I heard Brandon tried to replace UConn with Okla and they said "no thanks". Don't recall where I read that.
Tennessee is not recruiting well just because they got 18 dudes
I heard Brandon tried to replace UConn with Okla and they said "no thanks". Don't recall where I read that.
I read an article* that had said Michigan approached Oklahoma trying to schedule them, but they said "no thanks". The article didn't specify what year though, and DB has said multiple times that we have a contract to play Uconn, so Michigan is going to play UConn because Michigan "doesn't buy-out of games, they honor their contracts".
I also know that Oklahoma already has a home and a home scheduled with Ohio for 2016 & '17, so that could be why they said "no thanks" to us(or they are just scared of us, yeah that's it!)
*Sorry, I can't link it because it was an Insider article where you need a subscription that I don't have so I don't have access to it myself.
thing DB can do correctly.
Besides hire a head coach.
And bake a bawlin' pizza
Most of that stuff was set up under Martin. I'll give Brandon props for approving Yost and Crisler, but he did so using money that Martin had brought in (Adidas contract)
Adidas pays us like $7.5 million per year. Our AD makes over $100 million. Martin did the Big House renovation which he should be credited for. Brandon followed in Martin's footsteps in renovating aging facilities.
The Crisler plan was already approved and in the schedule.
I think that is correct. The PDC was definitely planned under Martin but I don't think the Crisler renovations were - or at least, they were still in the early stages when Brandon took over.
I'm not sure if it was scheduled yet or not, but the initial plans were approved. Unless I'm totally losing it, which is possible.
...that a lot of the recent stuff came from bill martin. he's kept it going, though, to his credit.
Well, actually, he's just lucky that Brady Hoke turned out to be the man after he got turned down by Harbaugh and Miles.
But we can continue to pretend that he picked a gem specifically because he knew he was a gem if it makes everyone feel better about Dave Brandon.
Hoke was probably his 4th or 5th choice.
We may never know about Harbaugh (I believe we did offer but neither party will confirm), but we definitely did not offer Miles the job in 2011. Every insider is adamant about that.
It's not exactly clear where Hoke was in the pecking order (there was some noise about Pat Fitzgerald for a little while, but it may have been a false lead), but regardless, the bottom line is he's here now. It's a results-based business. Don Canham originally preferred Joe Paterno to Bo - how lucky are we that that one didn't happen?
In his defense, he never came close to offering the job to Harbaugh or Miles. And the thing you claim we're "pretending" is actually, you know, the truth. You make it sound like he had hundreds of choices, got turned down by all of them, and ended up with Hoke by default. Nobody knows where Hoke was on the list(he certainly was ahead of Harbaugh and Miles since, again, you're lying to yourself if you think they got offers), but if he wasn't at the top he wasn't far from it either. He chose him, he didn't back into him.
But go ahead and keep telling yourself DB is horrible if it helps you sleep at night. I look forward to the nonsense that gets pinned on him, like when he was called cheap for not sending the Banner to Dallas....despite the fact that it would both be cheap and be unprecedented for Michigan as they don't take the banner to road games. Yes, I am aware that these people were just mad that DB robbed them of the chance to rant and scream about how he's destroying Michigan's traditions by taking the Banner on the road.
And the DC issues, I'd think you'd have more respect for someone who can do a good job picking his second or third choice...
If on the schedule I see:
Florida and/or FSU
Texas and/or Texas Tech and/or Texas A&M
I will be thrilled. In fact, if I see any one of them, I'll be thrilled. But I won't be dissapointed if "a notch above" is like, Clemson and BYU. It's still Big Name football.
All of those would be great. I'd also be thrilled to see games against Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Miami, Washington, Oregon, and Arkansas. One less game in Ann Arbor would be ok, and would sometimes be an excuse for a road trip!
That... would be awesome. It totally slipped my mind.
Oregon, well, we're already playing one horror from 2007 over. I have no desire to see Oregon anywhere but the Rose Bowl.
Also forgot Oklahoma and Ok. State
Don't forget the game against them in 2003. Wasn't as bad as 2007...but yuck.
The 2003 game wasn't as ugly as the 2007 game, but the 2007 game is just one of those games you try to pretend never happened. The 2003 game still haunts me. Such a frustrating game, from barely having the ball in the first half before the second half comeback, actually recovering an onside kick with 2 minutes left, but come up just short. They could have and should have won that game...and if they did, they probably play Oklahoma for the National Championship that year instead of LSU. They may have even been ahead of USC in the human polls and could've prevented a split title with a win.
