Me likey if the matchup is a good one.(Miami please!)
Me likey if the matchup is a good one.(Miami please!)
Would love a big OOC match-up, except one that we'd have an actual chance of winning (i.e not 'Bama)
Uh, if Hoke keeps recruiting like he is and we continue to make strides on both sides of the ball, we'll be up there with the best teams in the country. The former appears to be happening. The latter, we'll have to see. I'm not ready to declare [facing Bama again] a loss by any means.
If you look through all the major BCS type teams they pretty much all have a marquee game lined up through 2019. The reason I looked was I was trying to figure out who could replace ND and that last minute pull out by the Golden Domers made it hard to replace with anyone of equal value until 2020. From memory I think Georgia had a pretty cupcake non conference but their "major rivalry" with GA Tech would stop a home and home, but maybe they'd consider a 1 off. LSU is tied up 2 of those 2015+ years but had 2 years open, and there was one other school. But you'd be surprised how many teams already have locked up schedules. Oklahoma is a team I'd love to see Michigan play since Texas is out of the question with 2 home and homes with Notre Dame. But they have a home and home with OSU and Tenn and LSU lined up the next 6 years after this one, etc. Again that was home and home analysis so if we schedule this we might be able to get someone to come play for a one off but personally this neutral site stuff is against my view of college athletics where it's about the traditions, pageantry, unique home crowd stuff, etc. But I realize the only tradition that matters nowadays is $$$$.
Not sure why you think they wouldn't do a home and home. They had one set with Ohio but I think that has been scraped. They're about to begin a home and home with Clemson.
Yeah sounds great. There will be another whole scuttlebutt when DB refuses to bring the band or ask for donations up front to pay the expenses for the band. Also a primetime game at a "neutral" site where Michigan will probably get embarrassed on national TV.
Well, it certainly depends on the opponent. If it is not a team from the SEC Michigan might have a chance.
I fear not the SEC.
I despise the idea of tip-toeing through a favorable schedule to make it to the playoff. If you want to be a championship caliber team, take on all comers and act like a championship caliber team.
The fact is that you need cupcakes. A good schedule is a mixture of a couple of elite teams, a pack of middling teams, and several bad teams. Historically that has been the case for most teams.
This idea of "taking on all comers" is macho bravado that ignores the physical toll such games put on a team.
Our schedule has plenty of cupcakes every year. Last year was an anomaly.
The ONLY way I would want this is if it was not a Southern school. I have no desire to play an away game of that magnitude to start the season. USC would be fine and intriguing, or even a Texas school, but no Florida school and no SEC. And if these kickoff games are going to be a thing. The Midwest and Northeast have got to get it going, since that's the only time they can get a big time warm region school to come.
virtually guaranteed to be SEC or ACC. In that case, I'll take A&M as it's about as far away from the ATL as you can get in those two conferences and still be an enticing matchup.
Why isn't Michigan hosting the "Mott Kickoff Classic" every year.
Is it too much future for DB to handle?
Great idea! Hmmm...email that shit to DB!
I'd love to see a near-home-and-near-home against Georgia in Atlanta with the return trip in Detroit. (I'd also love to see an actual home-and-home against Georgia.)
I don't know why, but Georgia is always the team that comes to mind for me when thinking about new OOC games. It just seems like we should be playing them.
I wonder if that could become a "thing" where teams play every few years at a nearby NFL stadium and not just during kickoffs. Stadiums are smaller but it is a different environment and a great deal of fun.
The article even quotes somebody as saying that they envision more than just the Chick Fil A game and Cowboys Classic. I don't see why they couldn't do the same thing in Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, or East Rutherford. Atlanta has a huge tourism boost from the CFA game, SEC championship, and CFA Bowl and will soon be part of the playoff sites. Why doesn't a B1G city try this?
The Atlanta game is nice. UM FSU would be a nice one too.
Fuck that. I don;t want to support lining the pockets of some CEO whose only connection to CFB is to make money off of it.
