Board Poll: Michigan Football Schedule
Which first 4 Michigan games would you prefer to see next month?
A: Hawaii, Connecticut, Colorado State, Maryland.
B: Hawaii, @ Texas, Colorado State, Maryland.
There is no wrong answer, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just curious what this community thinks. I'll give my opinion below.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:07 AM ^
I am all about scheduling at least 1 solid OOC game each season. Since our last national championship, Michigan has gone undefeated in their OOC games 9 times, resulting in 0 national championships.
Over that same stretch I have gone to 7 fantastic quality opponent road games with several groups of friends and had a blast win or lose (mostly lose). I would prefer to have those lasting memories and life moments with friends than beat up on 3 home cupcakes every year.
I'd actually prefer: Hawaii, @ Texas, Ole Miss, Maryland.
For those that chose A, I simply ask you these questions:
1. When has a difficult OOC loss this century derailed a national championship season?
2. Do you honestly think Michigan is in a position to beat OSU, BigTen West Champ, Georgia, then Alabama to end a season?
3. If you for some reason happen to answer yes to #2, do you honestly think that team that you’re envisioning would lose @ Washington or UCLA or Texas in September?
Bonus: if a Michigan team that you’re envisioning would be good enough to beat osu, Georgia, and Alabama happened to lose @ Texas, do you really think Michigan at 12-1 would be left out of the playoffs?
August 12th, 2022 at 11:33 AM ^
1 - OSU last year possibly. If they don't play Oregon and are undefeated when they play UM, it's possible they get in at #4 (11-1 loss on the road to a great team). I'm sure there are other 2-loss teams that missed the CFP due to a 2nd loss in a tough conference. EDIT: '17 #2 Buckeyes lose to #5 OK in 2nd game (12-1 OK makes CFP). They also lose @Kinnick. In B1G, they beat #2 PSU, #12 MSU and #4 WI but at 10-2, they're obviously out of the CFP conversation. If they don't play OK and beat Toledo, they're in the conversation for CFP despite the week 9 loss.
The issue isn't the one loss OOC. It's the 2nd loss in a tough conference that, if only a team's first, would keep them in the conversation. I'd prefer to watch @TX, but if we're talking about chances to make the CFP then the UConn game gives UM a better chance.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:46 AM ^
No chance OSU would have still gotten in last year at 11-1 coming off a sound beating, not winning their division and if they had a weak OOC schedule.
Think about it this way: even if they won the game against Oregon but lost by 15 to Michigan and didn't win the conference, it would have been a tough argument to put them in over 13-0 Cinci. It would have been very controversial. But if they didn't even play the Oregon game? No chance. So it was still a good idea for the play Oregon because a win could have helped them overcome the UM loss. Without playing it, zero margin for not winning the division.
Cinci still absolutely would have been in.
Also, the committee has been very consistent about punishing teams substantially for convincing losses (this is why OSUs 2017 Iowa loss was almost certainly a disqualifier regardless of the OU result, much like the lopsided Purdue loss in 2018 kept them out despite being a 12-1 Big ten champ. Oh, and they also had a weak OOC schedule that year (unfortunately for them TCU ended up bad that year).
For anyone that doesn't think SoS matters, that year OU was a 12-1 conference champ with a 27 SoS and OSU was a 12-1 conference champ with a 46 SoS. Had OSU had a better SoS maybe they could have overcome the nature of the Purdue loss (which the committee repeatedly cited as the reason for their being ranked relatively low).
August 12th, 2022 at 11:49 AM ^
You might be right, but it would have been debated. The Oregon loss made it moot. Just addressing the question asked is all.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:55 AM ^
It would have been debated certainly, but ultimately they wouldn't have been in the CFP. So no, that loss didn't derail their national title chances. The Michigan loss did. The one they lost 42-27. Did I mention 42-27?
But yes, there is an extremely tiny chance that a loss to a tough non-conf opponent might derail the legitimate chances of a national title contender. But as UNCWolverine points out, it's so small that it's not worth ruining a non-conf schedule for.
Teams are also as likely or more likely to be helped by a quality non-conference game like OSU was in 2016.
When you don't play a tough OOC game, like Michigan this year, you have to win your conference with one or fewer losses which is especially tough for Michigan with OSU at the end of the schedule every year. If Michigan were to win a quality OOC game, they could potentially lose to OSU and still both get in (and had OSU beaten Oregon last year, then they'd have had a real argument for getting in over Cinci even with the loss to M). As the M schedule is this year, no chance of that.
