I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
- Member for
- 5 years 22 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|2 weeks 3 days ago||My first game was in 1978 . . .||
I was a freshman at Michigan in 1978 and the first UM game I attended was the season opener against Illinois.
I seem to recall having lunch at the dorm, walking across campus to the stadium, giving my ticket to the usher, taking my seat on a bench in the freshman section, and watching the pregame practice. The players then left the field and shortly thereafter, the band marched on it, played "The Victors", etc. The team reemerged onto the field and touched the M banner as they ran to the sideslines.
The game commenced. The announcer called first downs, etc. Small groups of band members can into the stands to play. Marshmellows, toilet paper and passing girls up the rows were the things we did during the plays. There were no video scoreboards, no internet and no rawk music to keep us entertained during the down times. We also didn't know much about the other varsity teams and what they did, who they played, etc. If you looked in the sky, there were plays carrying signs orbiting overhead.
Nowadays, I drive out to Ann Arbor once a year to attend a game. I park in one of the downtown structures and get a bite to eat (usually the Broken Egg for breakfast). I walk to the stadium in much the same way I did as a student, seeing pretty much the same sights (although now there are women athletes with varsity jackets). I buy a ticket online in order to get a good seat between the 40 yard lines. The cost is markedly more than 1978, but not out of line seeing that I usually catch a game with one of the less exciting opponents (this year, it was Minnesota).
I now have my ticket scanned by an usher, but the walk to my bench seat is pretty much the same. The stadium has changed though. The chain link fence and the greenskeeper's house is gone. There are more bathrooms, larger scoreboards, more point of sale opportunities and, of course, concourses. But because I've already eaten (and bought a shirt at the M Den, if I needed one), the only thing I might buy is a Coke and maybe some popcorn.
The marshmellows and toiler paper are gone and co-eds aren't getting passed up the stadium. The band still plays the old favorites, but now we have rawk music as well. Students don't seem to be as interested in attending the games in person, but back in 1978, only a small handful were on television, so going to teh stadium was the only way to see it. Of course, we also didn't have smart phones or the internet or text messaging, etc., so more often than not, you were left talking to the person next to you or watching the UM cheerleaders grabbing the opponent's mascot and having him "do the splits" on the goal post. The planes circling the stadium are gone, but they've been replaced by sky writing and guys with rocket packs jetting in and out of the stadium.
The team uniforms look pretty much like they did in 1978, except the "maize" is brighter and the pants aren't two-toned. The helmet stripes are pretty much the same, but there have been some changes (including no helmet stickers). Michigan still runs under the banner, but after a win, they now head to the student's section. We also now know when the next women's volleyball game is being played.
To be honest, I haven't seen much changing to the core of the Michigan football experience I knew as a student over three decades ago. Obviously, the tickets are more expensive (I think I remember the tickets costing $8 per game for students back in 1978). The stakes have changed too. Winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl was pretty much it in terms of program goals, but as of next season, we'll be seeing a four-team playoff (talk about long overdue). But much of what I knew is pretty much the same.
I think John U. Bacon goes off on nostalgia trips from time to time, and his latest book is one of them. Yeah, there was a time when Michigan sucked so badly that you could walk into the stadium without anyone caring. I also suppose that in the good old days (and I remember them), a group of kids would run around the neighborhood and imitate the marching band (but now, they can watch them on Youtube along with several hundred cable channels).
The one thing I'd definitely like to continue not seeing is advertising inside the stadium. I realize UM could make money doing it, but if there's one big thing that keeps the football experience "collegiate", it's the absence of ads. I've been in other venues, college and pro in all different sports, where you're bombarded by people selling stuff. If Brandon wants to really lose favor with the fans, he goes out and does something dumb like that.
|6 weeks 11 hours ago||The better question might be . . .||
How many engineering majors are on the Alabama football roster? What positions do they play? Are they walk ons or varsity players?
Their official football team roster is located here: http://www.rolltide.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/alab-m-footbl-mtt.html. I scrolled through a couple of entries on it and couldn't find any information about any the majors of the players on the team.
There's one page in their season preview media guide (Page 97) that talks about the school's academic ratings, but there's no mention of the Engineering School. The player profiles in it also has a lot of information, but nothing about what degrees they're pursuing. See http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/alab/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2013-14/misc_non_event/20130723media-guide.pdf
Isn't it kind of odd that the school's official websites don't have any information on the degree studies of the individual football players? If you wanted to know A.J. McCarron's major, for example, you won't find it on the roster of the season preview media guide.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||No return trips for Cincinnati or Hawaii . . .||
Michigan has one-and-done deals in the coming years with Brigham Young, Oregon State, Colorado, Hawaii, UNLV, Cincinnati, Southern Methodist, Appalachian State, Ball State and Central Florida. The only home-and-home we're looking at prior to 2018 is with Utah in 2014/5.
Brandon will have to schedule two non-conference home games for each season starting in 2018 through 2023. He already has home-and-home series with Arkansas, Virginia Tech and UCLA for those season.
|8 weeks 1 day ago||Michigan's Future Football Schedules: 2017-2023||
I downloaded the Big Ten future schedule from the Dienhart article before it was removed. Couple that with the recently published conference schedules for 2018-9 and assuming the eastern division rotation will remain intact through 2023, here's what we know about UM's future schedules.
In that same time period (2017-2020), the following teams will be playing one another annually;
|11 weeks 17 hours ago||Delany clearly recognizes||
Delany clearly recognizes, as well all do, that there is a subset of football and basketball players who are either not academically prepared or not motivated to go to college in and of itself.
|11 weeks 3 days ago||The Michigan Marching Band . . .||
Per numerous articles surround the Michigan Marching Band's trip to Dallas for last year's season opener, the initial cost estimate was around $400,000 for the travel, lodging, etc. There were apparently some cost reductions that took place to make it work, plus a wealthy donor or two who picked up the price. Keep in mind we're probably talking around 250 people associated with the MMB who went to Texas last year.
