Michigan's Mad Magicians: Hot Topics

Showing posts with label Hot Topics. Show all posts

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Hot Topics: Should The B1G Add Maryland And Rutgers?

Hot Topics: Should Denard Robinson Return Kickoffs?

Hot Topics: Who Should Be The Starting Running Back

Hot Topics: Reactions To The End of Notre Dame vs. Michigan

Hot Topics: Can The 'Ten Year War' Be Repeated With Hoke And Meyer?

Hot Topics: Who Is Michigan's 3rd Biggest Basketball Rival?

Hot Topics: Should 2014 Prospect Drake Harris Play Football Or Basketball?

On a regular basis, our writers will break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and express their personal opinions regarding the issue. Topics cover everything from major athletic department decisions to team apparel. Writers have their own opinions and readers and their views may not necessarily represent Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact our writers via Twitter with their own thoughts.

Drake Harris a 2014 recruit that has indicated that he would like to play both football and basketball in college. He will making his decision soon and there has been debate surrounding whether he should do both or choose one sport. We've asked our writers which sport he should play if he only decides to play one sport:

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Put The #GoBlue On The Field?

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Have Offered A Long Snapper For 2013?

1) Alright, alright, I know everyone is mad about the scholarship offer to long snapper Scott Syniewski. Well, I'm not everyone and I like it. Let's be realistic, it's a position of need and I tend to think that the coaching staff is pretty smart and know what they are doing. I mean, they didn't give out a scholarship for no reason. He's not rated on most sites, but I have seen that one site rates him as a 5* and the number 2 long snapper in the country. In the past, these guys are usually walk-ons that are taught the position and that has worked out for Michigan, but I think the coaches want to leave nothing to chance. The kicking game has been iffy in years past, so I think the solidity of the position is comforting. He is a good player and will bring great competition into camp, possibly compete for the starting nod. A horrible snap could cost a team a game. We're all so quick to judge, but I think the coaches know talent and need when they see it, so why not go after him.

2) Risky business. Yes, it's very risky, the commitment puts the 2013 class at 21. We all know they are looking to be able to finish up with probably 24 or 25 TOPS! But with the targets that they are high after the likelihood of getting all of them are slim. Kendall Fuller, Derrick Green, Laquon Treadwell to name a few. It's going to be a long drawn out process and don't get me wrong, I would love to see all of those guys commit to Michigan, but they are all going to be tough gets, and likely not committing for quite some time. So if you put all your eggs in the basket of a few players, you might miss out on something that you see as a need for the team. This kid is a good football player and great at his position, albeit long snapper. I think with Sparty poaching our walk-on from a year ago, it's something that the coaches felt they needed to address. It's not the commit that everyone wanted to see and I was certainly surprised, but if he goes towards making our team that much better, then by all means do it. Defensive linemen and linebackers are so big, fast, and talented now a days you need a good talented kid to be your long snapper. There are key parts in a game that could be messed up and cost you the game and messing up a snap is one of them. If this kid is solid at the position and the coaches like him, then so do I.

Thomas Beindit - Against Michigan Offering a Long Snapper For 2013

1) A short while ago MSU was able to "steal" a recruit that had previously committed to Michigan for the 2012 recruiting class. This recruit was a long snapper, but had no scholarship offer from Michigan. MSU offered him a scholarship and he decided to jump from Michigan's 2012 recruiting class to MSU's as a result. Most Michigan fans made fun of MSU for offering a scholarship to a long snapper. Many said it was a sign of how their recruiting efforts had failed so badly they had to offer a long snapper. Well, Michigan just offered a long snapper for 2013. Whether this was a result of losing that 2012 recruit to MSU or because Scott Sypniewski is a special talent at the position is unknown, but what is known is that Michigan has used a vital scholarship on a position that is really not that needed. Every team needs a long snapper, but nine times out of ten it's a walk-on or a back-up player at another position who fills the role. Believe me, I certainly couldn't do the long snapper duties, but let's be real, it's not exactly quarterback. Find a walk-on or a back-up offensive lineman that's not doing anything and teach him how to be a long snapper. The long snapper's only going to be out there for a few plays a game, I'm sure they can do well enough to suffice. Giving up a scholarship for this small of a need just doesn't make sense.

