Unknown Pac-12 Opponent Probably Utah

Submitted by Brian on June 12th, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Utah-Utes[1]

According to Chris Balas the Pac-12 team Michigan wants to fill out its 2014 and 2015 schedules with is…

Pac-12 sources: U-M close to home/home deal w/Utah starting 2014. Thurs. night return visit to Salt Lake to open '15 CF season on table #fb

That ESPN article I linked made it clear that at this point options were limited, with Utah, Oregon State, and Colorado the most likely Pac-12 opponents. So… like, okay. It's a reasonable opponent, or at least should be reasonable in a couple years.

Still, it's a little unsatisfying. Michigan got one-off games with the Utes twice in the past decade; now they're giving them a full home and home. Yeah, they're in the Pac-12 but Colorado sucked it up to play a one-off with OSU last year. Meanwhile, non-Pac-12 nonconference options will be extremely limited starting in 2017. It would have been nice to get a series in with someone from another conference. Meh.

Comments

Erik_in_Dayton

June 12th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^

I said this in the other thread, but Utah is a good enough team to be scary in Utah, yet Michigan won't get any credit in the polls for beating them. 

Also, Thursday night?  Ugh.

At least it's a chance to get revenge for 2008.

 EDIT:  My disdain for Thursday night was mostly not serious.  I did not communicate that well. 

Purkinje

June 12th, 2012 at 4:43 PM ^

I would love to see us open the 2015 season on a Thursday night. I've never seen Michigan play on any day but Saturday (bowls excluded), and it would be a fresh sort of excitement. I like it.

 

Everything is going to be okay.

wile_e8

June 12th, 2012 at 4:54 PM ^

 

I've never seen Michigan play on any day but Saturday (bowls excluded)

 

Only time I remember is the Buffalo Stampede game. Moved because the Twins had a possible home playoff game scheduled for that Saturday, but (IIRC) they were eliminated by the time the game was played.

jcgold

June 12th, 2012 at 4:44 PM ^

I had read in the ESPN article yesterday that USC was a possibility, and I had concluded in my mind that that was the one that was going to happen. The others seemed to be too much of a letdown.

This would be a letdown.

WolvinLA2

June 12th, 2012 at 8:28 PM ^

Other schools doing it doesn't disprove anything. 

If I said "Alcohol is only for adults" and you said "No it ain't, my kids drink it all the time" you haven't really disproved my point. 

Maybe my wording was difficult to follow.  I don't mean Thursday night games are "reserved" for teams without cache, I mean they are "meant" for teams without cache.  I get why USC and Oregon do it, so that non-West Coasters can watch their games.  I get why ACC teams do it, because a lot of their games don't make it outside of the states playing in the games. 

Michigan doesn't need to do that. 

UMaD

June 13th, 2012 at 1:48 AM ^

You're saying people from the east coast can't watch Pac12 games on Saturdays, but they can on Thursday?  Or that being on national television is a big deal to USC?

Thursday games are MEANT for people who like watching football, just like Saturday games.  The downside, just like with night games on Saturdays,  is that it makes it more difficult for people who actually attend the games to travel.  People who watch on TV aren't the problem.

Michigan doesn't NEED to play on Thursdays, but they also don't NEED to play on Saturdays.  Michigan can move it's entire schedule to Thursdays if it wants.  It's not about need.

You view it as a cheap gimmick that is beneath Michigan, but, just like night games and alternative uniforms it's an archaic view.  Many, if not most, see it as a fun, entertaining thing. 

I'll get off your lawn now.

Silly Goose

June 12th, 2012 at 4:49 PM ^

If it really is the first game of the college football season, I could get behind that. Everyone would be watching that game. Still, I wish it was a better team.

Noleverine

June 12th, 2012 at 4:50 PM ^

I'll take a home-and-home with a mediocre team over back-to-back cupcakes at home. Obviously I'd prefer a USC or Oregon, but at this point it beats most of our non-conference opponents over the past couple of years. Remember that when we played Oregon, it was before they were considered a good team (argh Dennis Dixon!). Maybe Utah can be top-25 by that point (big maybe).

 

I also agree it might be cool to be the first game of the season-- it would make the wait from the first game until the Michigan game...nonexistent.

jmdblue

June 12th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

Too bad the "away" half of the series isn't one of those strange mid- to late-season out of conference games.  Alta usually opens up pretty early and the skiing would make a trip out for a Thursday game worthwhile.

jadaSPW

June 12th, 2012 at 5:28 PM ^

...opened up the possibility of a Jazz game during that weekend to round out the trip to Salt Lake City. In any case, I look forward to making my first trip there, and expect to take a group of Michigan fans with me.

buckley

June 12th, 2012 at 4:57 PM ^

Given the limited choices, I guess this will have to do.  I like Colorado better due to the history in the mid-90's (I saw all three games), but Utah will most likely be the better opponent on the field.

WolvinLA2

June 12th, 2012 at 5:02 PM ^

So what time witll the Thursday game start? If they adjust it to EST and the game starts at 7 eastern, then I'll still be at work (!) when Michigan starts playing. If it starts at 7 local time, then that would be 9pm for you Easton time folks, meaning the game will end a half hour or so after midnight. When the game is on Saturday, none of this is an issue.

CalifExile

June 12th, 2012 at 6:27 PM ^

California has "daily overtime." You get overtime if you work more than 8 hours in a day, instead of more than 40 hours in a week. Employers who would be happy to allow you flexibility in setting your schedule don't want to pay you OT so that you can stay up late on Thursday and have a short Friday.