Michigan said that the skywriting tab for the previous weekend was around $3-5,000.
Even if the cost of going to UConn was half that $400K number, it isn't chicken feed. I suspect the annual budget includes money for a bowl trip and perhaps one major road game during the regular seaon. Add in the home games and the MMB is probably performing on a gridiron eight to nine times per year.
|13 weeks 1 day ago||I find it intriguing . . .||
The majority of schools that have retired numbers or honor players will do it with a ring of fame or perhaps a statue or a photograph, etc. What I like and find unique about Michigan's program is the patches on the uniforms and the names on the lockers.
Yet now we read where those people like the program because giving the quarterback #98 is unique. I think those individuals failed from the outset to realize that Michigan had done something outside the box from the onset with the patches, etc.
Going forward, I can certainly imagine #1 and #2 getting patches on them for Anthony Carter and Charles Woodson and that those two numbers will habitually go to a WR and a DB respectively. The same goes with #87 (TE) and #21 (WR).
#47 and #48 are out of position in terms of the players they honor, but I could also see that being given to linebackers from here on out. Yes, we know that Bennie Oosterbaan and Gerald Ford didn't play that position, but those numbers aren't extreme outliers for that position.
To date, #11 has been worn by defensive backs and I'll be curious to see if that continues or it goes to a position where it's most likely seen, i.e., quarterback with the possibility of running back. That said, the Wisterts were all linemen, so we may see it go to a d-lineman. Perhaps Taco Charlton (who now wears #33) or Henry Poggi (who now wears #11).
But clearly, the most intriguing number is 98. Gardner was an outstanding choice and as the poster mentioned, it's really unique to see it on a quarterback. I have to imagine it will regularly go to a skill position player other than a QB after Gardner leaves UM.
So don't be shocked to see some future three wide receiver set with the WRs wearing #1, #21 and #98 on their uniforms. Or that some future defensive end (Da'Shawn Hand?) has #11 on his jersey.
|13 weeks 3 days ago||I don't think Michigan will have a Notre Dame replacement . . .||
Michigan-Notre Dame was a natural and familiar non-conference rivalry between two programs that are at the very top in terms of history and tradition. I don't think UM will be able to replace ND with another program that touches on all the facets I described above.
So the next best thing is to find a major program willing to be involved in a long-term series much like UM and ND had in place since 1978. Barring that, the other option is to play a series of high profile opponents with the hope and expectation that those types of programs are going to be Top 10 or Top 15 early in the season.
There's a finite number of candidates to begin with and if the ACC/SEC adopt a nine-game conference schedule, it'll become even more problematic. Then, of course, there are schools that have major non-conference instate rivalries (Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, Clemson/South Carolina) and out of state rivalries (USC/Stanford v. Notre Dame) that simply may not be available (although I believe Stanford is contract to play ND though 2019, so they may be available in the 2020s).
ACC: The one program that has name recognition, but is currently going through rough times, is Miami-Fl. How the Hurricans will look in 2017 (where Michigan has an open scheduling slot) or in the early 2020s (after the Va Tech games in 2020/1) is anyone's guess. But that's part of the deal--the better programs are generally the ones that are highly rated early in the season, but it doesn't happen all the time. Clemson might also be worth considering as well.
Big XII: The two obvious candidates here are Texas and Oklahoma. Neither one are immediately available per their published future schedules, but might be on a future schedule in the 2020s. WIthout a conference championship game, UT and OU are looking at having pretty good non-conference schedules. Both will or are playing Notre Dame, so traveling northward for a game in September isn't going to faze them.
SEC: If you remove UF, UGa and USoCarolina from the list (see above), then the programs left are Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee and Texas A&M. ATM have recently expanded Kyle Field and their publicly published schedule doesn't show any games for 2017 yet, so they'd get my vote.
P12: There are perhaps three Pac 12 teams available outside of Stanford and USC. Washington, Oregon and UCLA would all be likely candidates, although they're all programs UM has played as part of the non-conference schedule in recent years (in contrast to the ACC, SEC and B12 programs). Getting these programs on the schedule would be roughly akin to doing what the stillborn B10-P12 scheduling agreement was supposed to do.
We'll see what happens because there are always a lot of moving parts involved. As I mentioned above, one question that needs to get answered is how long the ACC/SEC will have eight-game conference schedules. If the NCAA does opt to have a fourth division with the 60-plus top programs in it, how does that effect the pool of non-conference candidates? How will strength of schedule be computed in terms of post season play?
One other option for Michigan and the Big Ten is to move a major conference game up into early September. For the Wolverines, the likely candidates would be Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. Could you have an "Under the Lights" type game with these three programs? I imagine the answer would be yes.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Why don't you also cite Fielding H. Yost?||
If you haven't had a chance, read Robert M. Soderstrom's book, "The Big House: Fielding H. Yost and the Building of Michigan Stadium".
Yost was committed to "athletics for all"--and that included women. The bond sale that raised money to build Michigan Stadium in 1927 was also used to build the facilities for Palmer Field for the 3,000 women then on the campus. Yost had it completely refurbished and extended to include four hockey fields, 18 tennis courts, special fields for archery and some putting greens. A new field house for women was built adjacent to the field at the cost of $250K. To quote the book (page 327 in my copy):
When completed, Michigan had the finest athletic plant for women in America. Athletic facilities for co-eds were widely ignored by American education at that time, but Yost was pleased to use athletic department money, football money, to build a modern plant. To Yost, even in 1927, "athletics for all" inclujded women. When he received a letter sharply critical of this expenditure for women, Yost replied,
"I want to say that I am convinced that no better use has ever been made of athletic incomes at this or any other institution thatn the development and equipment of a suitable place to carry on the physical education activiteis of this group of students who have, so some extent, been heretofore neglected. It is fully as urgent that the women have these essential facilities as it is that men have them."