2) Michigan's recruiting class is currently ranked #1 in the nation by every major recruiting site that has released a list for 2013. Right now, the class has 21 commitments and most assume it will finish somewhere around 23-24. From all accounts, Michigan is looking to add a running back, wide receiver, and a defensive back, at least. Now, whether Michigan will get suitable players for those positions can be debated, but why risk not having room for those players? Michigan could theoretically get 4 or more players that are rated as at least a 4* by the recruiting services. I see no way Michigan could add all those players to its class without going over the scholarship limits. Essentially, you are giving up the shot at a 4* or 5* recruit for a long snapper that wasn't even rated by many services and after he gets rated does anybody really think he's going to be a 4* or 5* recruit? I certainly don't see it. Basically, Michigan not only used a scholarship on a position that in most cases doesn't deserve a scholarship, but they could have sacrificed getting an elite player for that scholarship as well.

-----

Final Points

Tyler -Tom makes great points and I agree with some of them. But say they do leave room for some top 5* guys such as a Treadwell or Green and they commit elsewhere. Then Michigan is going out there finding guys that weren't even on their board to begin with and not of the caliber as those guys just to fill scholarship slots. Sure, it creates for depth, but many of them might not even work out well for the team. Sypniewski isn't the popular choice or the flashiest choice, but he is a kid that's talented and could make an immediate impact. You are looking for those types of players when you are offering scholarships and getting commitments. Special teams is an important part of the game these days, so he may not have an impact on the stats sheet but will still be meaningful to the game. So I like the commitment and am happy that he's a Michigan man.

Thomas - I don't think this commitment is a team or recruiting class killer by any means and I do agree that he's a talented prospect at his position. However, we need to take a step back and look at the position again. We're talking about sacrificing key scholarship slots, future depth, and maybe a shot at the #1 recruiting class this season for a position that many admit could probably be filled by a walk-on. I have absolutely nothing against the kid and wish him the best at Michigan, as all fans should do, but I am concerned that offering this scholarship will prove more costly than most assume. I agree that there is a need, but you couldn't train one of the numerous back-up offensive linemen, defensive linemen, or a walk-on to do the job? Like I said, this will never be a major loss for the team, but if the coaching staff continues making moves like this, you have to have concern for some future aspects of the team.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Friday, May 18, 2012

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Schedule Neutral Site Games?

1) Michigan....Alabama...Cowboy Stadium. Tell me you don't love it. I think this is a great thing for the fans, getting to see two powerhouses square off in a brand new stadium in Dallas. While I would love to see this game in Ann Arbor, Cowboy Stadium is pretty good too. Gives the fans a change of atmosphere, I think it gives us a bowl feel right out the gate. You gotta win the big games in a neutral setting at the end of the year, so why not go up against the defending national champions early on. It allows each school to be showcased in front of the whole country, see whose fans travel best and support their teams better. It also lets you measure where you are at talent wise. If you are getting scheduled these types of big games at the start of the season you are no slouch which means your program is going in the right direction and on the path to where they want to be. These are two of the most storied traditions in football and it's going to be some sight to play them in Cowboy Stadium. Michigan fans travel very well so I am anticipating one for the ages. Games like this give you a true measure of where your team is at and it also changes things up for the fans. This is definitely a strengh of schedule booster and if Michigan can win this game, it will automatically jump them up into the top 5 (in my eyes). I'm going to this game and I am crazy excited to see it. I've never been to Cowboy Stadium and it's something new that all of us fans get to experience. There's lots of places that Michigan hasn't played and it's going to be pretty cool to see them in different venues.

2) Recruiting. Playing in big time neutral site games is going to do wonders for recruiting. Having a top 10 class in 2012, and the #1 ranked class (as of now) for 2013 will surely be helped by these games. Recruits are going to love the idea of playing in the big stage right away. Playing a team like Alabama on neutral site like Cowboy Stadium is not only going to be an amazing experience for them, but will also get them and Michigan a lot more recognition then they would already get. With the level of talent coming in and this amazing coaching staff, Michigan looks to return to the upper echelant of college football and remain there for many years to come. With this recent success and what I believe will be continued success Michigan will be a attraction for these neutral site games more often. Beating big time programs in settings like this will only do more to real in more top notch recruits which will only help out the program. Fans like to see big time matchups and myself being a fan, am excited to see Michigan vs Alabama.

