My Kingdom for a Marquee Nonconference Opponent
So I was checking out other teams' schedules when I came across an article on ESPN from late July about toughest/weakest schedules, etc. They give the prize for the weakest nonconference schedule to Michigan (UCLA is a very close second place). I didn't realize that this is the first season in over 75 years that Michigan's out of conference schedule won't include either a P5 team or one of the relevant independents (Notre Dame and BYU). Even worse, next year's nonconference schedule (East Carolina, UNLV, and Bowling Green) will make it two in a row.
This got me wondering about the nonconference games of previous seasons, which led me back through decades of Michigan schedules. What I wouldn't give to go back in time and have tickets in the 70s, 80s, or 90s when the nonconference schedules were stacked with marquee opponents and ranked matchups. I mean, just look at some of these opponents: UCLA, Stanford, TAMU, Miami, South Carolina... Most seasons had a combination of at least one marquee game and another solid matchups (Boston College, Washington State, etc.) Not a MAC team to be found until the 1990s and, even then, only one game against a MAC team the entire decade. By the 2000s, the MAC took over as the most played conference on the schedule.
Of course the team does have home-and-home matchups with Texas and Oklahoma starting in 2024 (fingers crossed they are not cancelled) and the return trip to Washington is rescheduled for 2028. But this is Michigan, fergodsakes. Why not schedule one nationally relevant matchup and one respectable P5 opponent per year?
If I had my druthers, the yearly nonconference schedule would include one team each from three separate categories:
- Nationally relevant teams (not all current powerhouses, but at least have a history of national relevance) with a good fanbase/following. These games would be home/away series. Clemson, LSU, Oklahoma, Auburn, Texas, TAMU, Stanford, Oregon, Tennessee, FSU, etc.
- Regional teams (respectable names, but definitely winnable games). These games would be one-shot home series only. West Virginia, Boston College, Miami, Arizona, Arizona State, Virginia, Wake, BYU, Boise State, etc.
- Bodybags. MAC schools, Hawaii, etc.
A schedule like this would certainly be much tougher (the OOC W-L record in the 80s was anything but stellar) and make it more difficult to get into the playoffs (at least until it is expanded to 8-12 teams). But then again, there's always the chance to get an early season victory against a team like, say, Clemson, that could really get the season off to one hell of a start. I would've liked our chances against early season Clemson last year.
It could also be a boon for recruiting. The staff could tell the players that if you come to Michigan, you'll play against the best not only in the B1G, but on a national stage as well.
So what are y'alls' thoughts (and how the hell do you make y'all possessive? Is it singular or plural?)?
Would you prefer a strong nonconference schedule or do you think Ws are more important?
If you could go back in time and get student tickets for a four/five/six-year stretch (I'm not judging. I spend way too much time in college), which years would you choose?
I thought we did this, and then cancelled with Virginia Tech and others?
Did we? I don't remember.
I recall that we cancelled the Arkansas series to get ND back on the schedule in 2018, and then cancelled the UCLA series for 2022-23 for some reason. I'd much rather be playing UCLA than Hawaii or UConn this year.
Cancelling Arkansas was to get Notre Dame back for two years, yes. But I don't think an official reason was ever given for buying out Virginia Tech.
If that series had never been cancelled, Michigan would have had to travel to Blacksburg last year. The game in Ann Arbor for 2020 would have been scrapped because of the covid year and probably rescheduled for a decade or so down the road like Washington.
UCLA was on the schedule for this year. We cancelled because we didn't want to do the return trip to the Rose freaking Bowl (let me repeat: we didn't want to treat our fans to a trip to the Rose Bowl) next year because it would mean we'd only have *gasp* 6 home games next year.
So yeah, the AD exploited the fact that people will pay to see two crap home games which are then more lucrative to the AD than a home game against UCLA (I'm still not sure why the TV networks don't make it financially advantageous to still play these games that people want to watch - maybe the team doesn't benefit directly because it has be split with the conference so at the margin it's better to just take the ticket revenue?).
But all that does is diminish the product even more. Young people already are turning away. When us old suckers that are indoctrinated age out, this will start to hurt ticket sales. They've already burned the long wait list.