All of the teams you listed above have big non-conference games scheduled for 2017-2018 seasons already.
Only one that doesn't is florida state.
I would assume FSU has UF schedule in 2017-2018. Sometimes they'll add another top non-conference game (like Oklahoma recently), but they tend to be like Michigan in watering down the rest of their noncon schedule because of a big traditional rivalry. Not saying FSU is impossible, but chances are they'd rather schedule a UCF or USF to go along with UF and their two I-AA teams instead of Michigan.
You can forget about Florida. They were talking on local radio (here in Tenn.) about how they never schedule out of conference games out of the South. The last time they did Syracuse destroyed them. Until they get a new AD they will no longer go over the Mason Dixon line or play any real teams other than Florida St.
Yep and I believe that Syracuse game was played in 1990. UF won't even schedule Miami on a consistent basis.
UT in this case is Tennessee.
And no, it has nothing to do with the fact that I go to UT currenty; I will more than likely be long gone before the game would arrive. It has always seemed like such a natural game. The schools who have comperable histories (Going back to the seventies; they were the same program, essentially, in the 90's. Actually, the more I think about it, they really were. Top notch defenses, lots of conference titles, one national championship, a coach who rubbed people the wrong way, we had Brady and they had Manning, tons of payers from both teams populated NFL depth charts. Infact, since about 2003 or so, we are really really similar), stadiums, fanbases, and even both wear adidas.
good strategy. Saturday. . . hopefully so, too!
Hopefully these matchups are home-and-homes and not more Jerryworld extravaganzas
^^^^ a million times ^^^^
The reason I clicked on this thread was to say this. Thank you.
... will be a notch above some of the things we’ve done in the past.
One notch above UMass is, what, Kentucky?
And one notch above Delaware State is Appalachian State.
Incorrect. One notch above Delaware St. is a middle of the road DIAA team, not the two time defending national champion.
With the way the schedule aligns OSU, ND, and Nebraska all being home or away in a given year, I think it's in Michigan's interest to pursue big non-conference opponents to play at home. If you schedule a home-and-home with, say, Virginia Tech, you play them in Ann Arbor in a year like this one, then head to Blacksburg in a year where we have the "Big 3" at home. This is especially important in regards to season ticket holders--as the fees for them go up, you need to justify that cost every year, not every other year.
I use to think this was a bad idea and made me nervous. But we're playing Alabama in two days In Cowboys Stadium. It doesn't get any more intimidating. Bring on the best, Hoke and Michigan will be ready to take one anyone, anywhere very soon.
At least according to Brandon, "We really want to put our program in a position where we can be rated against the best programs in the country, so we can compete at that level."
I would think that "best programs" would not include Kentucky. Of course, the proof will be in the scheduling.
But reading between the lines, I'm wondering if the big programs are realizing that if things are bunched closely at the end of the year when the playoff is being set, and four teams have played a competitive schedule, but two or three have played against Akron or North Texas or South Alabama, or even worse, against Cal-Poly or Deleware State, or Appalachian State (now who would do that?) well, the strength of schedule will determine who goes, rather than strict win-loss record.
Let's use the Cowboy Classic as an example: whoever loses, whether Michigan or Alabama, if it is a close game, could still play in a BCS Bowl, or even the MNC, if they win the rest of the schedule. And their loss wouldn't matter that much when stacked up against a team which didn't lose a game but didn't play in a competitive conference (or against competitive non-conference teams.)
EDIT: In reply to bdsisme. I hate when I mean to reply and put up a new post instead.
Chicago Athletic Club 0-1
Cleveland Athletic Club 0-1
App State 0-1
Arizona State 0-1
Brigham Young 0-1
Miss State 0-1
North Carolina 1-2
Isn't it against NCAA rules/doesn't count as a win if an FBS team plays an Ivy League team?
I dont think a win over a non-existent U of Chicago team would count either..
We'll go to there campus, throw football jerseys on random students and then play them
Chicago re-started their football program in 1969...at the D3 level.
Michigan vs Chicago renewed rivalry? I can just hear it now-
"You are looking LIVE at 1,650 seat Stagg Field, in Chicago."
