August 14th, 2008 at 7:47 PM ^
August 14th, 2008 at 7:52 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 2:57 AM ^
August 14th, 2008 at 8:00 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 10:04 PM ^
August 14th, 2008 at 8:27 PM ^
http://nationalchamps.net/NCAA/future_schedules/michigan_future.htm
It's got partial schedules through 2011 on it. Other schools have more schedules up such as OSU through 2019, although most years it's just one game that has been announced.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:10 PM ^
August 14th, 2008 at 10:50 PM ^
There is no break, with the new agreement Michigan and Notre Dame will play each other every year until the end of time (or until 2031, whichever comes first).
August 14th, 2008 at 10:22 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 9:20 PM ^
August 14th, 2008 at 11:30 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 2:59 AM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 7:53 AM ^
Home and home with:
1. LSU
2. Auburn
3. WVU
4. Texas
5. Some sort of real up and comer, like USF or Cincinatti
August 15th, 2008 at 10:56 AM ^
do you think WVU will still be good in a couple of years?
August 15th, 2008 at 11:11 AM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 9:32 AM ^
During RR's nationwide tour as new UM coach, a few people posted on here about how they had asked Bill Martin about away OOC games and he said, not gonna happen. He's against it because it's not cost-effective. (At least that's my understanding of it--correct me if I'm wrong.)
I think it would be good to let Mr. Martin know that you are in favor of scheduling tough OOC games with other prominent programs. He's a businessman (as opposed to a business, man), but I would think that an important part of his job is client satisfaction. I haven't done it, but it might be a good idea to send him a polite, short email saying that as a UM fan (and alum, if you are one), you would like to see the football team have home-and-home (or away? is that it?) against Prominent Program X.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:37 AM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 9:34 AM ^
based on those future schedules. they could change, especially since Mgoblue hasn't even updated the official schedules.
- Tex
- USC
- FSU
- LSU
- Bama
- OU
- TAMU
- Idaho
- wazzu
- syracuse
August 15th, 2008 at 9:47 AM ^
I trust Martin's judgment for the most part, but it seems like scheduling big home and home series (ala OSU) would help business in the sense of getting M big time exposure on national television, increasing casual interest in the program, and recruiting.
Sure, losing to a USC or Texas early in the season can cost you the run at 12-0, but a loss to a power program is easier to overcome than a loss to App State, a win can really boost the team and perception of the team, and one of the best ways to really get better at anything is to compete with people better than you.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:18 AM ^
I'm a BM fan. I've said so for years. The people who bash him come in two varieties: 1)they know jack about running a successful intercollegiate athletic dept. 2)they don't give damn about anything but football & basketball. his major screw ups have been:
1) hiring TA & Sherryl Burnett. however, at the time they were considered pretty good hires for lots of reasons i won't go into now.
2) scheduling ASU. sure he was under a crunch to get a 12th team, but you have to realize that there is no upside to that move. zero credit for a win, and a hellstorm for a loss. some of this goes on Carr for signing off on it too.
outside of those, it's been EEEEeeeeeeee, BM!
August 15th, 2008 at 10:19 AM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 10:21 AM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 3:10 PM ^
We don't need to give up a 1-for-1 home and home with many programs. Colorado, near the peak of there recent success, was a 2-for-1. FSU was a one time affair. We never went to Miami.
If we were to schedule Texas, Oklahoma, USC, big time SEC school, yeah, we have to give up a 1-for-1. WVU, louisville, USF, Cinci, et al, we don't need to be at 1-for-1. Maybe 2-for-1 or just one game in AA.
And scheduling a D1-AA program is crap. Regardless of the outcome, we were the loser. We used to be able to say we never scheduled D1-AA programs. (In a similar vein as Dex's comment about bridge builders, we are D1-AA schedulers.) And now, no one will ever forget that we scheduled such an opponent.
At the very least, we need to upgrade most of the MAC opponents to second tier BCS conference schools: Oklahoma State, Virginia, Maryland, Texas Tech, Washington State, etc.
