Recent Comments

One thing i never understood - why do we so frequently conflate honoring the Fab Five - whether it be the idea of them as a unit without names or the four minus Webber - with the Final Four banners that were taken down.  Isn't the legacy of the fab Five so much more than those two Final Four appearances?

If Webber was ineligible for those two Final Fours, I very much understand why we wouldn't re-hang the banners?  Why not hang a banner simply honoring the Fab Five? 

Better than mine.

Uptown Dallas is a nice, fun, somewhat fancy area between downtown Dallas and Park Cities neighborhood. It is loosely defined as the area between the Woodall Rodgers freeway to the south, the North Tollway (to the west), US-75 (tobthe east) and it may go as far north as Mockingbird Lane (but some would say that's getting in to Highland Park). SMU's campus is (beautiful; worth a look) and just north of Mockingbird Lane in University Park. Those to neighborhoods with "Park" in their names make up the larger area called Park Cities.

Addison is a city north of Dallas (I-635 is roughly the northern border of the city of Dallas). I would not recommend staying up there. It is perfectly pleasant but suburban. There is a new mixed-use (commercial/residential/retail) development confusingly called Ptown hatis being built along I-635; but that's totally different. The Galleria is one big shopping mall. I don't recommend it if you want to go see what Dallas is all about.

In the uptown area, there are lots of bars and restaurants along McKinney avenue (the southern portion of it) and in the Knox-Henderson area (where Knox Knox St and Henderson Ave come together) especially to the east of US-75 all the way toward Greenville Ave and the cute M Streets neighborhood (named because all of the east-west streets begin with the letter M). The area around Fitzhugh Ave is also getting cool.

I usually stay at one of two Kimpton properties when I am in Dallas. Both are technically in University Park by SMU- Hotel Palomar or The less expensive Hotel Lumen. Hotel ZaZa is a new hip hotel further south that has a cool restaurant and bar. That would be fun. If you want to Less expensive, there is a La Quinta Inn in Uptown right on US-75 and Garrett Ave and a Best Western as well.

You have to check out the Katy Trail Ice House when you're in Dallas. Huge outdoor beer place right along a running trail. Feels very "Texas". Everybody goes there before Mavs games and walks the trail to the arena. Have fun!

But a 2 seed is definitely possible. If we beat OSU to reach the conf finals (having beaten them twice this year), it's possible we move past them just for that. Win the whole thing and we're definitely a 2 seed ahead of them.

I also think a 3 seed is on the line today for Michigan. Win and we got it; lose and we could slip to 4. Marquette and Georgetown lost and, barring an ACC championship from Florida State in which it beats UNC and Duke, I think the only threat to earn a 3 seed other than the four teams universally on that line (Baylor, Mich, Marquette, Georgetown) is the Indiana / Wisconsin winner. Since Marquette and Georgetown already lost one (Georgetown) would be more likely to slip to a 4 than Michigan would. But if Michigan loses to Minn, we could slip below Georgetown on the S-curve.

I'll take any site in MI, Indiana, Ohio or Chicago. I can't believe I am saying this but, if not in Michigan, Ft Wayne, Columbus and Cincinnati aren't horrible places to play.

We'll finsih in the top 14.  No question.

Sugar will get first choice of teams, and we'll likely be it.  Crazy.  Only way I can see it going any other way is if Oklahoma State loses to OU on some fluke and somehow seems like a more attractive opponent for Houston, which the Sugar Bowl will almost assuredly take with its second selection.  No way Stanford is a team that they want given the likely opponent.

How nice would it be to have five "BCS" conferences with 62-64 teams fighting for five AQ spots and four or five "non-BCS" conferences with anywhere from 40-60 teams in a playoff for one AQ spot and the rest of the Sun Belt and WAC just busted down to FCS?

nm

ok; I liked the helmets, actually, but I did not realize how much these unis do, indeed, look like South Florida's.  The numerals are weird and I'm not a black pants fan.

Thanks to Brian and all the others who contribute.  Moving Picture Pages are cool, too, but the above really helps to see it frame by frame.

For an alternate uniform, these aren;t so bad.  Little things could be imporoved, IMHO, but I kind of like the bronze and the green Spartan.  Don't kill me.

