Who will replace UCLA in 2022, 2023?

Submitted by UMVAFAN on October 28th, 2019 at 10:49 AM

When it was announced that we we were dropping UCLA from the football schedule in 2022 and 2023, most assumed an announcement was coming about a renewal with Notre Dame. An announcement did come, but the ND series will renew in 14 years! Which begs the question: who fills in the gap? In looking at future schedules for other programs, the most intriguing options with open dates and available games slots in those years are Florida State, LSU and Stanford. I'd be happy with any of those as potential opponents. I doubt LSU would play us, but would Harbaugh want to play either FSU or Stanford given his connections with the coaches at each school (assuming FSU doesn't fire Taggart)? Any insider info about who we'll play?

Sione For Prez

October 28th, 2019 at 10:57 AM ^

There are only 11 games on the schedule both years so we have more announcements coming. Without looking into it, my guess would be 2023 will be a home G5 cash game and 2022 will be a neutral site or that international game Harbaugh referenced and they will try to move Colorado state out of Labor Day weekend.

EDIT: There is still a possibility they replace UCLA with a P5 team that was willing to switch which years were at home. But I think a neutral and a home against G5 are more likely because you will get massive revenue from a home game on top of the neutral game payout. This will more than make up having to pay for UCLA's buyout plus the payouts for the G5 team.

Joined: 11/16/2015

MGoPoints: 10674

Ezekiels Creatures

October 28th, 2019 at 2:22 PM ^

You sure you want to face a coach as tough as Les Miles? Kansas has already shown clear improvement in 1/2 a season with him. They aren't a doormat anymore. And the nearly beat Texas. The BIG10 is tough enough. Tough games can produce more injuries than the easy games. Michigan has a tough enough conference to play in as it is. They don't need to add tough teams outside the conference.

I understand the idea that you want to have a high level of competition so you have a good looking strength of schedule. But strength of schedule doesn't really matter to the playoff selection committee. You have to win. Remember Washington got in 3 years ago, when most people thought it should have been either Penn St, or maybe even Michigan? But Washington got in because they were 11-1, and both Penn St and Michigan had 2 losses. Penn St and Michigan both had tougher schedules than Washington. But that didn't change the choice. Washington had 1 more win. So they got in. 11-1 looks better on tv than 10-2. Washington ended up getting dominated by Alabama in the 1st round.

And regardless of all the talk that the eye test doesn't matter, it does. How badly you beat a team catches the eye of the committee.

Michigan needs to schedule a very bad team, at home, and then blow them away to kingdom come. I don't like it that it's that way. But it is. So you have to deal with things the way they are.

 

I really DON'T want Michigan to play a Les Miles team. If strength of schedule mattered, and getting 2 losses wasn't so damaging to your chances of getting into the playoffs, then yes, I'd love to see Michigan vs Kansas. What a cool thing it would be to see Les Miles on one sidelines, and Jim Harbaugh on the other!

But not today. Not now.

Joined: 03/14/2019

MGoPoints: 28664

SAMgO

October 28th, 2019 at 10:51 AM ^

We didn't buy out UCLA to play another P5 program. Michigan is realizing that we were overzealous with NC scheduling, the risk/return doesn't make sense with the higher chance of loss and essentially no end-of-year CFP committee benefit, and it's smarter to just play MAC schools at home.

Joined: 07/15/2013

MGoPoints: 18745

GOMBLOG

October 28th, 2019 at 1:13 PM ^

I remember when the CFP was announced there was all this talk about SOS and how the CFP would create better NC schedules.   Basically it’s come full circle and everything is back to the way it used to be with nothing but cupcakes filling NC schedules.  

Joined: 08/29/2019

MGoPoints: 2349

UMFanatic96

October 28th, 2019 at 10:51 AM ^

They announced that it's replaced with Hawaii (2022) and East Carolina (2023). 7 home games is more important to them than who they play. Also, the Playoff Committee agrees...

Joined: 06/21/2016

MGoPoints: 6348

Naked Bootlegger

October 28th, 2019 at 10:55 AM ^

As others have mentioned, opponents have already been announced.   But the bigger point:  FSU, LSU, or Stanford will probably not schedule a one-off game with us without a reciprocal visit.    Maybe those reciprocal visits can be arranged in later years and still allow us 7 home games, but it's a difficult logistical challenge.