And that's new Stagg Field. Enrico Fermi built his lab (and the world's first nuclear reactor) under the stands of the old Stagg Field. When the stadium was torn down in the late '50s, Chicago built their main library over the site.
Well hopefully DB doesn't schedule Cleveland Athletic Club
we'd beat the Browns.
I'd really like to see an Army or Tennessee game!!
I'm surprised our record against USC is not worse, even accounting for the pre-Bo years.
Cornell, we got some b'dniss to settle with you.
Maybe its recent history, but I was thinking more like 2-56. Or something like that.
Wow, that's an awesome record. There are only 4 schools that we played more than once that have a winning record against us:
Only one of these, USC, is still a major program.
Tha's how you get to be the winningest program of all time.
I want a piece of the Tar Heels. They're only ahead in the first place because of Lawrence Taylor's dirty hit on Wangler.
I'm with you on that one.
Of the ones that still have football teams, wouldn't you like to see us play almost all of them?
I'll never rest until we're 2-1 over the Cleveland Athletic Club.
Screw these neutral site games. The only neutral site games I want Michigan in are the B1G Championship Game, good bowl games and FBS National Championship Playoff.
I could see playing a game against UMass in Foxboro instead of UConn's low capacity stadium. Oh wait, we've tried that already? Anyway, if a team with a small stadium (40K or less) was willing to play a home and home, but have their home game in a larger venue, I guess that'd be ok, and better than playing on a field that wouldn't accomodate our fan base.
I've said this before in a thread similar to this one, but I like seeing Michigan going and playing in new places such as ROAD games with non-conference teams. I think It's kind of neat for lack of a better word.
Neutral site games are the absolute worst. Terrible atmosphere, neither here nor there. Too quiet. Might as well just play the game in a shopping-male. One of the best parts of the college game is the local atmospheres.
Those shopping-males are down right blah.
Until they let all major conference champions into a bona fide playoff system, scheduling games like this is playoff suicide. Fans here are already referring to the Big Ten schedule as "brutal," but those same fans want to see matchups like the one this week. Meanwhile, the teams that scheduled three or four tomato cans are going to get the limited berths currently available.
to play real teams. i'd so much rather watch games that mean something, rather than smack around a hapless emu team. yawn... who cares?
As long as DB doesn't consider Utah to be "a notch above some of the things we’ve done in the past" I will be pleased. There must be a way to increase revenue from these big games that is lost by not having them at the Big House.
Utah has been pretty good, and the move to the Pac-12 has been pretty good for their recruiting. Its a whole hell of a lot better than playing UMass, or as I like to call it umASS. Lets say that our four non-conference games are :
Utah, Notre Dame, Central Michigan, and Ole Miss. That, to me, is pretty good and a heck of a lot better than playing all cupcakes.
The 4 teams you mentioned have the potential to be cupcakes themselves depending on where they are in their life cycles. Utah is on the rise but in a few years if they step up big in the PAC12 they might have to deal with a coaching change if their coach is poached. ND is ND - didnt we hand them their worst losses in program history within the past decade? They might be on a new coach in a few years too. Any directional school is usually a cupcake, and Ole Miss blows and has blown for several years now.
I'd love to see this as a nonconf if SOS is part of the playoff equation:
Notre Dame (for the tradition of playing them), Navy or Army to give a service academy some love, a top SEC school - USC, GA, FL, LSU, Bama, or Ark; and a good Big 12 school - Tex, Ok, Ok state.
Also, I'd love to see us play at hawaii for the extra game since you can schedule a 13th game if you play there, just so I'd have an excuse to travel to Hawaii.
I would love to go back to the days of UM playing better non-cons. I can remember days of playing ND and sometimes 2 other teams from big conferences. Seeing ND and 3 body bag games gets kind of boring. The only thing that sucks is when you sign a deal with a team so far out in the future, and then 8 years later when the game actually rolls around they stink. I guess you could stick to playing only truly elite programs, something Ohio has actually done pretty well when you consider their home and homes with USC, Texas, Miami (YTM), and Virginia Tech and Oklahoma in future years. However, we are all too familiar that even that can go wrong (see Mich 2008-2010, Oklahoma 1994-1999, Texas in 2010, Ohio last year, et al.)
I dont mind Nuetral site games at all.....I kind of wish each year a power conference team could host a huge game remotely close to home.