I'm going to be there for a wedding the weekend of the Eastern Michigan game?  Anybody know where I could watch it at 11 am CT on Big Ten Network with volume?  Good news is the Gophers aren't playing at the same time, to the extent that matters.

There is no guarantee that a greyshirt offeree would get a scholarship next year. There also is no guarantee that kids who sign LOIs will have scholarships the following year. But there are some generally accepted practices. If Hoke yanked Ricardo Miller's scholarship this year, there would be outrage and the same would likely be true if he reneged on an explicit promise to a greyshirt candidate.

Couldn't have said it better.  The jersey number was worn by some great Michigan WRs, but also run-of-the-mill Junior College transfers.  Braylon wanted it bad though.

EDIT: Silly me: Butterfield transferred away from Michigan (to a 1-AA school, I believe), not to Michigan from a  Junior College.  It was Russell Shaw that transferred to Michigan from a Junior College.

... are we out of it for Tommy Schutt?  Seems like we have a lot of good options even if we are.

But sales tax is a state issue, not federal.

Joe Rexrode is legitimate.

I was even more disturbed by the frequent use of the term Baby Blues to describe our team.

I would not be surprised to see Woolfolk at deep safety when he returns.

DirecTV and Dish won't help you in the home, but commercial satellite packages should be able to get ABC feeds from various regions.  At least I think so; not 100% sure.  I imagine we can find out this weekend.

Unless the Big Ten's contract with ABC/ESPN changed this year, ABC is only required to reverse mirror 3:30 pm ABC televised regional games; there is no requirement to reverse mirror prime time Big Ten games. Of course, ABC/ESPN can reverse mirror or us the standard def feeds to reverse mirror if it so chooses, but they are not contractually obligated to do.



Michigan will be fine on ESPN. However, you may not get the Ohio State game depending on where you live.

Sorry- forgot about him.

Unless something changed this year, I think there is one exception to the rule that "There is no such thing as a Big Ten football game you cannot get nationally."  I do not believe ABC is required to "reverse mirror" any prime time (8pm) Big Ten matchup that receives regional coverage on ESPN2.  In fact, I seem to remember this adversely affecting Michigan State fans in Chicago last year or the year prior.  I may be mistaken. 

thanks for taking the time to put together such thoughtful analysis.

But that doesn't mean:

a) we all have to (we're not sheep that blindly follow Rick Leach)...
b) it means we can somehow blame Lloyd for the Freep FOIA'ing team GPA records and writing a dumb article about it
c) it means we should blame Lloyd for the angst around the program the last few years

If ABC wants a Big Ten game at 3:30 that week, it really just wants the best game it can get. If Michigan vs team X is a great matchup, there is no reason ABC wouldn't take it, if available. But it might think another matchup is better. I would. Then again Western Michigan was a 3:30 ABC kick, so who knows.

And I love her for it. In fact, she was recently asked why we where getting married next summer and she said "we want to get married outdoors, this summer would not have been enough time to plan, spring is too cold, and don't even think we'd have it during Michigan football season."

and spot on. + many.

He had ok coverage in the flat opposite to where the TEs aligned. That one was on LBs and Kovacs. Kovacs had to have had one of the TEs and was miles from him. A LB had to have the other TE and, while Brown saw the TE release, Ezeh ran in to him (Brown) when both he he (Ezeh) and Mouton bit on the run fake like whoa.

The 3rd & 24 was obviously all on Williams and (maybe) the coaches for such a shallow alignment on 3rd & 24. That led directly to Iowa's 2nd TD.

I'm not sure if Williams did anything wrong on the first TD if the call was for him to blitz if the TE didn't release into a pattern. I think it was their paper to our rock, but sharik and gsimmons85 know better than I.

on Graham's 3rd and 2 stop on Winston? That was perfect technique: head up, feet moving arms wrapped. Tackling +4.

So, if "Kovacs has turned in a couple of impressive tackles so far. He's probably a disaster in coverage but Michigan is using him as downhill run-stuffer, something he seems capable of" then could he take Stevie Brown's SAM (hybrid) role next year? I know Brandon Smith and all, but perhaps he is big enough to be a WILL?

Wait, no; then who plays SS? Ugh.

The line has swung 5.5 points since the open. That's a pretty big swing and it should tell you something. MSU fans (no single team's fans, really... maybe ND's) don't have enough money to swing lines like that. This should tell you something.

