UConn the antithesis of ND
Based purely on a national media/national perception standpoint these two programs are about as opposite as they come.
ND is a top 5 national media team. UConn maybe dead last.
Beating a 3-9 ND team is a far bigger story than beating a 9-3 UConn team.
I would be willing to bet that UConn could have beaten ND more often that not in the past 5 years.
If there was a ratio of how good a team really is compared to how good a team everyone thinks they are ND would be at the rock bottom and UConn probably near the top alongside teams like Boise, Utah, etc.
All that really means is that ND on the schedule = good and UConn on the schedule = bad. We get much more credit for beating ND and we would get basically zero for beating a solid UConn team.
GOD I hope we don't play these fuggers next year.
UConn just isn't that good. They're an ok football team. 7-5 in the Big East and a bowl win over Buffalo isn't a spectacular season, especially since they were 3-4 in conference play. And they lost their sick running back.
My post was not last season specific. I am referring to UConn football's national perception compared to teams like ND, FSU, Nebraska, and other historic powerhouses that are probably not as good as UConn any given year but wins over them would be held in much higher esteem than a victory over a solid UConn team.
So do you think that Utah got more out of beating what became a 3-9 UM team?
or would UM have gotten more out of beating a utah team with what became an 11-1 record even if it would have only amounted to 4-8?
Can I answer '6 of one, half dozen of the other'?
I think you could argue it either way. However once you are 3-9 I don't think one more win against a non-rival means a whole hell of a lot, even a then 11-1 team.
When a fanbase longs for the days of Dan Orlovsky, well National Power is something you're not.
He was good in college. What if Henne sucks in Miami and Forcier and Gardner don't pan out? Then people will be wondering why we would be longing for the Henne days. For the record, I think all 3 will be very good.
I wasn't trying to slight Dan O. 10,000+ yards is 10,000+ yards. I know they have been good the last two years, but I remember them being talked about as a rising program who could dominate the Big East. Edsall has done an amazing job, but their stock was higher in '05, IMO.
And in this case, most people are right. If you play in the undoubtedly weakest division in college football (and weaker than the MWC) and you haven't won an an OOC game against a decent/ranked team.... ever... then you aren't a solid team.
Agreed, scheduling teams that have the potential to be decent with 0 national cachet is a bad idea.
And last I check, the pollsters - the people you guys care about the most since they provide the arbitrary rankings we so crave for our football team - respected UConn enough to a point where they were as high as 13th nationally at one point. 13th. They're not irrelevant. They're a solid fucking program playing in a BCS conference(weakest division in college football? The fuck are you talking about?). What the fuck are you people looking for - USC? This blatant disrespect for UConn is unfounded. Nobody here has a problem playing a "name" program like Pitt, yet they've gone 3-2 against Pitt since joining the Big East. Oops.
Unless you have some sort of statistical evidence to back up your nominal assertions about UConn(which is impossible, but I'll let you dwell on it), let the track record speaks for itself. UConn is a winning program in a BCS conference. They've been a regular bowl attendee since joining the Big East. That is all you could hope for on Michigan's OOC schedule on such short notice.
Beating a 3-9 ND team is a far bigger story than beating a 9-3 UConn team.
Absolutely right. Except, beating a UConn team only proves valuable at the end of the year (assuming UConn has a good year.) It basically pays off later in the season, more than it does at the time (if that makes sense) because the media reflect on the teams Michigan plays in determining/revisiting the "strength" of schedule.
In fairness though, many folks in the media (e.g. Mark May) bash ND as entirely overrated and irrelevant. At the same time though, while history is history, it does count for something.
Absolutely agree. I'm thinking more along the lines of recruiting and the larger national fanbase than I am bowl committee peeps. For example here on the west coast my USC neighbors might say, "great win over ND. I hate ND" if we beat a pretty crappy ND team with a good record over the armed forces team. I don't think I would hear a thing from anyone is we beat a UConn team that ends up 9-3 and would blow the doors off ND.
Yeah, I can see that.
I think we all sort of fall victim to this way of thinking. It's because UConn isn't known for football. In fact, how many fans of UConn football do you know? It's easier to talk to people all over the country about playing a bad Miami(the U) than a good UCONN team. I think UConn would need to pull a Boise State to gain more legitimacy.
That being said, I'd rather play a bad Miami, FSU, Nebraska, than a good UConn team. This is bad from a competitive standpoint (assuming UConn indeed is a better team), I just prefer to play programs with history (and larger fan bases.)
I am confused.
During hoops season, you got on my case for obsessing about the Bubble too early. Some mumbo jumbo about you being a macro person. Or is it micro. I dont know.
I hardly minded the critique, so no worries there.
But, it seems a little odd that, based on that critique, you would be so worried how your USC fans would respond to a win over UCONN as opposed to a game over another team.
Are we that obsessed with how others might portray us? Is that micro or macro thought?
Yes Jamie, I was the one that got annoyed with all the bubble talk so far away from selection sunday as millions of combinations of events would unfold that would basically deem outcomes in the 2nd week of January insignificant. And I was right as our three losses to Illinois, OSU, and PSU on 1/14, 1/17, and 1/20 respectively didn't preclude us from making the tourney and beating a higher seeded Clemson team before bowing out to Oklahoma. That same weekend team X had a great win over team Y and still had to settle for the NIT if you get my point.
The point of my post was that on many levels, national perception (AP and coaches' polls) as well as for recruiting purposes, playing UConn is a no-win situation and I can't think of a worse team to bring in for the opener of 2010. They are an above average football program with a rock bottom name. Nowhere in my post did I say that would be worried what USC fans would think. After last year it couldn't get any worse trust me. I only used that as an example comparing the national perception of ND to UConn in the eyes of a casual USC fan.
