2011: The Revenge Of Hoke Comment Count

Brian May 18th, 2010 at 11:20 AM

brady-hokeI know they're the Aztecs and it's the Mayans with the calendar and everything, but I still wish this game was scheduled for 2012:

The Wolverines are putting the finishing touches on a deal with San Diego State to round out their 2011 football schedule, sources said, and athletic director Dave Brandon said Monday he’s “having lots of conversations” about future years.

San Diego State is coached by Brady Hoke, a former Carr assistant who was briefly, terrifyingly on the radar during the coaching search and now returns for his ultimate revenge. Or, hopefully, a proper beating. One or the other.

Though "round out" is deployed above. Though Michigan hasn't officially announced any nonconference opponents for next year aside from Notre Dame, they will play Eastern and Western, completing a three tomato-can lineup yet again. Though Brandon makes some noises about doing that crazy Chick-Fil-A game in Atlanta, the next nonconference game against a BCS opponent not named Notre Dame will probably be Michigan's return game against UConn is in 2013. /shakes fist at college football.

Comments

matty blue

May 18th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

i don't complain too much about the "quality of the schedule and look how much we have to pay to see these games, etc." it's where we are in college football at this moment.

but do we really need 7 or 8 home games a year?  would this go away if the ncaa mandated 6 home and 6 away for d1a?  not that it will ever happen, as ncaa = presidents, but still.

MGoObes

May 18th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^

you do realize that those "7 or 8 home games a year" fund all of the olympic sports at UM right? and that those home games also keep the AD profitable. but no keep complaining that michigan should give up that guaranteed income.

UMaD

May 18th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

Most of the ticket money comes from season ticket sales.  The AD currently chooses to charge a flat fee per game and multiply by the number of games, but that doesn't reflect market reality.  Reality is the tickets for the elite matchups are primarily why people buy season tickets (that and ensuring good seats).  In other words, the big games subsidize the tomato can games and its just the fee scheme thats makes those games seem so valuable.  Based on ticket resale values (true market), UofM could charge the same for 4 conference games plus 2 elite matchups as it charges for 4 conference games, 3 tomato cans, and an elite matchup every other year....if not more.  At the very least, there should be one other elite team on the schedule to play at home when the ND game is away.  If the AD revised the way it structures ticket prices, this false issue wouldn't exist.

(There are secondary issues at play here to the community, vending, merchandising, etc.  Extra home games have additional benefits, but on ticket sales alone, the argument for tomato cans is soft.)

zlionsfan

May 18th, 2010 at 1:37 PM ^

if the resolution involves the AD doing something significantly different than is being done now by any school, not just Michigan. 

The biggest problem with dynamic pricing would be the impact on the athletic department. Market-based pricing would be much more likely to create significant decreases in revenue than the current system, and athletic departments don't have as many options for sudden changes in revenue as "normal" businesses do. Right now, although enthusiasm in some places may be falling, ticket prices are set low enough that there hasn't been an impact on revenue. With market-based pricing, one rough season could cause a drop in revenue the following year that would have to be made up somewhere ... certainly Brandon doesn't want non-revenue sports to come and go from year to year, so that stability has to come from somewhere.

I suppose that the possibility of beating tomato can vs. elite team is somewhat relevant, but with the way the Big Ten divides bowl revenue, it's really only noticeable at the school level if the difference is between BCS and non-BCS bowls.

A school with significant attendance issues, like Indiana, is probably better off scheduling an elite team rather than a tomato can ... but in their case, the idea would be to fill out the stadium, even if it's the opposing fans that are doing so. People are not going to Memorial Stadium to watch Indiana State, and the financial benefit to IU for squeaking into Detroit is pretty small. The silliness that is the "home" game in D.C. is more than tripling the revenue they'd get if it were in Bloomington.

And certainly schools at that end of the attendance spectrum couldn't consider dynamic pricing: obviously supply far exceeds demand as it is. That's really only practical for UM, OSU, Penn State, Tennessee, schools that regularly sell the vast majority of their tickets.

