Home and home with PAC12 opponent in 2014?
I haven't seen this posted yet, but the Detroit News is reporting that Dave Brandon has something in the works to possibly schedule a home and home with a PAC12 school starting in 2014. This would be interesting, especially considering we already have an agreement to start playing home-and-homes with the PAC12 annually starting in 2017
Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon told me this week he is looking at a couple proposals and should have something to announce within the next few weeks. He indicated one option is scheduling a home game with a Pac-12 team — there are two open dates on Michigan's 2014 schedule — or a home-and-home, or even both options.
No word on what the other proposal may be, but I'm intrigued.
...it will suck. Because, you know.
But seriously, if it's a home and home with a PAC12 school that isn't Wazzu, I don't think even Brian could find something to complain about.
Even if it was Wazzou, the promise of playing a Mike Leach team would be interesting. The only two truly blah options, competitively, would be Colorado (which would still make a lot of Michigan fans in the Denver area happy) and Oregon State.
you would think...but probably wrong
One thing is for sure - if its Oregon, it will definitely suck.
I know....because that decision to hire Hoke despite the pitchforks being busted out was a horrible decision. That decision to expand the budget to pay top $$ for assistance coaches was a horrible decision. That decision to approve the expansions of the Big House and Crisler (if you don't think he was a driving force behind these as Regent, you are naiive) really turned out shitty too. Let's face it, everything he has had control over has been golden over the last few years.
If all you have to nitpick is increasing ticket prices, a couple of stripes on jerseys in random games, and not giving a coach an extra year in the midst of a disastrous downward spiral of performance, image, and player devotion, then you should be so lucky.
If this is a response to MGoShoe's post, you missed that it was tongue-in-cheek.
How about Arizona? Could be interesting.
This is one of those games whee Michigan has everything to lose and nothing to gain and Arizona has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If Michigan splits the series then people will say Michigan fired RR too soon, if we sweep they will say Michigan should have won the games, and if we lose both games people will say RR should have been retained and Hoke is horrible as a coach. I don't see anything to gain from a Michigan standpoint.
Everything to lose and nothing to gain? Why that would be just like playing App State again and we all know that they would never schedule something as idiotic as...
would love to see a home & home with Arizona.
Everything to lose and nothing to gain is Dave Brandon's wheelhouse.
I sincerely hope that the number of people who would say RR was fired too soon, even if we lost that game, would be less than 5 (I think we can all name which 5 MGocurmudgeons that would be). After what Hoke has achieved in a year in all aspects of the job I think most people recognize that the right decision was made for this football team. I think the bigger impediment to that game happening would be that RR would never agree to it until after his 3 year buffer required to properly install the offense and dismantle the defense.
If Michigan splits the series then people will say Michigan fired RR too soon,
We lost to Tommy Amaker and Harvard a couple years ago and I don't remember anyone clamoring for him to come back. I think most people are intelligent enough not to base everything on one game. We had three years' worth of games to judge Rodriguez by.
I think the bigger concern about playing a Rodriguez-coached team is that in September (when the game presumably would be scheduled), his QB is usually still pretty healthy, so that's when his offense is most dangerous.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/upcoming-pac-12-home-and-home
There was a lot of speculation on whether it mean a home and home, or someone coming for a one off before the series started.
Edit: Love Angelique, but she has some confusing wording at the end in "Michigan hasn't been there for a regular season game since 1957"....because for that matter, we haven't been there for a post-season game since 1957. We don't play any bowl games in USC's home stadium. If she meant to SoCal, well even beyond the Rose Bowl we've been to that stadium to play UCLA since then. I get what she's going for, but awkward wording.
I would love to see us play Stanford.
Oregon would be cool....just not in 2014. USC would be cool as well, but too high a risk of seeing them in a repeat matchup in a theoretical Rose Bowl.
darn doublepost
I would mind seeing us doinga home and home with any of the California teams, except USC. I would think it could help with recruiting a bit out there.
Also wouldn't mind Utah. Not sure why, but i think it would be close games that Michigan could win both.
Golden Domers consider this a warning shot across your collective bow. If all B1G teams follow suit that means you're going to have a Touchdown Jesus sized hole in your current schedule pretty soon. I truly cant see Michigan, MSU, Purdue and sometimes Northwestern wanting to keep you on the schedule AND play a Pac10 school the same year.
