Scheduling - The subtle corruption of $
Reading the news that we may schedule UMass finally motivated me to post this: Scheduling weak teams (I-AA, MAC, etc.) shows how subtly the big money in sports like football can corrupt even the most well-intentioned programs.
Do you think the Wolverine players want to play UMass, and not a big game against a national power on network TV? Does it benefit them in any way to play UMass? No, they are playing UMass only for the reason that Bill Martin has clearly articulated: For the money. We're sending out these unpaid kids to bring in revenue for the University.
I understand players can't take the beating of big games every weekend, but we can play more than one (i.e., Notre Dame) out-of-conference. The kids would love it -- they didn't come here to play MAC teams -- and it would be a better football program for them as student-athletes. Does the chemistry department dumb-down its curriculum because it would bring in more revenue?
Today MSU announced they are adding West Virginia and Alabama to future schedules (which already include Notre Dame) and the news breaks that UM is adding UMass. How embarrassing. MSU will play a tougher schedule than we will ... due in part, of course, to the fact that they play us, and we play them.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:12 PM ^
We need a bit of confidence. In a couple years we can schedule some "Holy Shit" games. For now, we need a couple years of beating up on little guys.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:32 PM ^
While it is despicable that we have scheduled yet another DI-AA school, it is what it is.
Big time college football will always be this way and theres no real way of stopping it. I think we'll have an easier time getting play-offs than we would stopping schools from scheduling lower-tiered schools.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^
well a playoff would stop this pussy way of scheduling. IMO
co-signed
April 28th, 2009 at 10:24 AM ^
...what if the NCAA took charge of scheduling non-conference games. All the Division 1-A teams go into a big bowl with ping pong balls. The games are scheduled 2 years out so no one can complain. Every team plays 8 game conference schedules (shut up Pac 10) and 4 non-conference games. 2 road and 2 home. The random ping pong balls determine who plays whom and where.
As an example (this is completely random):
year 1 - Michigan draws San Diego State in San Diego, Connecticut and Texas A & M at home, and Wyoming in Laramie.
year 2 - Wake Forest and Missouri at home, Florida International and Arkansas on the road.
Tell me that scheduling process wouldn't be a "draft"-like atmosphere for college football. It would create interesting and unique matchups. And, universities couldn't complain about scheduling - there are teams that we know that just finalized their 2009 schedules weeks ago.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:33 PM ^
I agree this makes us look weak. We should be the team to play a home n home with WVU. I realize home games bring in more money but come on 2 mac schools and a subdivision school is pathetic. I love playing the little 3 (well 4 if you count MSU) but rotate Western, Central, and Eastern. The other three should be a warm up like an out of state mac, or someone from the wac, mountain west, or C-USA, ND, and a West Virginia, Clemson, or South Carolina. Personally I'd Like to see U of M vs one of the military academies! I think would bring in more money for a home game and still bring in money for away games. I assume ABC pays more to a school than BTN?
April 27th, 2009 at 11:35 PM ^
You're right that $ is the driving factor behind scheduling...but let's be real, we need to worry about beating our Big Ten rivals before we go around challenging USC or Alabama to a big game.
Also, I hate to be a chicken, but an early loss (even to a good team) could stink up our national championship dreams somewhere down the line. Obviously on the flip side, a win over USC would be huge.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:36 PM ^
If a lose is gunna stink your NC chances then DON'T LOOSE!
April 28th, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
wow, my head hurts after that sentence...
English = FAIL
April 28th, 2009 at 12:04 AM ^
I'll be worried about loosing games when we can actually loose a game.
Until then, not losing games will suffice.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:19 AM ^
I just quoted the person above me. Also fucking relax i put an extra o in lose. Was try to emphasize lose!
If a loss is gunna "stink" your NC chances then DON'T LOSE!!!!
Now both of you go find a tall building and jump
April 28th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^
...cause that worked so well last year that we should try it out on USC and Texas and Alabama, too?
I never said USC, Texas or Bama, but there's deff a middle ground. can you honestly tell me you'd rather watch Michigan vs. Delaware State than Michigan vs. West Virginia? Michigan had a down year but 2010 vs UMASS to open the new big house is an embarrassment!
I found a tall building. I can't see it from here, but I know it exists and can remember its appearance. It's Tower Plaza on William St. in Ann Arbor. I jumped. In fact, I did a few jumping jacks in my living room. So, now what?
I doubt you were "try to" emphasize the word lose.
Go play on I-94.
I'll go play on I-94 with your wife. Hey on the bright side this will give you time to drink some Liquid Drano!
April 28th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
Clearly, nobody has taught you any manners. Even if I were married, there are two things you don't mess with:
a) a guy's wife
b) a guy's car (which is completely irrelevant to the current discussion, but you've already shown the capability to be the type of scum to key up someone's car)
There's no reason to bring others into this, and in doing so you have proven yourself only slightly more mature than the average prepubescent boy. Although, I guess I should have already inferred that from your ever-so-classy avatar. Every community has one, I guess... at least you make yourself known for it.
