Unverified Voracity Says Forever ND Comment Count

Brian September 14th, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Technically incorrect, which is the best kind of incorrect. This is BWS's UMass preview in full:

moneyman[1]

They're only getting 650k. Meanwhile at Maize and Blue Nation, Office Space photos artfully arranged.

Awesome. MVictors and the Hoover Street Rag have collaborated on a historic Michigan calendar that tells you, for instance, that tomorrow is the anniversary of the "Yakety Sacks" game against Jimmy Clausen… and that Sunday tomorrow is the damned Kick It To Rocket anniversary. Also, March 7th is Alijah Bradley's birthday.

How do we wiki this thing?

Speaking of that money. Another reason real games are becoming more viable:

Per MassLive's report, Massachusetts got $390,000 to come to Ann Arbor two seasons ago. …

According to MassLive, Michigan is getting somewhat of a deal this season with regard to UMass' guaranteed money price tag -- as the school will receive roughly $800,000 to play the likes of Notre Dame, Wisconsin and Penn State in the future before grabbing a whopping $1.25 million to play Florida in 2016.

That's inflation far outpacing ticket prices. Since the TV money is essentially negligible—split with the conference—that's a motivator to play real teams to keep fan interest up. That increase is probably how the Oregon State and Colorado games got done. Those will cost more—CU got two million for a one-off with OSU—but not enough to offset the actual opponents bump they bring. Yeah, even Colorado. Death to Hail Marys.

Never forget (not that Never Forget.) Or that other one. This one:

Pufnstuf_color[1]

Let us all take the opportunity to reminisce.

We must keep Notre Dame in our lives, people of Michigan. Be you green or blue, you must know this.

Whoah. Via Bring Your Champions, They're Our Meat, the best darn football/cossack blog on the internet:

Understanding the Big Ten's rough weekend really can't be completed without a guide to what disappointed coaches look like when compared to specific Zaporozhian Cossacks.

I don't even know what he's talking about, but I'm still amazed.

Kramer stuff. His jersey will be un-retired this weekend and folks are talking to other folks about stuff:

The Michigan Daily: What are your emotions, what are your family’s emotions as your grandfather’s number is put back into circulation this weekend?

Kelsey Kramer: My family is thrilled. It’s kind of a cool thing for me, being a student here. I know a lot of kids my age don’t necessarily know about him, so for me it’s neat that it’s back on the field. It’s going to draw a lot of attention to that and the memory of him playing here, in a way.

Kramer stories are the best stories; look for a few in Greg Dooley's article in the game program.

ND stuff. They're adding a game or two to their ACC schedule, and more importantly, aren't going to pick who they play. The ACC will do that, and they'll do that by rotating through their entire collection of pretty awful football teams. This puts ND's various Big Ten series in doubt because the really important thing is to keep playing Stanford for some reason. 5 + 3 + 3 == 11, meaning that if ND keeps playing their three (almost) annual Big Ten opponents they'd have only one other slot to hand out, and up to three(!) actually good opponents in any one year—USC, Michigan, and VT/Clemson/FSU.

So ND is rumbling about reducing playing games against MSU (a total of 69 meetings), Purdue (80 meetings), and Michigan (33 meetings, the vast majority of them classics) so they can play Stanford for some reason. Brandon's said he would like to keep the series going

Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon says he hopes to keep playing football with Notre Dame after their contract expires in 2020. … Brandon says it's up to the Fighting Irish to decide how to schedule the rivalry. The teams meet yearly through 2017 before taking a previously scheduled hiatus in 2018-19.

…but who knows if that will happen.

Anyone who wants to stop playing ND is nuts. It's an easy road trip, the fans there are incredibly nice, you get more credit for beating them than you deserve, and Michigan has feasted on ND hearts for five of the last six years. The Notre Dame series is fantastic, and it's not like you can't schedule a second real team despite having that. Michigan State has Oregon and Alabama lined up in the future, and college football is moving towards a committee approach that has schedule strength as a point of emphasis. ND is not a death knell for playing other interesting opponents going forward.