August 12th, 2022 at 12:15 PM ^
I don't think it's tiny. There's a reason Cincy was the first G5 team to play in the CFP, but I'm not really arguing about last year (it was an example off the top of my head). The 2017 Buckeyes may have had their chances derailed as I added to my post above. My point is that most CFP participants are 1-loss teams. Most of those losses are in conference. I doubt many of those required big OOC wins to help them get in. I think the '16 Buckeyes get in with any win and didn't need the OK win. Sometimes it might help to have that big win. But if one loses a tough OOC toss-up, one makes it that much harder to get into the playoffs.
UM's conference schedule is tough enough to lose a B1G game and still get in with 1 conference loss. They don't need a tough OOC opponent to make that happen. Thus, an OOC toss-up game is riskier to schedule than to not - as it relates to playoff chances.
August 12th, 2022 at 12:44 PM ^
For teams like Michigan, the chances of being a national title contender are extremely tiny in the first place. Even last years team was not really a national title contender and that was the best team we've had in 20 years! They won a home game against an elite team which was awesome but then they would have needed to win two more games against better teams in neutral stadiums. The odds of winning both of those was less than 10% even after getting into the playoff (which itself was a very small chance).
That's the point UNCWolverine is making. Let's just play fun games and not worry about something that isn't even going to come into play.
Bringing up cincy only proves the point that if you are a national title contender, you need to play a tough schedule.
The reason a G5 team hasn't made it is 1) that G5 teams are extremely rarely actually good enough to even be considered top 4 and 2) don't play schedules tough enough to prove it. Teams that are arguably top 4, should want to play schedules in which they have a chance to prove they're top 4.
Most CFP participants are one-loss teams because they are very good, top 4 football teams. It's not because they play easy schedules. That a logical fallacy. One loss is not a sufficient condition to making it. Again, to the point above about Cincy, you have to play good teams to prove you're top 4. How many one loss G5 teams have been left out?
Houston in 2015 (they were 18th in strength of record which is heavily SoS based)
UCF was 12-0 in 2017 but they were only 9th in strength of record.
In 2019 Memphis, Boise St and App St were all 12-1 going into selection Sunday. None made it. Why? Strength of records of 17 or worse because of poor SoS.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:24 PM ^
I was just answering his 1st question (which doesn't help his argument, IMO). UM doesn't need a strong OOC to get into the CFP (which is significant regardless of winning the NC). The B1G is strong enough for them to get in with 1-loss many years, and a toss-up OOC game hurts their chances to get in, generally speaking.
Again, I'd prefer to watch @TX instead of UConn, but that wasn't the question to which I responded.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:57 PM ^
But your answer to his question is not correct. Because again, that Oregon loss wasn't what kept them out. And in fact, had they won, then they maybe would have overcome the loss to Michigan. But not playing it wouldn't have gotten them in. So it was still a good idea for them to play it.
And yes, I completely agree that UM doesn't need a strong OOC to get into the CFP. But it leaves them with a much more difficult path. They now have to beat OSU on the road AND win the conference with one or fewer losses.
If they played a quality non-conf opponent, they could have a much easier path because 11-1 with a loss to OSU would leave them with a pretty decent shot to get them in a la OSU in 2016 and Bama in 2017.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:36 PM ^
My argument wasn't just about 2021 OSU (they were a quick example). There are other examples as well. If they don't play OR and have 1-loss then they have a decent argument last year. Their 2017 team has a decent argument with only the Kinnick loss. On the flip side, I think their 2016 team gets in even without the OK win (beating a Toledo instead, for instance).
August 12th, 2022 at 6:14 PM ^
But they wouldn't have a decent argument. They would have had a 15 point loss, no division title, a poor strength of record (which again, is critical), a weak SoS.
And the 2017 team probably wouldn't have made it either because of the lopsided Kinnick loss, and we know this because of the very next year:
2018 OSU is as far as you need to look. 12-1 and they won the conference but didn't make it because they had a lopsided loss to Purdue. That team had a much better argument than your 11-1 2021 hypothetical and a hypothetical 2017 that didn't play OU and they still didn't make it.
August 12th, 2022 at 8:06 PM ^
2107 they beat #2, #12, #4, won the division and won the conference. That’s a decent argument. Maybe not good enough (we’ll never know) but a 1-loss B1G champ is always going to have a pretty good case to make.
