🏈 The B1G says, "no more FCS opponents" but Michigan drops Va Tech for Arkansas State.

[alagator]

ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- The University of Michigan Athletic Department announced today (Thursday, March 29) changes to its future football schedules for the 2020 and 2021 seasons.

The home-and-home series with Virginia Tech scheduled for the 2020 and 2021 seasons has been terminated, with potential future dates to be discussed at a later date; Michigan has agreed to pay VT a $375,000 cancellation fee. The two programs were set to meet in Ann Arbor on Sept. 19, 2020, and in Blacksburg on Sept. 11, 2021.

The game with the University of Washington will move up a week in the 2021 schedule. The Wolverines and Huskies will square off at Michigan Stadium on Sept. 11, 2021, instead of the previously announced date of Sept. 18. The two schools will open the 2020 season against each other on Sept. 5 at Huskies Stadium in Seattle.

Michigan will face Arkansas State on Sept. 19, 2020, at Michigan Stadium. This will be the first-ever meeting between the two schools in football.

Michigan Announces Changes to 2020 and 2021 Football Schedules - University of Michigan

 

[TUSKtimes]

Who is the AD that keeps having to untie all these knots? They just canceled the Arkansas series, but to their credit picked up their rivalry with Notre Dame again that probably should have never been canceled. Perhaps, going back to the same state you just left at the altar is bad optics. But for all of us who are firm believers that schedules are written in stone and require a fortune to get out of, I submit exhibit A, the Michigan Wolverines. When a particular team decides to change up their schedule it doesn't take long.

 

[planomateo]

Arkansas State is FBS right?

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Who is the AD that keeps having to untie all these knots? They just canceled the Arkansas series, but to their credit picked up their rivalry with Notre Dame again that probably should have never been canceled. Perhaps, going back to the same state you just left at the altar is bad optics. But for all of us who are firm believers that schedules are written in stone and require a fortune to get out of, I submit exhibit A, the Michigan Wolverines. When a particular team decides to change up their schedule it doesn't take long.

Yeah...the talk is bullshit...
But...wonder why Bama doesn’t swoop up va tech...would be good?.

 

[TUSKtimes]

Yeah...the talk is bullshit...
But...wonder why Bama doesn’t swoop up va tech...would be good?.

A home and home? I would take that, but with Louisville, Duke, Miami coming up we are starting to play more ACC teams than Notre Dame.

 

[OldPlayer]

Arkansas State is FBS right?

Yes.

 

[TerryP]

I know this date because it was on my birthday last year....

On the 24th of July, '17, the B1G reversed its' ruling they would no longer schedule FCS teams. If you recall, in '15 they moved to nine conference games and made it a rule teams couldn't schedule any FCS and had to have one P5. However, that was changed.

Why? They couldn't schedule a team that fit that criteria.

But for all of us who are firm believers that schedules are written in stone and require a fortune to get out of, I submit exhibit A, the Michigan Wolverines. When a particular team decides to change up their schedule it doesn't take long.

This goes back to the other thread when I asked if anyone had seen an example of nine conference games, a P5, and two FBS teams (or even a schedule that's considered harder than that.)

A quote from Delany:

When we went to nine games, we did not anticipate the problems that some of our skills would have in years that they only had four conference games -- it was very difficult for them to get three FBS opponents on to their schedules if they were looking for seven home games.”​

​

While it's no fortune, Michigan is paying about what amounts to gate receipts (minus expenses); $375,000.

More importantly, the very issue @252BAMA and I have brought up comes right back into play here: the difficulty of getting another team--greater than that of FCS--to agree to come on the schedule.

What you're asserting here--it's not as difficult to schedule these games as we've said--goes directly against what we've heard the Alabama athletic department, and now the commish of the B1G, says.

But...wonder why Bama doesn’t swoop up va tech...would be good?.