The Ann Arbor New could only celebrate:
"The activities on Palmer Field remind us of football for the very good reason that football is paying the shot. The state of Michigan isn't spending a nickel for the improvements. Yet it is an improvement that might very well be financed from the state treasury as indeed it would be in almost any place but Michigan."
"The news story concerning the letting of these contracts ought to be considered seriously by any man who opposes intercollegiate football on the ground that it "benefits a few". For here is an instance of football benefitting every woman student at the Universty of Michigan. Eleven boys playing on Ferry Field have provided more than 3000 girls with the facilities for beneficial physical culture . . . "
"Yes, we have commercialized athletics at Michigan. There is no denying that statement. And we regard the situation as extremely gratifying. There should be more of this kind of commerciallized football...Ferry Field has been one of Michigan's very best investments."
END OF EXCERPT
If we were to apply Yost's "Athletics for All" principal from the late 1920s to today, then I submit to you that the approach Michigan and David Brandon are taking to fund and support women's athletics is much closer to the spirit and substance of Yost's vision than what Canham and Schembechler might have proposed in their opposition to Title IX.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||Gilding the lilly, huh?||
I find it interesting that anyone here thinks Michigan athletics is "gilding the lilly". To me, that definition would mean that UM tore down Crisler and Yost and replaced them with new buildings. Instead, the AD's management opted to refurbish the existing structure at less cost (and will do so with other structures as well). By extension, most of the money has gone to the revenus sports--football, men's BB and ice hockey. It only makes sense to invest in those areas first because that's where UM gets the biggest return (such as on the luxury boxes as Michigan Stadium).
I also don't think Brandon is going to overextend the athletic department's finances, especially with $230M of debt on the books due to the renovation projects that incurs around a $15M annual expense to be serviced. The whole reason why this video was put out was to help rally donors to continue their support for Michigan Athletics--people like Al Glick, Stephen Ross, Donald Shepherd and Fred Wilpon. It's clear that if any of the things they're envisioning gets done, they're going to need that assistance (plus whatever boost in conference distributions comes about from the new television deals the conference will have in place in a few years' time).
I don't know about you, but the money spent to me seems to have actually improved the fan experience and accessibility. Crisler Center and Michigan Stadium, in particular, are much more fan friendly places than they were in recent years--and those improvements were long overdue. Crisler hadn't been touched much since it was built in the late 1960s and I remember not so long ago waiting in line for a port-a-john outside Michigan Stadium druing halftime of a football game.
One last point. The #1 and #2 programs in terms of revenue are Texas and Ohio State. But the two athletic departments are completely different in terms of the number of sports they support. UT is at 18 while OSU is over 30. Yet both have comparable football and basketball ticket prices. PSLs, etc. The thing driving revenue in college sports for the major programs isn't based on the number of non-revenue sports they support. It's based on the popularity and demand for college football and basketball--both of which have blosssomed these last two decades--in the market place.
Now if I was David Brandon, I'd consider giving a "state of the athletic department" presentation annually to the press and general public so we can have a snapshot picture of not only the finances (which are in the annual budget presented to the regents each June), but the specific plans and goals for the AD. I realize much of this is covered on the UM website, but I think we'd be better served if he gave the presentation in person, answered questions about his goals, etc.
|15 weeks 1 day ago||If you want to look at the UM Athletic Department salary info||
If you want to see the salaries for all 321 individuals in the athletic department and figure out which are "Title IX" related and which aren't, then be my guest.
How much is Brandon's $800K salary Title IX related? Would you base that on the number of sports UM supports, because that would mean it's over 50%. The ratio of female to male athletes? How about breaking it down by percentage of overall revenue of men's and women's sports? Or perhaps by expense?
When you look at these salary numbers, do you include what they get beyond the listed salary? Brady Hoke's salary from UM is $300K, but he gets paid from other sources as well. Do you include them or just the portion that comes out of the athletic department budget?
If people want to look at the latest budget submission back in June of this year for FY 2014, go to http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf
|15 weeks 5 days ago||How about Texas A&M?||
Texas A&M has no major opponents on its published future schedules with the exception of Oregon in 2018/19. See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/sec/texas-am-aggies.php
While ATM hasn't been a major power in awhile, their move to the SEC plus the publicity (good and bad) surrounding Manziel has raised their profile. I don't know how well Aggie fans would travel to Atlanta, but they do fit the criteria of having one team in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl from the ACC or SEC.
I would even consider them a possibility for a home-and-home series. Michigan needs a major non-conference opponent for 2017 (Cincinnati is the only non-conference game scheduled to date) and there could be a return date for 2022 (Arkansas and Virginia Tech have home and homes with Michigan from 2018 thru 2021).
Texas A&M's home stadium (Kyle Field) is going to be expanded and remodelled with completion due in 2014. The field's capacity will be 102,500 for the 2015 season, so it's certainly a big enough venue for a major non-conference game. Plus it's in a major reecruiting area, so that can't hurt when it comes to getting UM down in Texas. See http://kylefield.com/
The largest hurdle I see will be the willingness of the parties to pull this off (this assumes Texas A&M is even available). The SEC looks like it will eventually go to a nine-game conference schedule, so you have to factor in how hard that will affect ATM's thinking regarding their non-conference schedule. If they keep the series with Oregon, then that would be a positive sign that they're willing to play at least one high end non-conference opponent per year.