August 12th, 2022 at 9:33 PM ^
Oh boy, you're using ranks at the time of the game? Yikes, that's irrelevent.
They beat the teams the committee though were #6, #9 and #16 at the end of the season, which is still pretty good! They also lost BIG to unranked Iowa which by itself puts them in a tough spot. Again, see their 2018 season.
It's certainly possible they might have gotten in despite that loss if they didn't play OU. But they definitely would have gotten if they beat OU. So they were more likely to be helped by playing that game than hurt by it. Which is the reason to play good teams. It's more likely to help than hurt your CFP chances.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:01 PM ^
Cincinnati was extremely lucky last year in that the only real game that they played was against Notre Dame and beat 11-1 Notre Dame. Had Cincinnati's win come against anyone else, Notre Dame would have gone instead of Cincinnati. What happened is that the committee was left with two teams for the #4 slot in Cincinnati and Notre Dame and since Cincinnati beat Notre Dame in South Bend that pretty much did it for the Irish.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:25 PM ^
They were lucky that they scheduled Notre Dame yes. You are 100% correct. Thats exactly why everyone should try to schedule tough teams!!! Had they not played ND they wouldn't have been in. BINGO. Playing good teams is good for CFP chances.
August 12th, 2022 at 10:52 PM ^
It wasn't a matter of good teams it simply worked out that the ONE team in the whole country they needed to beat they happen to have played.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:16 PM ^
I believe you are overlooking an important detail about OSU last year. Even had they beaten Oregon, the CFP committee would not take the 42-27 beat down very lightly.
Losing 2 games in one year and getting in is one thing, but losing 42-27 puts a whole different light on the record.
Someone cannot lose 42-27 AND have 2 losses and reasonably believe they should be in the Top 4.
Even IF you lose 42-27 to a top 2 or 3 team, its not a good look
The committee cannot (and should not) let any team that gets a beatdown 42-27 at any point in the season. Let alone get a 42-27 beatdown on the last game before the final selection.
The only reasonable 2 loss team should be allowed into a 4 team CFP is one that suffers 2 very close losses and there would have to be some mitigating circumstance (some crazy f'd up play that swung the game to a loss) in those losses. When you get beatdown 42-27, your toast. End of discussion.
As for my preference, for me its either way. IF you schedule a tough OCC and lose, then you pretty much have to remain perfect the rest of the year in a very tough conference (see my statements above). That's a huge challenge. A quality OCC win does give you some wiggle room through the conference schedule (so long as you don't take a 42-27 beatdown).
However, the alternate path is taking in a schedule that allows you to build the teams progress through the season. We all feel (as I believe we should) that Michigan should roll through the first part of the season allowing them to obtains the seasons identity. Then come November see where it can end up.
This year sets up very nicely to be a 1 game season (if you view if CFP or bust). While there are some challenges and going 11-0 is very tough, this team does have the chance to do exactly that...
So from a fan enjoyment perspective, certainly a game @Texas, or OU, or UCLA, or @ Washington is great. From the perspective of building a championship season, this schedule is about as nicely set up as anyone can ask for.....
Did I mention that a 42-27 score weighs heavily on CFP minds when deciding on who should get into the CFP?
August 12th, 2022 at 12:33 PM ^
But OSU playing with the flu and in blizzard of 2021, the committee would have let their darlings in.
August 12th, 2022 at 2:56 PM ^
Show me where it has come down to strength of schedule. An 11-1 Ohio State with a loss to Michigan is right in the conversation. I'll bet many committee members would go, who wins in a head to head of Cincinnati vs Ohio State.
August 12th, 2022 at 6:32 PM ^
Many examples:
in 2017 11-1 Alabama got in over 12-1 Wisconsin even though they didn't win their division because they had a better SoS and hence had a top 4 strength of record (which almost automatically gets you in and is literally a metric for how difficult it was to achieve your record given your schedule). And Alabama's loss was to Auburn who the committee ranked behind Wisconsin's loss, OSU.
That was a really good Wisconsin team that played an atrocious non-conf schedule and left themselves with zero margin for error. Couldn't even overcome a single loss to a very good OSU team by six in the conference title game. Because crap OOC (which they really can't afford to do in the west).
The same year UCF was undefeated but was left out because of SoS (there are at least four one loss G5 teams in the CFP era that also didn't sniff the playoffs because of SoS).