You know the last time Bama played VT in the season opener Beamer conceded defeat before the game was even played while talking about what that season held for his team. He literally took it to the point of talking about how a loss to Alabama wouldn't put them out of the title race. The season hadn't even kicked off yet!

More importantly, why would Va Tech schedule Bama? Right now they've got two seasons where they could but they're already playing Penn State one season and W. Virginia the next. On top of that, over the last four seasons they've only had two where they had less than four losses--two of those with six.

What gets me in this thread is I'm still seeing people complain about Louisville--who has a better record over the last four years than Va Tech--and Duke--which has a similar record to Va Tech--and all the while suggesting Bama needs to add them? What's the difference?

 

[planomateo]

Duke's had 7 winning seasons in the last 30 years, 4 of the 7 under Cutcliffe...hard for me to get excited about this game.

Va Tech has had 3 losing seasons in the last 30 years. Louisville has had 5 losing seasons in the last 30 years.

 

[50+yeartidefan]

I know this date because it was on my birthday last year....

On the 24th of July, '17, the B1G reversed its' ruling they would no longer schedule FCS teams. If you recall, in '15 they moved to nine conference games and made it a rule teams couldn't schedule any FCS and had to have one P5. However, that was changed.

Why? They couldn't schedule a team that fit that criteria.



This goes back to the other thread when I asked if anyone had seen an example of nine conference games, a P5, and two FBS teams (or even a schedule that's considered harder than that.)

A quote from Delany:

When we went to nine games, we did not anticipate the problems that some of our skills would have in years that they only had four conference games -- it was very difficult for them to get three FBS opponents on to their schedules if they were looking for seven home games.”​

​

While it's no fortune, Michigan is paying about what amounts to gate receipts (minus expenses); $375,000.

More importantly, the very issue @252BAMA and I have brought up comes right back into play here: the difficulty of getting another team--greater than that of FCS--to agree to come on the schedule.

What you're asserting here--it's not as difficult to schedule these games as we've said--goes directly against what we've heard the Alabama athletic department, and now the commish of the B1G, says.


You know the last time Bama played VT in the season opener Beamer conceded defeat before the game was even played while talking about what that season held for his team. He literally took it to the point of talking about how a loss to Alabama wouldn't put them out of the title race. The season hadn't even kicked off yet!

More importantly, why would Va Tech schedule Bama? Right now they've got two seasons where they could but they're already playing Penn State one season and W. Virginia the next. On top of that, over the last four seasons they've only had two where they had less than four losses--two of those with six.

What gets me in this thread is I'm still seeing people complain about Louisville--who has a better record over the last four years than Va Tech--and Duke--which has a similar record to Va Tech--and all the while suggesting Bama needs to add them? What's the difference?

So the whole point of playing football is to get ...
A...a favorable schedule..
B...play patsies for gate receipts..
C...get into a bowl ( like who cant anymore with more bowls than teams..almost)
D... have a winning record to save shit coaches multi million dollar contracts...not talking about nick....I would suspect he would drop a directional school...buy it out and play a power 5 school at the drop of a hat......
...geeze...and I thought it was about competition...what a dummy i are...
Winning records and quality of team is not synonymous ( my big word of day)...
Louisville is a quality opponent.... i agree....
Duke in neutral site is not.....

 

[TerryP]

Duke's had 7 winning seasons in the last 30 years, 4 of the 7 under Cutcliffe...hard for me to get excited about this game.

Bama's played Virginia school three times and I can't say I was excited about any of the three. I thought West Virginia would present a challenge for the defensive backs and pointed to that many a time before the game. While I wasn't excited about the game I did like the fact we'd see the DB's tested early. And, if you recall, what were the fans reactions after that game? It wasn't one where we saw credit given to Clint Trickett. In fact, throughout a lot of that season I saw many a fan refuse to acknowledge how good he was in that system. What was it...3200+ passing yards in '14 he recorded?