In 2017, Michigan has five conference road games (at Purdue, at Indiana, at Penn State, at Maryland, at Wisconsin) and four home B1G games (Michgian State, Rutgers, Minnesota, Ohio State). See http://www.mgoblue.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/081809aab.html. Cincinnati would be the fifth home game, leaving two scheduling spots open.
Given the pattern of home non-conference games (five in even numbered seasons, four in odd numbered years) and the timing of the Arkansas and Virginia Tech games (playing these teams in Ann Arbor in even numbered years), it looks like UM might have alternating years of eight and six home games starting in 2018. If UM were to keep that setup in place, then a home-and-home series with ATM has the Wolverines on the road in 2017 and at home in 2022 (provided that is the future date).
If there is no home-and-home series, but a one time meeting at the Chick-Fil-A Bowl in 2017 (the earliest open date), then UM would probably have seven home games (5 B1G plus two non-conference), four road games in conference play and the neutral site matchup to open the season.
Finally, of course, there's the question about the formation of Division 4 and how that might effect scheduing. For example, if a decision is made that D4 team can only play one another, then Michigan (and every other D4 program) would effectively be looking at only playing six home games per year. The three non-conference games would all be home-and-home setups and they would have to be coordinated with the nine-game conference schedule to ensure there are six home games annually.
If D4 teams are allowed to play non-D4 programs, then the non-conference series could stay what it now pretty much will be with just one home-and-home matchup per season. The other possibility would be two home-and-home non-conference games with D4 opponents and one non-D4 opponent to round out the schedule.
|24 weeks 1 day ago||Nine conference games works for me . . . .||
Nine conference games per year works for me as long as a few things happen.
The first is that there is at least one major non-conference opponent on the schedule each year. WIth Notre Dame off it for at least a decade, it's going to be important for Michigan to have a strong program or programs to replace them. I believe the series with Arkansas (2018/9) was put in place prior to ND cancelling the series while the Virginia Tech home-and-home (2020/1) announcement is more recent. In the near term, that leaves openings for 2017 and 2022 and beyond.
The programs that I'd like to see UM play and are likely to be available because they don't have annual non-conference rivalry games in place (such as Florida-Florida State) include Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M and Miami-FL. They're all high profile opponents with the majority of them with big stadiums/home crowd sell outs (the Hurricanes are the exception to that list) that should draw a lot of preseason publicity.
The second item concerns the other non-conference games. I have no problem with the first one being a "warmup" with a MAC-level opponent, but that third game should be with a higher level opponent. Cincinnati in 2017 fits that bill, i.e., a program that would be somewhere in the middle third of the Big Ten. Brigham Young (which is also on the future schedule) would be another such team.
The final prerequisite would be what appears to be happening starting in 2016, i.e., regularly scheduling top tier opponents between the two divisions. I fully expect we'll see Wisconsin abd Nebraska on Michigan's conference schedule on something akin to a two years on/two years off rotation. The other five teams from the western division (Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota) would then rotate through the other two annual schedullng slots. Perhaps something like this for the western division opponents:
Years 1/2 - Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue
Years 3/4 - Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota
Years 5/6 - Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa
Years 7/8 - Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern
Years 9/10 - Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois
So what would a hypothetical 2017 schedule look like if, say, Tennessee agreed to a home and home with UM for that season and 2022 and the game with the UC Bearcats remained unchanged. Per the Big Ten's announcment, Michigan would host four conference games in the odd numbered years. (N = Non-Conference, E = East, W = West)
9/2 - WESTERN MICHIGAN (N)
9/9 - CINCINNATI (N)
9/16 - @ Tennessee (N)
9/23 - @ Maryland (E)
9/30 - NEBRASKA (W)
10/7 - Bye
10/14 - @ Purdue (W)
10/21 - MICHIGAN STATE (E)
10/28 - @ Iowa (W)
11/4 - @ Indiana (E)
11/11 - RUTGERS (E)
11/18 - @ Penn State (E)
11/25 - OHIO STATE (E)
You might notice that this season only has six home games. This would actually be consistent with what Michigan may be doing because the major non-conference games on the schedule (Arkansas, Va Tech) has those teams playing in Ann Arbor during even numbered years (2018, 2020). Since UM will be hosting five B1G games those years, it means we could see alternating seasons of eight and six home games on the future schedules.
The schedule above has four major programs on it (Tennessee, Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State), three to four teams that would be in the 'middle third" of the Big Ten (Cincinnati, Iowa, Michigan State and perhaps Rutgers/Purdue), a couple of lower level B1G programs (perhaps Rutgers/Purdue, Indiana, Maryland) and one non-conference warm up game (Western Michigan).
Given the four-team playoff set up, the strength of schedule in that lineup would very likely be enough to get UM into a four-team playoff if they went undefeated. It certainly wouldn't hurt them if they had one loss either (depending on the timing of the loss).
2018 would then hypothetically look like this (Arkansas is currently scheduled as the season opener):
9/1 - ARKANSAS (N)
9/8 - MIAMI (OHIO) (N)
9/15 - HOUSTON (N)
9/22 - MARYLAND (E)
9/29 - @ Wisconsin (W)
10/6 - Bye
10/13 - NORTHWESTERN (W)
10/20 - @ Michigan State (E)
10/27 - MINNESOTA (W)
11/3 - INDIANA (E)
11/10 - @ Rutgers (E)
11/17 - PENN STATE (E)
11/24 - @ Ohio State (E)
|28 weeks 6 days ago||Realistic choices might include . . . .||
There are a number of schools that might be on any list, but are unrealistic choices unless they change their own scheduling practices and/or conference scale back to eight conference games (not likely).
