Dr. Saturday article on Yahoo front page
Don't really read Dr. Saturday, but it was on Yahoo's frontpage. Everyone plays division I-AA schools, but I guess Dr. Saturday takes special exception to our game yesterday.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Please-Mich…
First, it's not our fault that DSU got an automatic loss for canceling their originally scheduled game. Second, they got 550k for their program, probably funding the team for the whole year, their players got to play on tv and to play in the Big House. Probably helps their coach get players for his team, gave our backups a chance to see time.
Despite getting blown out, I'm sure that many of the DSU players will tell their grandkids about getting to play in the big house. I doubt that in a few years that many would have remembered even playing NCA&T. IMO, at least there were some other good things to come out of yesterday's game.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
will always be able to tell people he scored points at the Big House. That's something that nobody will ever be able to rob him of.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:30 PM ^
The reason he wrote about this particular game is because DSU technically lost twice in the same day. Not sure that has ever happened before.
The comments are particularly funny as they go on the defensive about Hinton having a problem with Michigan....those people obviously don't read his blog ever.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:12 PM ^
and it looked like there was quite the mix of haters and clueless people who think Hinton is outrageously anti-M and probably anti-BT as well.
I think I only saw one person post who knew that M scheduled this game because they couldn't get anyone else to come in that weekend on such short notice.
One person even made reference to 'all M's losses' to Florida teams. Seems to me that the last time M played Florida they didn't do too poorly. Just goes to show that some people are unable to be convinced of the truth by something as trivial as facts.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:32 PM ^
My dad had mentioned to me that he had read that the 550k was what the program usually brought in in two years.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
If I recall correctly, we were pretty much scrambling for a last minute opponent to fill the date.... but nobody really wants to see games like this. There's no real point in playing them.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
they were able to play 84 players yesterday. they were also able to get a lot of people healthy and develop more depth by getting backups into real game action.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:12 PM ^
i will give you about 5 million reasons why this game was played.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
We scheduled a shitty 1-AA school. We should be embarrassed. I certainly was by the 8 minute mark or so.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^
I had a great time at the game.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^
Like someone posted earlier, Florida has played 3 of them.
Charleston Southern (2-4)
Troy (4-2)
Florida International (1-5)
October 18th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
Troy and FIU are both I-A like our MAC opponents EMU and WMU.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
There is a difference between Eastern and Western, who have been playing at the big college level for 60-70 years, and FIU, who founded their football program a decade ago and moved up to 1-A with no intention of being good because it meant more money.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:50 AM ^
Yea the history may be there, but right now I dont think Eastern could beat FIU.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:43 PM ^
Did I say Florida shouldn't be embarrassed? I want to play good teams besides ND non-conference not these ridiculous win padding slaughters.
I seem to recall universal disappointment on this site when this game was announced. But whatever, if you guys want to defend the program against imagined slights from a guy who's pretty pro-Michigan generally, that's cool.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:14 PM ^
Is that you?
October 18th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
I understand why small schools do this, but forfeiting a conference game is absolutely absurd, huge payday or not. M should not have scheduled this team in the first place, but DSU deserved to get blown out by 100.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
It was a last second scheduling. There was nobody else who could fill that spot on the schedule. I dont see why anyone should be embarassed about that. Seems like DSU actually had a good time anyways. It's a non-issue
October 18th, 2009 at 3:57 PM ^
A quote from the responses:
"They should have play Applachian State woops they did and their standings went from #1 to whatever. They also lost to APP STATE. Well!!! Next time pick a harder team.. just imagine if delelware would have beat them."
Yes, imagine if delelware had beaten us. Florida fans always come out in droves when there is a Michigan story.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
A Florida fan wrote that? Hmmmmmmm a quick check of their schedule reveals:
- Charleston Southern (2-4)
- Troy (4-2)
- Florida International (1-5)
Real powerhouse schedule there.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:21 PM ^
Well, I can just imagine if "delelware" beat UM -- I'd hope and pray that we played Florida in a bowl game again so we could see a redux of "I-AA team > Michigan > Florida" all over the interwebs.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
Inconsistencies
Most of his particular arguments really point to the bad decision-making on the part of DSU, but he frames the overall article as Michigan being the big bad bully. Some inconsistency there.
There is also some general media inconsistency in that nobody said after 'The Horror' that I-AA should never play I-A - everyone seemed to relish in the division miscegenation then. Only when there is a bloodbath do they call for an end.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
He's using this game as an EXAMPLE, because it's possibly the most egregious example of payola in college football ever - Deleware State took $500K to lose TWICE. His point is that he thinks it sucks when power-teams schedule bullshit games. I think most fans agree with this - wouldn't you rather watch competitive football games?
October 18th, 2009 at 5:47 PM ^
First time I've ever seen that word used outside the Loving v. Virginia context.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^
I see both sides. I think it's rather absurd that Deleware State took 2 losses to get paid, and get the shit kicked out of them. I also don't really see the point of scheduling games like this. Sure, we "got healthy", as Obes said, but that could have been accomplished with a bye. The point, obviously, is the big-time $$$ that the AD makes everytime the team walks into Michigan Stadium, but that doesn't make it fun.
