Pre Conference Scheduling

Submitted by littlebrownjug on July 1st, 2008 at 12:56 PM

What do you think about this fellow MGoBloggers?

 According to BCS formula it really is not in a team's best interest to have a nonconference schedule that is too cupcake-laden, because it really hurts one's strength of schedule. I know that it would be great to try to lay out a schedule that could lead us to an undefeated season, but isn't it worse to put ourselves in a no-win position. If we beat Central Michigan who cares, but if we lose then it is a crushing blow to our BCS chances. I would rather play one tuneup, Notre Dame and a couple of teams from the SEC and Big 12, because we should be focused on winning the Big Ten title, and a tough early schedule will help us with that. Besides, winning a national title is special thing, and if we truly have a great team (like 1997), then it will take care of business. Further, I think that this will help us with recruiting in the south and in TX, since kids will be able to watch us play their big teams. Moreover, television ratings will be phonemenal (Wouldn't you love to watch a Michigan-Tennessee, or Michigan-Texas home and home?). Michigan owns the Sec (20-5) all time, and I think that this would help us to demistify the SEC is better than the Big Ten myth (The Big Ten leads the all-time series as well). I know that this will hurt the mid majors, but we should worry about doing what is best for Michigan and the Big Ten.

 

While it boils my bottom to give any credit to the Buckeyes, I think that their home-and-homes with USC and Texas were bold, and I think that we should follow them in this approach. I would stay away from scheduling the Pac-10 for fear that the BCS committee might look unfavorably upon early season matchups. The matchups that I would love to see would be:

 

LSU (I hoped that we would meet them in a Rose Bowl a few years back. We have never played each other, and with Les Miles there it would be interesting).

 

Georgia (I cannot remember playing them anytime in the recent past)

 

Tennessee (The two biggest stadiums collide)

 

Florida State (Big Name, and ripe for the picking)

 

West Virginia (Need I say anything more here)

 

Texas (Traditional power who deserves a little revenge)

 

Oklahoma (great name, I cannot remember a matchup)

 

Miami (The real UofM wins this, and they are down)

 

What do you think?

 

Little Brown Jug 

Comments

Blue Durham

July 1st, 2008 at 1:43 PM ^

I really hate the games against overmatched opponents.  Seems like few coaches share Bo's attitude towards this.  He stated in his autobio that his worse day as M's coach was the day we lined up against Long Beach State (1987, won, 49-0, I was there, Michigan looked crappy).

IIRC, Michigan played Oklahoma in the 1976 Orange Bowl and lost, 14-6.

 I don't think Michigan needs to play all of the powerhouses.  I would like Michigan to play teams from comperable acedemic/athletic standings whose programs are above reproach.  These would include UVa and UNC (hey, lose in BBall, win in football...hopefully), Texas, UCLA and Cal.  One of those a year, plus ND, a "lesser" team from a BCS conference (someone like Kentucky or Stanford), and a direction Michigan, and its a pretty good non-conference schedule.  Or at least a lot better than it is now.

mjv

July 1st, 2008 at 1:47 PM ^

In general, I would like to see us get out of scheduling more than 1 MAC-like team per year.  A typical year would be MAC patsy, ND, and two BCS conference middleweights.  If we were going to step up and play a national power in a given year, make one of the BCS middleweights Duke or Baylor.    But the rub here is that the AD is unlikely to give up the revenue of an additional home game every other year.

I think that there could be a real likelihood of scheduling Miami, WVU and FSU (maybe less so) because we would probably be able to cut a deal better than a home-and-home.   Maybe just a game in AA or 2-for-1.  I think that it is unlikely that the SEC schools would travel to play us.  With few notable exceptions (LSU-VT 2007, Tenn-Cal 2006-2007, Georgia-ASU 2008, Alabama-Clemson 2008, USC-Arkansas 2005-2006, Florida-FSU/Miami) SEC schools don't step out of conference and play many national schools.

I think that getting an Oklahoma, Nebraska or Texas out of the Big 12 is more likely.  Even a Colorado (not on the top right now, but historically good to very good) would be nice, and we had a 2-for-1 with them in the 1990s.  The Pac-10 schools outside of USC (Oregon, UCLA, Cal) would probably also do a 2-for-1.  

According to Beano Cook, Georgia came to AA and beat us in 1965.  A little before my time.