Further 2010 Opener Deduction

Submitted by Brian on July 29th, 2009 at 12:20 PM

connecticut_logo_2003   srsly-40514

This is all pretty pointless since apparently it will be announced in a week or so anyway, but dammit I'm interested and given the message board it appears so is everyone else. So, news items:

It won't be a Pac-10 team, and 2011 is not necessarily the return game. Mark Snyder:

The coach expanded a bit on the game to be added for next season's opener, saying it may not be returned by Michigan for a couple of years, one of the criteria of making it work. He also ruled out playing a Pac-10 school, saying U-M doesn't need to do that. That leaves Virginia and Pittsburgh as primary BCS school candidates with an open date early next year.

Cal and Oregon State are dead, then. However, Virginia and Pittsburgh as favorites directly contradicts a previous piece stating that…

The list of Duke, Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Oregon State was just wrong, and the team already has a game scheduled for the opener.  Chengelis:

The prevailing thought among the media was that the team would be among these four that have an open date next fall -- Virginia, Duke, Pitt and Oregon State. A Michigan official told me today those schools are not candidates and suggested it's very likely the team involved will be making changes to its already existing schedule to make room for Michigan.

So, it's a non-Pac-10 team with an opener scheduled already (ie: not Oklahoma State) and it's not Virginia, Duke, or Pitt. And the implication from Rodriguez above—Michigan "doesn't need to do that," where that is jet out to the West Coast to play a legit team—rules out the super-elite across the country, not that we were going to line up Texas in 2010 anyway.

If you  go back to the UV from yesterday that included a list of five teams that had some rumor buzz behind them. Four of them have been debunked; the last school standing is UConn. UConn has an opener lined up against Northeastern already, isn't in the Pac-10, hasn't been specifically ruled out, and wouldn't trip anyone's "we don't need to do that" sensors. Also my inbox has a couple of emails asking if I've heard anything about UConn and one stating "it's definitely UConn." My inbox has another email stating "it's definitely Cal," so the inbox is not exactly definitive. The UConn email says it's from the Michigan side of things and the Cal email says it's from the Cal side of things, FWIW.

I'm still pretty skeptical of the idea that Michigan would give up a precious home game to play UConn when the return trip would be at a 40,000 seat stadium, but a lot of teams have fallen by the wayside and the Huskies meet all the criteria we've heard so far. They're the best guess at the moment, which I guess is better than another MAC school but not by a whole lot.

Comments

Todd Plate's n…

July 29th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^

Trying to find the quote, but if I'm not mistaken, at media days RR said that the opponent will have to make a change to it's 2010 schedule to make it happen. Seems to leave the door open to anyone with an open date anywhere on their schedule next year.

J. Lichty

July 29th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^

I cannot recall M ever playing at a small out of conference stadium, and maybe there would be enough interest that the game would be played at Patriots stadium to overcome the small Storrs gate.

Certainly not a game to get very excited about though.

Don

July 29th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^

Funny how our OOC schedule really started to nosedive not long after 1997. I guess winning the MNC meant we could start scheduling more cupcakes.

And while I have a great deal of respect for Lloyd Carr, I think the idea of UConn joining the B10 is simply goofy.

Michigan Arrogance

July 29th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^

for Uconn could be at foxborow or in NYC. this depends on their home schedule, however, as i've heard the Conn. state legislature ruled that Ucoon has to play 6 games a year at their home field.

Noah

July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^

What happened to OK State and the Fighting Pickenses? Were they deductively removed from the list at some point?

Edit: Never mind, obviously I didn't read the entire post.

UNCWolverine

July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^

Color me not impressed. As a west coat alum (with season tickets I'm proud to point out) I would have loved to have seen a Pac10 school scheduled for the 2010 opener and an eventual away game.

I also agree with you Brian that UConn is maybe one click above a MAC school. I would be fine with playing them this year but for 2010 I think the optimist in all of us would see this as a no-win game next fall as by then we should be a well oiled machine that should have no business even winning a close game against the Huskies.

go blue.

KBLOW

July 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^

It's a lose/lose for UM! We win and no one really cares outside the fan base. We lose and we just lost to a middling to low BCS team from a weak, weak conference. I'd rather schedule a true pansy and just annihilate them. Meh if this goes down.

jwfsouthpaw

July 29th, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^

I must say, guessing the 2010 opener has proven a nice little distraction while we wait for the season to start. We have rumors, quotes from people in the know, debunked ideas, emails, and the whole gamut.

