Why does Michigan ALWAYS get screwed on B10 schedule, and then compounds with out of conference idiocy?
OSU playing FAU, Cincy and UAB or some other scrub out of conference. That's it. Then they get PSU, Wisconsin and MSU at home.
Why are we consistently screwed by scheduling in B10 (I know the origins but why is AD never on record pushing back?) and why do we compound this with ND and... Army? Why?
This program really enjoys setting an upper band at 9 wins, testing roster depth and lackluster post season bowls.
Spare us the "I'd rather earn it vs good teams" garbage. It is clear that the only thing that matters right now is winning the dang Big Ten and to do this we need to play lower tier teand non conf, conserve depth and truly go all in vs OSU. Literally everything needs to be done to beat OSU. This ain't it.
January 8th, 2019 at 1:52 PM ^
OSU has routinely played big non conference games and they did fine. Michigan just needs to get better. I really don't buy the idea that Army is going to beat us up so much at the beginning of the year that it'll contribute to a possible loss against OSU.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
Exactly. If we were playing a bunch of cupcakes at home, fans would complain about the dull schedule. Welcome to the off season.
And bring back the OP downvote option.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
The fans that complain about the home schedule being soft aren't very smart fans.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:43 AM ^
I'm buying my daughter a season ticket this year (student section, junior year). She doesn't really like football but I told her that if I'm paying for her college her ass will be in the stadium for MSU, ND, and OSU. It might be a couple of decades before we have all three at home in the same season.
And I'm going to The Game, even though I don't want to spend the money. The last time I went was 2003. It's entirely possible that our losing streak is my fault.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:03 AM ^
I was always in the boat of believing that playing good out of conference schedule was important to team and fans. Not anymore, Clemson played an easy schedule and they were still dominant and won it all. I’m now in the boat of let’s make our path to the cfp as easy as possible.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:07 AM ^
Clemson also played at Texas A&M and won
January 8th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
That was a really close game if you recall.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:16 PM ^
Yeah, it's hard to go on the road in an 100,000 seat stadium and win, but they did, even if it was just by a point. That's why they're the national champs.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:13 AM ^
True. I guess I forgot about that.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:04 AM ^
Related question, if anyone knows: is there a reason we play Wisconsin every year? I had assumed they would shuffle interdivisional games, and that seems to be the case with most of the teams in the west - including Minnesota, whom I think of as more of a traditional M rival - but Wisconsin seems to be a permanent engagement.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:08 AM ^
When the Big Ten went to nine games and seven teams per division, it made sense to have a "permanent" cross-over team for a six-year cycle that would allow every team to play every cross-divisional opponent home and away with the last three years inverting the assignments of the first three years.
The Big Ten used recent records or some such to determined that Michigan should play Wisconsin and Ohio State should play Nebraska. I believe that flips when this current run of six games (which ends in 2021) ends and Michigan will get six straight with the Huskers. Joy.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^
The unbalanced schedule by its design CANNOT produce a fair result in the B1G standings. It's fucking stupid. People who complain about a bigger playoff diluting the importance of the regular season don't take this into effect--the regular season has become tainted badly because some teams play much harder conference schedules than others.
And aside from the Rose and a handful of other bowl games, the bowl games are pathetic exercises and only have value because the teams get extra practice.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:12 AM ^
The B1G did some parity scheduling across divisions to get as many bowl games (and therefore as much bowl money) as possible.
Basically Michigan and OSU will always play at least one of Wisconsin and Nebraska. The Nebraska stretch picks up for Michigan right about where Frost will have things rolling. Woo.
MSU and Penn State are by design supposed to have easier schedules. This system also makes it harder for the top teams to go through the B1G season unblemished and make the CFP.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:26 PM ^
Interesting, and thanks both for the clarification. It does seem like the B1G in various ways is intentionally making it harder to succeed than the other power conferences (see also, e.g., https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2015/07/31/big-ten-schedule-nine-league-games-no-fcs-teams-2016/30938987/). While I understand the desire to appear to be the "tough" conference, I agree with the sentiment reflected in the OP that the conference might be doing itself a disservice by beating itself up more prior the post-season. I'm all for arguing for a rule (e.g., nine conference games, or no FCS opponents) that applies to all conferences, but question the wisdom of being a "leader" on this issue when no one else is interested in following.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:05 AM ^
DB scheduled Army so I don’t have to explain any further.
Harbaugh *insisted* that we play ND and apparently it was a condition of him coming here to get that series restarted.
