Why are they looking for a 13th regular season game? I thought the NCAA limit was 12 in the regular season and 13 if you happened to play in a conference championship?
Boise State 2011
There is an exception for Hawaii for teams willing to travel there. It doesn't count toward the 12 games. Several BigTen teams have used that exemption in the past. Not sure exactly how that works.
That's retarded as all get out.
Trips to Hawaii are expensive, and the additional game allows teams to pad the coffers a little bit to make up for it.
So they can play a legit opponent? Gotta beef up that poor SOS.
I thought that they get "awarded" a 13th game opportunity if they go to Hawaii. I'm not sure if that rule applies to in-conference games or not.
That's kinda crazy that you're in a conference with another team and get awarded an extra game for playing them away. If we add Rutgers to the Big 10, we should get an extra game, too.
is michigan's schedule full for 2011, that would be a very interesting matchup
Nothing has been officially announced. Just the BigTen schedule.
well if the schedule is not full i want boise state, that would equal 4 home games for out of conference schedule, the only possible hangup would be if boise does not hve an open date at the beginning of the year, michigan wont want to schedule the game after osu, or in the open date right before the big ten schedule starts
According to Boise's website, they have games booked for everything but the opener. I doubt we'd schedule a team like that for an opener game.
Normally I agree that we might shy away from playing a legit opponent in the opener, but I think considering the experience level the 2011 team should have, it would be the perfect time to beef up the schedule. The offense should only be breaking in one new starter (replacing Schilling) on the o-line and the defense won't have lost much except for the corners (and that assumes Warren doesn't leave this year). Combine that with the increase in talent/depth across the board, and I can't think of a better time to schedule an opener like this, even from a "get a win" perspective.
You mean like playing Utah? Or maybe like Connecticut? That's two Boise-ish level teams to start a season. I say -ish because obviously Boise has a better track record than Connecticut, but their at least a BCS team who isn't that bad. Utah when we scheduled them was comparable.
So yeah, I don't think playing a better team to open a season is that out of the question. That said, I don't think we schedule them either.
I think that would be a great game for the opener. The team would have to take the first game seriously, and prepare like it. The problem in playing Appy State was that noone, including the coaches or players took them seriously enough. Not happenin' with Boise give their wins of late. On the other hand, we should have significantly better talent, and hopefully better coaching than Boise. By 2011 we really ought to be able to score quite a bit of points on that type of team. Hopefully we could hold them to no more than 28. And if the game were at Ann Arbor, which is obviously the only way we'd ever play them anyway, I'd feel pretty comfortable with it, but excited for a good game, too.
Just playing devil's advocate, but all of you are assuming that Boise would want to play us. It could be possible that they feel they have nothing to prove and don't want to risk playing against someone other than UC Davis. Or maybe not everyone will jump at the chance to play Michigan.
They have made efforts to play at least one opponent per year. They just finished a home and home with Oregon. They had Washington (yeah, weak) and Oregon State the seasons before.
VPI next year.
In DC nonetheless. My bigger beef is that they get 5 non-conference games a season. They could find a way to schedule another big name per season.
My biggest beef is that they feel entitled to have a legitimate look for the BCS Title Game. Frankly, if they don't play three or four good teams out of conference, no one will take them seriously.
The radio talking heads were flipping out (yesterday?) about this - supposedly we were definitely offered, even with the option of one game, with no return, in order to have Boise play a "legit" opponent.
I can see a million reasons to turn it down, and a million reasons to do it. The biggest thing is that our SOS is only helped if we lose - if Boise goes undefeated, that's 'good' for a team who plays them. Unfortunately, if they lose to a BCS conference team, Boise's ranking would plummet and the SOS of said team would suffer. It's almost as much of a lose-lose as an FCS team is.
They have to do it. You can't run from anyone. If they truly want to win a title, its a risk they have to take. Its not like they would get a shot at a title without a stronger schedule, and if that is the end goal you have to risk the loss. Another secondary BCS bid gets them no closer to the final goal of winning a title, a tougher schedule would. I would rather have the chance to prove my team belonged in the BCS than cruise into the fiesta bowl after crushing a bunch of poor teams.
If you beat them, wahoo...you were supposed to. If you lose, you got beat by a WAC team and your credibility suffers.
I'd say it's a lose-lose unless you gethem mid season when you have worked out the kinks, but don't go to the blue turf.
Aside from some added media exposure there is no upside to playing Boise.
I really can't imagine Peterson still being there by 2011. They might turn into a typical opponent that ND traditionally likes to fill in the bulk of their schedule: decent rep, good computer numbers, but only a very small chance of winning.
And, honestly, UM should once again be superior to a school like Boise State by 2011.