Rekindling Michigan/ND Rivalry

Submitted by LKLIII on

The idea of rekindling the Michigan/ND rivalry has been discussed off and on over the past couple of years now--honestly ever since the thing ended I suppose.

But the "Edge of the Internet" is now saying that the buzz around the Athletic Department is really starting to pick up about this in recent days.

  1. What's your prediction on what day--if ever--that the Athletic Department will officially announce scheduled games with Notre Dame again?  Will it be in the next few days?  Weeks?  Or do you think it'll never happen?
     
  2. If it's announced soon that we will rekindle the rivalry, do you think this is a good idea or not? Why?

stephenrjking

May 26th, 2016 at 11:36 AM ^

Concur. Stuff like that is always hard to tell, but in the moments of greatest hysteria the one or two key sources there seemed to have everything days or even weeks ahead of everyone else.

At any rate, they called us getting Harbaugh and they were right.

Regarding the OP: I think getting North Dakota on the Hockey schedule is a great idea, let's do it, perhaps with an associate conference membership.

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:27 AM ^

understand why it seems it has to be all or nothing with this particular rivarly.  I think Michigan v. Notre Dame is a great college football rivalry and a game that should be played, but I don't think it needs to be played every year.  I think a perfect arrangement would be to play them every third year or so, or a home and home every five years.

evenyoubrutus

May 26th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^

I agree.  I actually get kind of bored playing them every year, especially since lately they have not been the power they had been in the 90's.  I would rather see us play against a team we don't normally get to play.  I might be weird but I was actually a little relieved when they announced that the rivalry had been suspended.

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:48 AM ^

is remotely interesting to me.  I mean, I get that they suck and if it a close game that means this season is not panning out the way we hoped, but there have been some memorable games between the two teams in the past.  It also reminds me of 1997 as that Colorado game is when I recognized that I was watching a different kind of Michigan team.

drzoidburg

May 26th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

people forget why this 'drawback' occurred - because notre dame bailed on the rivalry with 0 notice. It's their fault the schedule is so abysmal right now, and getting rid of them opened future matches with arkansas, washington, ucla, va tech, oklahoma, texas. There is no shortage of teams in all conferences wanting to schedule us. I think only alabama and florida would for certain refuse a home and home

now if we add notre dame back in the next several years, it will require ditching those rare and high quality future opponents? That is a guaranteed way to ensure i lose respect for the michigan AD and despise notre dame even more. It's like, way to capitulate and give them everything they want, all the time

here's the terms in which i could stomache them back on the schedule:

*contract a specific timeframe, not open ended*

make an extra at michigan in order to compensate for the extra road game last time

two games every 4 years at most so to not discourage a variety of opponents and not play them much more than teams like iowa/wisconsin

2018-2019 and 2022-2024 would accomplish all this and allow both teams to honor current schedules

Hail Harbo

May 26th, 2016 at 3:19 PM ^

Having Notre Dame on the schedule does not in any way preclude having Arkansas, UCLA, Washington, VTech, Oklahoma, or Texas on the schedule (Florida next year is a direct replacement for ND).  Nor does having ND preclude scheduling, Ball St, SMU, Army, and Cincinnati.  In fact starting in 2018 there are all manner of open dates in search of a game.  Dates which could include Notre Dame.

drzoidburg

May 26th, 2016 at 9:16 PM ^

it's not truly either or, but by my recollection, the only year there was another major opponent alongside notre dame since at least the mid 90s (around when CFB became big business) was 2007, and that's cause oregon return got pushed back. Even Carr back then openly retorted "is notre dame on the schedule?" Also, out of all the future series i mentioned, they absolutely were a replacement for ND, all announced quickly, and only va tech and washington are to take place together the same years. Factor in an extra half road game per year thanks to rutgers/maryland, a change that was announced *after* those series, and i just don't see it. Two cupcakes minimum means it's either ND or a variety of P5 teams

reality across the country is only USC is reguarly scheduling 2 P5 teams + 9 conference games