Joined: 01/28/2011

MGoPoints: 34726

Perkis-Size Me

October 28th, 2019 at 10:55 AM ^

Pretty sure they just announced Hawaii and ECU a day or two ago. Should be two easy G5 wins and one less barrier to playoff contention. 

I'm alright with dropping UCLA, to be honest. They don't move the needle much nationally, even with Kelly appearing to get things stabilized. But I do hope we don't drop the Texas and Oklahoma series. Those games would suck to lose off the schedule. 

Joined: 11/30/2011

MGoPoints: 105771

oriental andrew

October 28th, 2019 at 11:00 AM ^

Correct. While they did add ECU and Hawaii, they still have only 11 games scheduled and 2 open dates in 2022 and 2023. Also, 2022 has 7 home dates, but 2023 only has 6.

2022 open dates: Sep 17, Nov 5

2022 OOC opponents: Home vs. Colorado State (9/3) and Hawaii (9/10)

2022 Home opponents (7): CSU, Hawaii, Maryland, PSU, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana

 

2023 open dates: Sep 9, Sep 30

2023 OOC opponents: Home vs. ECU (9/2) and Bowling Green (9/16)

2022 home opponents (6): ECU, BG, msu, Purdue, Rutgers, osu

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 56151

J.

October 28th, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^

Seriously, these "stop playing difficult opponents because it hurts your chances to make the playoff" arguments make my skin crawl.

Nobody who was at Saturday's game should have been arguing "man, I wish Michigan were playing East Carolina right now."

Joined: 03/11/2012

MGoPoints: 13057

UM_Ftown

October 28th, 2019 at 11:47 AM ^

Exactly, I chalk it up to loser mentality. Hell, that stadium would have been half full after halftime on Saturday if it weren't for #8 ND. 

You have 1 undefeated team, and 7 1-loss power 5 teams, I'm glad Michigan played the powerhouses of Eastern Michigan and Tulane to help their resume. 

Not saying Michigan should be playing Alabama every year but I thought it would have been awesome to play UCLA in a series. 

Joined: 10/20/2018

MGoPoints: 7872

saveferris

October 28th, 2019 at 12:57 PM ^

That's bullshit.  Clamoring for tougher schedules out of one side of your mouth while complaining about Harbaugh's record against ranked opponents, lack of conference titles and playoff appearances out of the other is hypocritical.  If you look at those programs who have routinely appeared in the CFP, you see programs that have great talent, but also have meh schedules. 

There's something to be said for not having to bring your A-game week-in and week-out throughout the season.  Less punishment gets inflicted on your starters.  You can spend more time gameplanning for higher profile games.  Do you know  how many ranked teams Alabama has had to play thusfar?  None.  You know how many they'll have played by the end of the season?  Two.  Clemson?  None.  By the end of the season?  Probably none.  Ohio State?  Two which will eventually be four.

Michigan has a harder schedule than any team in the Top 5 without playing Notre Dame, so clamor all you want for better quality opponents, but you have to accept that you're probably putting yourself at a disadvantage for end-of-season accolades.  Pretending that Michigan in the past held themselves to some mythical higher standard that was routinely met is just being dishonest.

In a college football environment where players are more and more free to change teams at will coupled with having to win divisions before you can win a championship and then have a zero or single loss total to even have a prayer of moving onto a playoff to compete for a national title; programs should consider being more strategic about their scheduling.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 24841

J.

October 28th, 2019 at 1:04 PM ^

I don't care about end-of-season accolades.  That has always been little but a popularity contest (see: Bo never winning a national title, despite having the best team in the country at least twice).

Michigan absolutely held themselves to a higher standard in the past.  And what have they gotten for lowering their standards, anyway?

The 1997 non-conference schedule was Notre Dame, Baylor, and Colorado.

Joined: 03/11/2012

MGoPoints: 13057

saveferris

October 28th, 2019 at 3:27 PM ^

1997 was a once in a 70 year event.  I'm OK with your opinion by the way that you want to walk the hard road to greatness, but that means we have to accept stumbling a lot.  What I take issue with are posters on here who seem to think that Michigan should play the hardest schedule in the country and achieve Alabama and Clemson level of results year-in and year-out.  Historically, that hasn't been the level of performance that Michigan has been able to achieve.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 24841