The problem: Michigan and ND have full schedules non-conf until 2027. Incredibly shortsighted move. If they cancel any of those future home and homes with Oklahoma and Texas to put lame ass ND on the schedule, I won’t be pursuing season tickets for at least a decade.
Having season tickets with these schedules being crap every other year makes it a waste of money to have them. Just go on stubhub.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
When Michigan was scheduled in the summer of 2015, Brendan Quinn's article in MLive closed with:
Since going 10-2 in 1996, Army has finished under .500 in 17 of the last 18 seasons.
Army has since gone 2-10, 8-5, 10-3, 11-2. I think if anyone had been told that when this game was scheduled, they would have been shocked.
Michigan likely scheduled Army because they viewed it as a win-win, a G5 opponent but one with a name and one that Michigan has a long tradition of playing, albeit it decades ago. You never know what you're going to get in non-conference scheduling. Sometimes you get a rising team, sometimes you get a falling team.
Just remember, in 2020, Oklahoma goes TO Army.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
I’m terrified of this game. It’s a week after the opener too so we can’t have extra prep time because MTSU will be the focus.
They're ranked, they took Oklahoma to OT.
Scheduling any triple option team is incredibly ignorant (Dave) but the fact that army is now the best of them after being so bad for long is just fitting.
January 8th, 2019 at 1:21 PM ^
Prepare yourself now.
We are weak on the DL and LB play will take a step next year.
Army brings back 20 starters from their best team in 70 years.
Plus they play a style that will seduce Harbaugh into trying to out muscle them instead of using our better skill players on the outside to rack up quick scores.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:32 PM ^
Michigan has played Army a total of 9 times.....and not since 1962. I think that we have different definitions of "long tradition of playing".
January 8th, 2019 at 1:43 PM ^
Of teams that Michigan has played post-World War II out-of-conference, Michigan's nine games against Army, even if over 50 years ago, would be one of the highest numbers for an out of conference foe.
Since 1945, Michigan has played
- Notre Dame 32 times (zero bowl games)
- Navy 14 times (zero bowl games)
- Washington 12 times (four Rose Bowls)
- UCLA 11 times (two bowl games)
- USC 10 times (eight Rose Bowls)
- Army 9 times (zero bowl games)
- Eastern Michigan 5 times (zero bowl games)
- Western Michigan 5 times (zero bowl games)
- Florida 5 times (four bowl games)
- Alabama 4 times (three bowl games)
- Central Michigan 3 times (zero bowl games)
- Air Force 3 times (zero bowl games)
- Cornell 2 times* (zero bowl games)
Perhaps "long history" is a touch overstated, but Michigan, historically, did play the service academies, half of that Navy number came during the Bo era. So with Army as an independent, needing dates to fill, and likely not demanding a one and one, it seemed probably that the Athletic Department saw it as a better name on the home schedule than say Middle Tennessee State (which they got the week before to replace Arkansas after they jettisoned that series to restart Notre Dame.)
*-Besides Army (5-4 all time), Cornell is the only program that has played Michigan more than five times that has a winning record all-time against the Maize and Blue (they're 12-6 overall against Michigan all-time.)
January 8th, 2019 at 5:18 PM ^
I do not know where you get your data, but it's wrong.
We have played South Carolina and Florida State at least three times I can remember in the last 30 years.
January 8th, 2019 at 8:55 PM ^
Two notes:
1). This was not meant to be an exhaustive list, I was just pondering off the top of my head.
2). My data comes from http://football.stassen.com/records/opponent.html Their caveats are listed in the header.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:06 AM ^
this post has officially jumped the shark (McElwain pun intended)
January 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
You might be surprised to find out that the program has 10 wins in 3 of the last 4 seasons. You might also be surprised to find out that non-conference wins and losses has no impact on winning a conference.
Also, the basketball team is 15-0. That Brandon Johns looks pretty good, doesn't he?
January 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
If we were Clemson, we wouldn't care about playing Notre Dame. If we were as good as we want to be and expect us to be, we wouldn't care about playing any of these teams.
I'll never understand why fans want to manufacture a bullshit record by scheduling bullshit teams. If we're that good, we'll be that good, and we'll kick the piss out of everybody.
Stop. Whining. For the love of God.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
Is it just being a delusional fan that creates this idea that if this year's team had a cupcake schedule we somehow would have won it all? You realize it would have been just like ND's year at best, granted we still would have lost to OSU. Why is it better to coast and get run out the building in playoffs vs. a good schedule and miss the playoffs or, best case, prove we deserve to be there by beating good teams?