Thanks, MH20.

Maybe a couple of years.

CBS has first choice of games involving an SEC home team every week. ABC can't air SEC games, but ESPN and ESPN2 can.

ABC/ESPN can't pick what goes on ESPN until CBS does if it wants a shot at an SEC game. CBS is airing a primetime game the week of Oct 10 (http://www.cbssports.com/cbssports/schedules/page/collegefootball) and Florida-LSU is scheduled for that time.

I don't see any other big SEC games that CBS would choose for the primetime time slot even if Georgia wins this week ('Bama-Ole Miss was a prime matchup, but not after Ole Miss' loss).

There is still a small chance that a Michigan loss this weekend means ABC televises two primetime games and Michigan gets rgional ABC coverage, but I don't see any primo Pac-10, ACC or Big 12 matchups with a primetime or TBA start date. BC @ VA Tech could really screw us East coasters though. Ga. tech at Florida State, too.

He named Turner, specifically, as a freshman who hasn't yet played, that may.

I would guess - and this is pure speculation - that if he doesn't play in the next three games, the coaching staff will do their best to hold him out for the remaining five. An injury to a corner could change that, of course.

Yet, it's interesting to look at the passing proficiency of our remaining opponents. To date, only Michigan State seems to be a prolific passing offense, currently ranked 8th nationally. Other than that, we're not playing too many teams that are putting up big numbers through the air

Maybe the coaches won't feel that his presence is needed after MSU. It might be far more important to get Sagesse, Banks and Campbell more time given the strength of the rushing offenses coming up. Not that you have to choose betwen the two, of course.

Interesting side note: check out the current passing offense ranks: MSU #8, ND #14, Western Mich #21, PSU #40, Purdue #44, Indiana #46, Wisconsin #49, Iowa #71, Ohio State #82, Michigan #88, Illinois #110, Eastern Mich #113. In other words, if Turner doesn't play this week, might the coaches sit him the rest of the year?

http://mgoblog.com/content/buying-selling-um-tickets-thread-spreadsheet

And, this is not "Off Topic"

When I go to BTN's page, enter my ZIP code (in NYC) and select my cable provider (Time Warner Cable), it says the Michigan-EMU game will be in SD on one of the overflow channels.

However, the on-screen guide that Time Warner Cable provides says the Michigan-EMU game will be on the "main" Big Ten Network HD channel.

So, be careful, I guess, is my message. I'm going to set my DVR to record both and hope one of them is right.

On the play in the video above.

No, not from Saginaw. I am from elsewhere in Mich and, like many I'm sure, am a big Woodley fan.

He landed the punch under the lineman's facemask. It was a retaliation for the lineman blocking him on the ground after the whistle. Maybe could have been a call on the lineman, but definitely should have been a call on Mouton. Can't retaliate and definitely not with a punch. We dodged a bullet on that one.

But I think the situation described above is certainly possible. None of us know for sure, but if I had to guess if the replay officials had footage from WNDU, I would guess not. They could have had other angles that we didn't see on replay, but likely not this one if it was, in fact, captured by a WNDU cameraperson.

In short, is it possible that conclusive evidence exists that Allen stepped out of bounds but that the replay official did not have access to this evidence at the time he had to render a verdict? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible the replay official had evidence (other ABC camera angles) at his disposal other than what we saw on TV (which, IMHO, was inconclusive, despite my prayers that the replay official would see it differently)? Sure.

Unless somebody here knows how many cameras ABC had at the game, where they were positioned and why or why not producers would show viewers the best shots and what other video footage, other than from ABC, to which replay officials have access, or unless somebody gets an exclusive interview with the replay official, we're just not going to know.

I'm glad you're still posting here, Irish. The whining ND fans in meltdown mode complaining about this are one thing, but the rational, reasoned response from you on this are another.

Based on only what I saw on TV, I wouldn't be too happy if that call went against my team. I wouldn't make asinine comments on message boards (my team's or others') and I understand it's possible that the replay referee had other angles, but, if I ignore the color of the jersey that guy was wearing, I'm not sure if I would say I saw conclusive evidence, either.

That said, as a Michigan fan, I sure am happy the way it broke.