In 2018 both OU and OSU won their respective conferences at 12-1 and OU got in with a SoS of 27 compared to OSUs 46. To be fair the committee said it was the nature of the Purdue loss that excluded OSU and I buy that to an extent but we don't know what would have happened if OSU lost a more competitive game to Purdue.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:57 AM ^
I hate to admit it but you're right. The 2014 bucks lost to VT and got into the playoff - barely - by sweeping the conference schedule. Every other OSU team since then didn't lose in the non-con - except for the 2017 edition that missed out on the playoff, largely because they lost to OU (but also got pasted by Iowa). I don't know if 2017 counts in your argument's favor, but the margin for error is just 1 game. CFP doesn't really look at strength of schedule as much as your overall record.
Still, I look forward to the P5 challenges. The Washington game was fun last year - even though I'm watching from across the country. I'm sure game day was exciting.
August 12th, 2022 at 12:12 PM ^
It's 2017 OSU for sure. They went to their bowl game at #5 regardless of the 2 losses. To say they wouldn't have been top-4 after beating #3 UW in the B1G championship as a 1-loss (even being pasted by Iowa) is absurd.
Regardless of whether we can prove a negative about the 9 undefeated OOC seasons, I think everyone understands it's about margin-of-error. I can't fault anyone for thinking that UM is not elite, and therefore should enjoy the OOC, even at risk to CFB selection, because it's pretty unlikely anyway.
But don't be upset at the optimists who think we're trending toward being elite, and should therefore not schedule #5 in September when we also have to play 9 conference games & a B1G CG
August 12th, 2022 at 12:24 PM ^
The committee pretty heavily weighs SoS because it is a large component of the strength of record metric which is almost a perfect predictor of the top 4. Committee sticks closely to it. It's why OSU got in without winning their division in 2016, it's why Bama did the same the following year. Both were controversial but both with top 4 in Strength of Record.
And yes, if you lose a tough non conference game, it can hurt, but if you win (which should be a better than 50% chance if you're a legit national title contender), it can help like it did for OSU in 2016.
Take them in 2015 for example as well. They lost just one game by 3 points to the Big Ten champ. They crushed a good Michigan team to finish 11-1. But they played a weak non-conference schedule and ended with a weak #10 strength of schedule. Had they played and beaten better non-conf opponents that metric would have been higher and they could have made an argument for being in over OU.
You don't think that team wishes they had played a tougher non-conf schedule? That was an insane team. But they left themselves zero margin for error and lost a dumb weather game to MSU and that was it.
To UNCWolverines point, if you are a legit national title contender, you want as many chances to prove it. If you aren't which is most teams - including every Michigan team for the past two decades, including last years team which was never going to beat OSU, UGA and Bama in a row - most of the time, then who cares? Schedule fun games.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:21 PM ^
Bull. The committee uses an eye test more than anything. 2016? Ohio State got into the play offs because they were 11-1 and Penn State was 11-2 with a bad loss to Pitt and a blowout loss in Ann Arbor. You are not getting in with 2 losses.
2017? Bama did not have a top 4 strength of schedule. Florida State never came close to that #3 ranking. They escaped Mississippi State. Bama benefited from the eye test, if anyone had a complaint, it should have been Wisconsin.
If Michigan can start consistently putting up 11-win seasons, then Michigan may get some of those benefit of the doubts committee votes. You have a conference playing 8 conference games and 1 game against an FCS opponent, how can you possibly give that school a higher strength of schedule?
As a fan it's nice to see a bowl style match up but if you are playing for the CFP, stick to the cream puffs.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:32 PM ^
Yes, I agree with the eye test assertion which supports my point. Shouldn't be scared to play tough teams because if you're a good team, you'll look good against those tough teams. Losses don't matter as much as how you look, so again, don't worry about scheduling to make yourself look better because the committee won't care.
2017 Bama absolutely had a top 4 Strength of Record. That's a very key metric and it heavily weighs SoS. It's literally a measure of how difficult it was to have your record, given your schedule.
The committee almost always (5 of the last 7 years) picks exactly the top 4 in SoS. The two controversial selections of teams that didn't win their divisions (2016 OSU and 2017 Bama) were both top 4 in SoR.
The exceptions are 2018 OSU which was top 4 but left out because of the Purdue beatdown (said it multiple times above and to your eye test point, the committee is pretty unforgiving when it comes to getting beat down) and a weak SoS, and 2019 UGA which was #4 but had two conference losses, one by 20 points (again, mostly a disqualifier) and didn't win their division.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:19 PM ^
That's a good example, fair enough.
