West Texas Blue

May 18th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

Ha, I remember during the '08 season when alot of people were publicly complaining why we didn't hire Brady Hoke.  Anyways, don't really like this game.  SDSU will need a few more years before they become a good team under Hoke.  Oh well, I guess a night game against ND is a fair trade for having to play SDSU.

Away Goal

May 18th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^

SDSU has somehow had the ability to keep these types of games close.  '04 at M, '05 at OSU (close until the 4th qtr.), '06 at Wisc (14-0), and then in '08 they had ND dead to rights.  After a long drive their running back fumbled literally on the one-inch line, a play that would have put them up two scores in the 2nd half.  And this was after losing at home to Div 1AA, or whatever they call it now, Cal Poly (my alma mater) the week before.

A month or two ago I was doing a reference check on a girl I hired who supported the recruitment coordinators and offensive coaches so I chatted them up on how they liked the team.  They were very optimistic and felt that things are turning around under Hoke...but that is just what you'd expect them to say.

Blazefire

May 18th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^

SDSU has some national visibility, at least enough so that people won't be saying, "they're playing WHO?", but should still be pretty early in their transition and so won't be a very good candidate for a monster upset.

Also: I like a season without a Baby Seal U.

willywill9

May 18th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^

Best part of the article is:

"Michigan also has been approached about playing a neutral-site game against a major-conference opponent, but so far there are no plans for that happen. One possibility could be defending national champion Alabama, perhaps in Atlanta around a future induction ceremony at the new College Football Hall of Fame.

Not sure where that's coming from, but that would be awesome (Although that's a questionable "neutral site".) I would definitely be there though.

mattbern

May 18th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^

I feel like thats more of a result of the crowd at the game.  College football crowds are much more into the game, much louder, and have more of an impact by making more noise.  NFL crowds just don't match up.  When I went home last year for thanksgiving and went to a Jets game It was kind of depressing to experience the difference between the Big House and Giants Stadium.

saveferris

May 18th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

Sure they will.  NCAA / Big 10 rules on alcohol sales apply only to college-owned venues.  I saw Michigan play Minnesota at the Metrodome a few years ago and they sold beer during the game.  Imagine it will much the same if Michigan plays at some neutral site.

For that matter, some schools allow alcohol sales at their venues.  I had multiple beers at the Carrier Dome back in 1999 when Michigan squeaked past Syracuse.

blueheron

May 18th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

SDSU gave Michigan a good fight in '04 and lost by only three points.  I think they had two NFL guys at linebacker, but it was mostly a classic bad Lloyd-style preseason game where a largely inferior team stayed way too close to the Wolvies.  (Sorry.  To restore some balance here, there were plenty of *good* Lloyd games from '95 to '07.)

I wonder why the Aztecs haven't done better over the years.  You'd think they could prosper just by recruiting the SoCal run-off (even with USC, UCLA, and top-tier outstate schools taking their share).  TCU in the Dallas/Fort Worth "Metroplex" would be a good model.  I suppose "tradition" (or lack thereof) might be the answer.

Greenwood_Slumdog

May 18th, 2010 at 10:20 AM ^

Being from San Diego, I can tell you that most of the Aztec fans I grew up with were very excited when we played last (especially since we didn't destroy them) and will be again now. I would even be up for a 2-home-1-away with them. Beats going to Ohio or Indiana in September

And call me unpatriotic, but I would much rather play a Mountain West team (not from Utah) with West Coast exposure over UMass.

Murph

May 18th, 2010 at 10:52 AM ^

Yeah I would love UM to do a "vacation game" where M fans would take over a smaller stadium in a nice vacation spot.  Kind of like Wisky has done playing at UNLV this year and in '07.  SD would be as good as any.

NomadicBlue

May 18th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

If you want to be the best, you have to play the best.  It may be a cliche, but it still holds water in regards to college football.  No disrespect  to SDSU, but they are definitely not considered to be one of te best.  Sure, we got Notre Dame on the schedule, but I'd like to add one more top notch team to go against each season to go with the traditional MAC teams.  UCONN was a step in the right direction, but it feels like this is a small step back.  IMHO. 

NomadicBlue

May 18th, 2010 at 11:17 AM ^

What's wrong with wanting a shot at the best if that's where you WANT to be?  I never said we were the best - we obviously aren't.  I think Michigan's tradition is still great enough though to pull in some of the best teams, so why not do that?  Besides, it never hurts in recruiting to be able to point to as many big time games on the scedule as possible. 

aaamichfan

May 18th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^

I also would prefer to schedule only one Michigan "directional" school per year, but the article makes it seem like Brandon has big plans once the B10 expansion picture becomes clearer. With games against SDSU and EMU, they are obviously trying to give national exposure to guys from the Michigan coaching tree. As long as we are assured of a few big nonconference games in the future, I'm ok with taking care of a few Michigan guys in the meantime.

Magnus

May 18th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

If Michigan takes care of business for 11 or 12 weeks every season, it won't matter much whether we played SDSU or Alabama.  We can go 11-1 or 12-0 against Big Ten opponents and a few patsies, and we'll still be in the hunt for the national championship game.

Personally, i don't care that we're scheduling SDSU.  At this point in Michigan football, I'd rather schedule a mediocre team than a powerhouse.  Whether we like it or not, we could be getting a new coach in the next couple years.  I'd rather not play a juggernaut of a team when Rodriguez is trying to gain his footing or when another coach is introducing his new scheme.

Let's re-establish ourselves as a national power before we start scheduling the cream of the crop.

NomadicBlue

May 18th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^

Valid point of Rodriguez gaining footing.  I'm a big fan of his and I want to see him succeed.  I just get so amped up when big teams come to town even if we are outmatched.  That is why I like games like the UCONN matchup.  They are a very talented team that will challenge Michigan to the fullest, but I still think Rodriguez can get the W and move forward in developing the program. 

twohooks

May 18th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^

Brandon is practicing what he is preaching here.  SDSU a non-BCS school, yesterdays attitude would have been to their athletic department wouldve given a flat NO. Though Brandon is wise enough not to give a traditional home and home, but sees the return a weekend long recruiting visit can bring to our beloved Blue! Id like to think we could at least close one big Cali 5 star recruit, if not more. Brandon is certainly "listening to changes." Domination takes time and attention to detail.

Tater

May 18th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^

The current system rewards teams for playing one tough out of conference game a year.  When there is, for example, a playoff system that includes megaconference champions and one or two of whatever is left, then a team could scheduleas many as four tough teams and not be overly penalized if they lose one or two of them. 

I don't like OSU at all, but they have gotten to three MNC games by scheduling one marquee non-conference game and three patsies.  If that's what it takes under the current system, I am all for Michigan continuing to schedule exactly as they are now.

dahblue

May 18th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^

I don't think SDSU is a bad out of conference game.  Frankly, they have more name recognition (in terms of football) than UConn (who has only been DI for a few years).  They also present less risk than a team like UConn.  Hell, even if (when) we beat UConn, plenty of people will say, regardless of their eventual record, "Whatever...it was only UConn."