I will say that I thought Cissoko committed another PI penalty that wasn't called in addition to the few holding penalties I saw ND commit that weren't called. And the holding penalty that brought back the long Rudolph pass maybe possible wasn't holding on replay, but that take down gets called nine times out of 10, so tough for any team to complain about that one.

Emilien is on the Special Teams participation list for Western. I doubt Tate ever was, so little chance of number confusion.

I'd add Teric Jones' name to those written in very light pencil.

Barring injury Tate, Denard, Roh, Campbell, Stokes, Hawthorne, and Vincent Smith will not redshirt.

I have to imagine that Turner and Emilien will see the field at some point, given the combination of their hype and our lack of depth in the defensive backfield.

RR: "But, I'll know more today."

I think he said somebody just had cramps and couldn't get re-hydrated. I didn't hear if he said Williams or Stonum (or other), though.

EDIT: Per comment below, it was Williams who just had cramps [ed: phew.]

Thanks, Brian.

On the bullets:

I still think you're right on Tate heading outside on zone reads where he shouldn't. It's not just the TD vs Cover 0, but the plays where he gets three and could get five that "prove" this. Obviously, we're picking nits here.

I don't get the defense of Cissoko either. I mean, part of the deficiency is his height (or lack thereof), which isn't his fault, of course, but neither is JT Floyd's lack of speed his fault. Cissoko looked hesitant. He played quite soft, but never let guys behind him, which is good, I suppose. He got out of his break late and took a poor angle to Tate on the short TD. Warren, OTOH, got beat by Floyd once, but not too badly and Floyd is pretty damn good. We'll need to see some improved play from the corner spot opposite him, though. There's no reason that can't come from Cissoko.

I think you'll see a few more holding penalties on ND's O-Line than were called, but not tons. Our 4-man rush got little pressure on Clausen. Herron looked like he didn't know whether to rush or drop in to zone a few times. And I don't know what the excuse is - other than size - for getting crushed by the O-Line on runs. Ezeh had a bad day reading plays and getting off blocks. This, we must fix, as we'll face many more big, average O-Lines in front of competent RBs this year.

Appreciate it.

That is quite a gesture. I now feel bad for hating him for no reason.

I found it confusing. All I'm basing it on is what i see on the field, which is typically Woolfolk deep, often deep center in Cover 1, and Williams often plays in the box, and, even when not, is, more often than not, not as deep as Woolfolk. But, that's just my observation from watching on TV (no film or anything).

Good insights on our team, opponents' past and opponents' future from a fan like you are always welcome.

Butterfield's drop was key. I can't believe we even threw that.

Is it possible that Odoms was called for illegal motion for moving backward at the snap? That was my thought when watching the game, but I am not an expert on the NCAA rules for illegal motion.

Huff, Carr and Steele on the D-Line

Irons and Sword at ILB (Swett backed them up... maybe started one game for Irons).

How, if at all, did you end up watching the game in Nova Scotia last weekend? Just curious if it worked out for you.

EDIT: This is a sincere question as BiY wrote a board post about how to get the game online, and I responded.

nm.

Don't speculate. Anybody can FOIA records from public institutions, and UM's AD counts.

nm

nm.

FA's board moderation and role as voice of reason is a welcomed improvement to the quality of this here message board, let alone his/her excellent non-revenue sports posts.

This blog is getting better all the time. Kudos.

I didn't see Woolfolk bite on the run fake or move down on any other WR - because there was none in the middle. He didn't move toward the LOS, as far as I could see, but he did not get deep enough. He should always be deeper than the deepest offensive player in the coverage. In this, he failed. Saying he got 'sucked in' implies, to me at least, that he either bit on the run fake or moved down on an underneath receiver.

Floyd got toasted, too, though at least he was outside of the WR. If he sat on a dig or thought somebody might be in the flat, that could explain it, but it was a poor play by him, too. Yet, that happens - and should be expected to on occasion. It's the whole reason to have a safety deep.

He's only had 2+ weeks of practice, but we need him as the 3rd corner. I hope one more week allows him to do that. ND receivers are big and good.

There were no receivers underneath. Woolfolk did not get deep enough on that play. Floyd beaten, too. That's why you have a FS playing deep.

Don't understand the beg points for the OP. He didn't say anything wrong, at least in what I read above.

