UMASS in 2010 opener?
Per Boston Herald. So, last time we hosted a perennially ranked 1-AA team to open a season, it went well.
HT: Freep
Update for those who don't actually read links: Its not official, but supposedly very close.
I realize the football program funds a lot of other athletic sports, but do we really want to continue scheduling FCS teams. Martin has stated we need 8 home games, but can't you up the strength of opponent? This can result in one thing only and that is embarrassment- either from losing, narrowly winning or tearing down the tradition of being the winningest program in college history by padding that record against patsies.
As a season ticket holder I can't stand the thought of paying $50 a ticket for this type of game. Kind of like paying full price in the NFL to see a pre-season game.
....and your home address, and I'll happily pay you face value plus any processing fees for your tickets to the 2010 opener. Heck, any other game you'd be willing to cash in for as well. A Michigan game is a Michigan game is a win. If Florida can win the national title playing the Citadel, I will happily watch Michigan play Western Dakota A & M State if it means they go back into the top 10.
Exactly. So many of us would love to go to a game, any game, and it's so damn frustrating to hear people bitch and complain like this. Especially since most of the people that historically (and currently) go to the games just sit on their damn hands with their mouths shut anyway. Quit your bitching and watch the game or sell your tickets to the plenty of us who actually would enjoy the game.
For your information- I probably make as much noise as anyone in the stadium. I spent years standing the entire game in the student section. Yes, there are plenty of people set on their hands and most of them set between the 35 yard lines and I'm not one of them. I take my kids to the spring game, fan day, and games and support the team 100%.
This is the University of Michigan with the greatest tradition in college football history playing D2 schools should not become part of the that tradition.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:38 AM ^
I wasn't specifically talking about you other than the part where I said if you don't want to pay the money to go to the game than either (1) don't or (2) sell your tickets to those of us who would. I apologize if the other part came across as a personal insult; I didn't mean it that way but I can see how it was taken that way.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:20 AM ^
But I sorta agree with them. Ahh, hell I am torn.
They run a pro-style offense (i think), it's fine!
I saw Army beat them a couple years ago, we can take 'em.
as long as Marcus Camby isn't on their punt block team.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:52 AM ^
i saw LSU beat app state in 05, we can take 'em in 07
I can understand this year as RichRod is still getting his type of players in, but they will be in year three of the rebuild and SHOULD be good enough to beat higher quality opponents that would be willing to take a one game series. On top of that this is the first game in the Big House with the remodel finished.
Lets face the Big Ten isn't look very highly on as a conference right now and to continue scheduling FCS teams isn't going to help that reputation.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
Scheduling IAA teams has something to do with the B10 having a bad rap? Well, I guess the MSM thinks the SEC is just crap for the same reason.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
As another poster astutely observed, most powerhouse teams schedule an FCS team every year; I have no idea why Michigan should be any different.
Plus, Michigan typically plays good non-conference opponents as well: Notre Dame, Utah (finished last year #2 in the country!), and Oregon, just to name a few.
Do you really expect Michigan to schedule nothing but tough non-conference games? Is Eastern Michigan really any different?
April 27th, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
I agree with what you are saying. Until the BCS penalizes teams for scheduling patsy OOC games, bring on North Dakota State school for the gifted.
I think they have two this year.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:41 AM ^
I saw UMASS play UNH in a playoff game a few years ago (@UMASS) in which they won. That was the year they went to the title game and lost to Appy State. They went 7-5 last year with a 4-year starting QB in Liam Coen. I can't see them being great when we play them, but you never know, they compete with the best of I-AA every year.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
Check out USC's schedule since the 2002 season. I didn't find a single lower-division school. What I did find were teams like BYU, Va Tech, Colorado State, Hawaii, Ohio State, Auburn, and Kansas State.
Some will trot out the "PAC10 is so weak" argument that I've been hearing annually since 1969. Last season's bowl results ought to put that notion to rest.
April 27th, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
Never does the the post say anything about the Big 10s perception based on scheduling FCS teams though the LOSSES to them certainly don't help the cause. Bowl record since 2000 1-6 in Rose, 4-6 in Outback, 4-5 in Alamo, 0-4 Champs, 0-3 Insight, 3-2 Fiesta, 1-1 Motor City, and 6-11 in BCS games including 0-6 in the last three years.