Can you give me a reason to why? It's been proven over and over that strength of non conference schedule (especially true for teams playing in tougher conferences like SEC and Big Ten) means absolutely nothing. I don't see any reason to play tougher games that really mean nothing in the end. The 'cake' teams allow us to get the freshman meaningful snaps for at least 3 games every season.
In the old days, when SOS meant something, I was all for scheduling tough non conference games. Nowadays, I don't see the reason to risk the injuries and lose out on meaningful snaps for our younger players in these games.
A reason to why, what? I'm not sure what you're asking.
If by "meaning" something you are referring to the committee and how it decides CFP participants, I would argue it means a lot more than the "old" days based on the data.
In the "old days" before BCS, strength of schedule meant virtually nothing.
Now, the committee puts A LOT of weight on the Strength of Record metric (or at least mirrors it) which has a pretty strong SoS component.
Only twice in the last seven years has the top 4 NOT been exactly the top 4 in the SoR metric. Both times a team that didn't win their division, let alone their conference made the CFP they had top 4 SoR metrics (OSU in 2016 beat OU in the non-conf and was #2 in SoR and Bama in 2017 squeaked in with the #4 SoR).
Put simply, if you have the same number of wins as a team, you'll be ahead in SoR if you have a better SoS. And if you have significantly better SoS you could be ahead of a team with one fewer loss, which is how Bama, UGA and UM at 12-1 were ahead of Cinci at 13-0 last year.
So SoS matters a lot more than people realize.
But from a fan perspective, I don't care about the incredibly tiny chance that a non-conf game will put Michigan in or out of the CFP. It likely won't ever matter in our lifetimes. So I just want to watch us play fun games.
Washington last year was a super fun game. Night game, College Gameday, pom poms, people were excited! It was fun to watch.
Hawaii this year...eh, much less interesting. Much less meaningful.
I don't think "people" are paying for these games. TV networks are.
I agree with you, but until we get to a wider National Championship field, a loss to a "good" team OOC still hurts a lot - playing it safe I guess.
This is the correct answer. Don't blame Michigan, blame the playoff committee. Until they value strength of schedule in any way, it would be idiotic to schedule anyone of note in the non-conference schedule.
Why schedule a possible loss when it will kill your playoff possibility?
I don't know that I necessarily agree with this, but I think there are two counter arguments.
One, for Michigan, making the playoff is almost completely contingent on beating OSU and winning the Big Ten. I guess not having a non-conference loss gives you some wiggle room to lose to Iowa or MSU on the road, but if Michigan beats OSU and wins the B1G, they are almost always going to be in the playoff.
The other argument is that the chances of beating OSU are very low these days, so the chances of making the playoff even with no non-con losses are pretty small to begin with. So we may as well play an interesting game that the paying public would actually care about.
if Michigan beats OSU and wins the B1G, they are almost always going to be in the playoff.
If we have one loss overall, probably. But if we lose a non-conference game, and then a Big Ten game, that's probably it for our playoff chances, even if we go on to beat OSU and win the league. An 11-2 Michigan team is unlikely to get a bid. Losing a non-conference game basically forces us to run the table in Big Ten play.
But if we win a non-conference game and lose to OSU then we still have a good shot like when they still went in 2016 despite not beating PSU and not winning the division.
Playing a good opponent is as likely to help you as it is to hurt you. One might even argue it's more likely to help than to hurt.
But this is also not at all consideration for the AD. It's home game revenue. That's it.
The problem is that the upside of winning is much smaller than the downside of losing. A win in a marquee non-con game gives you a small bonus, but a loss leaves you zero margin for error.
OSU may have gotten a little boost from beating Oklahoma in 2016, but ultimately the bigger factor was that they finished the year with one loss while PSU had two. (And the Michigan game was regarded as a de facto play-in.)
As for finances, that's certainly a factor but hasn't prevented us from bringing Power 5 opponents to Michigan Stadium, including last year.