Programs that already have major non-conference opponent on an annual basis include:
USC and Stanford ( with Notre Dame)
Florida and Florida State
Georgia and Georgia Tech
South Carolina and Clemson
The Pac 12 and Big XII have nine conference games and the Big Ten will adopt that practice in 2016. The SEC is considering it and the ACC has gone back and forth on implementing that practice. So who's left?
1. Texas - UT has a four-game series with Notre Dame and has played Ohio State in a home-and-home series, so the Longhorns are a good possibility. Since the Big XII doesn't have a conference championship game, it makes sense for Texas to enhance their non-conference schedule in any possible. Having Michigan on the schedule would help accomplish that goal.
2. Oklahoma - Pretty much the same situation as Texas IRT their situation within the Big XII and the four-team playoff. OU probably doesn't have quite the same profile as UT, but they'd be on the list.
3. Miami - The U has occasional games with Florida, but UF isn't regularly on their schedule. For now, the ACC has an eight game conference schedule, so Miami does have more open dates to fill than other schools. ND has a series of games with them, so playing Michigan could also fit.
4. LSU - This is a program that Michigan has never played, so it would be unique to start up a long term series. Would it happen? Perhaps not with Les Miles as head coach, but some other HC and/or athletic director might be interested. If the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule, this isn't a likely scenario.
5. Tennessee - Two schools with large stadiums and large traditions. But like LSU, if the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule, a long-term relationship isn't likely. A home-and home might work out (same with LSU).
6. Texas A&M - Another SEC team that is expanding its stadium, plays in front of a passionate fan base and is located in a main recruiting area. They only other SEC team on the list would be Alabama, but it looks llike the Crimson Tide isn't more likely to have a neutral site game.
I"m not real excited about any of the Pac 12 teams outside of USC and Stanford. Washington could be a possibility along with UCLA. But given Michigan's history of not playing well on West Coast and the fact UM has actually played a number of P12 teams in the regular season in recent history. I'd like to see Michigan go in another direction (such as the home-and-home with Arkansas).
There aren't any ACC teams that are realistic possibilities outside of Miami. UM does have the home-and-home with Virginia Tech coming up. But none of the others that are realistic don't move the needle.
|30 weeks 6 hours ago||Master plan?||
I think you have to keep in mind that scheduling is done years out and that the most David Brandon really controls is the non-conference slate.
As we witnessed with Notre Dame, these relationships can be cancelled or changed. It happens all the time in college football.
The games with Utah, Oregon State and Colorado were clearly put in there in response to what was going to be a Big Ten/Pac 12 scheduling alliance. While that didn't happen, those games are still in place and we'll still see them played.
Now I'm sure Brandon had a voice in keeping Ohio State in the Eastern Division and making sure that game was at the end of the season. But IRT Michigan State, I imagine the conference opted to have them in the East because they didn't want UM's conference schedule restricted by the necessity of a permanent cross-divisional game.
I'm really not going to sweat the back to back games in East Lansing because those types of arrangements happen all the time in the scheduling world. Besides, it appears that UM's cycle of Eastern Division teams for the foreseeable future is as follows:
Home: Penn State, Indiana, Maryland
Road: at Ohio State, at Michigan State, at Rutgers
Home: Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers
Road: at Penn State, at Indiana, at Maryland
By 2016, Michigan will play either Nebraska or Wisconsin on what is likely to be a two year on, two year off arrangement. The other five teams from the west (Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, Purdue) will be put in a rotation so that they each have at least one game with Michigan over a two-year period.
If you couple that Nebraska/Wisconsin game with the major home and homes coming up (Arkansas, Virginia Tech), then the 2018 through 2021 seasons will be something like this:
2018 (5 Home B1G Games)
Home: Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Arkansas
Away: at Ohio State, at Michigan State, at Rutgers, at Nebraska/Wisconsin
2019 (4 Home B1G Games)
Home: Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Nebraska/Wisconsin
Away: at Penn State, at Indiana, at Maryland, at Arkansas
Replace Arkansas with Virginia Tech for 2020/1 and you get the idea. I think what Brandon wanted to do here (in cooperation with the Big Ten) is to have a balanced schedule home/away for the higher end teams on the schedule. I suspect he didn't want another situation like he does now where he had Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State all on the road or all at home.
If I were a UM fan, I'd just write off 2014/5 as transitional years in the scheduling and look forward to 2016 (when Nebraska or Wisconsin get on the schedule) and 2018 (when the major non-conference home and home games start kicking in).
What David Brandon has to do is get a quality non-conference opponent in place for the 2022 seasons and beyond. Programs like Texas, LSU, Miami-FL, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Tennessee could be candidates for future games because they don't have an instate non-conference rival (such as Florida-Florida State or Clemson-South Carolina) and they might be persuaded to leave familiar ground and come up north.
He also has to make sure the buy-in game opponents are varied and interesting. I have to give him credit for getting Brigham Young, Oregon State and Colorado in here with no return date required. Add UNLV and Hawaii to that list and you can see he's trying to expand those no return date games to programs outside the usual MAC teams like Miami OH, Bowling Green, the directional Michigan schools, Toledo, etc.
|30 weeks 9 hours ago||Some schedule thoughts . . .||
1. Michigan's B1G Eastern Division rotation is as follows:
|31 weeks 6 hours ago||Virginia Tech has played at Fedex Field three times in the past||
One thing to keep in mind is that Virginia Tech has played at Fedex Field outside Washigton, DC on three occasions (2004-USC, 2010-Boise State, 2012-Cincinnati). Fedex Field has a seating capacity of 85,000 while Lane Stadium is 65,632.
