That 3-1 against Colorado is as painful as any of those records.
frank beamer #1
That 3-1 against Colorado is as painful as any of those records.
We own UCLA!!
I remember that game.
We were on our way out of the house just before the final play, and my dad was like, "Hold on, I just want to make sure."
"Aww, come on, dad. We're gonna be late. The game's over."
USC is on that list twice, and there is no Stanford.
Hmm. This part of the story worries me...
One could be featured annually as a preseason kickoff event, perhaps staged at the Rose Bowl. Others could be played in neighboring NFL stadiums, including the planned Farmers Field in downtown Los Angeles, the San Francisco 49ers' new facility or Chicago's Soldier Field.
I'm very much against that idea. Both conferences have iconic stadiums (stadia?) that are great places to see games We know the Big 10, but Autzen, Husky Stadium, Stanford Stadium, Cal's Memorial Stadium, the Colosseum are all great venues. Would playing them in NFL stadiums, away from the home teams fan bases, in many cases places with fewer seats, actually bring more money?
I think it would benefit certain teams. USC or UCLA (obvs) would certainly be willing to play their first game in the Rose Bowl and Stanford would probably be happy to play at Candlestick. Likewise, Illinois or Northwestern would probably be fine going to Soldier Field and MSU has played early season games at Ford Field.
Michigan isn't going to be giving up a home game to play in Chicago or Indianapolis.
I doubt USC would be willing to play at UCLA's home field. They might go for the new downtown stadium though. Who knows, they might move there, though I doubt it, since the Colesseum is close to campus and isnt' going anywhere since it's landmarked.
Candlestick, however, isn't likely to exist by the time these games start. I could imagine Stanford playing at the new 49ers stadium down the penninsula (that's going to be a long way from Berkeley, especially given traffic in the Bay Area), but both Stanford and Cal are or have put big money into renovating their stadiums. Same deal with UW and Qwest Field. The Oregon teams as well as U of A don't have a great pro option. I could see ASU at Glendale, especially given the early season heat, but that's about the only one. Maybe Wazzou at Qwest in a FU move to UW.
For the Big 10, there's no way UM, OSU, PSU, or Nebraska, are giving up home games. Minnesota just built their stadium. Iowa doesn't have a good option. MSU might do Ford Field, Purdue and Indiana might do Indy. The Illinois schools might do Soldier. And Wisconsin might go for Lambeau, but I doubt the Packers are interested in fronting the money to make it happen. Which raises the other issue. We're only going to Dallas because Jerry Jones is guaranteeing us some ungodly payment to show off his palace. I doubt that's going to be the case with every NFL owner.
It definitely isn't for every team, I agree.
However, I think USC, Cal, and Stanford would be willing to do those games, but we can agree to disagree. All of them have trouble selling out their stadiums sometimes.
That's a good point about sell outs. Hadn't thought of that. Makes it easier to move a game.
USC doesn't seem to mind playing in UCLAs stadium every time they get invited to the Rose Bowl though.
I agree, neutral fields are one part of college football that I wish would stay away.
I know it sucks for season ticket holders, and the atmosphere isn't nearly what it is on campus, but I'm all for the Jerry Jones series that's unfolding. If he wasn't cutting a check, we wouldn't have had Oregon/LSU this year and Michigan/Alabama in 2012. I hope he can keep that going; those are way more interesting than watching Michigan/CMU or Alabama/FCS.
Revenge bowl? I guess it could go both ways. You of course could see it as RR avenging his firing (since, you know, he would've been at least as good as 10-2 this year). Or you could see it as Michigan enacting vengeance on RR for a miserable three years.
We already have the matchup with the PAC10 in the Rose Bowl, and it's not like we haven't played plenty of P10 teams over the years. I'd much rather have seen us enter a scheduling pact with the SEC or ACC.
A B1G-SEC partnership would be intriguing, but there are already three guaranteed B1G-SEC matchups in the Gator, Capital One, and Outback Bowls. Since the Rose Bowl joined the BCS, we lost our guaranteed Pac-12 matchup, so this is a good way to rekindle some tradition while creating exciting nonconference games. I love the idea.