It doesn't help the conference that OSU loses every big game they play outside the conference lately, but it feels good.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
for UM early in the year.
Anything is possible (App State / Toledo), but I like Michigan's chances vs. the Minutemen.
I still would like to see Michigan play the following teams in non-conf. and I hope RR does some wheeling and dealing to make it happen, i.e. home and home:
Clemson
LSU
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Miami FL
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Texas Tech
April 27th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
I absolutely agree. I would love to see UM play these teams and more, IF AND ONLY IF, there is a playoff, and one loss doesn't destroy a season.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^
thought of the fact that its hard to schedule a good non-conference team. richrod said right after they put deleware st. on this year schedule that the toughest part was to find a team that didn't want to do a home and home. that could be the case with 2010. we don't know what kind of team we are going to have this year let alone what kind of team we are going to have in 2010. if the team does really well this year then having to play Umass is going to suck in 2010. but if we have an average year this year then having to play a 1-aa school only make sense. would you rather have another team come into the big house and beat the shit out michigan like oregon did? or would you rather have a team that we could beat the shit out of to build some confidence for the players?
April 27th, 2009 at 12:25 PM ^
I'm not saying we have to schedule another powerhouse unless we drop ND, but didn't Utah accept a one game series? I would rather play a low D1 than play D2's every year. I don't care what other programs do because I always use to laugh at OSU for playing Youngstown St.
I would rather play someone from the MAC, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Conference USA, Army, or Navy than play a D2 school! That's just my opinion though.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
eerily similar to the App State mountain man logo.
As App State proved, these games are no win for the home team, but we should not be worried about the game.
April 27th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^
There's a big difference between UM and Florida. Florida can win the national championship playing The Citadel because if they win the SEC they're going to be ranked above any other school with the same record. If Michigan ended the season with the same record as 1 or 2 other schools and had UMass on the schedule, they're going to get hosed because of the "strength" of the Big 10. A middle of the pack non-BCS conference team or a bottom feeder from a BCS conference team would be way more respectable.
April 27th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
Look, the big ten was about as far down as it's ever been in 2008. Any yet, PSU would have gone to the MNC game had they beat Iowa. The fans may not have liked it because of the piss poor schedule they played, but the BCS computer doesn't give a shit.
The only problem is that the Big Ten will arguably be worse this season. Wisconsin still has QB/WR issues (not to speak of the defense), Ohio State must replace a lot of talent on both sides of the ball, and ditto Penn State.
Michigan should obviously be improved, MSU about the same, Iowa is a toss-up, and Illinois has some good talent.
In my opinion, the Big Ten will resemble the ACC from last year: several good teams but no dominant team. An Ohio State win over USC would really add some much-needed credibility to the conference, as much as I hate to admit it.
If Michigan ended the season with the same record as 1 or 2 other schools and had UMass on the schedule, they're going to get hosed because of the "strength" of the Big 10.
When has this ever happened to a Big Ten team? The only time a Big Ten champ has ever gotten jobbed was 1994 PSU, and then only because the BCS didn't exist (they were #2 in both polls).
...I recall in 2006 that a certain Big Ten team got jobbed when their only loss was by 3 points on the road to the number 1 team the day after the program's iconic coach died. Other than that, you're right.
And that had a lot to do with the unusual circumstance of the championship game potentially being a rematch. That, and the unwritten rule against intraconference national title games.
conference champions, then teams wouldn't be automatically penalized by playing tough OOC teams and losing a game.
Unfortunately, it's also a question of maximizing the number of home games for financial reasons, so we've always got the search for a team that doesn't demand a home-and-home. What I don't buy is that there are no teams among the mid-level D1 conferences that wouldn't require a return home date. Bill Martin will have to provide concrete scheduling evidence that there is no team from the MAC, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt, or Conference USA that doesn't have an open date at the beginning of the 2010 season before I'll believe for one second that the only recourse is D1AA or whatever the hell they're calling it now.