For one, this is simply not true. Absolutely not true. On what are you basing this? The committee sticks very closely to the Strength of Record metric to the point where they'll rank teams with more losses ahead of others (see Cinci at 4th last year despite being undefeated - exactly where SOR had them). And in that metric as in the minds of the committee, a good win helps as much as a good loss hurts.
OSU 100% only made it in 2016 because they beat Oklahoma. It was stated repeatedly by the committee. They had both one fewer loss and a more difficult schedule because they played OU. The second point was essential. One loss teams that play weak schedules miss out all the time.
And there's also how you win or lose. The difference between them and PSU also included the way PSU lost to Michigan (absolute blowout), they way they beat OSU (lucky). But the win over OU gave the committee what it needed to put OSU in over PSU despite the head to head.
And yes, Michigan will of course host P5 teams. And they'll play on the road against P5 teams but only if they still get seven home games. So they won't do it in a year in which they have only 4 home conference games. This is now a hard a fast rule that Warde is sticking to and the reason they cancelled the UCLA home-and-home.
A two-loss team has never made the four-team CFP.
Let me repeat that: literally no team has ever made the playoff with two losses.
So if Michigan scheduled, say, LSU and lost, it would need to run the table to make the playoff. Even going 8-1 in B1G play with a win over OSU *and* then winning in the B1G championship very likely wouldn't be enough (see PSU in 2016; OSU in 2017).
We need to go to an 8 team (or 12 team) CFP as soon as possible. Otherwise, we're going to continue to get mediocre to bad OOC.
Only once has this ever come up though, ie only once has a two loss Big Ten (or SEC) champion with a quality non-conf loss ever been in consideration and it was OSU in 2017 and the committee would have put them in if the loss to Iowa wasn't so lopsided. So yeah, you can't get blown out in one of you losses but you can lose twice (it will happen sooner than later - two loss teams made the BCS top 2).
And there's also an example of a non-champion getting in because they played and won a marquee non-conf game: OSU in 2016.
You're at least as likely to be helped by playing quality non-conference opponents as you are to be hurt by it. So just play the fun games.
2016 PSU was 11-2 and on a nine-game winning streak. Their nonconference loss was a close rivalry game against Pitt. Without that loss they’d have probably gotten in.
As for OSU that year, how do we know they got in because of the Oklahoma game? It was going to be either them or PSU and PSU had two losses.
Yes, a 2-loss LSU made the BCS in ‘07, but that was a crazy year in which there were no other plausible options. If there is a plausible alternative to a 2-loss team, history suggests the committee will pick it.
As for OSU that year, how do we know they got in because of the Oklahoma game?
Because the committee stated it very clearly. There's no way, zero chance they'd have gotten in over a team that beat them had they not had that marquee away win. Zero chance.
I'm not sure PSU would have gotten in without the loss to Pitt, considering they got absolutely crushed by Michigan. The committee doesn't look too kindly on blowout losses, and that's also been stated repeatedly, but agree they possibly would have because a mediocre loss is even worse than a "good" loss. But it's unlikely enough for a potential playoff team, that you definitely should't be scared of playing a mediocre non-conf team.
This 100% has nothing to do with it (as it shouldn't).
It has everything to do with having more home games for the revenue.
Nice analysis! And I completely agree with your 3 game non-conference proposal.
1) Give me a reputable home and home with a top tier team.
2) Purely home game every year versus the likes of Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri, BC, etc.
3) Purely home game every year against in-state MAC school.
This year's 4 game home stretch is already making me reach for a vomit bag.
Ah, the good old days when respectable P5 teams would come to Michigan for a buy game. Unfortunately, times have changed and it's rare that any P5 school will take less than a home and home.
Better chance to make the playoffs by playing cupcakes in the non conference and that’s the bigger goal for the team.
This is the correct answer. The goals & stakes have changed since the 70's,80's and 90's. Going through the OP's list there are plenty of "L's" on it. Enough to be kicked out of the selected 4 playoff teams.
Sure, as a fan playing Alabama week #1 would be awesome, then you still have to run a now brutal B1G gauntlet with little margin for error. Unfortunately, until they up the number of playoff teams, the smart OOC play will be sisters of the poor.