UMaD

May 18th, 2010 at 5:00 PM ^

to argue that more accurate pricing would lead to lower revenues.  It usually works the other way around.  A rough season will drop demand for season tickets in either a static or dynamic scenario.

I'm not arguing for a true-market price for game tickets, thats nearly impossible with season tickets making the bulk of sales. I'm arguing that for selling season tickets, most fans would just as gladly pay, say, $600 for 6 good games as $600 for 4.5 good games and 2.5 MAC-levels.

Realistically, if UofM did anything, it would institue some sort of hybrid approach where attractive matchups are priced higher but season tickets don't go down in total price, even with fewer home games.  If this was done, you'd want an "A" game every season.  So one year its ND, and the next its someone else.  There is no reason you couldn't have season tickets at a fairly consistent price from year to year.  And isn't it the case currently that when the ND game is away, there are fewer home games?

If supply exceeds demand, they can lower ticket prices.  I guess I'm missing your point. 

matty blue

May 18th, 2010 at 12:42 PM ^

my "objection" is more aesthetic than anything.  i paid $50+ for delaware state last season...putting a limit of six home games (or eliminating the pay-for-travel games and forcing home-and-homes) probably ends those games entirely.  that would probably be a good thing for college football in general, even if it costs us money.

david from wyoming

May 18th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Another point (to not directly echo others) is that the big house holds a lot of people, a lot more people than other stadiums. Depending on travel costs and what percent of the money goes to the away team, a visiting team could potentially make more money at Michigan than at home.

RagingBean

May 18th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^

Are we avoiding Central? I mean, why are we so in love with killing the Ypsi Eagles every other year? Bring in some other MAC tomato can at least, like Buffalo or Temple. Variety!

Pea-Tear Gryphon

May 18th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^

I don't know why we don't have Central more, but the reason we see the directional Michigan schools more than other MAC schools is that it keeps the money we pay the schools to get their asses beat within the state of Michigan as opposed to Ohio, New York, Indiana, etc. They have scheduled the Ball States of the world in the past, but you will see Western/Central/Eastern more times due to the above reason. Sucks for fans, but I completely understand why they do it. If you are going to pay a school to get crushed, might as well have the money stay in state...

Section 1

May 18th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

 

Note slightly-small Conch shell.  They'll need a bigger Conch to beat Michigan in Ann Arbor.  Then again, I saw SDSU give Wisconsin an awfully hard time for 3 quarters in Camp Randall a few years ago...

{Edit. - Checked myself on the details of SDSU v. Wisconsin in Madison, 2006; it was 0-0 at the half, 7-0 after 3 quarters and ended at 14-0 for the Badgers.  I remember watching until the fourth quarter and then leaving Camp Randall to go and watch, I think, the Michigan-Notre Dame game on tv.  I'm now trying to remember if the Badgers actually agreed to a home-and-home with SDSU.  I know that Wisconsin agreed to a home-and-home with Fresno State, and then a wealthy Badger alum offered Fresno $1 million if they would give up their home game and let it be played in Lambeau Field for a 50-50 split of the gate.  Fresno turned them down, played UW at home, and lost money compared to the offered deal.}

DCBlue

May 18th, 2010 at 12:44 PM ^

from that profile in cronyism was "but remember the boats.  The goddamn boats.  Anything is possible." 

What a dark period in my life.

markusr2007

May 18th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^

2011? Just in time for SDSU to be breaking in another completely inexperienced freshman QB again.  It's kind of like a law of nature or something.

Not even Brady Hoke can put a lid over the ongoing meltdown of the once proud SDSU football program. One can only blame Chuck Long's curious resemblance to Napoleon Dynamite. All other causal factors have been eliminated.