I guess I believe last year is our ceiling at this point. That said I'd prefer to go to a great away OOC game every year over playing 3 cupcakes at home where I'll probably not even watch the second halves, then get smokes by Georgia/Alabama in a semi every 5 years.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:15 AM ^
Absolutely would have preferred Texas and the brisket I'd have at the watch party.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:18 AM ^
C: Hawaii, Colorado State, @Texas.
If we can't beat Texas by Game #3, we shouldn't even be talking about a National Championship.
I'm in favor of at least one solid nonconference game each year. Unless it's a blowout, I don't think an early OOC loss will hurt that much, especially if we won the OSU game. If we lose the OSU game, then a CFP appearance is unlikely anyway, regardless of the OOC wins/losses.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:21 AM ^
C. The one we currently have. Three games to build some chemistry and then Maryland to build off that chemistry.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:48 AM ^
A. is the schedule we have (although in the wrong order I believe).
August 12th, 2022 at 11:25 AM ^
Personally I would much rather play one potential top 25 team in the non conference because at least it gives you something to measure by. Wheb you schedule non conference teams you don’t really know how good these teams will be when you actually play them (ex UDUB last season) but you do get credit for trying. When LSU won the naty in 2019 they played at Texas and by no means was Texas a top team but it was on the road in a hostile environment and they dominated every aspect of the game. That game made LSU a legit title contender. With our schedule a 4-0 start with all blowouts really won’t mean much. Again any thing less then 4 20+ point victories would be pathetic IMO but won’t legitimize the season sadly
August 12th, 2022 at 11:36 AM ^
That LSU-UT game was fun as hell to watch, but I wouldn't say LSU dominated in that game (573 vs. 530 total yards). It was a shootout. But yeah, what a thriller. And it showcased what LSU's offense would look like that year.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:50 AM ^
I don't recall LSU thoroughly dominating that game. Their offense got whatever it wanted, sure, but so did Texas' more or less. I remember it being fairly back and forth but with LSU routinely being up by somewhere between 7-10 points. The kind of game where they were consistently juuuuust out of reach from Texas tying or going ahead.
The Alabama game was where I truly felt like LSU was a title contender. When they went into Tuscaloosa and just got whatever they wanted. Alabama made that game look a lot closer than it was. Then when they put an absolute start-to-finish beating on Georgia in the SEC title game, the title was completely their's to lose at that point.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:27 PM ^
Yep, I was at that LSU Texas game in Austin to help fill my desire to see good OOC games. Also went to LSU vs Wisconsin at Lambeau.
This is what our shit scheduling has resulted in, going to non Michigan great OOC matchups.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:24 PM ^
And tell us about the time you went to a Wisconsin game in the CFP.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:25 AM ^
the second one because big name opponents are fun and the buildup to the games are more fun that waiting for a pre-determined 63-3 destruction of UConn with 3rd stringers playing all 4th quarter, though that is likely good for player development
August 12th, 2022 at 11:35 AM ^
B. I’d welcome a solid OOC opponent every September. My only “wish” associated with that opponent be - “home and home”, instead of neutral site locations. There’s something about the on campus game day experience that should be valued and relished.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:40 AM ^
I would rather B, but IMO only in a home-and-home situation - I don't want to play another neutral field game like Bama in '13 or Florida in '17.
However, while a loss to Texas in the non-con won't keep us out of the playoffs if we beat OSU and win the Big Ten, it could keep us out if we bookended 10 wins with losses to both Texas and OSU. If we schedule cupcakes and then lose a competitive game to OSU - we still have a shot at the playoffs at 11-1. Even if we lose to a what end up being #1 OSU & #2 Texas by 1 point each, our shot at the playoffs are gone because no one with 2 losses will be in a 4 team playoff. If the playoffs expand, then we have a different conversation.
So while most fans probably prefer option B, I understand why coaches/ADs would choose option A and give their team a greater shot at the playoffs.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:02 PM ^
a loss to Texas in the non-con won't keep us out of the playoffs if we beat OSU and win the Big Ten
It wouldn't simply be a matter of winning the league. We'd most likely need to go undefeated in Big Ten play. Dropping one Big Ten game - against anyone - would most likely have us out of contention before the OSU game happened.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:42 AM ^
The one with Texas definitely. As a kid I preferred bodybag games where Michigan could handily win 56-0 but as I've gotten older I just feel like those games are a joke and a waste of time.