We lost the big games due to poor play calling and game mismanagement. We did not lose them cause we were "depleted" or any other BS narrative.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:09 AM ^
Scheduling OOC games 4-7 years out is a crapshoot, who might suck when scheduled could very well be a top team when the time to play the game actually happens. It's not like these games are scheduled a year out.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^
As I've told many UCF fans over the past 2 years, scheduling G5 level teams is hit and miss. You might get 2016 UCF or your might get 2017 UCF. There's no way of knowing for sure how a G5 team will be in 3-5 years. You play the odds and sometimes it backfires.
Separate issue, scheduling triple option teams in general is a bad idea for reasons we've all come to be aware of. Oklahoma's defense sucks which just compounded Army's trickery this year.
ND mid-season sucks, but it's better than week 1 I guess? Regardless, the concessions Michigan made to get ND back on the schedule sucked, but it is a historic rival that people more often than not want to see Michigan play.
We can't control what other schools do and who they schedule. Sometimes OSU gets Baker Mayfield and Oklahoma. Other times they get "the little sisters of the poor" (to quote an OSU moron who happened to be their president).
As for scheduling on the whole, since the Big Ten has 9 conference games, I'd be ok with an easier OOC schedule as it relates to what is becoming the norm (not counting the SEC). Problem is when you don't have a marquee OOC game then the argument is "we don't know how good you really are because you've only played Big Ten teams". But considering Michigan gets shafted with West cross-divisional games year after year, I'd be ok arguing for an easier OOC.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^
Well, not long ago VA.Tech was dropped (2020) and replaced by ARK.State. Chance for a loss goes way down but the game won't be competitive and therefore not as much fun to attend. Personally I prefer the philosophy that favors engaging challenge.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:21 AM ^
Yeah... but Washington and Virginia Tech in the same year, two years in a row? It was bad scheduling to begin with.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:28 AM ^
I see your point but who wants to attend a game against Arkansas State?
January 8th, 2019 at 11:19 AM ^
Perhaps we don't actually get screwed or have it worse than anyone else and you are all a bunch of sad sack morons.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:28 AM ^
I agree scheduling Army is not the best idea, but remember, when these schedules were made 3-4 years ago, the playoff committee (and even the BIG) was touting the need for tough scheduling to get into the playoff. Now that has proven to be a clear joke, I agree we should no longer schedule up, but there isn't much we can do about the current schedule now, except play it out.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:28 AM ^
There is so much dumb in this OP.
"OSU playing FAU, Cincy and UAB or some other scrub out of conference. That's it."
They just completed a home-and-home with Oklahoma last year. They played TCU in Dallas this year. They're starting a home-and-home with Oregon in 2020.
"This program really enjoys setting an upper band at 9 wins"
This program won 10 games in three out of the last four seasons.
Sigh. #ThisFanbase
January 8th, 2019 at 11:30 AM ^
Echoing Indy Pete: Just "Win the Game"s.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:33 AM ^
Playoff committee needs to take a hard line against teams that schedule FCS schools. With a cap on the number you can play in a 5 year span.
Conferences or the NCAA need to mandate OOC scheduling. Something like an ACC-B1G challenge yearly would go a long way. Force every P5 team to play at least 1 P5 OOC game. Alternating home and away. The committee has essentially said G5 teams don't count for the playoff, yet they allow wins over those same teams to mean something in the rankings.
Since none of this will ever happen, Michigan should schedule an FCS school the week before Ohio State. It will take B1G teams doing it to make the SEC go up in arms and push back.
January 8th, 2019 at 1:10 PM ^
This is a phenomenal comment. If and until the Selection Committee truly rewards scheduling strong OOC games and punishes scheduling FCS (which I cannot see happening), Michigan should be actively trying to schedule the worst teams possible for its OOC games.
I am sentimental and love rivalries, so I hope Michigan does NOT do this, but that is the way to put the team in the best position to compete for championships every year. There is something to be said for facing adversity and playing quality opponents to gain experience, but the bottom line is that if a P5 team is undefeated, they will be in the playoff.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^
Middle Tennessee won a lot of games last year too. But you can’t use osu as example. UAB and Cincy are comparable to Army and Mid Tennessee.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:39 AM ^
The Big Ten part is a good question. The being angry about scheduling competitive non-conference games thing is the idiocy in this thread. You don't want to play Notre Dame? Really? What?
January 8th, 2019 at 11:42 AM ^
I don't understand what non-conference games have to do with beating OSU. Those games had no bearing on us losing to OSU. If anything, the ND game should have taught the coaching staff to come out with a "hair on fire" gameplan at OSU instead of whatever that was they did.