Maybe the Coast Guard or the Merchant Marines can get a team together or something.
Really? While they’ve dropped off precipitously from where they were as a program, I believe Notre Dame is still a desirable and prestigious opponent. I can’t imagine that they’ll have too much difficulty scheduling opponents even with this agreement. I personally would be pretty upset if we ever dropped them from the schedule to play some team we don’t have a history with, and I don’t think (hope) I’m not alone. Do you really think this is that serious for ND?
ND will never have a problem scheduling middle tier Pac and Big Ten teams. Like I said below, Purdue, MSU and the like will all line up to play ND on an annual basis.
ND's problem going forward is keeping Michigan and USC on the schedule. If we have a four year stretch with v. USC, @USC, v. Oregon, @ Oregon, what's the incentive for scheduling ND on our end? We end up with another headline matchup, but I'll bet one marquee opponent is sufficient to get us into a playoff with a conference championship. Same logic goes for USC if their slate is @M, v. M, @OSU, v. OSU.
This is a big, big problem for ND because us and USC are their only stable, top notch opponents on the schedule. Even ND can't claim that a schedule of Wake Forest, Navy, MSU, Purdue, ect. is national championship worthy.
Edit: Add in the fact that DB can't be happy with our current home/away rotation (and Swarbrick isn't moving USC and M to home or away in the same year) and we have an elephant in the scheduling room that needs to be addressed at some point going forward.
Our home/away schedule will look less terrible once Penn State and Wisconsin rotate back on. It's too bad Brandon couldn't get Nebraska opposite OSU and ND, though (I sense this didn't happen so that the division schedule could remain somewhat balanced.)
I do think they have a problem and I'll be quite surprised if both Purdue and MSU continue to schedule them AND a PAC10 school same year. They may be "middling" schools in the B1G but I dont think they yearn for the potential to lose two out of conference games annually - especially if one or both were away games.
As soon as I read of the Pac10-B1G alliance I thought this is a power play to force ND's hand. Either get in or out of the conference once and for all. And if they lose 3-4 marque games for THEM they have a problem...a B1G problem.
The issue for Purdue at least is that they're likely to be playing lower level Pac-12 teams, so if ND goes off their schedule, they won't really have a non-conference game that will garner them national attention. I don't think Purdue-Oregon State is going to get a lot of mention on Gameday, where Purdue-ND usually gets at least a small segment.
MSU's been more aggressive in their future scheduling, so losing the ND game wouldn't be as much of a promotional problem for them, but that's a huge rivalry for them that has been played every year since forever, with the 10-10 tie in 66(?) a key part of MSU's history.
MSU, Purdue and NU have every reason to keep ND on the schedule, and virtually no reason to stop playing. Spartan Stadium sells out for about two opponents regularly, and they're not going to give that up for a chance to stick it to ND. Purdue needs ND even more than MSU does, so there's not much chance there either, IMO.
if they decide to implement the rule that 6-6 teams are not bowl eligible that might change Purdue's thinking. Playing ND and a Pac-10 team could mean 2 losses before conference play starts and Purdue having to go at worst 5-3 in the Big Ten to make a bowl game.
I just read that Utah cleared their 2014 schedule. They only had @Utah St on the schedule and they bought out of it. There is speculation that they did that so they could play a Big 10 team, however it is being reported that they plan to pick up a home game. They then name us along with Illinois, Penn St, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan St, and Nebraska. FWIW, it was a Bleacher Report story, but the Utah St buyout is legit according to Utah's official schedule. Since both teams are looking for a home game in '14, this could mean that our '14 opponent won't be Utah unless one team is willing to compromise.
Utah has played at Michigan Stadium twice in the past ten years, so I doubt they would be up for a third consecutive away game against us, especially since they're a Pac-12 school now.
Oh, I agree. But if it is a home-and-home then Utah may be interested. They played us twice in the Big House and they split two close games. Granted their win was in 2008. They may be interested if its a home-and-home, but since they cleared their Utah St game in hopes of a home game, we probably won't be their first choice. They might negotiate playing @Michigan in '14 if we give them a return trip. Playing a non-rival/non-MAC team 4 times in 14 years is somewhat unheard of for us.
I'm gonna get selfish here and hope for either school in AZ. Flying out my wife & 2 kids once a year isn't exactly cheap. I'd love to be able to drive to a game.