And dumb ones at that. Picking Western Michigan to win is neither an indication of bias or stupidity. There are very reasonable arguments to pick Western to win. In the end, virtually everyone's dissatisfaction with Snyder's pick can be summed up as a) he doesn't agree with me so he's stupid, and/or b) he wrote an article I don't like so I'll rail on his pick but not others who made similar picks.

Why do I think if a writer picked Michigan to win a game in which it was a 13 point dog, many around here would applaud the pick and chime in that "Michigan has a chance." Western is a team with a very good qb going up against a defense that was poor against the pass last year, breaking in a new defensive scheme and starting two new safeties. WMU has problems, too, sure, but picking the Broncos to win is neither an indication of bias or stupidity.

Also, Snyder indicated he thought Michigan would lose this game in a season preview he wrote earlier in the week. This isn't new.

But I'm beginning to think that I am almost a "blue hair" so take the rec FWIW. I went for a basketball game when Prof Thom's was insufferable - frat boys are sor girls more interested in flirting than watching.

I did not like The Hill, either, but if it's not too full, it could be a nice place to watch, I suppose.

This report - which has been out for a long time - neither supports nor refutes any claims made in the Free Press story.

It may provide some context that some (many) feel was lacking in the above mentioned newspaper report, but that's it. The Detroit News ran a story about this report today, as well.

The Big Ten Network will only stream games:

a) that are televised on the Big Ten Network
b) to viewers outside the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean

So, a big NO for this game.

I think of this in four categories:

1. Games televised on Big Ten Network
If you live in US/Canada, don't get BTN and can't make it to a sports bar that will put the game on for you, your options for games (Michigan vs. Eastern Michigan, for sure, and likely vs. Delaware State, vs. Indiana and/or vs. Purdue) are non-official online streams such as justin.tv or others mentioned above.

2. Afternoon ABC games with either regional or national coverage
The Big Ten Conference's agreement with ABC is that all 12:00 or 3:30 games involving a Big Ten team will either have national coverage (in which case, you can get it on any TV with an antenna) or will be mirrored on ESPN2 in any area where ABC carries a different game (meaning you can watch it on any TV with basic cable; sorry if your hotel doesn't have this channel). See below for online viewing.

3. Primetime ABC games
There is no contractual obligation for ABC to mirror games on ESPN2 should it have two games in prime time. There is a possibility that fans of a Big Ten team could be out of luck in terms of your ability to watch the game AT HOME ON YOUR TV because I do not believe that primetime games with regional coverage not available in your area will be carried on ESPN GamePlan. MSU fans suffered this last year in Chicago no less. You would have to go to a bar with satellite service in order to watch the game on TV. See below for online viewing.

Right now, Michigan's only scheduled ABC primetime game is @ Iowa but, as of now, there does not appear to be any other marquee games scheduled for the same time slot that ABC could air (Florida game will be on CBS), though, this can certainly change.

4. Games carried on ESPN - by definition national
Anyone will get this game that gets ESPN.

Most, but not all, ESPN/ABC televised games are available online at ESPN360.com, but ONLY if ESPN has a deal with your specific Internet Service Provider. You can see if yours does at ESPN360.com by clicking GET ACCESS in the top nav bar and then (hopefully) selecting your ISP from the drop down menu.

If you are not able to use ESPN360.com, or if the game in which you are interested is not being streamed there, you can always try the non-official streaming sites such as justin.tv mentioned in the above posts.

Hope this is helpful. Sorry that it is long and apologies in advance for any factual mistakes.

And sorry if I got your hopes up even for live streaming of BTN games... it's available outside the US AND Canada only: http://mgoblog.com/content/big-ten-network-stream-all-football-basketbal...

EDIT: The above post, which I can no longer edit, should read, "If you get whaetever ABC in Portland, ME or Boston shows - frequently, a Big East game, I imagine - you'll be getting Georgia-Oklahoma State." The original post says ESPN. Same result, but I may have confused you. If so, apologies.

... IIRC, The Bug Ten does not have a distribution deal with ESPN GamePlan in the US once The Big Ten Network took most (all?) games that would have otherwise been televised by ESPN-Regional or ESPN-Local.

