Around the Big Ten

[Mike]

I don't disagree with you, but I don't see what makes the 8-game schedule simple. Choosing who you miss is just random and gives huge advantages to certain teams.

Exhibits A, B, and C: Wisonsin Rose Bowl appearances in the 90s.

[Tom W]

Wisconsin's good fortunes and Penn State advantageous bye weeks of the last decade and a half were allowed by the fact that 11-teams were trying to schedule 8 conference games. Somebody HAD to have a bye each week and you had to avoid a third of your conference foes each year.

Penn State was most likely guilty of influencing the scheduling, but, Wisconsin, in all honesty, was probably just the Big 10's equivalnet of Forrest Gump.

Even numbers just work better for scheduling. 12 teams, where you play your 5 division teams and half of the other division teams with 4 home and 4 away games just seems like the optimal way to go about things.

But,of course, they bring in the cross-division "rivals" just to screw up the "other division scheduling, so instead of playing some teams every other year, you get, well... we'll see. I'm sure we'll find a way to lambast Wisconsin. or Iowa, or whoever has a decent enough team to take advantage of the loop holes.

But, what I really don't like about adding a 9th conference game is the fact that a ninth opponent is "locked in" every year. And until Brandon finds a way to nullify the ND deal, there are 10 games tied up each year.This takes away another degree of freedom- where Michigan could actually go out, and finally end the nonsense, by scheduling a meaningful non-conference game against a real opponent.

[WM Wolverine]

PSU's advantageous bye weeks were put in place not by schedule makers but as a condition to join the conference.

[Jamie H]

But, what I really don't like about adding a 9th conference game is the fact that a ninth opponent is "locked in" every year. And until Brandon finds a way to nullify the ND deal, there are 10 games tied up each year.This takes away another degree of freedom- where Michigan could actually go out, and finally end the nonsense, by scheduling a meaningful non-conference game against a real opponent.

Brandon has already said he has no intention of scheduling anyone who requires a return trip, so that eliminates any meaningful opponents already. So the 9th conference game is most likely replacing a MAC opponent or worse. Is that really a bad thing?

[Tom W]

No, Jamie, it's not. it's rather disappointing that Brandon would choose to continue following this policy after pledging to bring Michigan back to being "Leaders and the Best". How foolish for any of us for thinking that he actually might have meant it?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Big Ten title game is already sold out

http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...Ctext%7CSports

[whodean]

10 Conference games every season (M will be perennials in the Conf. Championship game) + Notre Dame won't leave room for a big non-conference away game.

[Dr. Strangelove]

10 Conference games every season (M will be perennials in the Conf. Championship game) + Notre Dame won't leave room for a big non-conference away game.

It could if you're willing to have only 6 home games one year. Or make ND a non-annual thing.

[whodean]

Playing at Connecticut's puny stadium (as scheduled for 2013 by Martin) isn't smart for M, I think this is the gist of Brandon's statement.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Nebraska and Notre Dame have both played at Wake Forest's even punier stadium. What does UConn seat? About 40,000 I think, maybe a little bigger

[lineygoblue]

There's talk that the return trip to Yukon will be moved to Foxboro, where the Patriots play. I think the idea is to appease the high roller east coast alums. Yukon's home stadium only holds about 39K. And that's after it was "expanded".

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't think they will want to move it there. It sets a standard where every big game can't be held at their real home field, which will hurt average attedance there, which will hurt future efforts to expand. People will say "why expand? we can always play at Gillette or in NYC if we have to".

[lineygoblue]

I have no problem with them playing it at Yukon's home field. I'm just saying, that influential people are wanting to get tickets, and they aren't likely to get a shot at them because Yukon doesn't have a lot of tickets to begin with.

I'd also like to see Michigan go to App State for a return visit. After all since Appy was good enough to beat Michigan in Ann Arbor, maybe they deserve a chance to do it on their home field as well ...

[Wild Hoss]

Nebraska and Notre Dame have both played at Wake Forest's even punier stadium. What does UConn seat? About 40,000 I think, maybe a little bigger

We played at Southern Miss once too.

I have never been one to think anybody is too good to play anywhere, and frankly that notion probably won't survive too much longer as the costs for scheduling one-time games with tomatocans is exploding. With a 3-game OOC sched the wave of the future will be 2-1 deals IMO, as our series with So Miss was. Financially its better, as you can work a deal where you don't have to pay anything for them to show up, and in return they get you at their place when you would likely been on the road anyway. It also provides flexibility in scheduling, which is important when you have an odd-number of OOC games and absolutely have to have two of them at home.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Huskerz announced a couple tomato cans today by coincidence. Arkansas St in 2012 and S Dakota State in 2013