Home and homes please, even if it brings in less money. How great would it be to take a roadtrip to the great campuses of the nation that we never get to see?!
Some of this was covered in the Bacon excerpt from Fourth and Long. Financially, Michigan is probably better off with home and homes.
If recruiting pans out as most of us expect it to, I will not be afraid for Michigan to play anybody. Would love to play Miami or Florida St from the ACC. I would also love to play LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, or even Alabama in 2015. I don't think Michigan would get embarrassed.
Would much rather have a home and home. If this is the only way to get a marquee nonconference game in the future, then I guess you have to do it.
What is this "home and home" concept you speak of? Sounds like crazy talk. Like a Wisconsin vs. Michigan football game. #HALOL
Because a Michigan vs Texas home and home wouldn't generate any interest. Waste of money and time.
I would much rather a home-and-home like you mention. I just want marquee match ups. I can't stand shit games like Akron.
Bo played cupcakes, a fact most people don't seem to be aware of these days. You need a mixture of cupcakes, middling teams, and a marquee matchup.
Very, very few.
Bo's teams had a habit of making pretty good teams look like cupcakes.
Anyway, not too much credit or blame rests with Bo. It mostly rests with Don Canham.
A sampling of out-of-conferfence opponents in the Schembechler Era:
What is really, truly astonishing about this list is that Bo Schembechler teams almost never faced out of conference tomato cans! No UMass, no UConn, no Delaware State, no Eastern, no Ball State, no, uh, Appalachian State.
You could look it up.
UVA, Tulane, Navy, Long Beach State, Vandy, Wake Forest, Cal, Duke, Arizona, Baylor, Mizzou, CU,A&M, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State....these were ALL tomato cans.Many of these programs are as bad as any MAC school. (Wake,Duke, Vandy)
You have made the mistake of conflating recently acquired reputations with past play. That is not wise.South Carolina was a bad program for decades.(excepting George Rogers Era)So was A&M. So too could be said of Oregon, Colorado, UVA,Arizona, etc.
Then we have to factor in that many big ten teams were simply atrocious. Northwestern, Minny, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois with MSU, and Purdue having intermittant success. Iowa under Fry was a solid program, but the Big Ten was awful. That is a big reason why Bo and Woody dominated for so long.
You are going to have to formulate a better argument than that one because it fails when one views the programs as they were then and not as they are now.
College football was a different sort of landscape back then. We've heard lots of talk about "parity" and the supposed effects of scholarship limitations, and it sounds like a broken record. Except that it is a very real change in the structure of the game.
Back in "the day," it wasn't unusual for certain teams to be so consistently terrible that they were more likely to have one or fewer conference wins than to break .500 in conference. Teams like Kansas State, Oregon State, and Northwestern were awful for decades. Most conferences had a couple of power teams and a bunch of mediocre ones.
So Michigan could play major conference teams without worrying that they would have a good season. My Dad would take me to a game every year when I was a boy, and we typically picked a less significant game since we couldn't watch it on tv and the tickets would be cheap; often this meant a non-conference game. Playing a major-conference team was common. Losing to them was unthinkable, because they were terrible.
Things have changed. Teams like K-State and Northwestern won their conferences in the 90s, and now it is generally understood that almost any team in a major conference is capable of emerging as a contender if managed correctly. Any team Michigan might schedule 5-10 years down the road could be terrible or could be outstanding. If, for example, they had come to an agreement in 2005 to play Stanford (then in the PAC basement and thought by some to be a permanent fixture) in a home-and-home beginning this year, imagine how surprising their current strength would be. Similarly, imagine that Michigan had gone ahead and scheduled a long-term series with Colorado in 1996--would've seemed great at the time, would be a laughable matchup today.
...in your view, virtually the entire college football landscape was populated with tomato cans during the Michigan coaching tenure of Bo Schembechler.
The eight-tenths of the Big Ten. (The non-tomato cans were Michigan and Ohio State, is presumptively your position.) Bo had it easy, playing all nine other conference teams every year.