Is there any possibility the game is moed to the DC area because of higher attendance? The USC game had 91,665 spectators (Fedex Field had a larger capacity back then) and the BSU contest had 86,587. OTOH, the game with the UC Bearcats last year only had 46,026.
The other interesting thing about his annoucement is the possiblity Michigan will play alternating seasons of 8 and 6 home games. According to the Big Ten, the teams in the Eastern Division will be hosting five conference games during the even-numbered years (2016, 2018, 2020) once the nine game coference schedule is adopted in 2016.
But Michigan's future non-conference home and homes with Arkansa and Virginia Tech as UM hosting those teams in Ann Arbor during the even numbered years (Ark-2018, VaTech-2020). During the odd numbered years (2019, 2021) when the Wolverines are slated to have only four home conference games, UM is going on the road to play the Razorback and the Hokies.
If everything remains unchanged, Michigan should have eight home games in 2016. Five will be in conference and the three non-conference games (Hawaii, Ball State, Colorado) are in Ann Arbor.
In 2017, Michigan has four home conference games with one home non-conference game with CIncinnati on 9/9 scheduled to date. If UM has a home-and-home non-conference games that year, it means only six home dates. If not, then it could mean a second consecutive season with eight home games.
I expect the future coference schedules will be put out later this month. I suspect the rotation with Ohio State and Michigan State will stay in place in terms of home or away locations. If Penn State is coupled with MSU and Rutgers/Maryland are one-home-one away, then the rotation of Eastern Division games for the even/odd years could look like this:
Home: Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, 2 Western Teams
Away: at Ohio State, at Maryland, at Indiana, 1 Western Team
Home: Ohio State, Maryland, Indiana, 1 Western Team
Away: at Michigan State, at Penn State, at Rutgers, 2 Western Teams
With Nebraska and Wisconsin likely to be on the schedule more often than not due to the weighted scheduling the conference plans on doing, it could be a situation whereby UM plays both OSU and one of UN-L/UW either at home or on the road going forward.
If that were the case, it would make some sense for the timing of the major non-conference games. We could be looking at something like this:
2018 (5 Home Conference games)
Home: Arkansas, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, 2 Western Teams
Away: at Ohio State, at Maryland, at Indiana, at either Nebraska or Wisconsin
2019 (4 Home Conference games)
Home: Ohio State, Maryland, Indiana, either Nebraska or Wisconsin
Away: at Arkansas, at Michigan State, at Penn State, at Rutgers, at 2 Western Teams
2020 and 2021 would be just like 2018 and 2019, except replace Arkansas with Virgiia Tech.
|31 weeks 17 hours ago||If you want to credit people . . .||
First off, I think you're being a bit hyperbolic about the Michigan Athletic Department "bleeding money". Martin's predecessor did have one year where revenues were less than expenses by around $3M (I think), but UM's situation was nothing akin to, for example, what Maryland has gone through in recent years.
If you want to thank someone else for Michigan's profitability, then you have to add Jim Delany to the list. He made the decision to create the Big Ten Network, he brokered all the current television deals and he's in part responsible for what will be a more lucrative post-season payoff. He'll also be responsible for the new television rights deal that will be negotiated in three years. He was also Big Ten Commissioner for all the recent expansion, moving the B1G from ten to fourteen teams.
Brandon's primary responsibility will be paying down the debt Michigan has incurred with its most recent projects while still progressing on the plan to upgrade a number of facilities on the South Campus. That involves planning, fund raising and putting together future budgets that will accompllish all the athletic department's goals.
|31 weeks 1 day ago||Per Michigan's FY 2013 Athletic Department Budget . . .||
Michigan released its FY 2013 Athletic Department Budget eleven months ago. According to that document (see http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf), Spectator Admissions for all sports were ($M):
FY 2009 Actual - 35.9 (7 Home Football Games - 31.7 Football Admissions)
FY 2010 Actual - 38.4 (8 Home Football Games - 34.0 Football Admissions)
FY 2011 Actual - 39.1 (7 Home Football Games - 33.3 Football Admissions)
FY 2012 Projected - 50.0M (8 Home Football Games - 43.1 Football Admissions)
FY 2013 Budget - 44.1 (6 Home Football Games - 39.1 Football Admissiosn)
According to the budget report, these figures are net of associated payments to visiting schools. On a per home football game average, here's how the numbers stack up ($M):
FY 2009 - 4.53
FY 2010 - 4.25
FY 2011 - 4.76
FY 2012 - 5.39
FY 2013 - 6.52
The mlive.com report had FY 2012 ticket revenue at $52.4M. It would appear the athletic department may have been a little short in their projections or the figure in the newspaper isn't net the payments to the visiting schools (in football, that was Air Force and Massachusetts).
The preferred seating revenue remains in the lower $20M range per the budget document. It'll be interesting to see if the university was able to generate more money with the club seats at Crisler Center.
|31 weeks 2 days ago||I believe your assessment is incorrect . . .||
Conferences with two BCS bowl participants get a revenue cap for the second participant of $4.5M. See this article from 2010: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2010/01/20100125/This-Weeks-News/The-BCS-Big-Split.aspx
That $4.5M figure is prior to bowl expenses and unsold tickets that schools have to repay. A round number for that cost is probably about $2.0M give or take (I've seen higher figures quoted--see http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/03/auburn_reports_losing_more_tha.html).
So let's say that the 12 schools in the Big Ten would have split the net bowl income of approx. $2.5M from the second BCS bowl appearance. That would have been a little over $208K per each of the 12 school in the Big Ten.
One point that people need to be mindful of regarding bowls is that while the payouts sound impressive, the contracts with them usually indicated that teams have to stay in the locale for a certain time, use certain hotels, etc. Then, of course, there's the cost involved with absorbing unsold tickets as well.