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those Against Michigan Scheduling Neutral Site Games

1) The role of neutral site games has changed dramatically from its earliest days. However, the constants still remain. First, how often are they actually neutral? Most neutral site games are located at a venue that gives one team a significant advantage not only for ticket sales, but also for team and fan convenience. This seems pretty unfair to me. Along with this, neutral site games were primarily devised to avoid having to schedule a "home and home" with opponents and to bring in some extra cash from a normal game. However, once again, this has not been in the case. Not only is it very difficult to sell tickets for games hundreds or thousands of miles away from the campus, but the games often don't bring in even as close to as much money as many assume. In fact, there has been an argument that Michigan could have made more money in scheduling a MAC team than in its game against Alabama. I'm not completely convinced, but the fact that it's even debatable shows the basic problems of neutral site games. They not only cut quality home games, but replace them with games that are difficult to attend. For instance, another neutral site game that most don't know about, Michigan vs. West Virginia will be happening in Brooklyn next December. Michigan basketball's home schedule has been pretty weak as of late, especially in non-conference play. West Virginia is a quality opponent and John Beilein's former team. There would have been a lot of hype for this game, but because of its neutral site location, I fear that most fans are going to forget it's even happening, which is going to be a big loss for the fans and potential home ticket sales.

2) Although the lack of true "neutral" venues and financial issues are pretty significant, the real problems are with the atmosphere. Not only do neutral site games not feel like a college football game because of their typical pro atmosphere (Cowboy Stadium is a perfect example), but fan energy is dwarfed by the existence of multiple fan bases. Instead of listening to the band or starting Go Blue chants, fans are forced to listen to constant stadium advertisements (must have been 50 All State ads at the Sugar Bowl) and the other team's fans and band. Sure, it's kind of cool to experience another fan base and their traditions, but wouldn't it be a lot cooler to actually go to their stadium and get the real experience? No matter how many fans make the trip down to Dallas, it's not going to be a real representation of Michigan or Alabama. Why? Because it's only a small portion of their true fan base, they have to split time with the opponent, and you don't get to experience the campus or stadium. If I wanted to experience Alabama football (I really don't want to experience it), I would go down to Tuscaloosa and watch a game. Believe me, I love Michigan football and would gladly go to the game if given the chance, but I prefer that experience how it's meant to be, in the Big House. I also am realistic enough to conclude that other fans probably feel the same way. Neutral games remove all of the originality of teams and the atmosphere of college football, while making it tougher on fans to actually attend the game and making less money for the university. It just doesn't make sense.

-----

Final Points

Tyler - Hard to argue with Tom, there are downfalls of scheduling a neutral site game in a pro stadium. Sure, you have the ads, possible unfair advantage if its closer to one fanbase or another. But to me the pros outweigh the cons. Sure, it's difficult to travel there, I understand that, especially with today's economy. But think about this, pretty soon the Big Ten will be scheduling a home and home with the Pac 12. So regardless we will have to travel all the way across the country to the west coast if we want to go to a game against say Oregon or USC. I think this neutral site game is better compared because the ticket sales as far as numbers go will be more favorable for each team, rather than a small section in the upper deck in a true away game. A game in Tuscaloosa would be great to attend and I would be more than happy to do that. Love getting to experience other schools traditions, it's what makes college football. So why not bring two storied traditions together in a neutral site and not in a bowl game where there is much argument over which school is deserving or one of them shouldn't be there. This can just be talk about Michigan vs Alabama. It doesn't matter what the team is, if the fans aren't Michigan fans, even in the Big House they annoy me, so it won't be any different in Dallas. Alabama in the Big House would be awesome and I love that Penn State scheduled a home at home against The Crimson Tide, I think it's great for that program. Michigan should defintely do this with a top tier school in the spirit of strengthening schedule, but beating them on a neutral site will certainly give the team a great experience and definitely prepare them for the upcoming season which will certainly be tough. I'm not a fan of only 6 home games at the Big House considering we were spoiled with 8 a season ago, but Michigan is up to the task. I'm going to the game in Dallas and I want to be one of the fortunate to say I saw Michigan play Alabama in Cowboy Stadium. Going to be an amazing experience and something that will no doubt in my mind help Michigan out in the future.