The entire Pac-8, save for USC were tomato cans to you. (Never mind Stanford and Washington beating us in the Rose Bowl.)
Mizzou, the team that curbstomped Bo's first team in 1969, was another tomato can, you say. I expect that the entire Big Eight were tomato cans, apart from Oklahoma and Nebraska. Ditto the Southwest Conference, excepting Texas.
Naturally, the entire ACC were tomato cans. We lost to one of those tomato cans, the North Carolina Tarheel team featuring Lawrence Taylor.
Bo must have been gutless, to fail to schedule the best SEC teams,
like we do so regularly now.
What I DID say was that many of the schools you listed were historically terrible--which is true.
Did you notice I did not list Stanford and Washington? I know each had decent teams. Hell, Stanford beat one UM in the 72' Rose Bowl. The Mizzou listing was a mistake.
These would have been the rankings as of the game played against UM.
1969: Vanderbilt, Washington, Missouri (9)
1970: Arizona, Washington, Texas A&M
1971: Virginia, UCLA, Navy
1972: UCLA (6), Tulane (18), Navy
1973: Stanford, Navy, Oregon
1974: Colorado, Navy, Stanford
1975: Stanford, Baylor, Missouri (5)
1976: Stanford, Navy, Wake Forest
1977: Duke, Navy, Texas A&M (5)
1978: Notre Dame (14), Duke, Arizona
1979: Notre Dame (9), Kansas, Cal
1980: Notre Dame (8), South Carolina, Cal
1981: Notre Dame (1), Navy
1982: Notre Dame (20), UCLA (12)
1983: Washington State, Washington (16)
1984: Miami (1), Washington (16)
1985: Notre Dame (13), South Carolina (11), Maryland (17)
1986: Notre Dame, Oregon State, Florida State (20)
1987: Notre Dame (16), Washington State, Long Beach State
1988: Notre Dame (13), Miami (1), Wake Forest
1989: Notre Dame (1), UCLA (24), Maryland
The lack of a ranking doesn't automatically mean that a particular team was a true tomato can; the 1974 Stanford team finished second in the PAC 10 that year, with its only conference loss to eventual #2 USC. Given our struggles against PAC10 opponents in the Rose Bowl, I think it's dumb to label a PAC10 opponent a tomato can anyhow. The real tomato cans Bo played during his first decade were other Big 10 conference teams, which is something Canham had no control over. Once ND was added to the schedule, the OOC strength went dramatically up. If I recall correctly, the Long Beach game was a fill-in due to another stronger OOC team deciding to cancel its scheduled game with UM, but I can't find any corroborating evidence. I do remember that Bo was sort of disgusted at having to play them, since they were a true tomato can in every respect.
Nowhere did I call Stanford or Washington tomato cans. I called Oregon a tomato can, which they certainly were. Between 1970 and 1980 Oregon's best record was 5-6. That is very similiar to what EMU has done. Cal was equally wretched.
Arizona was historically bad. They were a very bad program for a long time. Granted, UM only beat them by 4, but Arizona was still a bad team.
You could criticize my inclusion of Baylor because they did have some level of success. It was inconsistent, but they did achieve it under Grant Teaff.
to Eastern Michigan University?
From 1970 to 1980, Oregon had 30 guys drafted, with 11 in the first four rounds, including Dan Fouts, Ahmad Rashad, Russ Francis, and Mario Clark. Not stellar numbers, but better than Iowa, IU, NW, Illinois of that time period.
EMU hasn't had that many drafted in its entire history, and in that time five have gone in the first four rounds.
You just mgoblog'd him.
Texas has 2 home and homes with Notre Dame coming up, so no soup for us.
Pigskin Classic at Michigan Stadium
Like the good ole days
That was my first game ever... 1995 Pigskin Classic vs. Virginia. 18-17. Hail, Hayes!
Chick-Fil-A also spoke with Ohio State, which Stokan says seems tied to the home-and-home model.