As has been mentioned before, any 12:00 or 3:30 game featuring a Big ten team televised regionally by ABC will be mirrored on ESPN2 in regions of the US where ABC is not televising the Big Ten game in question. Virtually ever other game I remember from last year - and definitely every other Michigan game was either on ESPN or BTN. However, ABC primetime games are not guaranteed to be mirrored on ESPN2, so one could miss out there.

As for what this means for Canada, I have no idea. Do you get ESPN2 or ABC at all? You may want to call your cable or satellite operator to see what options they offer. Maybe Big ten games are on GamePlan in Canada but not in the US, though I doubt it.

Sorry that this wasn't more helpful.

... it's entirely possible Sharp doesn't have all the details on the sources Rosenberg and Snyder cultivated. I don't count his opinion on the matter for much no matter which way it bends.

The Schad ESPN report with mention of a current player that started some games last year indicates its quite possible that some (at least one; maybe more) of the sources were current players other than the freshman quoted in the article.

But 5-7 isn't a crazy prediction. It doesn't display the optimism that fans would prefer, but it's not indicative of bias. Snyder has us losing only one game in which we'll likely be favored - vs WMU on Sat - and, frankly, I'm scared of that game, too. Western has a good quarterback and a dangerous offense, especially through the air; our poor safety play last year combined with the new scheme and the relative inexperience on that side of the ball doesn't make this a great matchup for the opener.

... I think the ABC/ESPN2 mirroring applies only to Saturday 12 noon ET and 3:30 pm ET games, but not to primetime ABC games. So, it's possible that, depending on where you live, you may not be able to see some Michigan night games (@ Iowa, for example) if your local ABC station carries another primetime game. This was how it worked last year; I believe it is the same this year, but I could be mistaken.

I doubt Rodriguez forgot the rules when he came to AA. He probably played in the grey areas of "mandatory" vs. "voluntary" time about the same as he did at WVU, much as coaches at most other BCS football programs do (though maybe to a greater extent: IDK).

In this case, some of the veteran players noticed a stark difference in the time they felt required to spend on football related activities and enough of them were upset enough about it, and potentially other issues, to speak about it.

Likewise, there are members of the media who feel that RR runs the program his way without regard for tradition, those outside the program and, occasionally, his own players. Some also feel he plays a little fast and loose with the rules and doesn't understand how the culture is different at Michigan. Well, the media is part of the culture, too, and for those in the media who thought RR would eventually get in trouble, there is an element of self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are clearly gray areas in the activities that count toward NCAA maximums and those that don't just as there are ways to comply with the letter of the rule, though not the intent, regarding voluntary vs mandatory activities. It seems pretty clear that Michigan under RR - like many BCS programs - plays in those gray areas. The reporters may not have done a good enough job to sketch that nebulous gray cloud for us, instead implying that Michigan has crossed a brightline, but it's evident Michigan is further into the gray than it was at least in the waning years of its former coach.

Whether or not there will be any violations and any sanctions has much to do with how easily Michigan can explain away the gray (to the NCAA!) by counting hours, etc. It will also depend, as these reporters rightly point out, what, if anything, players say to the NCAA should it ask.

Balanced, insightful, thoughtful and informative. There aren't very many commenters out there that can say that.

Few want to look like guy who rats out his alma mater.

It seats far more, and is both in perception and reality far easier for NY-based alumni to attend, especially via MTA train. Boston alumni base will travel to Hartford or New Haven in the same numbers anyway.

I don't see why Michigan wouldn't push for the Yale Bowl as the site. Whether, logistically, UConn could make that happen without giving up a lot, I have no idea.

Appreciate the link. Good stuff.

Thanks; I did not read that. You got a link?

I get the logic. I just was wondering why the coaches thought he was good at football now, but not (good enough to get an offer) before. A strong camp performance makes sense. Thanks Tom.

... it's wishful thinking because of how team's schedule these days. There are two primary factors making this list "wishful thinking:"

1. Few BCS conference teams find it beneficial to schedule two difficult non-conference games in the same year

2. In this environment, when the facilities arms race is as heated as ever, ADs are loathe to give up the larger payday which, for Michigan, is another home game.

I don't pretend to know at all what is going on inside Martin's head, but I imagine point 1 is not entirely moot for him in 2010, though it is of less importance than it would be in a typical year. However, the 2010 season may also be a critical inflection point for Michigan football and I doubt that, even if he could convince USC to visit, would he wish to foist that burden upon his third-year head coach.