Meanwhile, think of what Notre Dame has given us. Awful, awful things like Rocket and Harry Oliver. Awesome things like Yakety Sax, Yakety Sax II, "Oh Wide Open," and the last three years. Charlie Weis. Lou Holtz. Freekbass. NDNation. NDNation!

Not playing Notre Dame is stupid. It's stupid that Michigan doesn't play them in basketball and stupid that they seemingly won't be playing much in hockey after the CCHA breaks up. More Notre Dame. Always Notre Dame. They are the perfect foil. I love them, the bastards. Let's never stop playing them. Amen.

Etc.: Freep Deathwatch continued. Tyler Eifert is a WR for ND, mostly. File under "scouting" and "something Devin Funchess might end up doing." Manny Harris to Ukraine. Commence Seinfeld Risk jokes. Brian Kruger discusses Black and Blue on WTKA. Ufer retrospective from the Daily. Nick Saban DB technique. Starting DT off Nebraska team after getting blitzed for 600+ yards by UCLA.

 

Comments

NateVolk

September 14th, 2012 at 5:39 PM ^

Brandon's desire to keep going with the the Notre Dame series proves what we all suspected: He has started reading Brian's stuff.  Two great minds in synchronicity, creating the future?

FrankMurphy

September 14th, 2012 at 6:04 PM ^

I'm tempted to respond to your argument for continuing to play Notre Dame with Bo's legendary refrain, but since you've framed your case in the sheer contempt, disdain, ridicule, and condescension that only Notre Dame deserves, I grudgingly agree. 

jjemrick

September 14th, 2012 at 6:15 PM ^

Has UMass become a standard candle for bigger teams? Whoever beats them worst is looked upon more highly?

What is the rationale for booking these guys other than they represent a nice, tasty cupcake?

turtleboy

September 14th, 2012 at 6:25 PM ^

With SOS being a determining factor in the upcoming playoff system, and ND not competing for the ACC Championship, I don't see why ND would stop scheduling teams like Michigan and State and keep scheduling games against (FE:) Rice, Temple, ASU, and Northwestern like they have for 2014. Playing 5 ACC teams doesn't necessarily add to your strength of schedule, either. I always thought BC, Pitt, Wake Forest, Syracuse and the others were the weaker part of their season. USC, Stanford, Michigan, State, and Purdue have sometimes been the entirety of their SOS (see 2008-2009.) Add Navy, another service academy, and 5 random ACC schools and you have a credible schedule to crow about.

I can see them keeping USC and rotating Pac 12 alternates like Stanford, Washington, and their like, as well as keeping Michigan and State and rotating other B1G rivals like Purdue, Northwestern, and Minnesota.

Johnny10er

September 15th, 2012 at 1:20 AM ^

With my dad being a former navy guy, I cant help but read S.O.S. to mean "Shit On a Shingle." (Some really bad cheeze-wiz type stuff with dried beef on over toasted toast they served in the navy back in the '60's.) Funny it means the opposite of something horrible in the 1/2 second after reading it, putting it into football context world.

That being said... It's probably good (as much as it pains me to say it) to continue playing ND, for Shit On a Shingle purposes. I hate them. In a different way of hate than Michigan State, or ohio. Those schools, I hate, but playing them is so much fun, because beating them is so much fun, and actually usually means a lot when we do. Beating ND it's all like "why are we even playing them still?"  It's like riding in a limo to prom with the girl that said no to going to homecoming with you four years straight.  Beating ND has become more of a "screw you" rather than a "we're better than you." Still feels damn good though.

bigbonedbrady

September 14th, 2012 at 6:26 PM ^

I disagree with the notion that a win over ND carries more credit than it deserves. While still having a large following with the 35 and over crowd, kids in high school have never seen ND in the national title hunt.  Louisville and Kansas State are ranked higher so the pollsters aren't in love with ND.