Thomas - I agree with Tyler that many neutral games will be against top competition in front of a national spotlight. However, it still glosses over the fact that the game is going to be pretty difficult for most to attend and is raising far less money for the university than originally anticipated. Sure, it's going to be an exciting game for fans with two top teams competing, but isn't a venue supposed to add to the experience? If Michigan and Alabama played each other in a run-down high school field it would still be exciting, but that doesn't mean it's a good venue. Cowboy Stadium is supposed to be extremely nice and impressive, but the bottom-line is that it's still a pro stadium. Fans are going to travel half the country in order to hear endless ads that really aren't benefiting the university. Along with this, fans will have to endure the thousands of Alabama fans in attendance and their game day traditions. Certainly, it will be cool to experience, but consider this for a second. Have you ever watched something like the Michigan vs. MSU game with some Spartans in the room? Overall, it's just not that fun of an experience. Now, imagine having thousands cheering everything that goes against Michigan during the game. Frankly, it takes a lot of energy out of the fans. It's great if you win, but isn't it a lot more fun celebrating with the thousands in a place like the Big House than with only half of a NFL stadium? Let's think about this. Who benefits from these neutral site games? The owners of the stadiums that host them and that's about it. The schools and teams really don't benefit that much and the fans certainly don't benefit. Here's quick comparison. Look at how Penn State scheduled Alabama. Instead of a one-off neutral site game, they schedule a home and home. They got to face Alabama in a home game. Yes, they had to play Alabama in a road game, but think about the excitement leading up to a home game against a team like Alabama. Imagine opening the season in Ann Arbor against the Crimson Tide. Now, that would be a season opener, not forcing fans to travel to Dallas in a sham of a college football game. Neutral site games benefit almost nobody in the college football world and especially not the fans.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Friday, May 11, 2012

Hot Topics: Should There Be A BCS Playoff?

Photo Credit: Business of College Sports

1) Ok I definitely want a playoff. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Michigan fan and I love the "Rose Bowl Tradition." Big Ten vs Pac 12 is a great thing. But often every year teams that run the table are getting left out of the discussion. For example, 2005 USC vs Oklahoma where the Trojans just throttled the Sooners. On the outside looking in was Auburn who went undefeated. Now, both USC and Oklahoma were undefeated as well, but Auburn didn't deserve to be left out. If you run the table you should have a shot at your claim to be the best team in the country and therefore play for the National title. Couple years ago Utah, same thing happened. Sure, they made it to the Fiesta Bowl, which they won, but why should they get denied a chance at the title game. Sure, they are in a smaller conference, obviously weaker schedule but they did beat what everyone thought was a better Georgia team. Whether it's a 4 team, 8 team, 12 team system, I think a playoff is the best bet. More often than not, teams that deserve to play for the title get left out. Don't get me wrong the BCS was kind to Michigan this year in giving us a Sugar Bowl bid, but a lot of people questioned their worth to be there and I definitely think Virginia Tech didn't deserve a bid to the Sugar Bowl. With the playoff system, you take the top 4-8 teams (whatever the number) and say, alright you guys deserve a shot at the title, so you will play for it. No voters, no computers to screw it up. I say leave it to the teams on the field, not voters and computers.

2) March Madness, I love it. The little guy has a shot at doing it big. Teams like Butler wouldn't have a chance in the BCS system. Even if they did run the table, no way they are getting looked at for a BCS bowl. With the NCAA tournament everyone gets a shot, you get in the tournament field you got a shot at the title. Even with this tournament teams get left out but I believe it gives the teams in the field a fair shot. To me that's what the playoff system would do for college football. It's more fair. Teams like Utah, who run the table, would get their shot to play for a national championship. Sure, there are teams that run the table that would get left out of the 4 team playoff because they simply don't play a strong enough schedule, but if you are ranked in the top 4 of the country, win your games you should get a chance to play for the title. Why should a computer decide your fate if you get to compete to be the best team in the country? Year in and year out there's always a couple teams with 1 loss, and some that go undefeated. Last year, Oklahoma State thought they should've been in the title game against Alabama. They went a way in proving their argument because they whipped on a very good Stanford team. Of course, Alabama did end up being LSU and winning the title. So were the computers wrong? You could say all three of those teams deserved to be in the game, LSU for sure. So with a playoff you wouldn't have had to hear Oklahoma State feel left out because they have a shot at playing in the game. If you win, you're in and that's how it should be.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those Against A BCS Playoff