i hope you're right and i included those 2018+ open dates just in case as part of the 'terms' i'd embrace, but the past 20 years tells me it'll be either 2025+ for ND or they'll cancel a bunch of these rare games to make room for a shilellegah in the ass. It's what harbaugh wants after all, remembering his glory days against ND decades ago, and forgetting the recent screw job (or he's unaware, since he was off in cali)

tbh, i'd accept nixing the va tech series as that program will likely suck in perpetuity, but the others i really would like to keep. There's also tons more i'd like to schedule (georgia usc lsu) but all we keep hearing is notre dame

cutter

May 26th, 2016 at 5:45 PM ^

Judging by your statement, I think you're saying that Penn State (Michigan's Big Ten Conference opener) does not provide an interesting game.  How do you judge whether or not a game is interesting?  Is it the team's won-lost record the previous year?  Is it how that team is projected to do this season?  Is it based on their blue blood status or lack therein?  

The reason I ask is because the Big Ten obviously thinks it's a big game based on the way they set up Michigan's future schedules.  After making sure U-M played Rutgers and Maryland one at home and one on the road each year, it appears they rated the remaining Big Ten East teams as follows--(1) Ohio State, (2) Penn State, (3) Michigan State and (4) Indiana.  That's why Michigan now plays OSU and MSU both at home or on the road each season going forward and it's also why those two teams (along with Rutgers) play Michigan in Ann Arbor when the Wolverines only play four conference games.

The Big Ten also opted to have the teams from each division play its contemporary over a four year period starting in 2016.  For Michigan, that team will be Wisconsin.  That means the home/road scheduling rotations are as follow through 2019:

Rotation 1 - Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers

Rotation 2 - Penn State, Maryland, Indiana, Wisconsin

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^

just gotten tired.  I remember that I was not even really excited for the 2014 night game at ND(even before the drubbing), and I always used to love watching Michigan play at ND.  It just felt stale.  I do think playing them every few years would be cool though, the rivalry could remain but not feel so suffocating.

The Mad Hatter

May 26th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

having them at home during the years that we have OSU and MSU on the road.  I always looked forward to the early ND games since they were almost always a good team and playing them early would reveal just how good (or bad) we were going to be in any particular year.

Or maybe play them two years on, two years off so every recruit at both schools gets to play them once in A2 and once in South Bend.

I do want them back on the schedule in some way though.  Try as I might I just can't care about MSU or PSU as a "rival" like I do for ND. 

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^

I don't think it can be disputed at all at this point how legitimate the Michigan v. Michigan State rivarly is. I refuse to be the "not a rival" guy anymore.  I don't think I can remember a more intense, personal, football game than the Michigan State game last year.  Notre Dame has always been a fun rivalry, but it has never felt like that.

evenyoubrutus

May 26th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^

Obviously MSU is a rival, and much more so now than before.  BUT I have said before and I still believe that our interest in the rivalry purely comes back to the fact that MSU fans DO NOT SHUT UP and are, for the most part, some of the most delusional human beings on the CFB planet.  For example, many of them believe that Michigan will never be a national powerhouse again.  In fact, many of them believe Michigan never WAS  a national powerhouse, but it was simply a media conspiracy to make them look like one for many decades.  These are the people who believed Harbaugh hated Michigan and would never come back to coach here, and then when he did they now state that he is not a very good coach anyway so it really doesn't matter. And don't even get me started on what they say about last year's game.

The point is, if MSU fans were normal human beings, then we would probably think of MSU the same way we think of a team like Purdue or Northwestern.  Yes, they are on a good run and I will readily acknowledge that, but so much of our rival-hatred for them is derived from their fans' attitudes.

SpikeFan2016

May 26th, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^

Uh, I think what you're saying is the way almost any fanbase (especially one from a top to bottom superior university like us) would describe their instate rival. 

That basically defines it as a rivalry. 

We would never treat them like Northwestern or Purdue and we never have. Because the fact of the matter is, most Michigan fans don't know anyone who is an intense Purdue or Northwestern fan. Almost every Michigan fan knows at least someone who is an intense MSU fan. 