No. This is 100% wrong. The money has changed since the 70s and 80s and 90s so ADs now maximize the money no matter what. And that's all this is.
The only thing that's changed in terms of stakes for Michigan is that we have even less of a chance of winning a national title and hence care even less about scheduling for it. We schedule to maximize profit.
All Y'all. The plural of Y'all.
I lived 22 years in Texas, consider me an expert on this.
Damn, I should've known that.
Y'all's works for possessive. All y'all's is perfectly acceptable too
I had an Arkansas buddy in the corps, he would say all y’alls’ for when something belonged to everybody. There was also a z sound on the end for some reason
That'z correct
I don't think Michigan is necessarily ducking difficult competition. If I recall correctly, UCLA was supposed to be on the schedule this season or next (and in any event, will be soon as a conference foe). And also, I think we have ND to thank for canceling the series (speaking of ducking opponents...).
Big time OOC games may soon be a thing of the past with USC, UCLA and possibly other teams coming in though.
( Also, I have no idea why but I have no desire to play the likes of Okla, LSU, A&M, FSU, etc., I think those are better left as bowl game matchups. Something would just seem weird about playing those teams. I'll take Stanford, Oregon, Texas, Miami, some other ACC teams and of course ND, though).
Besides practice time and the ability to play players deeper down the depth chart, I feel bowl games are nearly meaningless outside of the Playoff, NYD, and perhaps a handful of the more marquee bowl games (Peach, Holiday, or Alamo as examples). I hope with megaconferences, it creates or pushes nonconference scheduling similar to basketball with potential SEC/Big 10 a/o a Big 12 ("other")/Big 10 challenge games, while populating the remaining schedule with conference opponents. (E: to add, NFL bound players probably feel this way too as they are sitting out from bowl games. At least with a "challenge" game, you have a bowl game like experience on the schedule except on a college campus ... or not. I would also try to schedule it to have an SEC team play a game in Nov in the midwest.)
I also think it would be interesting to revisit Rich Rodriguez's idea of an exhibition game (Week 0) so teams can fine tune the week prior to entering the regular schedule. (Maybe even limit the quarters to 10/12 minutes as no one cares to stay long for a 54-10 game anyways. Perhaps Notre Dame could keep Navy on the schedule this way too, while rotating other traditional rivalries as their challenge games.)
*shrug emoji*
The marquee wins (and losses if they're are early enough) don't matter as much in the preseason. The opponents could be a little better, but I'm not going to apologize for going undefeated heading into conference play.
Someone (maybe on MgoBlog?) did an analysis that showed that Michigan consistently has had a fairly strong non-conference schedule compared to most others.
Yeah that was my thought. We've had rough OOC games for decades, while Ohio State and others have skated through theirs. I'll take a few years of being undefeated til we hit the meat of the schedule. Once we've made the CFP/won a B1G a bit more regularly, then I might start to complain about it but we've still got Oklahoma and Texas coming up so what's to be mad about?
Enjoy the stress-free games is what I say
Quit with the whole "while Ohio State ... (has) skated through theirs." !!!
Ohio State has consistently endeavored to schedule a top-tier home-&-home series throughout the 2000s:
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Texas
- Miami (YTM)
- USC
- Washington
- TCU
- VaTech
- Cal (yea, that series was a bit light, but that was scheduled when Cal was USC's top contender in the Pac-10)
Home-&-home series that were scheduled but later cancelled by the SEC cowards:
- Tennessee
- Bama
Future Schedules:
- ND '22-23
- Washington '24-25
- Texas '25-26
- Bama '27-28
- Georgia '30-31
It is a somewhat fair point Chuck although you've had your share of cupcakes to feast on as well. OSU has had their scheduling moments. Baker Mayfield never planted a flag in the Block M.
If OSU schedules Miami (NTM) instead of Oregon, OSU might have been in the playoff last year instead of Cincinnati.
Yea, OSU's model has been similar to the OP's model. The goal is to have every year:
- One marquee national matchup.
- A lower P5 or decent G5 opponent.
- Sludge. For high-revenue scrimmages.