Not sure you can compare your January bubble talk to my point about UConn being a no-win.
....your whole post at 4:21 seems to be all about how good it is hear a USC fan give an atta boy for beating ND and lamenting that nobody would say anything about a win over UCONN. If that's not being worried about what other fanbases think, then my mistake. But, it seemed you were worried about what random fanbases would say about a possible matchup about a possible result. I couldnt resist taking a micro or macro stab at you. So, uh, touche.
Now....couple things:
Stop worrying about the AP Poll and old crusty sports writers not knowing that UCONN could be a better win than ND or whoever else. That poll is irrelevant and not part of the BCS equation.
And Uconn has a very young team this season, but still is better than 50/50, IMO, to make a bowl. I could care less about a perceived rock bottom name value. But, I would be interested in seeing us play any team from a BCS league with something in the ballpark of 17 starters back off three straight bowl seasons to open the year.
I am mot worried about Michigan's exposure. I'm fairly certain people know about Michigan. I dont see how a 2-game home and home in the immediate future with a team from a BCS league that regularily goes to a bowl will hurt the exposure. I would agree that it would be cooler to play a team in a region more nuts about football, but we're scheduling this sort of on the fly with not much room to move, so you have to shake down some of your expectations.
I would be more disappointed if we announced a UCONN home and home for 2017 and 2019, though. It is still my hope, and surely yours, that we get some heavy weight battle royals somehow in the future. But, we need a game in 13 months. This is not a bad option. In fact, it's pretty good. It seems like everyone has said through all of this, 'lets bring in a BCS team that we can beat' (but I dont know if you did, so take no offense. Not trying to put words in your mouth), well this accomplishes that, except it's no patsy and is a bowl program. Not a bad scheduling save, IMO.
This is my long winded way of saying I cant buy into any thinking that this is the worst thing we could possibly do.
First of all I feel like you've been chomping at the bit for me to "create content" on here so that you could take just about anything I say and try to make it some sort of macro/micro argument to get back at me for knocking your bball bubble paralysis by analysis "content" a few months back. And what you came up with is quite a stretch to say the least.
And I'll explain this just one more time. I am not/will not be concerned about what my fugging landlord thinks if/when we lose to UConn. We went 3-9 last year and I heard enough cat calls walking up my steps to give me a pretty thick skin.
One more time, my whole point in this post was to explain that beating a pretty damn good UConn team in the eyes of most idiot voters and most 16/17 year old potential recruits would hold far less water than beating a weak bigger name team. There is no way to argue that point.
Losing to them would to some people be akin to losing to App State all over again. It wouldn't in my eyes, but I'm not voting for the top 25 and I'm not a 17 year old recruit.
I also understand that there are not a lot of options out there in such short notice so no one can really be blamed. I'm just sayin' UConn would be maybe the last team I would pick on any list.
"There is no way to argue that point."
Oh fucking yes there is. There are literally a million ways to argue that point. You would fail the LSATs miserably, dude.
lol "LSATs"
I have not been waiting at all. I was more than pleased with the response I got to those diaries and made a mental note on who typically commented. Mostly because I'd like return the favor by engaging in their threads and on their topics they would like to discuss....well, I guess in that sense I have been waiting, but not to get back or anything. And, I am certain i've responded to your comments on other topics in the pat just because you took the time to read my stuff and comment.
But, I found it funny that you worried so much about a possible reaction to a possible result over a possible game against a possible opponent. Seems about as uneccasrily obsessive as worrying about the shape of the Bubble the first week of February. Anyway, I saw your comments, and chuckled because I thought of your comment back in the winter.
I was trying to have fun with you, yet still engage in a legit talk. We accomplished the latter. Sorry if you thought the former was out of line.
Back on topic......last team on any list?
UW, Wassau, Pitt, UVA and UConn....why would the Huskies be last? The Washington schools, as they are now, blow donkey, I dont care how much tradition they have. They are not bowl teams. UCONN smoked UVA last year 45-10, and they've beaten Pitt 3 of 5 times they've played since they've shared the same conference. They have been to three bowl games the last five season. Pitt has 1. UVA has 2.
In my mind, UCONN is the best team of that bunch. But, I would also be ok with Pitt and UVA because they too seem to fit the general critieria of solid, bowl competitive team from a BCS league.
I wonder if you are falling into the same perception trap that you fear the outside world would fall into when discussing a possible UConn/UM game.
primary concern in scheduling should be whether or not fans/alums can brag about beating a name team.
For being awesome. +1
Boise and Utah are not near the top now.
Pretty sure Utah football who just finished undefeated and #2 in the country would still be fairly high on that list. If you were to poll top HS recruits and bowl selection committee members I'm fairly certain Utah would be ranked in the lower half of the country from a prestige and historical perspetive standpoint, thus putting them fairly high on the ratio that I defined above.
25-23 to U of M, sneaking past TCU, and beating an admittedly strong Alabama team, that was not better than Texas, Oklahoma, or USC. They're good but not phenomenal, and besides they won't be that great consistently.
Utah could do is win all their games. They were the only team to do it. They did all they could and I'm not going to downgrade them at all.
Example: how would you feel if this year Michigan went 13-0, played in the Sugar against (say) LSU, and was shut out of the national title game because people didn't like the fact that Michigan scheduled the directionals and Delaware State, and instead, Florida and Oklahoma both had 1 loss and played for the national title?
I think we'd be a little upset about that, and would have a legitimate claim to #1 if Michigan beat the Bayeaux Bengals.
UCONN travels to South Bend in November this season.
And, I am realizing that nobody will be happy about whoever the program schedules if we're poo-pooing putting a team from a BCS league on the slate off consecutive bowl seasons.