thing in the first place.
It's 2009. These things called the internet and ESPN 8 The Ocho and cellular phones don't allow schools like Michigan to go unnoticed to any recruit for even a second.
FWIW, I live in Florida and I was able to watch every game sans Purdue/Toledo(Big Ten Network).
"b/c of the BCS MNC format, teams who schedule 2-3-4 BCS opponents in the OOC are jeopardizing their chances at playing in the BCS MNC game."
There's a vast difference between desiring a different BCS-level opponent than UConn and demanding a third or fourth BCS opponent. That straw man doesn't apply to those of us who would have preferred someone else for this one game and this one game only.
The BCS is constantly trotted out as one of the explanations justifying the general weakening of OOC schedules across the country, with the argument appearing to be that you just can't afford more than a single loss if you want a sure spot in the title game, and tough OOC games increase the chances of a loss. That may be true, but that's the same situation that existed pre-BCS. The large majority of national champions have had undefeated seasons, with virtually the entire balance having just one loss. The only champs since 1950 with two losses were Minnesota in 1960, and LSU just a couple of years ago. A single loss in in 1985 or 1995 was every bit as damaging to national championship aspirations back then as it will be in 2009. Even in the pre-BCS years that had divided champions, the situation was still the same: you cannot afford more than one loss if you want to have a chance for the NC. The creation of the BCS has changed a variety of things, perhaps most notably the amount of money involved, but it did not create the situation that you still need to win virtually all your games. That was the same for Miami or Nebraska in 1983 as it was for Florida in 2008.
If the BCS was supplanted by a playoff system that incorporated conference champions from whatever conferences you want to choose, then it's more likely that champions will emerge more often with two and maybe even three losses, given the somewhat unpredictable nature of playoffs. If conference champions were used for a playoff format, then it would be possible to schedule tougher OOC games, since losing OOC games wouldn't affect the conference championships.
to schedule light. it's also the money. i think those 2 factors combine to given us the situation we have today.
not that i'm conceding the point though. as has been hashed out here- Cook, Dec 2008:
You cannot oppose a playoff and be in favor of the BCS in any form: the BCS is a playoff. It is a two-team playoff in a field of 119 teams. Those teams play 12 or 13 games and have schedules so segregated it's impossible to distinguish between one-loss teams in difference conferences. It is the worst playoff that has ever been conceived. It sanctions the idea that there is a real national championship to pursue, then awards it in the worst way possible.
[my highlights] I think the key is the second bolded phrase. There is an official way to win a MNC, as opposed to before. More importantly, as opposed to before, teams are concerning themselves with how to win the dang thing. But including other teams intentions WRT scheduling is inconsequential, b/c we're talking about M, here. The fact is (and I KNOW you know this, Don- i read too many of your posts and hear you too many times on the radio) until about 10 years ago, M didn't care one iota about the MNC. It was out of their control and they were right. Until the BCS came along. Now, they do care. It's obvious in their (Michigan's) scheduling and in the quotes regarding the matter. It's not about the RB and the B10 title anymore. Prior to the BCS, the OOC strength was a mutually exclusive consideration relative to what defined success for the Michigan program: making the RB. Now, that dynamic has changed (again, looking thru the lens of the Michigan program).
Schedule 4 cupcakes and if you make it thru the B10, you are in the discussion for the BCS Champ game....not ideal to us fans. But who here, really, would give a hoot if we played PSU's schedule this year and made it to 11-1 or 12-0? I don't think there are many and even the traditionalists (after a 3-9 schedule), would complain....
I see your point, but do consider:
2006 - PSU @ Notre Dame
2007 - PSU plays Notre Dame
2008 - PSU plays Oregon State
2009 - PSU plays Syracuse (Weak, but "Still a BCS team")
2010 - PSU @ Alabama (pretty aggressive and awesome)
2011 - Alabama @ PSU
2012 - PSU @ Virginia
So, it's probably really 3 cupcakes. They're pretty much on par with us (or in some years, probably better.)
And for people who say the same about ND... I beg to differ as well, as they consistently play USC, Michigan, Michigan State among others.
I agree with you except about ND. They have no conference schedule, So Michigan, USC and MSU ARE their conference schedule. After all, we consistently play OSU, MSU, PSU, etc.
is schedule 1 good team and the rest cupcakes. Sucks less, but still high in sugar.
I don't mind the scheduling of UConn and agree 100% with your post. The only thing I had an issue with is that I thought we would get a little bigger name opponent. Thats not to say UConn is a bad team, its just they do not have the national following of a Miami FL, Colorado, etc. The funny thing about that though is UConn may very well be better then those teams.
All things being said/considered though, I'm happy with this choice because UConn is a BCS opponent, is a team on the rise and respectable, its a very winnable game, and allows us a chance to stay on track for a BCS bowl bid.
Why, my dear OP, you have executed with magnificence!
I think most people who are upset at this game have two issues. One, they had their hearts set on a game of the century versus a team that cannot be denied. When they got a very good Big East team, a team that could go to a BCS bowl, even the MNC, but isn't even close to a position to do that, it was deflating.
The other problem, I think, comes in when people are exclusively Michigan fans. UConn means squat in the National Title picture right now, and Squat Minus in the Big 10. If they're not visible to you, it's easy to assume they're invisible to everyone.