That's why we might see more conferences do what the SEC and Big XII have done by essentially creating and running their own bowl without the middlemen siphoning their cut of the overall money.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||It does include pooled bowl revenue . . .||
The $25.7M total does include pooled bowl revenue. Per the FY 2013 Michigan Athletic Department Budget published in June 2012, the conference distribution amount was expected to be $25.183M. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf
That $25.183M was broken down in this document as follows:
Television (Football & Basketball) - $18.718M
NCAA based basketball distributions - $3.345M
Football Bowl Games - $2.344M
Other - $0.776M
So it would appear that the Big Ten's conference distribution was a little over $500K per school more than in the UM budget document. The article says that $19.0M would be coming from television, so that means the actual money from television was a little under $300K more than in the budget.
The NCAA based basketball distrubitions may have been more than expected given the Big Ten's success in the tourney. We'll know more details next month when the Athletic Department releases its FY 2014 budget.
IRT bowl games, what happens for the Big Ten is that all the teams pool their bowl revenue, then the confernce apportions a share of it back to the teams participating as a budget against expenses for the trip. What's left is then divided up between all the teams in the conference, including those who didn't go to bowl games.
As far as bowls are concerned, the Big Ten partcipated in seven last year. I think the only one that normally had a B1G team but didn't was the Little Caesar's in Detroit. But that bowl doesn't pay out too much, so it wasn't a big loss. Besides, given the way the confernce splits the money, not having major expenses in a bowl game might actually have caused the overall payout per school to be higher than expected.
|31 weeks 3 days ago||The Big Ten told Maryland . . .||
Maryland is looking at making around $32M in FY 2014/5. See http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/16/maryland-big-ten-travel-subsidy/
Maryland is also projected to add $100M to $150M to the Big Ten's coffers due to the additional geographic reach the conference will be getting. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-realignment/index.html
By 2017, Maryland and the other Big Ten schools are looking at conference distributions of around $43M once the new television negotiations are completed. See http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-realignment/index.html
To summarize from all these sources, here's what Maryland and the other Big Ten schools will be looking at in the upcoming fiscal years:
FY 2013 - $25.7M
FY 2014 - $32M (due to new football playoff setup plus additional television revenue)
FY 2015 - $33M
FY 2016 - $34M
FY 2017 - $43M (new television deal)
FY 2018 - $44M
FY 2019 - $45M
When discussing these numbers, always keep in mind that conference distributions include revenue from television and net bowl revenue and playoff/conference championship money and the NCAA men's basketball tournament and some other miscellaneous sources.
These numbers are approximate and may not be uniform for all the schools. Nebraska was taking less money initially as it was buying equity and it looks Maryland isgetting more up front than usual given their financial duress and travel expenses. No real information on Rutgers.
But the numbers certainly reflect what Michigan should be looking at in future years. Is it trillions of dollars? No. But if you go back to the pre-Big Ten Network days about five years ago when conference distributions were in the $10M range, it's a real sea change in how much money B1G schools are going to be receiving.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in the near terms. The larger athletic programs seem to be getting fed up with the NCAA's leadership and its "one set of rules fits all" approach that doesn't seem to work in an environment where there are big and small programs with markedly different needs. Then you add the O'Bannon suit and you're laying the groundwork for a scenario whereby the major college athletic programs secede from the NCAA and put together their own governing body which will manage the post-season and negotiate one large scale media deal vs. a handful of deals for each of the separate conferences.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||Well, if we really want to preserve the relationship . . .||
If you really want to preserve the relationship with the "old Big Ten", then I trust you will soon be writing Commissioner Delany and telling him that the conference should rid itself of Nebraska and Penn State, but keep the nine game conference schedule.
This way, Michigan will play a true round robin of B1G teams and not have any worries about one of those "non-traditional" conference championship games either.
To help you out with your quest, here's the address and telephone numbers for the Big Ten Conference offices:
Big Ten Conference Headquarters and Meeting Center
Phone: (847) 696-1010
Good luck, Don Quixote!
|32 weeks 3 days ago||You mean a more difficult path in relative terms, don't you?||
I trust you mean that Michigan will have a more difficult path in relative terms, don't you?
Let's look at the teams we know UM and MSU will play each year in their own division:
Michigan - Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan State - Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
UM is playing two peer programs that are legitimate major football programs in Ohio State and Penn State. The remaining programs are ones they should beat the vast majority of the time.
MSU's peers may be who in that bunch? Not Indiana. Maybe Rutgers and Maryland. But Michigan State has to deal with three major football programs in its own division and probably more competitive games with RU and MD than Michigan will have.
Now let's say Michigan gets Nebraska and MSU doesn't. That means UM has a third major legitimate program as its competition, i.e, the same as MSU does regarless of who they play in the west. But what happens when UM plays Wisconsin and MSU gets Nebraska? The situation changes there to some degree.
So no, I'm not real worried that MSU is going to have an easier schedule run that Michigan when it comes to Big Ten conference games.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||If that's your concern . . .||
If that's your concern, then you haven't been paying attention. First off, the conference is mandating that teams play at least one non-conference game against an opponent of similar stature in another league. There will be real pressure on the Michigan, Ohio State, etc., to have that one marquee game in place on the schedule because we're looking at a new television contract in a few years' time.
Secondly, when it comes to the four-team playoff, the committee is going to look at strength of schedule as one of their metrics. If a program has a bunch of MAC level programs on their non-conference docket, it's going to be a negative when all factors are being considered.
Finally, the Big Ten is telling teams no more FCS programs. That means Illinois can't play Eastern, Western or Southern Illinois and that game between Minnesota and South Dakota State is a thing of the past.