For a change, our OOC schedule looks like one from the SEC.
I would prefer the more usual schedule of better matchups, because with the likelihood of making the playoff pretty slim given that there are two or three auto-bids, we might as well enjoy good football. Not that I find a 63-10 beatdown boring, but when the only thing in doubt is the final margin, it's not nearly as entertaining.
In a different age & era, your schedule proposal would have made sense.
In today's environment it doesn't work competitively or financially.
Competitively it's all about getting to the playoff's. You can't have any losses. Why take a chance? get your 11 or 12 wins to get in and the seeding doesn't really matter.
Financially, the second tier of schools (Regional Teams) would never agree to a one off away game. They have to maximize home game revenue just as much as Michigan does, maybe even more. They are only looking for home/away match-ups now also.
In today's college football world, the only teams willing to show up with no return trip are the teams you wouldn't want to travel to anyway. That is why Michigan has three home games against tier 3 schools this year and next. It's also why future schedules will most likely be one tier one school and two tier 3 schools, unless the B1G goes to an all conference 12 game schedule (which might actually happen).
This here's your answer right there now.
There was something really nice from the 70's throughout the 90's where there were no FBS and no MAC opponents on the schedule. 1995 Miami-Ohio was a fill-in game after Oklahoma State cancelled on us. Cupcake games in those days were the likes of Duke, Arizona, Stanford...that one year we played Wake Forest.
Although sometimes the non-conference schedule seemed suicidal. Like playing #5 Notre Dame and #1 Miami in back-to-back weeks. Or in 1994 when we had the #1 most difficult schedule in all of college football with non-conference games against Notre Dame, Boston College and Colorado, which was a top 5 program during the early 90's in addition to grueling Big Ten schedule which now included Penn State, which was also much more dominant in those days.
I think it's better now from an appetite perspective to have something more down the middle. 1 ranked (or highly ranked) opponent, one decent opponent and probably two cupcakes in non-conference play. But the way the playoffs are set up now, cupcakes help you out much more.
I see a couple of games missing. Miami-Ohio 1995 after the great kickoff classic against Virginia. Also, no Toledo from the RichRod era. I think we all want to forget that one.
I don't remember a game against Toledo during the Rich Rod era.
Yeah, looks like I missed the 1995 Miami (OH) game. But we never played Toledo in 2008. Nope. Didn't happen.
I grew up in Ann Arbor and went to every one of those home games beginning in 1973 with my dad--it was indeed pretty cool to see UCLA, ND beginning in the late 70's and more come to Michigan Stadium. Then in the 80's we saw Miami (FL), and in the 90's we even saw Florida State, and more more. BUT we often lost those games and from my point of view the 'coolness' of playing other national programs was completely overcome when we lost.
I don't like the lame out of conference schedules any more than O.P. and if I lived in SE Michigan I'm not sure I would shell out for season tickets. But losing sucks and greedy me wants to make the playoffs and have a chance to win. So I guess that means I like the occasional inter-sectional matchup against a quality opponent but small doses are fine.
Beating up on UConn and UNLV and whomever actually makes for a more pleasant Saturday and sometimes even frees me up after halftime.
To hell with Notre Dame, but I miss playing ND.
Nebraska ruined college football by scheduling Troy and other ridiculously easy oppenents every year in the 80's and 90's in order to be undefeated and in National Championship contention. Alabama followed suit as did everyone else.
The National Championship equally waters down college football. Everyone now has three "pre-season" tune-up games and no one gives a shit about any of the bowls other than the National Championship.
I'd rather see 12 great games (6 toss-up/lean lose games, 3-4 lean win conference/OOC games, and 2-3 should win games and have people argue about SOS.
At least you will know ahead of time where to book your late December vacation every year.
Do the tickets come with free tax service?
Excellent work in defense of a terrible idea. There is no upside for Michigan to play tough OOC games, only downside for losing them. We will always have a tough B1G slate and as long as there is a CFP system, winning is all that matters and I am fine with a non-conf schedule like we play this year.
Excellent work in defense of a terrible idea.
Um, thanks...I think?