Man, I wish this game was played out in San Diego.  The weather is freaking beautiful and the gas light district is really nice for eats and partying at night. 

snowcrash

May 18th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^

SD St is much weaker than they used to be, but at least this is better than another damn I-AA team.

If we have to schedule 2 of the instate MAC teams every year, we should at least get Central instead of Eastern.

brianshall

May 18th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

Let's not be an ass.

Man served Michigan well. He's now a head coach elsewhere *and* uh, could he have lost more games in 3 years with his eyes closed than RR?

Oh, that's right. We're looking at the future.

Still.

chitownblue2

May 18th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^

You hate RR, we get it. You're free to it, and entitle to the opinion.

But will you EVER make a post that doesn't somehow contort the topic to give you an opportunity to bash RR? It is all you EVER do.

If I said "Hi, today is a nice day", would you reply "It was a nice day when RR wasn't the coach of Michigan"?

brianshall

May 18th, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^

he's the guy that basically ended all the greatness that was there my whole life.

Now, what I get is that people like you will reflexively defend without fail, always, DESPITE his record. That I do not get.

And if you scroll through the COUNTLESS posts by Brian, TomVH and just people posting to the board, in fact, I never say anything bad about RR. I only point out his record when Brian or you or someone else decides to  badmouth a MIchigan man who never harmed us in any way.

That I don't get either.

Do we have to tear down other people -- including other Michigan Men -- to make ourselves feel better that this year or the year after or the year after will finally be the one where RR proves you right?

I love Michigan. I do not hate RR. I just don't think he will succeed here and I know so far he hasn't. And the fact that he hasn't has nothing to do with Carr or Coke or English or Harbaugh or anyone else.

Kalamazoo Blue 87

May 18th, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

The end of  "all the greatness that was there [your] whole life" started well before Coach Rodriguez arrived in Ann Arbor.

"The four consecutive losses to Ohio State, matched Michigan's longest losing streak in the storied series, and Carr became the first coach in school history to lose six times in seven years in the rivalry."  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3117704

John Cooper at least went 2-5 against Michigan in his final 7 years at Ohio State.  

Jim

brianshall

May 18th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^

winning seasons (remember those!)

winning Big 10 records

bowl games (remember those!)

no sanctions

Do you non RR "haters" really think RR will (in the future, of course) deliver so much to make up for so much decimation in such a short time. Really?

You think I "hate" him when in fact it's just, you know, observing reality? Stop pretending. You're better than that.

Kilgore Trout

May 18th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

I think there's an important distinction between being a failure and having failed.  A failure is hopeless and destined to consistently repeat that behavior.  It seems like brianshall has lost all hope and would call Rodriguez a failure.  There's certainly a case to be made that Rodriguez has failed up to this point (I've tried it and taken a healthy dose of negs), but to call him a failure is still a stretch.

matty blue

May 18th, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^

i, for one, support rodriguez BECAUSE of his record, not "despite" it.  he has been successful at every stop in his career.  to suggest that he can't or won't succeed here is to essentially willfully ignore a fairly large body of evidence that the guy can coach.

now - i'm not saying he WILL succeed - that jury is still out.  i believe he will, however.

j-turn14

May 18th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^

 If we do that game in Atlanta, it wouldn't be until 2014 at the earliest because the 2012 matchups (yes, matchupS- plural. Apparently starting in '12 there will be two Chick-Fil-A games.) are already decided, and I highly doubt we would add a third BCS conference team in 2013 .

WolvinLA2

May 18th, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^

Not that I think SDSU will be too tough of an opponent, especially considering how good we should be in 2011, but I looked on Rivals and Hoke did a lot better recruiting players for the class of 2010 than SDSU has done for a while.  At the very least, it makes it more likely that SDSU will have a decent team in 2011 and it will make that win look better.

98xj

May 18th, 2010 at 6:46 PM ^

I think DB will at least avoid foisting a D1AA team on us. I hope he will be willing to schedule ND + a Top 25 team once this BT expansion thing gets resolved.