Starting rumors: Boise St for the 2011 Opener?
http://www.obnug.com/2010/4/12/1416822/what-big-name-team-could-complet…
Summarized: The Boise State AD is looking for a big-name, big-money non-conference game for their remaining open date in 2011 (Sept 3). In a fan poll on this blog, Michigan is current leader, ahead of teams like Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. I realize fan polls mean little (read: nothing), but still.
Totally crazy? Maybe. The AD's willingness to schedule UConn this year may signal that we could take on a second non-creampuff in the future. I'm confidant (...ok, hoping) we'll contend for the Big Ten Title in 2011, so it probably wouldn't be a mismatch.
Should it happen we would open the season with Boise State, following it up with ND at night a week later. Yes, please.
If this sounds awful, who would you like to see instead?
GEORGIA
AT NIGHT
BLACK UNIFORMS
ENTER SANDMAN
LIGHTNING
FIREWORKS
EXPLOSIONS
BOB DOLE
RAWK
Bob Dole...
Sounds like a VT game
VT doesn't get Bob Dole
will now replace "the victors" as our touchdown song.
I lol'd sir.
you forgot one
VIAGRA
Bob Dole
Boise State is practically begging top tier programs to play them for their non conference schedule. I would like to see Michigan open against Boise State then play ND at night the following week.
Horrible idea. ND is a tough foe and you want our opening game to be another tough one, so we can be semi-prepared for both? How about we keep it like it is: easy foe to warm up for ND? Beating ND at night is plenty good enough for me.
IMHO, this attitude is ruining college football. Sure, I'd love to win a national championship. But I, for one, would rather play a non-creampuff schedule and risk losing to a good team than watch a thousand games against the likes of Delaware State. Those games are meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
LSU won the title a few years back with a couple of losses. Losses to solid teams early in the year aren't necessarily a death sentence in the national championship race. And they're far more entertaining for the fans, and more interesting for the players.
And they provide more teachable moments for the coaches and players.
Gimme Boise St. and Notre Dame. I'll take Colorado, Oregon and UCLA again, too. Syracuse, Florida State, etc. I think you see my point.
"Losses to solid teams early in the year aren't necessarily a death sentence in the national championship race."
Yeah, Just ask Ohio State!!!
Why would a fan poll put us first? We're not exactly a hot commodity in the national media these days...
They think they could beat us.
That may be why. Boise fans are smart, and they don't want to be irrelevant after running into Saban's buzzsaw in week 1. The idea of beating a down-on-their-luck giant to get a big name win sounds much more appealing.
Michigan fans vote for themselves in everything. They probably found the poll, circulated it on a scout board, and watched the votes pile up.
So what you are saying is that Pinchers isn't really better than Anna Maria?
...comments in the comments section from the fans of Anna Maria Oyster Bar, probably not. Pinchers Crab Shack is only better given the potential for the Michigan corner.
And yes, I literally laughed out loud when I read your post.
Damn, I didn't follow that whole story until the end. Looks like Tater is in the lead for total douche of the year so far.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:18 PM ^
I know what you mean about reflex M voting: I just voted for Michigan in that "college needing a dong punch" poll floating around the Internets.
After reading the comments , it seems like the Boise St. fans have a ton of respect for Michigan, and many mentioned wanting to visit Michigan Stadium. I guess we sometimes forget how iconic the Big House really is around the US.
Sorry to let the cat out, but Michigan is planning on playing Alabama in the Chik-Fil-A thing in Atlanta. You heard that BS here first.
Playing Boise St. is a no win situation. It's too bad, because I wouldn't mind seeing someone really beat the shit out of them.
Why?
The media treats them like the Cinderella that they once were, even though they are a big time program. Also: people think they should be in the MNC game every year after beating one good team, two or three decent ones, and a bunch of Baby Seals.
And by decent you mean generally mediocre.