All together now, Ohio State does OOC scheduling right.
Buffalo, SDSU and an FCS school coming off a 4-7 season in Florida A&M.
Would LOVE to see this happen. Atlanta is great.
Would like to see Oklahoma or Texas A&M.
EAT MOR CHIKIN
Who remembers the Mirage Bowl/Coca Cola Bowl?
It was played in Japan and they practically had to beg teams to come and give up a home game. sparty and wisconsin had to play there in 1993.
Doesn't ring a bell at all. Are yousure you'renot making this up?
Can't tell if you're serious. MSU and Wisconsin did indeed play in Japan in 1993--in Wisconsin's first seriously competitive season, no less.
I was being semi-serious. I don't doubt the game happened, but I honestly do not remember it, which either supports Wolverine Devotee's point or is possibly due to 1993 being the year our third child was born and we moved half way across the country.
I live in Atlanta, and would for sure go to this game. Would love to see someone like Texas, but the Chick-fil-a kickoff tries to pull a local team. Michigan-UGA, Michigan-Clemson, Michigan-Miami and Michigan-Florida are all GREAT matchups!
I kinda like it. Actually, what I'd really like to see, especially with the bcs going away and the bowls outside of the playoff mattering even less than they did before, push 3 or 4 of them to the beginning of the season and play some of these marquee matchups as a CFB "season kickoff" series. Atlanta, Indianapolis, Glendale; maybe even some some bigger markets like NY, LA, Chicago and Dallas. Tough part is, true neutral site matchups usually mean empty seats.
In case anyone has been wondering where comments are going, I have been deleting the political items to try to keep the discussion confined to the article itself. I will make the spot corrections as long as I am up tonight, but please try to keep sociopolitical items regarding Chick-Fil-A out of the thread.
"Chick-Fil-A also spoke with Ohio State, which Stokan says seems tied to the home-and-home model."
Just because I am a loser here are the marquee teams and who they have on their schedules in non conference 2015 forward - p.s. my view of marquee is not 12-1, just "top 20ish brand colleges"
Clemson: Georgia, South Carolina
FSU: Florida forever
Miami: Nebraska, and a 1 off with Notre Dame, open in 2017-18 (MSU in 2020-2021)
Oklahoma: Tenn, OSU, LSU, Nebraska (old school rematch)
Texas: ND for 4 years effectively replacing UM, USC
Oregon: MSU, Texas A&M, OSU (no major in 2017 though, and 2016 is only Virginia)
Stanford: ND forever, and 2 separate home and homes with Northwestern, Virginia
USC: ND forever, Texas for 2 years
Texas A&M: Oregon in 2018-19, nobody in 2015-2017 so that 2015 date is open
Tennessee: Oklahoma, Nebraska, schedule opens in 2018 - wouldn't mind seeing home and home with UM esp if Tenn gets back to old form
LSU: 2015 schedule a joke, very Wisconsin-ish. Ironically Wisconsin in 16, 2017 a joke again, than Oklahoma back to back
Georgia: Ga Tech forever but no one else
Auburn: This is the other team that plays no one - they don't even have any non conf scheduled in 2016 per the site I am looking at
Bama: West VA (once), Wiscy (once), MSU home and home
So all in all, Texas A&M, LSU and Georgia if they care to play a 2nd out of conference team of any weight look logical. Auburn too. What I like is we are getting back to some nice home and home series across conferences which are very lacking in the BCS era - I counted about 4 premier games like that this year in the schedule and by that I am including Nebraska-UCLA type games.
LSU, A&M, and Georgia - I am good with any of those, just as long as the home is in one of those seasons when The Game and MSU are away.
Just give me a Roses Kick Off Classic in Pasadena and let us play LSU there.
That would be fun.
Some of you guys are such pussies. How dare we face good teams.