Don't bother with a response. It'll fall on deaf ears.
Mean People Suck (my balls, Mr. Garrison).
is a home game without a road game the following year. If we lose to a team like S. Carolina or a middle of the pack SEC team, National Championship dreams are gone. This would be completely fair, except for the fact that teams like Penn St, OSU, many SEC teams... schedule cupcakes OOC.
If this were a major problem, then the NCAA can do as Brian says and ban these games, or have a playoff.
I'm excited to play UMass. In fact, I'm more likely to go to the UMass game than I would be to go to a UM-WVU game. I'm similarly excited to see us play Delaware State. I think these are often interesting matchups that are fun to watch and bring exposure to teams that you don't see or hear about regularly.
I do like to see us play a mediocre team from another major conference occasionally, but we do this almost every year.
We opened the 2006 season against Vanderbilt.
We played Oregon in the second game of 2007.
We opened 2008 against Utah.
This is the first year we won't have a similar matchup, and the Western game comes close. But I have no desire to see us against a BCS-bowl-caliber opponent in week one. We were barely 50% favorites in the above games, and we lost 2 of the 3.
I don't think we should be complaining about the quality of our opponents unless and until we've proven that we can beat the teams we're scheduling regularly. Sure, I wish we would go outside the MAC to schedule some of these games (MAC teams bore me. I have no idea why.), but I have no problem replacing them with Tulsa or Tulane. We can work our way up to a home-and-home with Nebraska.
has been very competitive against the B10 of late. I am just saying.
pissed off about this, until someone pointed out the financial situation of the Michigan athletic department. They're finishing the football practice facilities and the stadium, and they're trying to secure all of the financing for the basketball practice facility, while at the same time are likely to deal with decrease in donations because of the state and national economy.
So is it really reasonable in the next couple of years for us to expect them to turn down the extra $4-$6 million by scheduling a home/home series with a bigger school?
I'd still rather find a Sunbelt, MAC or WAC team instead of 1-AA squads, but financially I can't blame them.
Under the current system, the Big Ten is the path of least resistance to the National Championship game. That, combined with either the game or his cojones passing Lloyd Carr by the last fewyears of his tenure, is why OSU has gotten to three of them this decade.
They have three rivalry games, plus PSU and whoever the rising Big Ten team of that particular year (i.e. Illinois, Iowa). That is usually five pretty tough games per year. Also, UM gets everyone's best shot, and it makes other teams' years and sometimes decades if they beat UM.
I like the combination of four or five very tough games and seven "breathers." With scholly reductions and more TV exposure, the gap between "easy" wins and tough games has lessened considerably.
As long as the system continues to reward the Big Ten with NC game appearances, why would they want to change anything?
co-signed
April 28th, 2009 at 10:12 AM ^
It's comparing apples to oranges at this point. UMass being added is the 12th game for 2010. Most teams schedules are set or at the very least, they already had a team to play that weekend. State's contracts with WVU and Alabama don't start for six years. If Michigan announces tomorrow that it is adding UMass in 2015, then I'll join in your dissent.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
Something very lost in the discussion is the availability of other teams to play at this point. With one or two bye weeks padding the end of our schedule every year, we have to get our OOC games in early - leading to the exact problem seen here when we get our schedule put together late.
For now I see no problem with it. If we start scheduling 1-AA games for seasons that won't be starting in the next 1.5-2 years, then I'll have issue.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^
We have a better reason to not play D-IAA (or whatever it's called now) teams than anyone else, and it involves kittens.
I would bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in your pockets that the pre- and in-game coverage would incessantly bring up The Horror. I can already sense the glee in Terry Foster's voice the week before Delaware State when he assesses the Hornets* chances with reference to '07.
*Delaware State's nickname, for those, like me, who had to look it up when the game was announced.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
is replacing ND with WVU and bama, i think.
this is a CFB issue, not a M issue.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
a two year break with ND the years they play WVU, but they will be playing Alabama and ND in the same season for two years.
I miss old MGoBlog.
To all of those scared of losing the national championship in week 1 to South Carolina, WVU, etc...1) If you lose to a middle of the pack BCS conference team you weren't gonna win the NC anyway. 2) You play Notre Dame and 3 cupcakes, lose 1 Big 10 game, 11-1 in the NC game and get smashed, a la Ohio St. And that guy who said he would rather watch us play UMass than West Virginia, stop lying!
Angelique Chengelis covers this issue in todays Detroit News, but she misses the essential point that the school is just using the players and selling their unpaid labor.
http://detnews.com/article/20090429/OPINION03/904290376/1131/sports0201…