Secondly, it's typically not a one-year decision. Most "quality teams" that would excite MGoCommenters (at least those on this thread) have the same incentives (above) as Michigan does and, other than Duke and perhaps Virginia, would not likely agree to play at Michigan without a return game. And even if any of these teams did agree to that, it would set up each for a brutal non-conference schedule, the likes of which I'm not sure we've seen in the past five years, should Michigan actually turn out to be good.

Last, like it or not (and I do), Notre Dame is on the schedule and is reasonably viewed as a possible BCS bowl-caliber team before the season begins. From a scheduling standpoint, it would be rough to add another high caliber team each year, and difficult to do so without agreeing to return games.

As a fan, like many of you, I wish Michigan would schedule team's with quality ranging from Virginia to Pitt (I wouldn't prefer to go so far as wish to have USC and ND on the schedule every year) and would be fine with home-and-homes. I like the idea of a rotating fun out-of-conference road trip every two years (see: Colorado, UCLA, Washington, Oregon), though, preferably, not to the West Coast, when ND visits Michigan.

But, I understand why Martin may not: there is little upside. If Michigan beats three patsies and ND, that OOC record paired with whatever we do in-conference results in the highest payday, doesn't alter our TV exposure, and sets us up for, in most, but not all circumstances, the best possible bowl game.

While I WISH we would add a home-and-home with, say, Boston College or Rutgers the next two years, and will continue to wish for it, I think we should realistically HOPE that we get back to scheduling BCS conference teams (or their equivalent) in one-and-done home games, a la Vanderbilt. These teams will not be of the same quality as Pitt or Oregon State, but they won't be Massachusetts , either.

I started this thread with some (very) basic analysis of the likelihood that Michigan would schedule one of Rittenberg's "potential" opponents to open the 2010 season. I didn't mean it as a referendum on scheduling or any of these individual teams.

I suppose my point was that UVA and, especially, Oregon State and Pitt, appear, to this observer at least, as unlikely opponents for Sept 4, 2010 despite the open dates on each team's schedule and the waxing/waning enthusiasm of MGoCommenters for each team.

I suppose it would have been more useful for me to actually do some research, identify teams that I think could be potential Stadium opening opponents, and present those in a diary, rather than just lamely attempt to take down Rittenberg's hastily researched blog post.

Mea cupla.

PS- Duke seems like a possibility, but, man, what a brutal schedule it would have that year, and there isn't much upside for Michigan.

I like the optimism, but... I'm willing to wager $50 on the under if you're setting the line at 8.5 wins.

Its offense vs our defense in the first game of the season could go horribly wrong. Then, ND's passing attack vs our pass defense the next week will look pretty scary.

Of course, we all WANT Michigan to win both of those games, but, I think we should be content with a split and delighted with a sweep.

Even with a split, home games vs. EMU, Indiana, Delaware St & Purdue appear very winnable. Throw in a win @ MSU, @ Wisconsin or other and we're in a bowl game at 6-6.

I would be ecstatic with a 7-5 record, which so many have predicted, but does anybody remember last year? Our offense should be much improved, but our D is scar, scary, scary.

In ascending order:

1990 - Michigan vs MSU football - despite the outcome, a great game

1994 - Michigan vs Colorado football - ugh; it still hurts

2008 - USA vs Italy World Cup - we didn't lose! You haven't experienced pandemonium until you've cheered with (or against) European soccer fans

2006 - Michigan at OSU - great game; bad outcome

EDIT: 1996 - Michigan vs BU hockey (Frozen Four semifinal) - the most dominant performance by that team that year. It got us over the hump and made me believe we could win the whole thing

1997 - Michigan vs OSU - schwing! Actually, it was a good game, not a great game, but the impact was the best

This is the most concise and incisive review of the RoJo situation I have ever read. Kudos.

I remember when Nick Perry, Ronald Johnson and Dionte Allen all seemed like Michigan locks. Bleh.

For the next week. At first, I thought that might help our chances, but after looking at which teams are on its schedule, I think it makes in nearly impossible to make it work. And, ASU lost a home game and likely wants to fill that spot with a home game.