 

WolvinLA2

September 14th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

But Louisville and K-State are there because they deserve it, ND is there because they're ND.  Any other team with their resume thus far would not get into the top-25.  

ND gets talked about, and the 35 and over crowd is the bulk of the people making the decisions.  OSU plays Cal this weekend, for example.  No one is talking about it.  MSU is playing ND, and it's the most hyped game of the weekend.  

bigbonedbrady

September 14th, 2012 at 7:06 PM ^

of the week because it is the ABC primetime game and The Family of Networks always overpromotes its own.  Tyler Wilson wasn't concussed, Bama - Arkansas would give them a run.  If the pollsters overvalued ND , at 2-0 they would be ranked ahead of Louisville and K-State. ND is about where they belong at 20. 

As for my first post, I miss typed.  I should have said with fans 35 and over ND is still popular.  ND isn't nearly as popular with HS age kids. Fans 35 and over don't usually don't get football scholarship offers.  ND is old man football.  As for OSU - Cal, OSU is -17.  That is why no one is talking about that game. 

M-Wolverine

September 14th, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^

Because Notre Dame is playing in it. You get hype over the game whether they're good or not. The kids may not care, but they don't vote in polls, or hype games, or give out tv contracts to carry only one school. Kids care about flavor of the month, but that changes fairly regularly.

WolvinLA2

September 14th, 2012 at 7:55 PM ^

No, I knew you meant 35 and older like ND.  But that's most of the people watching football, running football and making football decisions in our country.  17 year olds aren't the one buying TV sports packages, dropping $150 per ticket on StubHub or making donations to the athletic department.  

ND is still one of the most popular teams in the country.  What do you think would draw more eyeballs - Michigan vs. ND or Michigan vs. KSU or Louisville?  It's not even close.  

bigbonedbrady

September 14th, 2012 at 8:34 PM ^

...not poll voters, administrators, or reporters. Difference. I never suggested UM play those schools. My original post stated ND isn't overrated. People see them as a 7 to 8 win team and the mystic is gone with the fans under 35. A segment of that group is the kids that play the game. I apologize for being naive but winning the game should take precedent over selling tv packages, and donations.

avendittelli

September 14th, 2012 at 6:49 PM ^

for Michigan is always beneficial in the fact they play them so early each season. So even in this recent lengthy period of ND medicrity, Michigan receives a polls jump they probably didn't deserve at the time, and definitely didn't deserve in hindsight.

You assume a playoff committee can differentiate between an early season win over a 2-0 ND vs looking at a whole 7-5 ND season resume. But the early jump in the polls and obviously sustaining it could make a big difference when choosing the top .

oakapple

September 14th, 2012 at 6:32 PM ^

Yes, they say that strength of schedule will figure in who makes the playoff. Surely that means you get more credit for beating Alabama than for beating UMass.

But how much will losing to Alabama count against you?

Teams practically always fall in the rankings after any loss, no matter how close; and teams seldom fall after a win. So the system seldom penalizes you for playing a weak opponent, or for playing a strong one and narrowly losing.

Perhaps strength of schedule would help the committee decide which one-loss teams make the playoff. But would they choose a three-loss team that played a tough schedule over a one-loss team that played an easy one?

jdon

September 14th, 2012 at 6:36 PM ^

but i will say this:  there is a distinct advantage to playing Notre Dame in that they are a local 'powerhouse'  (using that term very loosely) and I think that helps with local recruiting...

though, personally i am tired of playing them...  and until they are actually good I would rather play someone good.

jdon

 

mGrowOld

September 14th, 2012 at 7:05 PM ^

Hey Historian....completely off topic but do you have any/all of the Rose Bowl's from the 70's by any chance?  Call me a masochistic but I'd really like to watch those games again.....

uminks

September 14th, 2012 at 7:35 PM ^

May be ND will become good again? They recurit well every year! However, I see Michigan pulling far away from ND within a few years. When the series resume again, ND may be our baby seal game!