On the other hand, I'm almost positive that when the AD scheduled Appalaichian State, they thought it was a cupcake game (spare me the "But they were the champions!" thing - Michigan was #5, and the the way they treated that game, clearly nobody was taking it seriously), and I'm sure UVA thought William & Mary would be a cupcake as well - so 63-6 isn't really predictable.
His argument, basically, is "schedule competitive games, people". I think we all agree with that, right? I'd like to see Michigan play good teams.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:11 PM ^
I'm not saying that we should schedule Florida, USC, Texas and ND in the same season, but seriously a home-and-home with a second high-quality BCS team is not too much to ask. Hell, UCONN is a step in the right direction.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
Why not? I do it all the time on my XBox and I just beat Yost's record for most NCs.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^
Me too, and I want to see us get back to home-and-homes with the Pac-10 and Big 12, but it's going to take a while for Coach Rod to get us to that point where we'll be competitive enough.
I consider games like Delaware State to be a "weaning off" period.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:20 PM ^
That's fine and everything, but did yesterday really change a single perception anyone held about us? I'd rather watch a fun game that we lose than watch a blood-letting like that. At least I'm interested in the first one. Further, beating Deleware State does nothing. "Easy wins" are pointless. This is competition, right? We're supposed to compete.
And I'm not saying "schedule Texas, USC, LSU, and WVU every year". I have no problem with UConn - they're an actual team. I'd just like to see us play D-I teams. Preferably, from BCS conferences. If that means giving up a 7th home game, I can deal with that.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:09 PM ^
You can't play games against teams that are already booked or don't want to play. I'd guess most teams that had bye weeks have long enough seasons where they can afford to take a week off and still play a full schedule, and would prefer to have their week off in the middle of conference play as opposed to at the beginning of the season. There were only a handful of teams playing non-conference games this week, and many of them were filling out scheduling agreements (USC vs Notre Dame, second half of a home and home between UCF and Miami, West Virginia and Marshall have played the past 4 years). For the rest, who knows if they set up their game before we had a chance to make an offer, or if they were even interested (lots of teams left over wouldn't want to come in for just one game but aren't good enough to offer a home and home). And for teams that would be good enough to offer a home and home (like Boise St.), would you really want to throw a game like that after @Michigan State/@Iowa, and right before hosting Penn State? What you're saying might make sense for non-conference games during the non-conference schedule, but it's not as simple when you're trying to plug the hole formed by being the odd team out in the Big Ten during the conference schedule.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:52 PM ^
but I would still rather see Michigan hang 60+ on Delaware State than "watch a fun game that we lose." We have plenty of difficult opponents on the schedule, everyone needs a cupcake break every now and then.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^
There is a middle ground between "everyone does it so let's keep doing it" and "we should schedule USC." When the 12th game was granted, most of the BCS team added cupcakes either from FBS or FCS (I hate those stupid new names). But the PAC 10 added a 9th conference game, alone among the other BCS conferences. I respect that. We don't have to got that route, though I would prefer it, provided all B10 teams did. But there are many other FBS teams that would still allow us to have a probability of victory in scheduling this game.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:27 PM ^
Sure, we "got healthy", as Obes said, but that could have been accomplished with a bye.
Weren't we required to play a game this week? I don't think teams can play only 11 regular-season games, and this was the only open date.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
Let's see: 100,000 tickets @ 50 a pop = FIVE FRACKIN" MILLION DOLLARS!!!! Plus concessions, plus TV. Yeah a bye would be just great!
October 18th, 2009 at 4:58 PM ^
Chitown, I mostly agree with you, but without a bye week and a schedule of 12 in a row, we need a game that we can play the backups and get the starters some rest. I think that until Michigan can have a bye-week mid-season, you'll see these types of games. Personally, I'd like to see us start the season a week earlier and not play a I-AA school.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
Would I rather play a BCS school not named Baylor, yes, but M played DSU and I am happy for the win, even though it does not go to the bowl record.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:51 PM ^
you can count 1 1aa game per year towards the 6 wins you need.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:23 PM ^
per the ncaa postseason football handbook (p. 9):
Each year, a FBS institution may count a victory against a Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) opponent that has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in FCS over a rolling two-year period.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:23 PM ^
1). Hinton made the point (in a tweet reply to me) that the article is directed at Delaware State taking the money and the two losses, not at Michigan, who just happens to fit the bill for the major I-A school scheduling a game like this. Gene Wojciechowski did something very similar at ESPN.com when the forfeit issue was announced back in May.
2). This is the NCAA's fault, and they don't care.
"During its January 2005 meeting, the Division I Board of Directors directed the NCAA staff, in consultation with the Division I Management Council and the Conference Commissioners Association, to draft legislation that would lead to an enhancement of Division I-AA football. Among the items that came out of this legislation were rule changes allowing Division I-A programs the use of one win each year against a Division I-AA opponent for Division I-A bowl eligibility and use of one game each year against a Division I-AA opponent to satisfy the five home-game scheduling requirement for Division I-A membership."