1) What makes college football special? Some may say the school pride, the amateur players, or the rivalries, but I'd say its history is what makes the sport special and unique from all others. Does any other American sport, except maybe baseball, have even close to as much tradition as college football? I'd say no. The bowl system is part of that history and throwing it out for an unproven hybrid playoff system is not the right decision. I completely agree that the current bowl and BCS system is not perfect, but it's something that's entrenched in the fabric of the sport. Things like the "Idaho Potato" bowl may not be that special, but I don't think anybody would debate the heritage and importance of the Rose Bowl. Everybody wants to compare the BCS to things like NFL playoffs, so let's do that for a second. Sure, things like the Super Bowl are great, but don't forget about all the boring first round playoff games fans are forced to watch. Granted, the current playoff proposals only select the top 4 teams, but does anybody really believe it will stay as 4 teams? When has any sport's playoff not expanded? Even football and baseball have expanded. I have no idea how big a college football playoff could eventually get, but to me, there's little doubt that if a playoff is established, it will get bigger. To me, destroying things as special as the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day for a hybrid system that is pretty likely to change in the future doesn't seem like a great option to me. The BCS system isn't perfect, but it's preferable to something I'm not sure will even work out well.

2) What is the major difference between the BCS and a traditional playoff system? Only the very elite teams compete for the national championship. Since we've brought in some other playoff systems, let's take a look at one of the NCAA's own, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, more commonly known as March Madness. Everybody loves March Madness, right? Well, consider this. Does the best team become the champion and do the best teams compete for the championship? Some years, certainly. However, I'm not so sure you can say the best teams compete on a yearly basis. Look at the 2011 tourney, UConn won the championship and was considered the best team of that season. However, no #1 seeds made the tourney. So of the four teams that did the best over the 5 month season, none were even in the final running for the championship. Sure, you could say "well, only the end matters". However, isn't that a questionable method to determine the "best" team? Right now, in order to make the championship game, a college football team pretty much has to go undefeated, or lose one game at most, during the entire regular season. That's a pretty challenging requirement for most teams and pretty accurately separates the best teams from the rest of the pack. Even in the worst case scenario, two of the top four teams will be playing for the national championship. I'd bet that 9 times out of 10 it's going to be the two best teams in the country, but as I said, worst case scenario that's what fans get to see. However, in a playoff, I'm not sure you're going to see that every year, especially if it expands, which I'd be willing to bet that it will. Along with this, it simply moves the debate down the line. Instead of debating the two best teams, fans will end up debating who the #4, #8, or #16 should be in the playoffs. If you don't think it will happen, take a look at college basketball. Anybody hear of a team on the bubble trying to strength their resume? It will happen in college football if there is a playoff. I just see no reason a person could say they should be debating the #4, #8, or #16 team in a discussion about the national champions. It just doesn't make sense.

-----

Final Points

Tyler - So to summarize, give me a playoff system. There are so many ridiculous bowls and matchups that virtually nobody cares for. Every year a team gets left out of the title game because they have the same record as the two teams picked, or even a better record. Same song different year. Give the teams a chance to earn their right to play in the game on the field. More often then not the computers get it wrong in my opinion. I would rather have a team be left out of the title game because they got beat in a playoff, not because the computers gave them a .1 less rating then the #2 team in the country. Pretty ridiculous. I think that a playoff is the best way to go. Sure teams will feel like they are left out of the playoff as well that goes without saying. But I think it gives more teams a chance, and its more of a legitimate shot at playing in the title game. You can't please everyone, but I think you will have more people that are happy, rather than sad or pissed off because they are left out of the game. I think the BCS is a joke and I hope the playoff system happens, because I for one am very interested in seeing it.