Besides, schedules have to be made years in advance even if they aren't "on purpose". It's always a bit of a crap shoot when it comes to figuring out if a team or program is going to be good five years down the line.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||The 18-year thing . . .||
I believe the 18-year time span was used because that how long the complete scheduling cycle will take. It's not a prediction for how long the Big Ten will be a 14-team conference.
|32 weeks 3 days ago||You do realize that . . .||
You do realize that Michigan State will be playing Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State each year. If they're drooling about that prospect, it's not because that's a happy option for them. Then add in their games with Notre Dame (four years out of every six through 2032) and future games with Alabama, Oregon, and Miami-FL and you can see why they're going to have a pretty tough road to hoe.
Also keep in mind that Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Northwestern are going to be on the slate for them as well. It's not going to be much of a picnic for Sparty.
But before we get our panties in a wad, let's see how the scheduling works out. Besides, I read plenty of message boards where fans complain that the games they attend aren't worth the tickets. Now that we may see something of an upgrade with more games against B1G opponents, where's that complaint now?
|32 weeks 3 days ago||For those of us on the East Coast . . .||
For those Michigan alums and fans living on the East Coast, this is a big deal (something Brian is consistently satirical about in his narratives). It's taxing getting to Ann Arbor for a game, although having Penn State in the neighborhood since 1993 helps out. Now that Rutgers and Maryland have been added to the conference, seeing the Wolverines in person for football, basketball, etc., became that much easier.
When was the last time Michigan football travelled to the northeast or mid-Atlantic for a regular season football game? The Wolverines played at Syracuse in 1999 and before that, UM travelled to Beantown to play Boston College in 1995. Michigan will be playing Connecticut later this year as payback for UConn being the stadium dedication opponent in 2010. So that's almost 14 years between appearances.
But with Maryland and Rutgers regularly on the schedule, it's probable that Michigan will be playing those two teams on their home turf in alternating seasons. Who knows? It might be on their home stadiums or even at the bigger pro venues in the Washington DC, Baltimore and New York City areas. Personally, I like the idea that Michgan's geographic footprint in terms of conference play now goes from Nebraska to the Atlantic Ocean.
I'm excited for the change. Annual games with Ohio State, Michigan State and now Penn State coupled with a steady dose of Nebraska or Wisconsin along with I anticipate will be a series of pretty good home-and-home games with at least one top flight non-conference opponent per year means the overall schedule is going to probably be better going forward. We'll see what David Brandon can do with the OOC schedule--if he can line up teams like LSU or Texas A&M or Tennessee from the SEC or Oklahoma or Texas from the Big XII, then that'll be a definite upgrade.
|32 weeks 6 days ago||Those scheduling assumptions about Michigan sound correct . .||
Those assumptions about Michigan's home schedule sound about right. I agree with you that the conference will pair up Michigan and Ohio State for visits to the East Coast (one goes to Maryland, the other to Rutgers) and then have another pair of Michigan State and Penn State doing the same thing. We'll probably see a rotation like this:
Year 1 - Maryland hosts Michigan and Penn State, plays at Michigan State and Ohio State
Year 2 - Maryland hosts Michgian State and Ohio State, plays at Michigan and Penn State
Year 1 - Rutgers hosts Michigan State and Ohio State, plays at Michigan and Penn State
Year 2 - Rutgers hosts Michigan and Penn State, plays at Michigan State and Ohio State
If they're correct, that would synch up nicely with the home-and-home series schedule with Arkansas. The Razorbacks are scheduled to play in Ann Arbor in 2018, which would coincide with a year with only four home conference games at Michigan Stadium. Then the following season, Michigan goes to Fayetteville, which means UM can still host seven home games (five confrence, two non-conference).
If Michigan is able to get a home-and-home on the schedule with a major program for 2017 and 2020, they'll have to find someone who will host them in the odd numbered year and play in Ann Arbor in the even numbered year. I suspect David Brandon and company have been working that out already.
I also expect we'll still be seeing a lot of Nebraska and Wisconsin on the schedule. They're the top two programs in the West Division right now and the conference does need to "feed the beast" that is network television (especially with a new rights deal starting in 2017).
As far as Michigan State is concerned, the other problem they have is with the non-conference schedule. MSU AD Mark Hollis has made it a point to put some major teams on the schedule with home-and-home agreements as a way to promote Spartan football. Besides Notre Dame, MSU has Alabama, Miami-FL and Boise State on the future slate.
In fact, MSU has four non-conference game scheduled in the 2016 and 2017 seasons with two games each year against Alabama and Notre Dame. Hollis is going to have to lose one of those major non-conference games now that the B1G is going to a nine-game conference schedule or opt to eliminate one of the body bag games (2016 - Furman, E. Michigan, 2017 - Miami (Ohio), W. Michigan). Wouldn't it be funny if he had to cancel out on ND in order to play Alabama? I'm sure Notre Dame could find a replacement, but it's probably been pretty rare for teams to cancel games with ND.
But if Hollis is committed to playing at least one major non-conference opponent per year plus Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and one of Nebraska or Wisconsin more often than not, he's going to have a pretty difficult football schedule on his hands. If he was in the West Divsion with a dedicated crossover game with Michgan, he'd have elminated the annual contests with OSU and PSU and that may have tempered the schedule enough in his mind to continue playing major opponents non-conference (on a side note, MSU does have a home-and-home with Oregon in 2014/5).
|33 weeks 8 hours ago||Article on Ways in New Jersey Newspaper||
From April 18th. He certainly caught Rutgers attention when they were scouting QB Tyler Wiegers. See http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2013/04/rutgers_recruiting_tyler_wiege.html