Why do we schedule these FCS teams?
Frankly, this game was borderline catastrophic, and we're damn lucky to come out of it with a win and no injuries. But enough about that, already. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why we continue to schedule these supposed 'cupcake' teams when we have almost NOTHING to gain and everything to lose by playing them:
1. Michigan has a long and troubling history of 'playing down' to teams that we are superior to on paper, and this tendency has been disastrous in the past. We always seem to let inferior teams hang around for far too long.
2. Our opponents, on the other hand, usually consider the game against us their figurative BCS Championship game, and they bring everything to the table.
3. We tend not to be very motivated for these games - the team doesn't have that 'fire', the fans aren't really into it, and a lot of people get lulled into a sense of complacency. The discrepancy in enthusiasm can make a big difference on the field.
4. The nature of the game forces us to play conservatively and use 'vanilla' schemes, lest our upcoming opponents glean information from our playcalling or the game film.
5. We don't derive much, if any, value from playing these games. A big win? Meh, we were supposed to win. A close win causes a great deal of concern. And a loss? Absolute (and well-deserved) pandemonium. And don't forget the possibility of potential season-ending injuries, as well.
These games are strategically unwise for the program. Win, and nobody blinks or really seems to care. But poor play leads to narratives like, "UMass put up 37 on Michigan?" If we really want to progress as a program and regain our status as an elite team, we need to start playing elite teams like Alabama rather than 'cupcakes' with nothing to lose.
We may lose. In fact, we may get our asses kicked - but who cares? It's better in the long run to know if we can hang with the best of the best or not, and we actually learn from the experience. What if we somehow managed to keep, say, a team like Alabama close? That's good for the program - it helps recruiting, it gives us a national stage, and we can learn a ton from the experience.
You may not agree with me - and that's fine. But you have to at least start to question the merit of scheduling these teams when it's unclear how we benefit from the experience.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^
Money.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
taking precedence over the long-run. Yeah, in the short view, we get paid. But I'm not convinced that we make more money from these types of games - you have to consider things like TV time (and revenue), merchandise sales, and prestige - all of which are higher when we are a good team playing quality opponents.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
The argument that we pay a smaller paycheck to them is not worth 1) the risk of losing to an FCS team and 2) it never looks good for any team's strength of schedule to schedule one. Were there not any other teams that could be scheduled? Anywhere?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
nothing to gain but money and pain. Schedulong these games is like saying no to joy.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
I kind of agree, but I also know it's pretty hard to get BCS or even D-IA schools to agree to non-home and home matchups. I guess I'm trying to say that it's tough to criticize the scheduling without knowing the challenges that the AD faces with respect to the schedule.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
All I can say is, if we're gonna schedule FCS teams, schedule shitty ones like Delaware State.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
Despite the vast differences between good and bad FCS teams, the perception of our wins and (hopefully never again) losses versus the FCS teams will be the same, anyway. At the very least, it's better to beat up on a very bad FCS team than barely beat a good one.
Nevertheless, I still dream about us playing elite teams with our open non-conference spots. I think that's a better way to build the program in the long run, especially in terms of recruiting.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
I could not agree with you more. Scheduling these teams is like asking for them to come beat us. We should have known it was trouble when Kyle Havens was saying that playing Michigan is just another game. We interpreted it as just a player denying that he didn't have some level of intimidation in him but obviously it was true. UMass came to play and why shouldn't have they?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:16 PM ^
The real question is why are we struggling to beat these FCS teams?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
+1 for realizing the bigger problem. We should have steam rolled that team today. I never want to hear, "but they are one of the best 1AA teams". That is complete bull shit. They would take our backups 99/100 times over their current players. No excuse for not winning at least 14 pts.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
Can they take our defensive coordinator too?
September 18th, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
I hope to never see another FCS school in the Big House again, or at least until we have a well oiled defense.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:21 PM ^
September 18th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
Teams want home games. They will set up series with UConn and Utah, but those teams want home games too for revenue. These types of games make money for Universities. In the end, that is all athletic departments and universities care about.