As for the ACC, that conference sucks and won't be improving anytime soon.
The Rose Bowl features the Big 10/Pac 12 champions unless one or both are playing in the MNC game.
Like I said, it's no longer GUARANTEED. Since '98, there have been five Rose Bowl games featuring a team from outside the B1G and Pac-12. The Gator, Capital One, and Outback Bowls have guaranteed tie-ins with the SEC and B1G.
The SEC, sure (though I doubt they'd be interested) but the ACC? Why? Who, beyond Va Tech and FSU, and maybe Clemson, would be an interesting game?
There's also the issue of numerical balance. Both the SEC and ACC are now @ 14. Ensuring that every team will have a slot filled for that particular week seasons in advance is crucial if they're going to do the most interesting thing and try to calibrate to league finish the year, or two years, prior.
A few Florida State and Miami matchups might be intriguing purely for historical reasons, but beyond that, there isn't much compelling about a B1G-ACC agreement.
I would prefer the SEC as well, but outside of football they don't offer much. Money is driving this (like everything else) and now the Big Ten has footholds on the entire West Coast, which is better than just getting NOLA and parts of Florida
I find this interesting as travel expenses are going to be huge for the road teams. With the Big House at or near capacity no matter who we play I just don't see how this is about money unless these games are going to be restricted to Big 10/Pac 12 channels to try to drive ratings number or increase buy in.
Great USA Today article...more than football.
...Rethinking the 9-game schedule
Damn, beat me to it.
but I found this interesting:
"Together,the Big Ten and Pac-12 encompass 15 states holding 43% of the nation's population and 22 of its top 50 television markets."
I love the basketball doubleheader idea. It would great to put the 12 Big Ten teams into pairs...
Michigan - MSU
Ohio State - Penn State
Purdue - Indiana
Northwestern - Illinois
WIsconsin - Minnesota
Iowa - Nebraska
and match up with one of the Pac 12 pairs at a sensible location...
Say Michigan vs. UCLA and MSU vs. USC at the Staples Center, Illinois vs. Cal, Northwestern vs. Stanford at the United Center. Michigan and MSU host at the Palace... good times.
I like that idea.
I know college baseball is not followed by that many, including myself. But i could see them doing the same for baseball series. UM-MSU hosting Oregon and Oregon Sate at Comerica, Arizona and Arizona State hosting Iowa and Penn State at Chase Field (Arizona).
Baseball may be the best sport if they wanted to use pro stadiums. B1G country has Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago x2, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, and potentially Kansas City. The Pac 12 has Seattle, Anaheim (Angels), LA, San Fransico, Oakland, Arizona, San Diego, and Colorado.
Obviously the problem is that the venues would rarely, if ever, sell out and thus it would be hard to fork over the money to use the stadiums. Just a wild shot i guess, kind of an interest idea for a non-revenue sport.
Also, hold the phone on dropping ND:
With the additional one-game-a-season commitment to the Pac-12, Delany said the Big Ten — which added Nebraska as a member this year — likely will rethink its move to a nine-game conference schedule in football in 2017.
Our all-time records vs Pac-12 teams:
Redundant. Don't Care. My post has the added bonus of crappy formatting.
yes 8 conference games though we've played these teams before and I would rather have an agreement with the SEC.
Disagree. I think the Big 10, PAC 12, and Big 12 should be publicly chastizing the SEC for oversigning and should more or less refuse to play them outside of BCS games. They have a built in advantage right now and I think the other conferences should be working to eliminate it. Giving them a scheduling agreement validates their practices while exposing the Big 10 to a lot of losses to teams that sign 20% more players every recruiting cycle.
Oklahoma State's team this year is comprised of taking 109 LOIs over the last four years or the same as Bama. Oklahoma in the mid to upper 90s, Texas Tech regularly upper 90s, A&M only one year under 23, Mizzou never under 23 per year. These scholarship numbers are from Rivals since 2002.
I actually really like this - nice concept that could create a pretty cool rivalry between our conferences. I'd like to think that they'll match us up with either USC or Oregon....
I would not like to play Arizona, despite the whole RichRod intrigue. I could see an Arizona/Purdue matchup as interesting...the "Snake Oil" Bowl.