January 8th, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
I rather not make the college playoff over scheduling the Little Sisters of The Poor.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:02 PM ^
OSU playing FAU, Cincy and UAB or some other scrub out of conference. That's it. Then they get PSU, Wisconsin and MSU at home.
Why are we consistently screwed by scheduling in B10 (I know the origins but why is AD never on record pushing back?) and why do we compound this with ND and... Army? Why?
So you start with an odd point; if I were an OSU season ticket holder, I'd be angry with Gene Smith for giving me a home football schedule that looked like that. That home schedule for the Buckeyes is not a winner for their fans.
Then you move on to an odd point. The Big Ten doesn't determine our out of conference schedule. And in terms of competitive balance (which seems to be your one and only concern), the Conference doesn't stick us with much of anything that is mostly equal with the rest of the conference.
I have a lot of questions about our football schedule:
- Why are we stuck in a schedule with MSU and OSU in the same annual home/away rotation? If the Conference forced that on us, shame on the Conference and we should protest endlessly until it is reversed. If a Michigan AD was party to the arrangement, then shame on him, and we should reverse it. Warde Manuel needs to answer on this.
- The Notre Dame scheduling next year is an obscenity and I think it is mostly Michigan's fault. I think that we moved the MSU home game (on November 15, the opening day of Michigan's firearms deer season) to accommodate that horrendous bit of scheduling. Wrong, and wrong. Is there any other explanation?
- I like having ND on the schedule, but not if it is on their terms exclusively. Skip them, if we can't schedule them as we want. Is it not the case, that we messed up our schedule, to accommodate ND in 2019?
- I do not want more home games at the cost of quality opponents. I like home-and-home series with good programs.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:42 PM ^
I don't get the obsessive objection to playing OSU and MSU in the same home/away rotation. They're in the same division so you have to play them both every year. Would you rather have OSU and PSU in same rotation? OSU and Wisconsin? OSU and Notre Dame?
At some point, you're going to have to play good two good teams away. In this particular scenario, I wouldn't qualify MSU as a "good" team. Sparty is 7-6, 10-3 and 3-9 (20 - 18) in the past three seasons. You can't get a whole lot more mediocre than that.
January 8th, 2019 at 1:05 PM ^
If you take the rivalry/emotion part out the OSU/MSU parting and Wisc/PSU paring is quite balanced.
January 8th, 2019 at 1:41 PM ^
If you take the emotion/rivalry part out, the Big Ten is just a AAA farm league for the NFL.
It's more insidious. The Athletic Department is using odd-numbered years to raise our PSD's and ticket prices, with the talking point of it being such a great schedule, and hey, we held prices level last year.
January 8th, 2019 at 2:34 PM ^
Personally, I get more excited about the Penn State, Wisconsin....and even Nebraska games....than I do about Sparty. There's obviously a lot of in-state tension regarding the MSU game every year but the other teams are "bigger names" with more historical national relevance. Those are the games that I'd like to see. Depending on how this whole Scott Frost thing works out, the Nebraska games could be big events in the coming years.
January 9th, 2019 at 10:55 AM ^
Look at ticket resale prices.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:16 PM ^
Good question OP. I've been asking this myself for awhile now. Not fair to have our players have to get up to play so many ranked teams each season when no one else in the country does. We operate at the height of stupidity here.
January 8th, 2019 at 12:23 PM ^
I blame the fans and a lot of them come from this blog .. They beg to have ND back on the schedule for what ? I don’t know .. they want to play good teams for no reason other than to possibly watch us lose ...I personally want to see blow out the first 3 games I want to see us play SW Alaska , NE Montana , Alabama Central.. We need those games to practice ,to build depth , to gain some confidence in certain units on the team ... We play 4-5 possibly 6 ranked teams in conference schedule we don’t need to play these teams like ND or Army ... Line up the cupcakes
January 8th, 2019 at 12:25 PM ^
To me the reason DB scheduled Army is clear: all time record vs. opponent. Michigan is 4-5 all-time vs. Army, and I'm convinced DB wanted to even the record against Army to reduce the number of teams with winning records against Michigan. Point in case: he scheduled a rematch against App State, and now we are 1-1 all time against them!
FWIW, here are the other teams with winning records against M:
UNC, 1-2
FSU, 1-2
Texas, 0-1
Oklahoma, 0-1
Kansas State, 0-1
South Carolina, 1-3
Tennessee, 0-1
Mississippi State, 0-1
USC, 4-6
Utah, 1-3
Arizona State, 0-1
And Cornell (6-12,) Chicago University Football Club (1-3), Wesleyan CT (0-1) and Cleveland AA (0-1) in non FBS teams.
*edited to add Pac-12