I agree that you can't single out Michigan for this without also criticizing all the other major schools that are doing it. However, it undercuts the common Michigan fan assertion that we're somehow a cut above all other programs simply because we're Michigan and we're awesome.
I remember when the Ath. Dept. essentially apologized (as relayed through the Freep or News) for scheduling Long Beach State. they were a late fill in, after we dropped SMU or some other dirty Texas school in light of systemic scandals in the SWC.
OTOH, I remember the AD announcing a policy, long before "Dollar" Bill Martin that it would avoid like the plague any future cross country FB trips beyond what was scheduled. IIRC, there was also pre-Bill talk of preferring 2 for ones, if an away game were part of the deal.
So, while I still want Mr. Sailboat's head on a pike for various acts of desecration to all that is good and right about UM football, it's not like he invented the idea of whoring out the program for home game dollars. I just wish he would be a little less obvious and allow us to believe it's meant as a competitive endeavor ("up for the 2012 open date, Loy Norrix High School" - Bill Martin, 4/31/09). I wish too, like any good pimp, he would allow an occasional foray into "out call" service
What "acts of descration" do you believe Martin has committed against UM football? I'm curious.
Back to the original topic, the reason why we need 7-8 home games every year has a lot to do with the enormous tuition bill our AD must pay. We are one of the only schools in the country whose AD pays out-of-state tuition for non-resident athletes, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage, and all the moreso in recent years as tuition has skyrocketed (in part because of huge cuts in state aid). If we want to stay in the black (all the while financing facility upgrades), we need to bring in as much from football as we can. Hence, the scheduling of tomato cans.
on my tangent. For here, just count me as not generally a friend of Bill M.
I guess what is particularly galling is that there does not seem to be even a token effort to get a "name" opponent. If the Dept. said, e.g., "we tried to reopen the home and home with Tennessee [that AD Goss proposed 10 years ago], now that Fulmer is out on his ass, and they still said no" that would be one thing. However, it appears that the AD AIMS for low hanging fruit, rather than settles for it when nothing better pans out.
As a mere fan, it's hard to accept that sort of craven institutional mindset. It's being a follower, not a leader. It's not being the best by overcoming whatever challenge awaits, it's manipulating the conditions of the test in order to proclaim your greatness. It's tiresome and hollow.
We are locked into a 20+ year deal with one "name" opponent. Let's not forget that. Our athletic department is budgeted with the understanding that we'll play an average of 7.5 home games per year. If we schedule a second team to play a home/home series, we then can't play any more than seven home games, and that may not work financially. I don't think you're taking the financial side of the equation into account.
as a mere fan, though, I don't have to like it, nor am i constrained by the real world $ at issue.
Martin seems like a good AD. he is a superb businessman and is upgrading like every sport's facility, it seems. Not to mention hiring Beilein!
HOWEVA, I really thought they'd want a high profile game to open it up. Saying a later game is the "official" dedication game is B.S. I guess they think people will be excited about seeing the upgrades anyway, so they won't care about the opponent.
Also, I'm not sure if I agree with GOBLUE4EVR. I would think (maybe 'hope' is a better word) that big-name teams would be lining up to play in the opening of the "new" Big House.
that big time teams weren't lining up to play in the "new" big house? what i said is that most teams want to do a home and home. look at what O$U is doing every year, played a home and home with texas, next it will be U$C and i think they have a couple more lined up. your team has to be damn good and ready if you want to do that. trust me i don't like playing the 1-AA schools at all, but if there wasn't another team that could come in and play what is michigan supposed to do?
Who I want to see Michigan play OOC:
Anyone from the Big 12, SEC, PAC-10 or ACC.
That's great. Now try doing that, and playing ND, and still balancing the books when you have 25 varsity sports teams to pay for and your athletes' tuition isn't subsidized.
i gotcha, kind of just read the 1st line of your post and skimmed the rest. what i was trying to say was I was thinking/hoping there'd be a somewhat big name team (or even just non-IAA/MAC) that would be willing to come in for one game without a return. i may be overly-optimistic, but i feel like that first game is going to get a lot of exposure, so it could be worth it for them.
and if home-and-home is the only option, what are we afraid of? i understand the economic argument, but not being worried the team isn't good enough to win. i may be taking this too far, but i feel like having a badass opener in 2010 could be our statement that "we're back, bitches."