Heck, even UCLA & USC are worth the drive.
and I don't mean football talent.
mmmmmm Party School
From looking at the 2014 schedules of the Pac-12, it seems like Stanford, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, USC, and Oregon State are the most likely candidates. Of those, Stanford (only Army scheduled so far), Utah (no non-conference games scheduled yet), and USC (only Notre Dame scheduled so far) seem more likely.
Washington is already playing Illinois.
Washington State is already playing Wisconsin.
Arizona State is already playing Notre Dame.
Cal is already playing at Northwestern.
Oregon is already playing Michigan State.
UCLA is already playing Texas and at Virginia.
USC has Notre Dame scheduled, but they've never been shy about scheduling two or more tough nonconference opponents (which is one thing I'll give them credit for), so I included them in the 'likely' list.
Michigan fans with any long-term memory should probably start to shake nervously at the thought of road games (and Rose Bowls) on the West Coast.
I think this is it for games this century...
2007 Rose Bowl loss to USC
2005 Rose Bowl loss to Texas
2004 Rose Bowl loss to USC
2003 loss @ Oregon
2001 loss @ Washington
2000 loss @ UCLA
I'm excited about the PAC-12 games ahead of us, but I'm a lot more excited about the home games than the road games.
You're living in the past, Marge! Quit living in the past!
Hoke is THE FUTURE fergodsake
One hundred and thirty three years of beautiful tradition, from Fielding Yost to Charles Woodsen...You're goddamn right I'm living in the fucking past!
Eh... Lloyd had a problem with road openers. He dropped six in a row at one point. Hoke is different enough from Lloyd that I wouldn't impute Lloyd's struggles onto Hoke.
Also, we've always struggled in the Rose Bowl. It was Bo's achilles heel. That doesn't mean I'm not going to be excited about getting there.
True. But Autzen Stadium is like the depths of Hell for a visiting team. I wouldn't wish that on Michigan's worst enemies. (Who am I kidding, of course I'd wish that on Ohio, Sparty, etc.)
one of your wishes.
I used to be fatalistic about it, but O really think it was a coaching issue--Michigan's staff was unable to properly adapt when its gameplan was demonstrated to be inadequate. As Brian has observed, the best case scenario was for Michigan to fall far enough behind that desperation forced their hands.
I think that Stanford would make a lot of sense. They have been on the rise since Harbaugh was there and if they can sustain and it looks like they will, it could make for a top 20 matchup both years. Another side note would be interesting going up against Garnett for two years and those I believe could be years that he starts and to me that would be interesting to see.
Said this on another similar thread-
I'd like one of three options:
1- All teams rotate so you play all 12 teams in 12 years, and it repeats cycling between home and away.
2- Geographical:
| EasternBig Ten | California |
| Penn State | USC |
| Ohio | California |
| Michigan | Stanford |
| Little Brother | UCLA |
| ILL/IND | Non-Coast |
| Illionois | Arizona |
| Indiana | Arizona State |
| NW | Utah |
| Purdue | Colorado3- |
| Western Big Ten | Northwest |
| Wisonsin | Washington |
| Nebraska | Washington State |
| Iowa | Oregon |
| minnesota | Oregon State |
3- Talent/Media
| Top Big Ten | Top PAC12 |
| Penn State | USC |
| Ohio | Oregon |
| Michigan | Stanford |
| Nebraska | UCLA |
| Middle | Middle |
| Wisconsin | Califronia |
| Little Brother | Arizona State |
| Iowa | Utah |
| Minnesota | Washington |
| Low | Low |
| Illinois | Washington State |
| Indiana | Colorado |
| NW | Arizona |
| Purdue | Oregon State |
Obviously that third option is very subjective...
Any other arrangement seems like it will just permanently be a mess with bi-annual bickering about the new matchups.
UCLA has the history, but have been S-T-R-U-gling (in drunk Joe Namath voice) since their 10-2 record in 2005.
You could also split it up by divisions too.
I'd prefer Cal for logistical reasons, but I'd much rather we beat Stanford.
I'd rather have a one-off then have an away game at WSU, Utah etc. I'm not sure that Stanford can maintain the success they had without Andrew Luck, but I think playing USC is too big of a game on our quest to the national championship game.