 

MSU is a rivalry. It's a different kind of rivalry than our others. OSU is a rivalry derived from interstate tension and a long running history of football dominance on both sides. Notre Dame is the most academic of the rivalries, as well as having a private vs public dimension to it, as well as the long running history of football dominance on both sides. 

 

Michigan State is a rivalry derived on proximity, familial and neighborhood divisions, as well as a large academic disparity. Just because it's a different kind of rivalry doesn't make it any less of a rivalry than the other two. 

Certain Michigan fans are going to feel more strongly about different rivalries, for valid reasons, but that doesn't give anyone the right to say someone isn't a rival. 

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 12:22 PM ^

to disagree here.  I am, of course, not disagreeing with your feelings regarding Michigan State fans.  They are largely intolerable.  However, the rivalry is as strong as it is because we have beat them 1 time in the last 8 years.  Neither Purdue or Northwestern or any other BIG also ran has ever put together that kind of streak against us.  And the scary part is, we go to E.L. this year and they are still going to field a top 20 outfit. 

saveferris

May 26th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^

So because the results of our game with MSU has skewed to the negative in the last 10 years, the rivalry is suddenly strong?  What about the previous 15 years when we beat them 11 times?  Was it strong then?

MSU has certainly built themselves to a level where they can claim some level of parity with the Big Ten elite and made us care a little bit more about the outcome of the game, but the rivalry in comparison to some of our other higher profile opponents is still an after-thought.  Sure, we probably give MSU more consideration than Purdue or Northwestern, but they come in way behind OSU and even ND.

Recent outcomes doesn't really change the historical importance of our game with Sparty.

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^

is complete BS.  As strong divisional foes, the Michigan v. Michigan State game is going to become the focal point of our season to a large extent.  It likely is not going to matter what we do against Ohio State if we don't beat State.  This "not a rivalry" thing is petty and ridiculous.

In reply to by ijohnb

uncleFred

May 26th, 2016 at 12:43 PM ^

when the programs in question have played 109 games and one program has won 62% of those games vs 32% for the other. Be honest if MSU was not in MIchigan, would you consider them a rival? 

Don't get me wrong, I'm tired of losing to them too, but they have a long way to go before I'll consider them a rival. 

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 12:50 PM ^

only played Notre Dame 42 times.  How can you consider that a rivalry at all when there are other teams like Michigan State who we have played 109 times? 

You use one seletive criteria to exclude it as a rivarly game?  We have won a little over 60% of our contests against Ohio State too, but you would agree that is a rivarly, right?

uncleFred

May 26th, 2016 at 1:07 PM ^

meet, there was a strong desire among college football fans to see them play. Prior to the resumption of play under Bo, there was the drumbeat among the pundits asking "why aren't these two great programs playing?".  If either team was on television and they flashed the other's score in an update, you hear them ask that question. This meant that if ND was playing a west coast team or Navy or whomever that fan base heard the question. It's part of what made the desire for Michigan vs ND a national thing.

Then there is the rather angry history between the schools with regard to keeping ND out of the Big Ten, and the charges of ND being a dirty program in the very early days which resulted in Michigan refusing to play them. Bad blood on both sides, especially historic bad blood, contributes to the rivalry. 

My view of MIchigan's relationship with both ND and MSU is shaped by 50+ years of watching MIchigan football. For me MSU has failed to be a rival over most of that period, while ND whether we were playing them or not remained a program I wanted to see Michigan beat and preferably humiliate. 

In reply to by ijohnb

UMinSF

May 26th, 2016 at 2:55 PM ^

You're right, the MSU game has definitely grown in intensity and feeling (on our end - they've always hated us), mainly because we are no longer dominating them. It's now a real rivalry on both sides.

However, those UM-ND games when Holtz was coaching and ND was a powerhouse were classics, and unbelievably intense.  Both Rocket Ismail and Desmond Howard sealed their legends because of that rivalry.

At its peak the UM-ND game was a huge national draw, not just a regional rivalry like UM-MSU.

I always thought of ND as much more a rival than MSU, and felt that game was a perfect bookend to OSU. I'm in favor of playing them every year.