In fact, over the last 11 years there's only been a handful of teams I was excited about seeing Bama play to open the season. Penn State wasn't one of them. Traditionally, in name only, it was a game. At the same time it was a 7-6 team the year before Bama hosted them in Tuscaloosa.

I did get excited about Michigan and that was due to wanting to see them beaten, and beaten badly. USC was close, but not near the same degree.

You notice the theme here? Traditional names, but also teams that weren't very good.

While I stand alone I see Duke bringing in one of the better coaches in college football. Louisville, as mentioned a few times /s, brings in a passing game. Neither have the name(s) of the Penn State's and USC's of the collegiate football world but both present challenges that are good for a team to start the season.

Duke in neutral site is not.....

Curious. How many coaches within the ACC would you consider to be better than Cut? Or, if you want to take it to a greater degree, how many in P5 would you call better?

(BTW, speaking of Cut...I don't know if you caught this or not but Fulmer reached out to him to take over the UT job before hiring Pruitt. He wanted nothing to do with that position. Perhaps, he's learned his lesson after his dalliance with Fulmer back when he was a secret witness?)

 

[50+yeartidefan]

Bama's played Virginia school three times and I can't say I was excited about any of the three. I thought West Virginia would present a challenge for the defensive backs and pointed to that many a time before the game. While I wasn't excited about the game I did like the fact we'd see the DB's tested early. And, if you recall, what were the fans reactions after that game? It wasn't one where we saw credit given to Clint Trickett. In fact, throughout a lot of that season I saw many a fan refuse to acknowledge how good he was in that system. What was it...3200+ passing yards in '14 he recorded?

In fact, over the last 11 years there's only been a handful of teams I was excited about seeing Bama play to open the season. Penn State wasn't one of them. Traditionally, in name only, it was a game. At the same time it was a 7-6 team the year before Bama hosted them in Tuscaloosa.

I did get excited about Michigan and that was due to wanting to see them beaten, and beaten badly. USC was close, but not near the same degree.

You notice the theme here? Traditional names, but also teams that weren't very good.

While I stand alone I see Duke bringing in one of the better coaches in college football. Louisville, as mentioned a few times /s, brings in a passing game. Neither have the name(s) of the Penn State's and USC's of the collegiate football world but both present challenges that are good for a team to start the season.

Yea,,,,, we found a point to agree on.....Cutcliff is a quality coach....no doubt in my mine...when he was at Tennessee...they thrived...when he left...they faulted....
And no doubt...Tennessee would have recovered had they hired him as HC ( glad they didn’t)...all he wanted to do was bring most of his staff...lol
And quite frankly...i was excited to see Bama play all the neutral site opponents...
Fun to be at most....and see all.......

 

[TUSKtimes]

I know this date because it was on my birthday last year....

On the 24th of July, '17, the B1G reversed its' ruling they would no longer schedule FCS teams. If you recall, in '15 they moved to nine conference games and made it a rule teams couldn't schedule any FCS and had to have one P5. However, that was changed.

Why? They couldn't schedule a team that fit that criteria.



This goes back to the other thread when I asked if anyone had seen an example of nine conference games, a P5, and two FBS teams (or even a schedule that's considered harder than that.)

A quote from Delany:

When we went to nine games, we did not anticipate the problems that some of our skills would have in years that they only had four conference games -- it was very difficult for them to get three FBS opponents on to their schedules if they were looking for seven home games.”​

​

While it's no fortune, Michigan is paying about what amounts to gate receipts (minus expenses); $375,000.

More importantly, the very issue @252BAMA and I have brought up comes right back into play here: the difficulty of getting another team--greater than that of FCS--to agree to come on the schedule.

What you're asserting here--it's not as difficult to schedule these games as we've said--goes directly against what we've heard the Alabama athletic department, and now the commish of the B1G, says.


You know the last time Bama played VT in the season opener Beamer conceded defeat before the game was even played while talking about what that season held for his team. He literally took it to the point of talking about how a loss to Alabama wouldn't put them out of the title race. The season hadn't even kicked off yet!