Since your more concerned with "non-subsidized tuition" than football, you schedule another BCS conference team for a home and home so that they come to Michigan when we go to Notre Dame and vice versa. Throw in the usual 2 home games against the MAC and you got 7 home games every year!!
Why would you want to do that when you could schedule Delaware St./UMass and have home games both years in which the attendance will inevitably be the same as the one home game with the BCS school, and then you don't lose the revenue from the "and home" game at the BCS school.
Don't look at it as keeping 7 home games. It would be losing an 8th home game and the millions of dollars for the athletic department that go along with it. Not that I'd be happy about it as a fan, but it'll keep all the construction going.
Okay, while looking at the financial side, I don't know the pure numbers but...
Playing a home and home with (pick a bcs team) adds exposure. That exposure means better players want to play at UM. Better players mean better team, which in turn means better bowl game, with better pay out. Amiwrong? (aboverage)
You're not wrong, but Michigan needs one more game against a BCS team for exposure like it needs night games for exposure.
Your scenario assumes a lot, mostly that 1 out of 12 games being against a BCS school instead of a gimme gives UM so much additional exposure that it makes up for 110,000 tickets every other year. That's a whole lot for a game early in the season. Keep in mind also that if we lose that game, we would drop to a lower bowl game, which would give us less exposure. Keep in mind also that if we lose that "big exposure" game, we might look bad to potential recruits, hurting us in recruiting.
I think you are putting WAY too much weight on a recruits view of one particular our of conference game.
And if recruiting is what you are so high on, how about having one additional home game (during the nice weather part of the season) to invite recruits to? That's exposure as well.
Well, the nuts seem to think going 11-1 with a loss to USC in 2009, will equate to them being in the MNC game.
From buckeyeplanet:
"No f-ing way that Ohio State goes 11-1 with only a close loss to USC and not go to the NC game."
Can you imagine what it would do for Michigan to go down to Miami and spank the Hurricanes on national tv! Just what tpilews said: Exposure = recruits = bcs games/national championships = $$$. In all of our eyes Michigan is the greatest team ever, to 15-17 year old kids they look at USC and Florida as the best teams. Oh yeah and since I'm from southern California is it any coincidance that the last 6-7 years since USC has dominated, they have gone on the road to gain exposure to places like Auburn, Va Tech, Arkansas, Virginia in addition to Notre Dame. The question is, do you want sell outs or championships?
Bad example. USC has only recently started playing major programs, and it was once they were already dominant. They knew they could beat anybody, and did. We can't. Also, because they play on the west coast and many of their games are so late, USC needed to schedule big games, especially out east, to gain exposure. Michigan already plays in the desirable time slots.
I also just don't think the added exposure will make that much of a difference. Michigan has a lot of exposure. We are in the news as much as any school. People know who we are. Not everybody thinks we're the best, but one extra big game a year won't change that.
Maybe Michigan doesn't need more exposure, but neither does tUOS or USC. You gotta think those hyped-up games have a significant effect on certain recruits. Since last year, we've been hearing quotes from recruits that RichRod is definitely going to bring us back, or they'd like to be part of getting Michigan back on top. When I'd hear things like that I'd always think, "Back from what?" Sure, there was one losing and one 5-loss season and of course Appy St, but it was almost like the perception was we hadn't been competitive in years.
So, it hurts to say it, but our image isn't as good as it could be. Maybe a huge non-conf game wouldn't do anything, but maybe it'd introduce us to a player who wouldn't otherwise have considered us, and that player puts us over the top one year. Or maybe I'm full of shit.
April 27th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
WolvinLA you might want to get your facts straight. 2002, Carson Palmer's senior year, the year after USC went 6-6 they played Auburn, at Colorado, at Kansas State AND Notre Dame! Yeah Michigan has a desirable time slot, I'm sure the kids are watching us play Deleware on the Big 10 Network rather than 2 major colleges go at it on national tv. By the way, you might want to check SC's recruiting rankings after the 2002 season: #3 in '03 and #1 in '04.