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 3:00 PM ^

v. Michigan State was the fifth highest viewed college football game of the entire season nationally last year excluding bowl games.  There is nothing merely "regional" about that.

UMinSF

May 26th, 2016 at 3:37 PM ^

Harbaugh's first big game had a lot to do with that. Imagine how high the ratings would have been if we'd played ND last year instead of Utah.

MSU is at their very peak of popularity and success right now; when they fall back to their typical level of success, they'll fall off the national radar. UM-ND was highly watched every year, even when one or both teams were down.

I'm not saying UM-MSU doesn't draw eyeballs, but UM-ND would probably have higher ratings every year, and dramatically higher when MSU isn't so atypically successful.

SpikeFan2016

May 26th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^

Two on, two off is ideal for me. 

Every year the non-conference should have:

  • 1 home game against a MAC-level team
  • 1 home game against a low-end Power 5 team that won't require a return game (think Oregon State, Colorado, basically any team in the ACC that's not FSU, VT or Clemson, etc.)
  • 1 game against a marquee Power 5 team. So an eight year period would be something like: Notre Dame, at Notre Dame, Texas, at Texas, Notre Dame, at Notre Dame, UCLA, at UCLA. 

That way we maintain the rivalry (every student and student athlete that stays for 4 years will have two ND games), but still get to have some variety in the schedule. 

Big Uglies

May 26th, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^

As we are down to 3 non-conference games a year, I do not support having nd as the marquee non-conference game every year. Anything more than two home and homes a decade is too much.....To hell with notre dame.

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:31 AM ^

think ND has got themselves in a little bit of a "pickle" with their current status and the playoff.  Without a conference championship game to take part in, I don't see a 1 loss ND getting in that often unless their schedule is super strong.  There would be pretty substantial backlash if they got in over a one loss team who won a conference championship and I don't think their selection in such a scenario could be justified, really.  I think they got too clever for their own good.

In reply to by ijohnb

814 East U

May 26th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^

I know the chances are almost none, but if the BIG and PAC-12 refused to schedule ND would it not force them to join the ACC or eventually choose a conference for good? Pretty hard to replace the BIG and Pac-12 opponents year in and year out.

stephenrjking

May 26th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

Why on earth would either conference do that? I could at least understand the B1G being miffed that ND spurned them for the ACC, but that's a pretty lousy reason to cut off your own members from playing them. The Pac 12 has no reason to do this at all--Notre Dame is not and never has been a prospective member, and they are an important opponent for the conference's teams.

Neither conference cares about Notre Dame's conference status if they're not a candidate to join, nor should they.

 

ijohnb

May 26th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^

ND gives them the opportunity to have marquee wins, thus increasing their chance of making the playoff and decreasing the opportunity for conference affiliated teams.  I could legtimately see USC or Stanford seeing it as a no-win proposition.

814 East U

May 26th, 2016 at 11:56 AM ^

So you do understand the BIG's thinking. I get your Pac-12 point. I can't deny that I think ND would be a great fit in the BIG (save me the AAU argument please) geographically, academically, and athletically. The BIG should make a stand IMO regarding membership. I would extend a formal offer to ND. If they decline again then all teams in the BIG stop playing them. Having ND choose a conference would set the stage for the next round of expansion.

tlo2485

May 26th, 2016 at 12:54 PM ^

This would go well beyond football if ND were given an ultimatum to join or else no B1G sports would play them. That eliminates the most prominent 14 schools in their region for scheduling everything from tennis to field hockey and would present a legitimate issue they'd have to consider. It's a major reason they couldn't continue with Hockey East because they literally ruined their scheduling and the New England schools hated losing their bus trip conference. Speaking of this, what would we do with their hockey team being in the B1G?

saveferris

May 26th, 2016 at 2:06 PM ^

Notre Dame will never join a conference where they won't be the undisputed marquee team, so the Big Ten is not going to happen.

As a guy who despises ND, I'd just as soon see them stick where they are and watch them slowly die on Independent Hill.  Unless the CFP expands beyond 4 teams, ND will always have an uphill climb to making the Playoff and I for one will enjoy watching their relevancy slowly erode away as a result of their own institutional hubris.