More importantly, why would Va Tech schedule Bama? Right now they've got two seasons where they could but they're already playing Penn State one season and W. Virginia the next. On top of that, over the last four seasons they've only had two where they had less than four losses--two of those with six.

What gets me in this thread is I'm still seeing people complain about Louisville--who has a better record over the last four years than Va Tech--and Duke--which has a similar record to Va Tech--and all the while suggesting Bama needs to add them? What's the difference?

My point is that it is NOT difficult to get FBS opponents if you are willing to schedule them. It's not hard to get power 5 teams if you are willing to do home and home. If you want it all your way and always insist on home games then I think it's about more than a payday. And I've said so many times. At this point, I believe the real issue is the University is stacking the deck in their favor for wins and losses. Coincidentally, that's the same argument I've made about sticking to 8 conference games. It's not lost revenue, just wins, and losses.

 

[alagator]

My point is that it is NOT difficult to get FBS opponents if you are willing to schedule them. It's not hard to get power 5 teams if you are willing to do home and home. If you want it all your way and always insist on home games then I think it's about more than a payday. And I've said so many times. At this point, I believe the real issue is the University is stacking the deck in their favor for wins and losses. Coincidentally, that's the same argument I've made about sticking to 8 conference games. It's not lost revenue, just wins, and losses.

Except it is lost revenue. Delaney is quoted above saying that with the loss of a conference home game.

I do find it of interest that if we look over what teams have scheduled whom we don't see a lot of home and home series being scheduled. Yet, we still have this notion "it's an easy thing to do." It's not, or we'd see more of this happening. We have seen more cancelations than we have new series scheduled with one example found here with Michigan. Who else has scheduled notable home and home series over the last year?

Washington State has scheduled Colorado State in a home and home five years down the road. UNC scheduled a three game series with Liberty. We've talked about Louisville scheduling a home and home with UCF in a game that a couple of years ago would have been a snoozer. If it wasn't for UCF fans, alums, and PTB running their mouths it wouldn't be of note, anywhere.

Right now Arkansas is the lone SEC team not playing a P5 OOC game in '18. Why? Michigan canceled. Illinois and Minnesota are two others who are in a conference I've seen described as having really tough schedules. Oklahoma State, Oregon, and a few others fit the bill as well. Why aren't teams scheduling home and home series with those guys?

 

[TUSKtimes]

Except it is lost revenue. Delaney is quoted above saying that with the loss of a conference home game.

I do find it of interest that if we look over what teams have scheduled whom we don't see a lot of home and home series being scheduled. Yet, we still have this notion "it's an easy thing to do." It's not, or we'd see more of this happening. We have seen more cancelations than we have new series scheduled with one example found here with Michigan. Who else has scheduled notable home and home series over the last year?

Washington State has scheduled Colorado State in a home and home five years down the road. UNC scheduled a three game series with Liberty. We've talked about Louisville scheduling a home and home with UCF in a game that a couple of years ago would have been a snoozer. If it wasn't for UCF fans, alums, and PTB running their mouths it wouldn't be of note, anywhere.

Right now Arkansas is the lone SEC team not playing a P5 OOC game in '18. Why? Michigan canceled. Illinois and Minnesota are two others who are in a conference I've seen described as having really tough schedules. Oklahoma State, Oregon, and a few others fit the bill as well. Why aren't teams scheduling home and home series with those guys?

So what is the motivation for the B1G to stop the home and home? Maybe they are emulating the Crimson Tide with these neutral games and putting directional schools ahead of big late-season football games. When you keep making the playoffs it has to be intimidating not to follow what seems to be the winning formula.

To get this line of least resistance stopped, the NCAA has to mandate what all other power 5 teams are interpreting for themselves. Neutral site games, these days, seem like a loophole more than an opportunity to play one of the big boys. Waiting for these conferences to step up in unison and volunteer to play home and home power 5 games would be the new definition of insanity. You have to mandate and the waters will part.