I also doubt that RR would schedule an elite opponent, if only because Michigan has tough away games at ND, PSU, and OSU next season, but UConn would be a little disappointing nonetheless.

Blazefire

July 29th, 2009 at 12:36 PM ^

Does anybody else feel like they're waiting for the release of a Halo game here? I'm expecting Michigan to start planting agents in forums to direct us to websites about how much they love bees.

JLo

July 29th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^

After living in Connecticut for the past few years, I'm packing up and moving back to the midwest next week. Of course NOW is the time they talk about actually playing a game out this way. Grr arrrgh.

Number 7

July 29th, 2009 at 2:42 PM ^

If only. Did you catch the part about getting shut out by Air Force? (I went -- it was miserable, followed by Yale's miserable loss to Vermnt, followed by me giving away my tickets for Saturday;s game).

But, as a CT resident, I guess I should be cheering a possible UM visit to the Nutmeg State. Doesn't feel right, though.

Mgoblat

July 29th, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^

I don't think the size of UConn's Stadium is a big deal here. You may recall that the last time Michigan played an out of conference preseason road game against an East Coast team was its giddy blowout of Boston College. The seating capacity for that stadium was and still is 44,500.

bouje

July 29th, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^

Man UCONN would be a HORRIBLE game. We all had illusions of grandeur for a huge opponent and per usual they get blown to bits.

Also I don't think that it makes economic sense for UCONN to demand a return game since they could probably make more money off of a 1 and done deal with Michigan...

jblaze

July 29th, 2009 at 12:45 PM ^

"So, it's a non-Pac-10 team with an opener scheduled already (ie: not Oklahoma State) and it's not Virginia, Duke, or Pitt."

That could mean any team with a home opener from 4 conferences minus Duke, Pitt, VA, Oreg St. and you are left with a universe of like ~30, ~35 teams.

ZooWolverine

July 29th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

I read Michigan "doesn't need to do that" as we don't need to make a long, draining trip which when we've traditionally had trouble winning away at the Pac-10 after said long, draining trips.

I don't think it means that we don't want to play good teams. I propose a proof by contradition:
- Assume Michigan "doesn't need to do that" means we don't want to play a good team
- Michigan "doesn't need to do that" is then used to rule out Pac-10 teams
- This must imply that the Pac-10 has only good teams.
- Washington. Contradiction.
- QED

Sorry for being such a dork.

Just to point out--Washington has a full schedule for 2010 so they wouldn't be an option but I don't think that really affects the argument--he didn't say "Michigan doesn't need to do that because the crappy teams are taken."

Nick Sparks

July 29th, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^

I took the comment to mean - We don't have to schlep out to the west coast to get out asses kicked.

Not- We don't have to play a top-tier team

Not to say that my interpretation is correct, just to say that you can't really make the jump to either one of them.

Is there a possibility that this is some sub-conscious negative interpreting going on?

jamiemac

July 29th, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^

I took some of the more recent official comments on this to mean that since there will be scheduling shuffling on one part and a while before the return game, that it opened the door to more possibilities that what we're discussing. We'll see. Interested in seeing this resolved, thats for sure.

Count me as being OK with Uconn. Not sure why people are in angst about it.

Is it a big ticket foe we had all dreamed of? No.....but it is hardly a boring cupcake or a MAC team.

They've been to a bowl two years in a row, out of a BCS conference. There seemed to be widespread approval among my fellow masses to schedule Rutgers. What's the difference? They're basically the same team.

wolverine1987

July 29th, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^

I think that's why the angst. I think people had their hopes up for a better opponent than the non-cons we've been scheduling recently. I agree that Rutgers is close, but I also think people have a general perception of UConn as not as improved a program as Rutgers. For myself, Rutgers wouldn't excite me either. Not sure why RR thinks "we don't need" to schedule a Pac 10 team. OSU was happy to do so.

I Blue Myself

July 29th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^

UConn got in a huge fight with their state legislature over scheduling home games with Notre Dame in Boston and NYC. Brian just linked the article to this yesterday. http://www.wsbt.com/sports/local/18046769.html

The last thing the UConn athletic department would want to do is antagonize the legislature further by scheduling a home game with Michigan in Giants Stadium.

UConn may see Michigan as a perfect opportunity to show the legislature that they can get top level opponents to play in Connecticut.

And yes, the legislature's involvement and inferiority complex seem incredibly stupid. It's as if MSU grads were running the state of Connecticut.

Brodie

July 29th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

I like the logo. I don't see why something can't be cute when football is involved... when you call the team the Huskies, you should have a Huskie as your logo.

But to answer your question, the football team now uses a block C.