I prefer the college game to the NFL, but if there's one area where the NFL is superior it's definitely parity in scheduling. There's no reason that Michigan or Alabama should be playing non P-5 teams and if I had one wish it'd be for some sort of scheduling overhaul that gave us lots of more competitive games. I'd rather have a situation where 9-3 is a damn good season and most of the games are competitive into the final few drives.
August 12th, 2022 at 12:03 PM ^
I'm with you. I personally enjoy watching college football more than I do the NFL, I pay more attention to it, but the NFL is a better, more sustainable product because of its parity. You don't have the same 3-4 teams making the conference championship every year, the same 3-4 teams gobbling up all the talent and just being top-to-bottom better than every other team in the league by several country miles.
There's true competition throughout the league, worsts to firsts happen all the time, and that by itself allows the league to garner much more sustained interest and eyeballs from the masses. Even though college football has a huge following, there are plenty out there who have become less interested and fatigued from watching Alabama, Clemson, OSU, and the revolving door of Georgia/Oklahoma/ND go to the playoff every year.
The Jaguars might be a joke right now, but it is entirely plausible that within 3-5 years that could all be changed. Same with the Lions (ducks). You think a school like Indiana's, Vanderbilt's, Syracuse's or Oregon State's capabilities to win a national title are really ever going to change? They have inherent disadvantages they will almost certainly never be able to overcome.
August 12th, 2022 at 12:18 PM ^
Nickel, like you - I prefer college to the NFL. And, the reason, IMO, why you see such relative parity in the NFL is the league wide talent. Certainly, some teams have greater depth of talent / rosters, than others. However, the range of talent throughout the League is far less than the college game.
I don’t know the answer to this question - but, the question is - what’s the biggest point NFL spread in a regular season game over the past season? Past five seasons? I wonder how many NFL games have a spread greater than 14 points. My guess - very, very few. Yet, in a few weeks, you have a Top 5 college matchup with a spread of 14.5 points.
As for scheduling - I like P5 opponents all season. However, it will NEVER happen in the SEC. That conference values winning games far too much. So, schools like Presbyterian, Western Carolina, Liberty, Austin Peay, Mercer, Troy, SE Louisiana, Samford, Charlotte, and many others - will always have someone willing to play them, in a game that the visiting teams can cash out in.
August 12th, 2022 at 1:36 PM ^
Talking about teams looking to cash in, Kent State's OOC schedule this year includes:
At Washington (YTW)
At Oklahoma (YTO) and
At Georgia (YTG).
Are you kidding me? Maybe the "experience" will set them up for a run at the MAC title -- assuming they have any healthy bodies left.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:43 AM ^
Option B
August 12th, 2022 at 11:47 AM ^
Personally. I think we should start every season with a tough, marquee OOC matchup. App. State every year.
/s
August 12th, 2022 at 11:58 AM ^
too soon
August 12th, 2022 at 11:52 AM ^
Fuck the hard OOC schedule, do what the SEC has done for years, put the cupcakes at the end of the year and use it as practice for the playoffs. With 9 conference games Michigan doesn't need to shoot itself in the foot.
August 12th, 2022 at 2:39 PM ^
LSU has played Texas, Wisconsin(in Green Bay) and will play FSU in a few weeks.
Georgia played Clemson last year, Oregon this season and Oklahoma next season.
Bama is playing Texas, Scheduled to play Wisconsin, has played at PSU in the past.
The notion that the SEC doesn’t schedule tough OOC games is kind of washed. Yes they have a cupcake game later in the year, but that’s no different than a B1G team beating up on the MAC at the beginning of the year.
August 12th, 2022 at 3:38 PM ^
"LSU has played Texas, Wisconsin(in Green Bay) and will play FSU in a few weeks."
LSU played Wisconsin in 2016. They played in Austin against a Texas team which went 8-5 and has Florida State suddenly become good?
"Bama is playing Texas, Scheduled to play Wisconsin, has played at PSU in the past."
Texas is moving to the SEC in two years so it's not really that big of an out of conference game.
Schedule to play Wisconsin, let's not count those chickens before they have hatched.
Bama and Penn State last went head to head in 2011.
August 12th, 2022 at 11:59 AM ^
A.
Texas is on the schedule later, and with the difficulty of the B1G schedule, I'm good with an occasional year without a Power 5 non-conference opponent.