Thomas - Do some deserving teams get left out of the BCS title game? There are always going to be flaws in the system. However, in a playoff system you run the chance of not only excluding some deserving teams, but also or crowning an undeserving champion. If you use the 4 team playoff model, there is still going to be a debate about who is deserving. Look at this year, could you definitely pick the best 4 teams? I'm not so sure. LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma St were obvious picks, but does teams like Oregon, Stanford, or Wisconsin get that last bid? It's not as clear cut as many assume. Along with this, if you put a team like Wisconsin in the playoff, you're looking at a team with two regular season losses and a relatively weak schedule (compared to teams like LSU or Alabama). How can you possibly say they are better than a team like LSU who had 0 regular season losses and wins over Oregon, Alabama, West Virginia, Miss State, Auburn, Arkansas, and Georgia? The obvious answer is you can't say Wisconsin was more deserving. If you create a BCS playoff system, you would still leave the hated aspects (rankings, quality debates, and uncertainty) in the system while also allowing undeserving teams a chance at winning the championship. Even if you set-up requirements to address some of the problems a playoff system may face such as the potential for future expansion, it's not going to be the fix-all that many assume it will be in the future. In fact, I think it will only expand the problems and controversy surrounding the college football postseason.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Friday, May 4, 2012

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Schedule Revenge Games?

Photo Credit: AnnArbor.com

1) I am a die hard Michigan fan. I remember horrible losses, I was there for the App. State game and you could hear a pin drop in the Big House, it was horrible. Scheduling a team like them, or UMASS and crushing them would be wonderful, but Michigan is about a tough non-conference schedule. Sure it'd be nice to beat them, but how about this showdown with Alabama on September 1st. It's games like this that pump me up. We need a tough non-conference schedule because lets face it, outside of a few teams like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Sparty, the conference top to bottom is pretty weak. If we were to run the table we need some key non-conference wins to support that strength in the BCS. The Notre Dame is exciting, but the fact is that they aren't that good anymore. UMASS and App. State are weak teams and they will do nothing towards solidifying our non-conference schedule and helping out with our rankings at the end of the year. The SEC as a conference is loaded, so teams like Alabama can schedule soft non-conference games because the schedule is brutal regardless.

2) A game against a Rich Rod coached team in Arizona to me, would be great. They are PAC-12, which is a power conference, and to smash him would bring some gratitude to all the Michigan fans for the horrible 3 years under his regime. I firmly believe that the first game, and maybe even the second game of the season, should be against soft teams, but after that you gotta get into it. Michigan needs tough non-conference opponents (i.e. Alabama) because playing teams like them will more than enough get you ready for the season. Even if we were to lose against them, it's not going to hurt us that much in the rankings after all its Alabama. But a loss to a 1-AA opponent or a MAC school is just devastating to a team. It drops us severely in the rankings and really just makes us look like clowns for losing to a school that shouldn't even hold Michigan's jock. Sure, I love a gold old fashion blow out but let's face it at the end of the day it does nothing. What can you really get out of a game against an opponent that's nowhere near your class. Revenge would be sweet but Michigan would be better off in tougher opponents, put those losses behind us because all it will do is bring up negative attention from the media about playing teams like App. State and UMASS.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those For Michigan Scheduling Revenge Games

1) Every fan remembers a horrible loss. A good or great win will last for a while, but a horrible loss will sting with a fan forever. I can remember some of the worst losses I've personally experienced in Michigan Stadium. The 2009 blowout loss to Ohio State, where almost half the stadium was filled with Buckeye fans. The 2010 slaughter from Wisconsin, in which they ran the same play over and over again and ended up scoring 48 points against the Wolverines in Ann Arbor. Certainly, Michigan has endured worse losses than these two, The Horror comes to mind, and there will never be any chance of making up for these games. However, I can tell you that coming back a year or two after and defeating that same time convincingly certainly eases the pain somewhat. Scheduling a team like Appalachian State or UMass and dominating them wouldn't make up for Michigan's poor performances against them in the past, but it allows the teams and fans to turn a new page. Some losses will hang over the Michigan program forever, but at least stomping the team will help reduce that legacy somewhat. Look at the battle for the Brown Jug with Minnesota. Once in a while Minnesota will win and it's a big deal, but Michigan consistently crushes them, so most fans forget the legacy of those losses.