I mean we have games in Dallas, Atlanta.....why not have a Big 10 team play at Lucas Oil/Ford Field for an opener and a pac 12 team play a huge game in Seattle at their stadium up there.
If anything at least some of the major college teams would be at least willing to play in huge nonconference games.
I wouldn't mind a neutral site game if it was closer than Dallas to our home base. Iowa is opening its schedule at Soldier Field in Chicago this year, there's a ton of UM Alums in Chicago, so that would be nice if they played a neutral site game in IL. Ford Field would also work, it'd be like the hockey games at the Joe. Having the game closer to the B1G footprint would allow us to make it more like a home game atmosphere than Jerryworld is going to have tomorrow.
Home and home with Georgia and home and home with LSU, arguably the biggest name opponent Michigan has never ever played.
I would love to see a home and home with Georgia. I've been down to Athens for a game and the entire experience is top notch. It would be awesome to see them in Ann Arbor!
The Volunteers are 1up on us I believe and I have lots of buddies whos faces id love to shove a W in
We are ahead of Tenn. in head to hea matchups. They beat us in a bowl game but Charles beat Peyton, and that has way way way more meaning to both sides than the stupid bowl game that I cant even recall. Tenn is STILL mad about that Heisman.
I'm all for this, as long as DB doesn't consider the likes of Oregon State or Colorado to be "high-profile." Get Georgia or FSU up here. I'd love to see a game under the lights against them.
would be AWESOME....
Michigan will soon announce a neutral-site game against the Jacksonville Jaguars in London. The following season the Wolverines will face off against the Irish National Rugby team on the surface of the moon.
Brand name teams without premiere opponents already scheduled in 2017-2019:
USC (Texas in 17/18 but no one in 19/20. Awesome home-and-home if it could be scheduled to replace ND the first of those years.)
UCLA is also free in all those years.
In the SEC, Arkansas, Georgia, and Tennessee all have 2018-19 openings.
In the ACC, Clemson, Miami, Virginia Tech, and (maybe) FSU are available.
The two big guns in the Big 12 are full up, but Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia have space.
BYU is probably always open to scheduling home-and-homes given the issues with being an independent. (Idaho would probably be willing to play a 3-1 home-away split given all the issues they're going to have scheduling, but, um, pass.)
In my mind, USC is perfect except the years don't align right for ND, so we'd need a one-off in 2018 (or two premiere games in 2019.)
Any of the SEC schools, Clemson, or FSU would be my preferred if USC doesn't work. If I were going to bet, I'd say either Tennessee or BYU in 2018-2019.
If we couldn't get a home and home with USC and had to do a neutral site, where would you want to see it? Do you think we'd be back in Jerryworld? or split the difference geographically and play them at Mile High in Denver? Or somewhere else I am not thinking of at the moment?
I love the strategy and hope we see some games in California. U of M has a huge alumni base here, particularly in the SF Bay Area and thebay area has one of the best football high schools in CA (De La Salle High where Amani Toomer went). In CA I'd like to see games against Stanford and USC.
Elsewhere Tennessee, Florida State, and Texas are on my wish list. Excellent recruting states after we fill up with the best that the midwest has to offer.
I have a long running dispute with my college roommate/best man with Tennessee football so they're probably my #1 ooc game followed by
1. Michigan has a two-year break in the Notre Dame series in 2018/19. UM tried to get Oklahoma for those seasons in a home-and-home series, but OU already has LSU those two seasons.
2. If Brandon is talking about releasing schedules out to 2018, consider the possibility of another neutral site game sometime in that time frame. Stephen Ross (major UM contributor and owner of the Dolphins) has indicated he'd like to see Michigan play a game in Miami. With ND on the schedule thru 2017, there is a possibility that neutral site game could be in 2018. Michigan also has two open dates in 2016 (home game with Colorado and road game with ND is already on schedule).
3. The Michigan-Notre Dame series agreement allows either school to cancel or modify the series with a four-year advance notice. Right now, Michigan's home/away schedule is uneven in that the Wolverines play ND, Nebraska and Ohio State all at home or all on the road at least thru 2016. In 2015/6, Wisconsin replaces Penn State and UW goes on the same rotation as those three other teams. UM plays them all four of them at home in 2015 and all on the road in 2016.