However, please note the BCS weekly tracking from last season for UConn.
Week PS 39
Week 1 39
Week 2 46
Week 3 33
Week 4 27
Week 5 21
Week 6 35
Week 7 30
Week 8 45
Week 9 25
Week 10 39
Week 11 42
Week 12 35
Week 13 35
Week 14 36
Week 15 43
Season Average Rank - 35.63
The system that will determine how good Michigan is, and how tough of a schedule we play in 2010, thought that UConn was the 35th best team in the country last year. It also thought Uconn was as good as 21 at one point. If you ask me, that's a plenty tough team to play.
Arrogance said. I still question whether this is a win/win "money situation" wise for both of us when we do the return game. I still don't see how UConn gets more from the ticket revenue in their house than if they just came to the Big House for a game.
but it can't help us book those big named teams. Lets face it-2008 took away some of Michigan's luster. I don't think many teams are jumping at a chance to play a 3-9 team when they don't know how they will play in 2009. While I personally think 2009 will be a great season, other people are less optimistic. We will just have to wait and see how this plays out.
I don't think the complaint is as much about the school as the deal we made. The feeling is that you could have booked a school of similar calibre and not had to give up the one and one. Most teams prefer when they play a one and one to get a team and conference that matches your team and conference, like MI/WA, MI/OR, and MI/ND. Uconn is not in that conversation at this time, though they are making vast improvements. I just don't see an upside on this decision. We all were going to be there for the opening game anyway. Do we really care if it is Delaware St or Uconn?
1-AA team to a 8-4 BCS conference team.
we already have ND and UConn is a better football team than Washington.
There were other alternatives that also have recent bowl games that wouldn't have cost a one and one, such as Western Michigan. Uconn being part of a BCS conference is not a draw, and cost us a home game.
As for Washington, when we played them in Washington in 2001, we were ranked 10 and they were 15. They were coming off a 3# finish the year before, and so I would conclude that is a better program from a better conference then Uconn.
The point is just that a one and one, in my humble opinion should be at a school and with a conference of similar caliber, and just because we had one 3-9 season and Ohio State keeps embarrassing the Big Ten in bowl games, does not mean we have slipped to Uconn and the up and comers of the Big East.
b/c you HAVE to have just come to the future from 2001.
We were talking about the concept of booking 1 and 1's and I gave past examples showing the precedent of like caliber conferences and teams. I wasn't saying to book Washington today, it was just an example. I'm also okay with booking inferior opponents if that is the way we decide to go, but if we are going to go that route it isn't worth losing a home game to that inferior program/conference. The Uconn decision bugs me, because we don't win with a big game in 2010 against a notable program, and we don't win in 2013 when we have to go out to Uconn to play. Maybe we owe them for giving us a chance to play basketball with their program and this is payback. If so, then at least we got something out of the deal.
UConn is OK because they are a decent team
UConn is not OK because they are boring
Am I missing anything? I'm not trying to cheapen either point of view, it just seems like this is what it boils down to.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that tough non-conference scheduling hurts Michigan's chances of a national championship.
Now and for at least the next few years, the Big Ten is a suspect conference in the eyes of voters. Its best team will be like Penn State last year -- one loss and they are effectively eliminated from contention, barring a collapse by the Big 12 and SEC champion, and USC. The only way to counteract that is by beating a major power out-of-conference. Most years, ND isn't good enough, just like beating Oregon State wasn't good enough for Penn St. last year.
So I think you've got two options: You stick with Michigan's current OOC schedule, and hope to go undefeated or to have the Big 12 and SEC champs get two losses. Or you play a serious top-level opponent and, if you win, you create a public perception of yourself as an elite team that might help you get into the championship game even if you lose one game later on.
I'm not saying one option is clearly better than the other, as it all depends on the circumstances of each year. I'm just saying it's not obvious to me that tough schedules hurt Michigan's chances of winning a national title.
I just hope Michigan starts to plan things far better in advance when it comes to OOC schedules than what we've witnessed the last several seasons. Maybe Rich Rodriguez will apply some pressure on this important point. The financial pressures you've cited above (desire for more home games, desire for bowl qualification and bowl revenues etc.) exists for all BCS teams, not just Michigan. And if we're honest with ourselves, it's not like teams didn't have such pressures back in 1981 or 1992. They did, albeit to a lesser degree.
So if in 2009 these pressures are known and competition for slots is at a very high level, then why all of the last second arrangements? Shouldn't more homework be done years in advance, with a higher number of options being placed on the table early on in the process so that Michigan (and the teams they are courting) can tick off the boxes well ahead of time as to what fits best and creates the highest return?
The current tactic of hoping to land Hampton, Bethune-Cookman or Texas State when all else fails doesn't seem to be working well for Michigan. Maybe I'm wrong.
then why all of the last second arrangements?
the addition of the 12th game in what, 2006 or 7? that and the rule change that we can schedule a 1-AA team every year. most teams (besides M) want the home gate and thus go for the lower level teams.
Now that the 2010 sched is finished, i'd agree that for 2011 and beyond, we should get on the horse right now and get some deals done.
when I'm positive we can beat them. I complained about the scheduling of App State assuming we we're going to crush them. After "the horror" I refuse to complain about any opponent until I am sure the spread and shred is going rebuild my Michigan arrogance again. Until then I remain humbled.