Albeit intermittently.

It was not the smartest thing for him to say, and I was a tad miffed when I heard it - far more disturbing than any comments about the 'family atmosphere' given that that is now such a buzzword. But, I'm willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt - it could have just been some throwaway comment without any racial, or otherwise prejudicial, intentions behind it. Best of luck to Kurt.

I was just reading some of my old comments for fun (bored at work AND narcissistic!) and, boy, was I wrong on this one. Q: How much worse could our offense be? A: a whole heck of a lot. I quit.

Poe is being "controversial for the sake of being controversial." When you don't know what else to write about, and have to write something, it's far easier to just write something controversial than research a subject and come up with an interesting angle or piece of analysis. I have no idea whether he wants to piss people off (not apparent in this case) or make the story about him, but it needn't go that far to be a rationale for the fall of that type of mentality.

There are so many proposals out there and so many opinions - of which mine is no better than others' - that I have always thought it might be best to find an alternative that conforms as much to Pareto's principle (all parties better off) as possible. And here is what I have. It is not perfect, but I don't see, with few small exceptions, how any existing constituent - other than hypocritical University presidents who don't want to see one extra game for just two of FBS' 120 teams - is not made better off by this:

- Add a 5th BCS Bowl

- Allow that Bowl to tie in with a conference champion if there is mutual agreement with a conference (or two) to do so (The Big East is the obvious one, so I say the Gator Bowl, but it could be anything)

- Play 5 BCS Bowl games as is done today, but with no Conference tie-in ever thrown asunder.

- Use same rules of eligibility as today (I'd love to see them changed, but I can't think of a good solution where one constituent isn't made worse off)

- Re-run BCS rankings after these 5 Bowls

- Play a MNC game that rotates among the four existing BCS bowl sites

I'm not sure I see a downside for anybody here other than the fact that the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange would lose the ability to place the Big East champ in their bowl game

Personally, I'd also like to see teams without direct conference championship tie-ins get slotted in to bowl games based on their penultimate BCS ranking (barring in-conference matchups) but the BCS bowls would likely wouldn't go for that what with ticket sales & TV ratings abut which to worry.

Look at the number of guys both M and MSU want and see who gets more. Then remove the guys who are M or MSU locks/leans for one reason or another and look at that metric. Look at each case and analyze whether it is disturbing or not, and to what degree - all cases are not the same.

I hope MSU has more recruits from the state of Michigan than U of M does in every one of its classes. M should be able to pull more guys from out-of-state than MSU is, and recruiting classes have finite numbers.

We could use Bryant as strongside DE, couldn't we? Especially if Jibreel Black is a DT. Unless, of course, Paskorz grows in to a SDE; but then the whole Holmes O thing doesn't make as much sense. Unless Antonia Kinnard is not a LB, but a Quick. In which case we have no LBs in the class.

So, in short, we could use Bryant as a strongside DE, couldn't we?

Reprise the infamous 1994 game. And not the most difficult of BCS opponents in 2010, most likely.

Did Smith move to hybrid LB/safety position like Stevie Brown did, or to a true LB position a la Ezeh and Mouton? If the former, makes complete sense. If the later... huh.

He's an MR.

And next year, we'll have three more, but I'm not sure why Gibson will suddenly be a starter next year or why Cronin, who will basically be a frosh next year, is a better pair with Sims than even Gibson was/will be.

I'm just sayin', to start next year, Sims-Novak-Stu-Manny + a PG is likely the starting five rather than substituting a guy who couldn't crack the starting limeup this year or a lumbering redshirt frosh.

Of course, all of this changes in Beilein decides to start Stu at PG, which I doubt.

First team at practices has been Ortmann, Schilling, Molk, Moosman, and Dorrestein. McAvoy has been second team center, Ferrara second team guard along with Barnum.

Obviously, lots can change, but that's what it looks like now.

Tough, tough matchup, I think. They don't have a ton of size, which is good, but they are a pressure pressing team. As evidenced by the second half vs Illinois, we just don't do well when other teams press our guards. We handle trapping presses better than pressure presses, but not much.

This will be a tough one. Grady might actually see some PT, but I'm not even sure if that's a good thing at this point based on how little he's played recently. Must be some serious confidence issues there (either he in himself or Beilein in him; or both).