...California already had their schedule made to where they would accomodate such a move as this. Many teams haven't made it that far ahead, obviuously, but Cal specificallly is playing both Northwestern and O$U in the next two years. Cool move, but not necessarily a surprising one.
I agree, and it hasn't been explained yet, but I think it would be crazy to pass on Michigan, Ohio, Beaver, Nebraska Memorial, Husky stadiums, the Coliseum, or the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten and Pac-12 have been thinking creatively, so maybe the headliner game will be played at a Solider Field or (proposed) AEG Stadium when there's a Michigan-USC, Wisconsin-Oregon, or UCLA-Nebraska top-10 matchup.
Also consider the matchups will change and different venues may be appropriate in different years. Indiana vs. Washington State makes sense at Lucas Oil. Cal vs. Iowa at the new (2017) Niners/Raiders Stadium makes sense. An Oregon State home year wouldn't make sense to move to Seattle or San Francisco and they won't play on the road all the time. Same goes for Nebraska, Iowa, or technically Wisconsin (although Soldier Field might as well count, and Wisconsin played there this year).
Plus, LA doesn't have a stadium alternative at the moment, so unless one gets done by 2017, UCLA and USC will have to play at their stadiums or out of town.
Last Meeting vs Arizona: Never
Last Meeting vs Arizona State: 1987 Rose Bowl: L 15-22
Last Meeting vs California: 1979 W 14-10
Last Meeting vs Colorado: 1997 W 24-3
Last Meeting vs Oregon: 2007 L 7-39
Last Meeting vs Oregon State: 1986 W 31-12
Last Meeting vs Stanford: 1975 T 19-19
Last Meeting vs UCLA: 2000 L 20-23
Last Meeting vs USC: 2007 Rose Bowl: L 18-32
Last Meeting vs Utah: 2008 L 23-25
Last Meeting vs Washington: 2002 W 31-29
Last Meeting vs Washington State: 1998 Rose Bowl: W 21-16 (National Champions!)
Overall Record of 48-24-1 vs Pac-12
Last meeting with Arizona was 1978, UM won 21-17.
Last meeting with Cal was 1980, UM won 38-13
Last meeting with Colorado 1997, UM won 27-3
Last meeting with Stanford 1976, UM won 51-0
this doesn't realy excite me though because besides USC or possibly Oregon there are no games to really get pumped about. Washington State, Oregon State, and Arizona= blah but better than MAC games.
Why are you guys scared of ND? So happy about an ND screwing when the matchup provides historic rivals and the winningest programs. This agreement will not make Rose Bowl matchups--it'll make USC-Indiana, Michigan-Washington. Despite DB's need for MOAR Home Games, keeping Notre Dame AND adding a Pac-12 opponent presents the best schedule.
I don't think anyone is scared of ND. People may have a lot of strong feelings about ND, but fear is definitely not one of them.
Could this force ND to go to a conf.?
...would welcome them. Natural rivalries with Ball State (instate), Northern Illinois (Chicago subway alums), Buffalo (gives them their exposure in the east), and they get their annual rivalry trips to the state of Michigan with EMU, WMU and CMU on a rotating basis.
Plus the MAC only has 13 schools right now and Notre Dame will make it an even 14. Like Jesus and his 12 disciples, except with Akron and Kent State thrown in as well.
Brian Kelly clearly has what it takes to win in the MAC.
Hoping for these matchups in 2017:
Wisconsin-Stanford (If Stanford is as good as they are now by then)
Nebraska-Colorado is a no-brainer. It's actually looks really weird to see that on a list of Big Ten-Pac-12 matchups.
to be fair the Pac 12 might be worse than the ACC at this point in time. maybe dave brandon can use his influence to get the games played in ann arbor?
No way. Oregon is a national championship caliber team. Stanford is almost there, and anyone think longterm USC will be held down? Arizona State and Cal are decent, the rest of the conference...meh. But the ACC? They pretty much suck all the way down. No championship caliber teams, decent Clemson, Va Tech and Florida State...and after that, nothing much...I know I am missing someone, but still doesn't matter.