Texas A&M has no major opponents on its published future schedules with the exception of Oregon in 2018/19. See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/sec/texas-am-aggies.php
While ATM hasn't been a major power in awhile, their move to the SEC plus the publicity (good and bad) surrounding Manziel has raised their profile. I don't know how well Aggie fans would travel to Atlanta, but they do fit the criteria of having one team in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl from the ACC or SEC.
I would even consider them a possibility for a home-and-home series. Michigan needs a major non-conference opponent for 2017 (Cincinnati is the only non-conference game scheduled to date) and there could be a return date for 2022 (Arkansas and Virginia Tech have home and homes with Michigan from 2018 thru 2021).
Texas A&M's home stadium (Kyle Field) is going to be expanded and remodelled with completion due in 2014. The field's capacity will be 102,500 for the 2015 season, so it's certainly a big enough venue for a major non-conference game. Plus it's in a major reecruiting area, so that can't hurt when it comes to getting UM down in Texas. See http://kylefield.com/
The largest hurdle I see will be the willingness of the parties to pull this off (this assumes Texas A&M is even available). The SEC looks like it will eventually go to a nine-game conference schedule, so you have to factor in how hard that will affect ATM's thinking regarding their non-conference schedule. If they keep the series with Oregon, then that would be a positive sign that they're willing to play at least one high end non-conference opponent per year.
In 2017, Michigan has five conference road games (at Purdue, at Indiana, at Penn State, at Maryland, at Wisconsin) and four home B1G games (Michgian State, Rutgers, Minnesota, Ohio State). See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081809aab.html. Cincinnati would be the fifth home game, leaving two scheduling spots open.
Given the pattern of home non-conference games (five in even numbered seasons, four in odd numbered years) and the timing of the Arkansas and Virginia Tech games (playing these teams in Ann Arbor in even numbered years), it looks like UM might have alternating years of eight and six home games starting in 2018. If UM were to keep that setup in place, then a home-and-home series with ATM has the Wolverines on the road in 2017 and at home in 2022 (provided that is the future date).
If there is no home-and-home series, but a one time meeting at the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in 2017 (the earliest open date), then UM would probably have seven home games (5 B1G plus two non-conference), four road games in conference play and the neutral site matchup to open the season.
Finally, of course, there's the question about the formation of Division 4 and how that might effect scheduing. For example, if a decision is made that D4 team can only play one another, then Michigan (and every other D4 program) would effectively be looking at only playing six home games per year. The three non-conference games would all be home-and-home setups and they would have to be coordinated with the nine-game conference schedule to ensure there are six home games annually.
If D4 teams are allowed to play non-D4 programs, then the non-conference series could stay what it now pretty much will be with just one home-and-home matchup per season. The other possibility would be two home-and-home non-conference games with D4 opponents and one non-D4 opponent to round out the schedule.
I would hope that an institution such as Michigan would have the integrity to turn down something sponsored by CFA.
as a matchup with one of the ACC or SEC schools. Curiously, Georgia never travels in the non-conference. It has made one western trip in like 30 years, that was to play Arizona State a few years back.
The SEC schools may claim college football dominance but they never leave their region to play anyone. And Alabama is the only school that I recall in recent memory outside Vanderbilt to play the Big Ten up north. But these matchups are few and far between except in bowl games, which again, are always played in warm weather areas, mostly in the ACC and SEC's backyard.
Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon for Michigan to play three major non-conference games a year. Then it got dropped to two over the past 20 years, and now you have one major and possibly a second smaller major game, in preseason. Of course, last year was an anomally for Michigan with a return to that oldtime schedule. And because of the results, you understand why schools are mostly reluctant to play these big non-conference games, especially playing in such a physical conference.
Ohio, for years now, has tried to play as many home games as possible and book one major non-conference opponent for national attention and ranking purposes, usually the second or third week of the season.
In the SEC, the league frontloads both conference and non-conference major matchups so the damage in rankings do to early losses is minimized. But Georgia catches no break this year in playing three major programs in the first month. The only good news on that front, is that the Bulldogs don't really have to travel in playing that schedule.