Boise beats Michigan and it's a big deal. Michigan beats Boise and everyone shrugs.
Boise State BCS wins: 2 (within last 5 years)
Michigan BCS wins: 1 (10 years ago)
Yeah, a definite no-win for Boise, they might as well schedule a team that wins something once in a while.
they beat an overrated oklahoma team that shouldnt have even won the big 12 and was nowhere near the "goliath" people tried to make them out to be and then beat another mid-major...
Dude that Oklahoma team was 11-2, with one of those losses being to Texas in the Shootout and the other being the legendary Oregon game where everybody in the world agrees that the wrong call gave the Ducks the game, and Stoops had ADRIAN PETERSON at running back. What in the hell was overrated about them?
I'll give them the OU win, but not TCU. Beating TCU in a BCS game is a bit of a cop out, IMO. Our Cap1 Bowl win over Heisman winner Tebow was at least as good (if not better) of a win than Boise over TCU.
And our other BCS chances were against VY's Texas team (who we almost beat, and who wouldn't lose again until after VY left) and 2 games against USC in LA, at least one who should have been playing in the Championship game. We've had about as tough of match-ups in BCS games as anyone.
I bet they were bummed out to hear they wouldn't get a crack at Florida or Cincinnati. Now, I doubt they would have beaten Florida. But you can't blame them for the BCS's cop-out.
I don't blame them, but I don't give them too much credit for the win either. I think that our win over Florida after the 2007 season is as impressive as their win over TCU this past year, despite what the name of the bowl was.
It's shitty that the BCS had that match-up. BSU and TCU were the only 2 teams in BCS bowls who may or may not have deserved it. All the other teams either won their BCS conference, or was second in a competitive BCS conference. Both TCU and Boise had good seasons, but because it was mostly against second tier talent, we don't know how they would have stacked up agains the real BCS teams.
because nobody gives them the chance to play top-tier talent. They've beat all comers for the last two years (and most comers for the past 5) and should be moved up to the A-league.
They're trying. The BCS system and the fallout of that are preventing Boise St from truly becoming relevant.
That and the fact that its a school that no conference wants. Boise devotes all of its resources into football. It would be a better football fit them to be in the Big 12 or Pac 10, but it wont happen because they don't bring anything else to the table other than a decent football team.
Oklahoma was good that year, but going into that game they were ranked behind at least two teams that didn't win their conference (UM and LSU). The Big 12 had a bad down year that year. Iowa went 2-6 in the Big Ten and they almost beat Tejas in their bowl game. That year the Big East was actually better than the Big 12. And Oklahoma's quarterback sucked big time. They weren't the Goliath that they have been built up to be. If I remember right, the point spread for the game wasn't that big. And then Boise State needed OT and two trick plays to win.
so if youre good you cant be overrated? im not saying they were some horrible team, but they werent as good as everyone was trying to make them out to be
It's not like Boise is Appalachian St (oops). 'Sides if we're afraid of Boise St can we really expect to hang with Notre Dame and Ohio State?
really?
so with that rationale our schedule every year should be:
nonconference:
Florida
USC
ND
there is value to victories man. and a smart team doesn't overload itself with blue chip opponents because there's only so much time to prepare for the tough foes.
BSU would be a tragic scheduling error for UM at this point.
I'll use your same move: by your rational we should only play App. St. (oops), Toledo (oops, again), and Baby Seal U in our OOC...right?
I never said to stack the OOC with a who's who of the year-in-year-out top 10. I said you shouldn't be afraid of playing a team like Boise State if you consider yourself to be a top notch football program. I know there's value to victories, so go beat a good team.
Boise State is a good team for us to schedule especially in 2011. We'll be much better and they'll be losing a lot of starters and maybe even their coach. Their stock will still be high.
How about Auburn, Arkansas, or South Carolina...should we be afraid of playing them?
It's not about being afraid to play them. ND is our top tier OOC team, and with a new coach they very well could be back to being decent soon.