September 18th, 2010 at 4:42 PM ^
The only time I would even think or consider an FCS opponet would be the 1st game of the year; sort of a "pre-season" game. But in the end, this is a lose / lose for a program like Michigan.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
no more good I-AA teams. What's clear is that a winning I-AA team is way better than a losing I-A team. Not just the athletes on the field -- it's coaching, experience, and the winning mental approach to a game.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
MOAR midmajors PLZ
September 18th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
A lesson from March Madness - there are always little schools with four seniors and a junior as their starting five that play as a team with nothing to lose and pull off big upsets against major teams with lots of talent, but not as much experience.
I guess you can't play all three directional Michigan teams every year, but maybe we could schedule IUPUI or Ohio U.
Sweater vest has been quoted multiple times as liking big home and homes against the likes of Texas and USC because even if the team loses, it helps them improve and looks good for their strength of schedule. I don't think we're quite there yet that we should be playing home and homes against top ten teams, but maybe 2-3 years from now.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:50 PM ^
Reality is UMass is probably somewhere around the 50th or so best team in the country, maybe better. Well coached, experienced, and with some talent - they cherry-picked Northeastern and Hofstra, and some transfers from Syracuse and a few other places. Ironically, in 2006 they lost to App St. in the 1-AA national championship game.
We narrowly escaped disaster but it sure beats losing.
September 18th, 2010 at 5:55 PM ^
I'm not a fan of playing these teams, either. It's a no-win situation. A win gives you no respect and a loss is remembered forever. If we need two cupcake games a year, OK, then schedule two MAC teams.
September 18th, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
It's all about the money. It's harder and harder to get teams to agree to a one off game, which means that either you overpay, or you lose the home game (MIchigan going to Connecticut in 2013 I believe.)
Learn the lesson of Delaware State and I would argue for having Michigan schedule MEAC and SWAC schools with legendary bands. Bring in Florida A&M or Grambling or Southern to an audience that would appreciate the band (UMass, as a Sudler winning band, falls in to this category as well, just with a really good team.)
September 18th, 2010 at 6:21 PM ^
I largely agree. These good FCS teams think they can win - if you are ranked in the top-20 for the FCS, you are used to winning. Yeah, you might figure you are an underdog going against a good FBS team, but rarely do you think you CANNOT win. Plus, after two emotional games against ND and UConn, UMass was viewed as an easy win. Just a bad combination for this young team. Still, a win is a win, and maybe this win will lead to the necessary changes and focus for this team to play well in the B10.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^
Obviously these games against 1-AAs get scheduled to ensure we don't have to pay a return visit and can maximize our revenue from a home game. However, do we make more money from bringing in UMass/App St compared to Delaware St? My assumption is 'no', and based on that assumption I wonder why in the world we would schedule a team that has ever contended for a 1-AA title? The national perception is that all 1-AAs are worse than all 1-As (clearly not true, but most people believe that's the case). If we must bring in a 1-AA, it has to be a bad one, no excuses. Hopefully we have learned from this and will schedule only mega cupcake 1-AAs (if any at all) in the future. One more question: who scheduled this game, Martin or Brandon? I think it was Martin but I'm really not sure.
September 18th, 2010 at 7:30 PM ^
In the last 3 years we have struggled for some reason against division 2 teams. Games like Appalachian State and UMass should be blow outs in our favor but I do agree on the mentality part of it on the side of UMass. This is top 25 FCS school coming into the Big House to play a rebuilding Michigan team who has several weak spots on defense. It is their chance to beat an FBS team and they have a good chance at that. I think Appalachian State was actually a revolution for FCS teams. This gave out a message that the small schools who aren't in the BCS scene or top 25 can compete with the bigger schools and pull an upset off if they have the chance. Schools like App St, UMass and James Madison are perfect examples. It also goes to show you that anybody can lose or win on gameday. This is a game that UMass will long remember in their program and use to their advantage one day when they play either another FBS or Big Ten team again.