So here's the thing: If that rule doesn't change, you do not create an incentive for teams to schedule these games. If you don't add the 12th game, you don't create an incentive to schedule these games. But because the NCAA is looking at the money and not the competitiveness aspect of it, this is what you get. I do not know of any college football fan that wouldn't like to see more competitive games, but the money needs to be there. This game is the result of many forces, but almost all of them are economic at their core.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:24 PM ^
One of the recruiting sites mentioned that this actually was a great game to have, even if it was an easy cupcake match, because it builds momentum for the next battle against PSU and it allowed the back ups to get valuable game experience. A BYE week of no game and inactivity has the opportunity to kill a teams desire. We will see if this game was a "pick me up" for the Wolverines as they head into a very important meeting with the Schitty Lions.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:07 PM ^
...really?
October 18th, 2009 at 4:41 PM ^
Playing DSU was better than having a bye week, no question. But it's also no question that it would have been better to play a weak I-A school. Still, it's no question that we couldn't find one (at least that's the story). And, it's no question that I-AA schools benefit from the $, exposure, and experience of playing schools like Michigan and Florida.
It's no question that this issue is a complex system of white, black, and gray areas. Which only means that the current state of the system will persist. I-A schools will continue to play I-AA schools. You don't have to like it. But might as learn to live with it.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^
Get rid of the BCS if you don't want cupcakes. As long as MNC and bowl bids are based on overall records instead of conference only records there is NO incentive to schedule any "competitive" non-conference games. And only a complete idiot would schedule 4 "competitive" non-conference games.
NCAA could easily require at least a .500 Conference record to qualify for a bowl. Except of course, there aren't enough "big name" schools who would qualify under those conditions.
Right now, you can go 4-0 in the cupcake games and 2-6 In-Conference and qualify for a bowl. I want to puke.
October 18th, 2009 at 6:33 PM ^
People need to be reminded of these points more often (including me).
You should just make the entire post your sig.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
that is often left out of the conversation is the BCS. Proponents of the BCS often contend that the regular season IS the playoffs; that teams need to take care of business during the regular season if they want to play for the championship. Like it or not, this is true. Schools respond to this one of two ways. On the one hand, some will schedule a weak opponent as a guaranteed win, as Dr. Saturday points out. In Michigan's case, they were scrambling to find an opponent and did what they could I suppose. Whether they did ALL they could is another debate. On the other hand, some teams will schedule more competitive teams in order to boost their resume should they win those games. If they lose, they still look better to voters since they had the cajones to improve the quality of their schedule. Teams in the SEC get a pass when they schedule I-AA opponents because of the "excruciating SEC slate." Conference reputation then changes everything. That's why Florida is allowed to have such a weak OOC schedule and still get mentioned as the front runner for the NC. I, for one, think the SEC is grossly overrated and always has their fair share of absolute clunkers. But media reputation means everything.
Most fans want to see their school beef up the schedule but most fail to recognize the business side of collegiate sports. Universities run and operate as any other business and having an asset like Michigan football is huge. Additionally, DSU takes advantage of Michigan's enormous stadium and fan base to cash in big. On the business side the DSU game utilized an asset while on the football side of the argument, some would call it a liability as no one seemed to benefit in a football sense from yesterday's game (perhaps the reserves, if anyone). Collegiate sports are inextricably tied to business so we'll just have to get used to this. Personally, I'd love to see the schedule bulk up but the best we can hope for is a mid-level FBS program in place of a Delaware State.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:21 PM ^
Didn't see your post before I wrote mine but I totally agree with you. Great points.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:23 PM ^
can't wait for the minuteman next year.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:30 PM ^
Absolute hilarity that this has even prompted debate.
I wonder if this would be talked about had we played Delaware State last year. Add that to the fact that the DSU team we played might be one of the worst they've fielded in quite some time, and you have the perfect storm for people to pick on Michigan for scheduling a FCS team when it has become commonplace.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^
But the fact that this has become commonplace is a problem. This weekend could be considered a "poster child" for why this shouldn't happen, for all of the many reasons discussed in this thread. It may be "unfair" for media to single M out specifically for it, but thats how it works.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:27 PM ^
I mean, this has been happening for years now and we are not the first team to beat the ever loving crap out of a vastly inferior team. "That's how it works" is not the proper explanation for finding fault in M's actions. "That's how it works" is the correct explanation for the national obsession with attempting to find fault in anything M does.
October 18th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
Well, shoot. Maybe we shouldn't have scheduled them after all. Could we still schedule their band to come hang out with us sometime?
I actually don't disagree with scheduling them to the extent that Hinton disagrees, THIS YEAR. Yesterday was an all-around feel good day for everybody, and I can appreciate that. However, I'd rather DSU become Indiana or Northwestern in the near future, that way we don't have to feel guilty about destroying them, AND we can feel good.
But that doesn't solve the problem of not having the funny band...hmm.