 

[alagator]

@TUSKstuff A loophole? I don't get the analogy. What are they circumventing?

 

[TUSKtimes]

@TUSKstuff A loophole? I don't get the analogy. What are they circumventing?

If we weren't doing neutral site games how could we not be doing home and home with these power 5 teams?

 

[sean]

Arkansas State is FBS right?

true, but definitely NOT on the same level as va tech. i mean va teach isn't what they used to be. but ark state surely isn't anywhere near them as far as talent goes.

 

[TerryP]

If we weren't doing neutral site games how could we not be doing home and home with these power 5 teams?

It's funny you bring this up. If we compare the two decades prior to these neutral site games we'll find the competition is better with the current format than it was before Alabama started scheduling these types of games.

Over those twenty years we're looking at a Penn State series that was more than a simple home and home due to its length. The games against OU and UCLA as well as a home and home with NC State were the other OOC games Bama faced over that 20 year period.

NC State compared to Duke, or Louisville. Hands down the two latter teams are far better competition than NC State was at the time. Fact of the matter is the same could be said for the home and home with UCLA--best finish for the Bruins was a seven win season in '00.

I see Bama fans looking longingly and lovingly at the home and home series but also see them forgetting it was against marquee names, but certainly was not against marquee programs of that day.

If we look at strength of schedule--a hot button when conversations about 'Ville and Duke come up--Bama has a far, far better schedule with the neutral site games than they did with the home and home series.

 

[TUSKtimes]

It's funny you bring this up. If we compare the two decades prior to these neutral site games we'll find the competition is better with the current format than it was before Alabama started scheduling these types of games.

Over those twenty years we're looking at a Penn State series that was more than a simple home and home due to its length. The games against OU and UCLA as well as a home and home with NC State were the other OOC games Bama faced over that 20 year period.

NC State compared to Duke, or Louisville. Hands down the two latter teams are far better competition than NC State was at the time. Fact of the matter is the same could be said for the home and home with UCLA--best finish for the Bruins was a seven win season in '00.

I see Bama fans looking longingly and lovingly at the home and home series but also see them forgetting it was against marquee names, but certainly was not against marquee programs of that day.

If we look at strength of schedule--a hot button when conversations about 'Ville and Duke come up--Bama has a far, far better schedule with the neutral site games than they did with the home and home series.

That assessment ranks right up there with the evolution theory. Heavy on the dogma and short on evidence. You obviously want to give all power 5 programs more cred for today's football then yesteryear. I assume you aren't including FCS teams, but in your insistence to keep coming back to this comparison, maybe you are.

I've tried to support the philosophical angle to all this as much as this new math you keep bringing up. Why is a harder schedule in Alabama's best interest? The product is just better for everyone to watch. Coach Saban and I understand that the more aggressive the schedule the advantage goes to the most talented, deeper teams. Kinda like when Tiger smoked the Master's field and the PGA felt compelled to "Tigerproof" the Masters and other tourneys they hold so dear. Did it work? Nope, Tiger continued to smoke the competition, unlike anything we've seen in golfing history. So much that Tiger was only entering the harder tournaments to make sure other less talented golfers were eliminated before they teed off.

As long as the NCAA levels the field and mandates the harder course for everyone to play, the advantage goes to Alabama. I call it "Saban proofing."

 

[alabama mike]

I am not an Ohio State fan by an stretch of the imagination but one thing they do that I like is that they schedule one game a year with an instate school; Ohio U, Cincinnati, Miami of Ohio, Akron, Kent State and Toledo. I'd have not problem if Bama did that with Troy, Jacksonville, South Alabama and UAB. To me, this makes more sense to me as a fan than to play one of the directional schools we play. Bama would still get revenue with lodging and food pumped into the Tuscaloosa area. I have no problem with one game that is FBS.