UM announcing Pac 12 opponent soon

http://annarbor.com/sports/um-football/michigan-ad-dave-brandon-says-2013-connecticut-road-tilt-to-go-on-as-planned-expects-pac-12-opponent/?cmpid=mlive-@mlive-wolverines

UM plans to start scheduling a Pac 12 opponent before the B1G/Pac 12 contract starts. My gut feeling says it will be Washington or UCLA. We have played them many times in the past. I also look for the series to begin in 2014.

I agree with ya, 85, I expect to see one of those teams.

Have no interest in playing a USC or Oregon, personally.

Stanford or an outside chance of Cal. Now if it is a money grab, look for ASU because of the size of their stadium.

It will be interesting to see how this relationship works out in regards to scheduling. The original idea behind it was for competitive balance, i.e. teams of equal talent playing each other (1v1, 2v2, 3v3).

If they actually follow this, we technically shouldn't be playing either UW or UCLA. We're looking at the USC's, Oregon's, Stanford's, etc. of the Pac12.

Again, though, I have no interest in playing these teams non-conf. Call me a wuss, I just hate playing opponents like that in the non-conf (like this year's Bama game...wasn't happy at all when that was announced). I'd much rather load up on non-conf wins against easier opponents, and take an undefeated record into B1G play. An undefeated B1G team at the end of the season is playing for a NC, regardless of the strength of non-conf opponents.

I would think it would have to be a rotating schedule or you could end up playing the same team over and over.

I'm guessing it doesn't need to be a home and home with the same team. As long as it is A team from the Pac 12.

But if you go 1v1 and 2v2 we'd never play WSU or OSU or teams like that. USC would never play Minn or Ind or Purdue.

Gotta be some sort of rotation.

You know Arizona will be one of the first scheduled vs. UM when the series starts.

yeah, outside of the original announcement, there hasn't been much else offered about this from the conferences themselves. All speculation from the media.

It seems as if the conferences are allowing the AD's to work it out individually, versus a mapped rotation. I feel like that could leave some teams out each year. Or I could just be wrong again.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

You know Arizona will be one of the first scheduled vs. UM when the series starts.

I can definitely see Arizona making a push for it, but I have a gut feeling we see DB steer clear of that for as long as possible.

I don't know why I have that feeling, just do.

Therefore AD's are jumping the gun to schedule who they want. After that it will look like the ACC/B1G Challenge.

Admin wrote:

I agree with ya, 85, I expect to see one of those teams.

Have no interest in playing a USC or Oregon, personally.

Don't know about that one, Addy. Your second sentence does reek at least somewhat of
the evasive...dig?

With the direction Hoke and Co. have this program headed, we'll be able to play with anyone in the foreseeable years to come...

I think you're right. AD's jumping gun early to schedule the first 2-4 years of this thing in a manner THEY (the AD) would like it. After that timeframe, it could be completely out of their hands. Good point.

That said, DB, get on the horn with Colorado, UCLA or Wazzou!! Haha

I'm hoping they don't do it the first game of the year though.

Does anyone know if that is the plan or will it be a "schedule as you can" deal?

michmike wrote:

Admin wrote:

I agree with ya, 85, I expect to see one of those teams.

Have no interest in playing a USC or Oregon, personally.

Don't know about that one, Addy. Your second sentence does reek at least somewhat of
the evasive...dig?

With the direction Hoke and Co. have this program headed, we'll be able to play with anyone in the foreseeable years to come...

No denying it...very evasive. I don't want to schedule top-notch teams early in the season.

We already have to play ND every year.

Until the BCS is abolished, why take the chance of losing early and missing out on a possible NC? As I said earlier, an undefeated B1G team at the end of the season will play for the BCs trophy EVERY time (unless there is somehow, someway, 2 undefeated SEC teams).

Now, I don't want every non-c game to be against Toledo and Eastern.

But I don't want Bama or USC or those either.

In this system, 1 loss and you're done. Why risk it?

No need to add USC or Oregon right now. Play a mid tier BCS school and I am fine with that, No more UMASS and Appy St for me!

Exactly. I agree 85.

Almost any team from the Pac12 is better than those, RPI-wise.

<LOUD chuckle> Um, Addy, I'm not sure Notre Dame qualifies!!! Not anymore, anyhow...

But I grant your point. You like to let the old "You improve most between games 1 and 2" adage apply before facing a highly-rated opponent...even if your own team is very good.

Exactly. I'm the most old-school 25yr old you'll ever meet, trust me.

1umgoblue85 wrote:

No need to add USC or Oregon right now. Play a mid tier BCS school and I am fine with that, No more UMASS and Appy St for me!

True, '85, but I do want us to go through with our scheduled (2014) meeting with Appy St. still. I want to put those hillbillies in their place as they deserve...similar to the tune to which our Sugar Bowl victims did last September (66-14, I think?)