Wow, I remember HR Puff n Stuff when I was a kid in the late 60s early 70s...luckily a few year later I turned to Michigan football. Even as a child puff n stuff gave me the creeps!  I always heard that HR stood for Hand Rolled! A few may have been smoked during the production of this puppet show!

NiMRODPi

September 14th, 2012 at 7:45 PM ^

I'd say from Notre Dame's point of view, this is perfectly consistent with the Notre Dame way of thinking. They are not being dishonest when they say they want to maintain a presence on the West Coast, helps recuiting and fanbase expansion (somewhat).

Being successful is NOT Notre Dame's aim, maintaining the appearance of success is. A quasi-conference membership, resulting in a schedule of weaklings, while playing a few elite teams, creating the illusion of parity. They are aiming for 9 and 10 win seasons against crap, eventually playing the disrespect card when it comes to BCS rankings and bowl games. Really, they are trying to be Boise State, with the benefit of historical prestige. 

Notre Dame: The Harlem Globetrotters of football. 

Zone Left

September 14th, 2012 at 8:25 PM ^

I guess I'm nuts. I don't like the annual Notre Dame series. I'd prefer Michigan play them two of six years and play a more national opponent a la Ohio State the other four years.

For my money, I want to play one good team in week 2 or 3 and three MAC schools in the pre-conference schedule, strength of schedule be damned. There's nothing to be gained from playing Alabama, Air Force, and Notre Dame in the first four games. If Michigan loses only one game and that game is one of its first ten games, they're going to be in the playoff. If they don't, they probably won't be in the playoff. The bottom line is that winning and having a name like Michigan is a lot better for title hopes than losing. The poll penalty is too great, even if the team is loved by the computers. Playing two really good teams just adds too many losses in too many years.

uminks

September 14th, 2012 at 10:10 PM ^

I agree we probably should play one top 20 team per year in our non-conference schedule, and I would prefer a home and away series, not a neutral site game! I'd rather play some other mid conference teams in the non-conference schedule (somewhere between 20 and 40 in the division 1 rankings), then end up playing a non-conference roster of baby seals! I don't think we should play MAC teams.

jdon

September 15th, 2012 at 1:10 AM ^

I ask because I understand why you say what you say but as a season ticket holder I would like more exciting games.

Tickets are getting expensive.  And if Michigan wants to keep selling out 110000 tickets for a game they need games like air force that are both interesting and winable.

jdon

Blue Durham

September 15th, 2012 at 9:20 AM ^

Michigan - Notre Dame series. As a matter of fact, I would say it is my favorite game of the year. It is at the best time of the year (mid to late September), the teams historically are ranked high, and regardless to what happens, there is still more football to come. I'm always a bit melancholy after the OSU game - the season is over.

Prior to the addition of Penn State, the Big Ten was pretty weak. Iowa had arrived, Wisconsin and MSU were OK, and all the other teams with the exception of Ohio State were pretty terrible. The start-up of the Notre Dame series really helped beef up a schedule that saw only about 2 games that would be contested.

But now with Nebraska and the Big Ten championship game, as well as the emergence of Wisconsin and MSU, running the table is going to be quite difficult for anyone. However, I still would want to have Notre Dame on the schedule. It is a reminder that, historically, Michigan and Notre Dame are the two most successful teams in the country. Not Alabama, not Texas, not USC, and not Oklahoma.

As an excellent book with the same title best describes it, they are Natural Enemies.

Tater

September 15th, 2012 at 12:33 AM ^

Playing ND is great now, but if Kelly figures out how to do what he has done everywhere else he has been, it will be like when Michigan faced Lou Holtz or Greg Mattison during their respective HC and DC tenures at ND.  

In other words, ND is great to play when they are, in professional wrestling kayfabe, a JTTS.  If they are good enough to become a loss every other year, though, it won't make sense to play them unless the Big Ten champion is guaranteed a spot in a bona fide playoff to determine a true National Champion.