We used to have no fear in our scheduling. Now -- not so much.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:18 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 3:17 PM ^
"We don't need to give up a 1-for-1 home and home with many programs."
yea, we do. many of these schools are demanding 1-1 these days. the landscape of CFB scheduling has changed since the ealy 90s. this was part of the reason BM had to schedule ASU.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:23 PM ^
We don't "need" to go to, say, USF - but I think it's boring to sit atop a make believe throne and decry that these teams must come to Ann Arbor to play us. My biggest problem with college football is the scheduling approach of almost every team - attempting to line up an undefeated season instead of going out to play competitive teams and doing it, god forbid, outside of your own friendly confines.
I realize it's a business and this isn't going to change any time soon, but playing MAC school after MAC school and only weak BCS teams that don't require us to travel is fucking lame.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:34 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 3:38 PM ^
I understand the reality of the situation - and I'm not going after Martin for his scheduling strategy either.
On the flip side, the "can't find someone" reasoning would fly a lot better to me if OSU didn't line up three consecutive home and home series with Texas, USC, and Miami.
But yeah, it's a shitty situation and as long as M is at least open to the idea if they can find someone thats all I really want from Martin.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:59 PM ^
August 15th, 2008 at 3:47 PM ^
(ht: Autumn Thunder)
Or 75% at least. If BM and RR could get $4M-$5M worth of exposure by going to Texas or Auburn or FSU or wherever, I don't think they'd be totally against it every couple years. That's just not going to happen. Martin wants the guaranteed $$$. Considering the football program more or less funds the entire athletic department, I'm not sure I can blame him for not wanting to miss out on 8% of possible gate revenue.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:56 PM ^
we signed w/ ND. they are effectively substituting for TEx/USC/Miami. i gaurantee USC, Tex won't schedule M if they already have OSu on the schedule. it's a 2-way street.
the easiest way to stop this is to out law 1AA games, or go back to the old rule that said 1AA only counts once in any 4 year period.
also, remember that it's not a trickle-down problem where the M, OSU, OU, TEX, USCs are refusing schedule teams. it's the mid-lower programs (Ole-miss, etc) that want home games of their own and are thus going 1AA. if you cut off the food chain at the bottom teams will be forced to play up.
August 15th, 2008 at 5:57 PM ^
I don't have a problem with home and homes with power programs. We have no leg to stand on saying to a Texas, USC, et al that we won't play there but come up to AA.
With 4 OOC games, we need at least three home games. Two will be tune ups with teams that will only play in AA. Recently these have been MAC teams, but I believe that we should replace at least one of these, if not both with Tier 2 BCS / Tier 1 Mid-Majors. (I include Utah in this class.)
We have ND every year (home game every other year = 0.5 home games).
And with the last OOC game, I would like to see a Tier 1 BCS school. The ones with similar traditions and fan support, (Texas, etc) should be home and homes. Ones that don't have the same draw (I include WVU in this category), should be a 2-for-1, and maybe a cash component to grease the skids for the 2-for-1. Whether or not our AD and coach have the willingness to risk a loss and a home game every 2 or 3 years, is unclear. I think that we are all in agreement that this would be preferable to MAC team of the week.
MA, the Rutgers at Giants stadium issue was with ND, not us. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3366349)
August 15th, 2008 at 6:26 PM ^
August 16th, 2008 at 9:48 AM ^
I would much rather schedule against top tier competition like Oklahoma, Florida, or Georgia (teams that don't have home and homes with major competition yet). There's not as great of an upside when you play 2nd tier programs and a much bigger downside.
Think about it, if you win or lose vs. a mid level program, it would be the equivalant of losing vs. a mid level Big Ten team. However, if you lose against #1 Georgia at the beginning of the season, it doesn't really hurt so much. If you run the table you still have a decent shot at the NC if there aren't any undefeated BCS teams. Even if you lose 1 more game (like to OSU) you still have a good shot at a BCS bowl since your 2 losses to premier programs likely won't hurt you as 2 losses to a Cinci level of competition. And if you win and knock off a #1 or #2 team, you're on the inside track to the NC game.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:25 AM ^
One thing that came out of the loss to UCLA in 2000 was that Michigan (at least under Gittleson) was ill prepared to compete in hot environments. We were clearly better than UCLA that day, but a combination of John Navarre (how many times that year did we have to hear how the opponents field had more crown on it than the fields in AA??) and poorly conditioned athletes in 100 degree, sunny weather is a guaranty for defeat.
Hopefully, bringing our S&C program up to today's standards will eliminate the weather as factor in a future painful Michigan loss.