(Addendum: Christ, I hate to use the [implied] words VIRGINIA TECH and VICTIMS in the same sentence...)

Not to toot our own horn but we'll probably be matched against one of the upper Pac 12 teams. The Rose Bowl curse leaves me to believe that USC would get every lucky break you could imagine since they always did against us. Oregon sounds scary now but I feel like we have some unfinished business with them. I'd love to pound those guys.

Regular season games against Pac-Ten teams used to be the norm. But for some, it's been many, many years.

ARIZONA: 2 meetings - both in Ann Arbor (1970, 1978).

CALIFORNIA: 1 home/home during the Schembechler years (1979-80), 2 home/home meetings during the Bump Elliot years (1965-68) and another home/home in 1949-50.

OREGON: 1 home/home during the Carr years which we won't go into, and 3 meetings in Ann Arbor (1948, 1960, 1973).

OREGON STATE: 3 meetings in Ann Arbor (1959, 1966, 1986).

STANFORD: 3 home/home meetings (1947, 1949, 1951-52, 1973-74) and 2 more meetings in Ann Arbor (1975-76).

USC: 1 home/home (1957-58).

UCLA: 3 home/home meetings (1971-72, 1989-90, 1996, 2000) and 3 other meetings in Ann Arbor (1956, 1961, 1982).

WASHINGTON: 4 home/home meetings (1953-54, 1969-70, 1983-84, 2001-02).

WASHINGTON STATE: 3 meetings in Ann Arbor (1983, 1987, 1993).

thanks

OK, WH, let's switch shoes for the moment---letting me play 'historian':

From experience in my case, I'll give a little recap of a few of those:

Arizona, 1970. As SI rightly noted in its column, "After his heart attack last January, you'd think Michigan would want to make things easy for Bo S. this season. So what happens?" (We nursed a one-point lead into the final 7 minutes, 10-9, then got a field goal, and a TD for a 20-9 victory...in what would have been the first U-M game yours truly ever saw in person...had he not, as previously noted, volunteered for football-Saturday duty at the IM building!!!)

Stanford, 1973. My senior year. We were still smarting from our 13-12 loss to them in the 1-1-72 Rose which ruined our perfect season. With Denny Franklin running our option to perfection, we ploughed through their tender (read: terrible) D 80 yards in about 15 plays on our first possession, then we
intercepted a pass and recovered a fumble to put them out of the game at halftime, 34-0, en route to a 47-10 walloping.

UCLA 1982. Geez, MUST I??? In a return to the Big House for me, I saw Anthony Carter help lead us to a 21-0 lead, only to have them creep back and back against our puzzling defense, and take us down 31-27...though we moved to a first and goal at their 10 with 15 seconds left, and three typically-miserable Steve Smith passes failed. (And they then proved it was no fluke in the Rose Bowl 3 months later).

WASH 2002. The first FORUM TAILGATE...which a certain member missed, due to Dad's car problems (so he claimed). What a weird game. Chris Perry's running and John Navarre's passing had us up 14-0 quickly, only to have another weak defensive effort let U-W flip-flop the lead several times...and we helped them by missing two chip-shot FGs. But our last-minute drive, helped by (1) what I thought was a questionable fumble-and-recovery-by-us call on what looked more like an incompletion, and (2) their 15-yard 12-men-on-the-field penalty, led to a 44-yarder to win it at the gun, 30-29.
Hotter than hell, esp. sitting in the north endzone, sun beating down on us all afternoon.


All in all, there was no predictable pattern to regular-season games with Pac-8/10/12 teams in my memory. Home or away, some wins, some losses; some tussles, some blowouts, both ways. Still, I look forward to a resumption of such---even if it means taking a haitus from beating the team you hate most.

fishgoblue22 wrote:

You know Arizona will be one of the first scheduled vs. UM when the series starts.

That's what I was thinking, with RR still yapping it would definitely draw attention.

Yeah but it would be a no-win deal for us.

And you know he'd throw the kitchen sink at us just "to show us".

THEstjoemfan wrote:

And you know he'd throw the kitchen sink at us just "to show us".

Wouldn't worry me one frickin' iota, Joe. In the best RichRod tradition, he'd indeed "throw the kitchen sink"
at his opponent...at the cost of severing the main pipes throughout the house, and letting the leaks cause
a flood.

(That is how he "balanced" the gravity of offense and defense, eh?)

Yeah, we probably could beat them 65-45.

Sam and Ira today talked about this topic for a bit.

Sam tends to be on my side of the argument: no need to schedule USC or Oregon. While its great to play big games and load the schedule, at some point, you are putting yourself at a competitive DISadvantage in doing so.

They threw out Cal and Stanford as two legit options.

I'd like to give Rich Clod his wish and run all over his punks...