Name more than about 2 or 3 BCS conference teams that schedules more than one tough OOC team. It's rare, and I'm not sure we're in the position (yet) to be scheduling a who's who of college football before the Big Ten season starts.
First off, why should we care about what other people do? But, for discussion's sake, look at Virginia Tech's OOC schedule last season:
Wk1: Alabama (5)
Wk2: Marshall
Wk3: Nebraska (19)
They followed that up with their conference opener Miami(Fl) ranked 9th. Michigan, and the other "1337s" for that matter, are way to soft to sign up for a schedule like that. This discussion is proof positive. We wouldn't have signed up for it in 2006 or 2007 either. Two of our best returning squads in a LONG time.
On one hand Boise State, TCU, and Cincinnati get dogged for not playing any of the big boys, on the other the big boys are scarred of playing them. I know what you're getting at but listen (or rather read yourself) to your self. Michigan is in the who's who of college football!
This is a really bizarre discussion...for realz. "We're too good to play them, they might beat us."
Va. Tech has to give themselves a harder OOC schedule because they aren't exactly guaranteed a spot in the National Championship game by winning the ACC. It's the only way people are going to take them seriously on a national level.
They ended up ranked in the top ten 3 of the last 5 years. The reason why they haven't made the BCS championship game is because they haven't had an undefeated or 1-loss season recently. The last time they did (1999 and 2000) they played in the National Championship game both times. Put it this way, if VaTech were Boise St or TCU, they'd have played for the trophy last year. Also, no one's signing up to play them either.
Not many programs schedule multiples.
My votes go to USC, Canes (under Shannon), Stanford (given that they play ND every year and have played H&Hs with TCU, BYU and BC the last 10 years), Va Tech, as has been mentioned here ...
... and special mention to Colorado, which may be the poster child for those who don't want tough OOC games. Buffs play CSU every year, which most might say "meh" but it's their in-state rival, so always tough.
Check this out:
2010: Cal and Georgia & CSU
2009: CSU and WVU
2008: CSU, WVU and Fla. St.
2007: CSU, ASU and Fla. St.
2006: CSU, ASU and Georgia
2005: CSU and Canes
2003: UCLA, CSU and Fla. St.
2002: UCLA, CSU and USC
Man, no wonder they can't turn that ship around.
I would be much happier to schedule a Top 5 program each year than to schedule someone like Boise. A victory may vault us into the national title hunt, while a loss doesn't do a great deal of harm because it's so early.
There is no point in stacking the OOC schedule with lose-lose situations like Boise. It's not a matter of being scared, it's a matter of being smart.
Boise State isn't a lose-lose anymore. The program has a lot of national respect. Enough to get Michigan fired up when they play them and not overlook them. Enough to where if Michigan beats them in the first game of next year (they'll probably be ranked), they'll get appropriate credit. To me, lose-lose games are contests like Boston College and UConn that nobody ever pays attention to but are usually solid.
I would agree to a certain extent. I don't think Boise is a lose lose for a lower to mid tier major conference team, something like Indiana, Illinois, and Northwestern. I realize that we fall into that category at the moment, but I would think there's at least some prestige in beating us, even when we're down.
I mean, look at Utah 2008. People still talk about that team and how it could have played for the NT, even though they barely beat a Michigan team that was platooning(!) Steve Threet and Nick Sheridan. Nobody mentions that Michigan went on to go 3-9, or that it was the first game of Rodriguez's first year. It's just "They beat Michigan"
You sure woke up on the wrong side of the dick fence today didn't you.
I can see your argument, and it is true, that nationally speaking each team schedules at least one creampuff to bloat their win total. But backing down from them because it would be two tough games in a row is a sadly defeatist attitude. On the flip side of your argument, losing to Boise St. is a lot better than losing to Appy State. I know the last two years have been tough, but is it that bad that we don't want to play top-level programs any more?