This leaves open the possibility that the ND series will be cancelled starting in 2017 with another major home-and-home opponent replacing them that year. This opponent would be one that Michigan would play on the road in 2017 (Nebraska and Ohio State are home games that year) and in Ann Arbor in 2018 (when UN-L and OSU are on the road) in order to "balance" the overall home/away schedule.
4. The Big Ten schedules for 2017/8 haven't been released, so we don't know if the scheduling imbalance is going to continue those seasons. Notre Dame doesn't seem to be willing to move the timing of the games because ND wants to play USC and UM one home/one away each season.
5. The Big Ten has opted not to play nine conference games and I assume Brandon is working on that assumption in putting together the non-conference schedule.
6. Based on the future published schedules, Michigan will only play seven home game each season from 2013 thru 2016. In past year, UM has played alternating season of seven and eight games, so this might be a trend.
Keep in mind that Bill Martin was reponsible for scheduling the home-and-home with UConn in 2013. Brandon is responsible for the home-and-home with Utah which ensure the 2015 season will have only seven home games. UM plays ND on the road in 2014 and 2016. Will Brandon be willing to cap Michigan at seven home games in order to bring in better opponents? Keep in mind that UM was one of the B10 teams supporting a nine-game conference schedule (which would have also capped UM at seven home games per year), so it's certainly possible.
If Notre Dame is dropped in 2017 (that would have been a home game for Michigan) and replaced by another major program (with that game on the road to balance the schedule), then UM would have seven home games that year and probably in 2018.
7. Despite not being part of the national conversation at season's end for almost 20 years, Notre Dame is still the #1 brand in college football and if there's anything Brandon knows, it's marketing. He has to know that ESPN will hype ND in the pre-season and any UM-ND game is going to get big ratings and will be heavily promoted by that network and ABC (plus NBC). As the Under the Lights game shows last year, you also attract the crowds (attendance 114,804--and yes, I know it was also a big deal because it was played at night, Desmond Howard was honored, etc.)
So cancelling out on the Notre Dame series might be a difficult proposition. But if he does do it, Brandon will have to secure a program with a similar amount of "buzz" for the networks, the lease holders on the stadium boxes, people who buy PSLs, etc. That's especially vital if Michigan is capped at seven home games per season because it means the relative "value per game" has to be better than when there are eight home games.
The number brand in college football is whomever is the dominant team now. ND was king when both of Catholic grandfathers cheered them on in the 40's. It isn't now.
Why do I fear we'll soon be pining for the good ol' days when tix for top games were only $95?
Until I see a home and home set up with Georgia (who has open dates in 2016 just like we do) or LSU, USC, OK or other programs on that level, it's all smoke and hoohah. When DB says "that will be a notch above some of the things we’ve done in the past" he's leaving a hole big enough that BWC and Ondre could fit through after Thanksgiving dinner. DB's intentionally leading us to think "Ooooo goody, finally a home-and-home against LSU" when in reality he means single home games against Tulsa or Memphis or Colorado St.
Michigan get U Conn to play at Ford Field. Work on it Mr. Noid. Beer and MEEECCCHHHEEEGAN. That would work.
Only if UConn's the home team. I'd never tolerate giving up a home game at the Big House.
For me, the ideal 4 game nonconference schedule would be as follows:
1: Tune up game against in-state MAC school.
2: Notre Dame
3: Big Name prestige program (USC, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas or new rich such as Oregon.
4: Mid-level BCS opponent or solid mid-major program (think Virginia/UCLA or SDSU/Air Force).
Brandon can talk all he wants about aggressive schedule making but scheduling that game is completely indefensible.
this year's schedule is probably the toughest we should have....
no need to go all out on marketing. Look at what happened to ND...their talent level dropped as the SEC started becoming dominant on recruiting while ND's schedule remained tough year in and year out.
In my opinion we need atleast 2 gimme games in a year.
gets very good recruiting classes, though they seem to have come down a bit.
They have two problems:
a) coaching talent (and indecisiveness around who is the qb)
b) not in a conference: no guranteed path to a major bowl and no interim goals (like win the division or conference) to keep them focused after early season losses
Brandon showed a lot of faith and vision when he scheduled Bama, even before the Hoke resurgence at UM. DB can be a little maddening sometimes with his marketing, uniform innovations, etc., but you gotta love his faith and vision.