2) Let's be honest, most non-conference games are a snooze for the fans. Getting excited to face teams like Ohio State is one thing, but getting excited for teams like Western Michigan and Bowling Green isn't quite as easy. I fully admit, I get excited for any football, but I'm not everyone. It's important that Michigan is able to schedule big-time home games on a consistent basis for the fans. Look at next season, Michigan will have six home games. Granted, it's not often that Michigan has only six home games, but it does happen in rare occasions like next season. Scheduling games against teams like UMass is one of the few ways to make sure those six games are worth it for fans. Obviously, it's not going to be the biggest game on the schedule, but adding in the revenge factor makes the game a lot more interesting than if it was against a team like Western Michigan. For example, look at the San Diego State game. If Brady Hoke hadn't coached there in the past, most wouldn't have cared about the team at all. Imagine scheduling a game against Arizona and Rich Rodriguez? Imagine the story lines, it would be very exciting for everyone involved. Yes, scheduling these types of games brings up a lot of pain from the past, but the reward is completely worth the cost.

-----

Final Points

Tyler - Risk and reward? Tons of risk playing a 1-AA school. Michigan ranked #5 in the country and then to lose to App. State like that, boom, completely destroys the season right out of the gate. While the reward for winning that game...well there's not much. Sure its a win but what does that do for the ranks, hell it could even drop us a spot or two and it certainly does nothing for strength of schedule. The preseason ranks are out and while its way early, Michigan is #10. Imagine what beating Alabama could do. Big time jump in the ranks, an insane amount of confidence for the team and the fanbase. Yes, a loss would hurt, but it wouldn't kill us, and it certainly wouldn't hurt us that much in the rank department. Michigan by far has the toughest schedule in the Big Ten and I am all for that. At the end of the year, when it's BCS time, I don't want people saying we had a cake schedule and shouldn't be there. I want those so called "professionals" to say you know what, Michigan played the best, beat the best, and they deserve to be right here in the BCS conversation and should be playing for a National title. Look at last year, 2 teams from the same conference playing for the title but at the end of the day they had the toughest roads to get there. I'm tired of the scrutiny for our weak non-conference scheduling and I for one am all for this change and playing the big dogs right out of the gate. I am so pumped for this season and for this Alabama showdown. Go Blue!

Thomas - As much as I love great non-conference games (i.e. Alabama game), at some point we have to step back and be real. Nobody in a real conference schedules every non-conference game against a legitimate opponent, nobody. Look at the Big Ten Champions, Pac 12 Champions, Big 12 Champions, and National Champions. None of these teams had more than one game against a legitimate opponent. In fact, of these four championship teams, they only played two ranked teams in their combined non-conference schedules. Michigan already has Notre Dame on a yearly basis. Sure, they haven't been that great lately, but they are fairly legitimate opponent overall and usually help Michigan's strength of scheduling. Not only do teams not schedule tough non-conference schedules, but it makes no sense to do so under the current system. There is no benefit to scheduling teams like Alabama or LSU during non-conference play. Why? Because you can schedule a nobody and boost yourself up in the rankings. Whether fans like this or not, it's the reality and with this reality, scheduling revenge games makes perfect sense. Michigan is going to have at least a few bad teams on a schedule in a given year and this at least would add some excitement to these games. As I mentioned earlier, a game against Arizona would be a great game for Michigan to schedule. However, they're not better than a team like Oregon State or Kansas. However, it would be an exciting game just because of that revenge factor. Due to the reality of college football, these are a great options for teams looking to make their non-conference games exciting for fans.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Friday, April 27, 2012

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Send Its Marching Band To Dallas?

Photo Credit: ReportingWeb

Each week, our writers break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and allow them to express their opinions. Topics cover everything from rivalry games to team and fan apparel. Writers have their own opinion and readers are welcome to comment or contact them via Twitter with their thoughts.

Kyle Curtiss - Representing Those That Believe Michigan Should Send Its Marching Band To Dallas

1) Yes, Michigan should send the band. Will it cost money? Yes. From what I hear it will range from 400K to 500K to send the band, and the tickets have already been set aside for the band. Some can argue that it's just another routine road trip and it doesn't make any fiscal sense to send them. I know what you're thinking...we are receiving sosmewhere around 4.7 million for this game alone. Of course we can afford it. Also, keep in mind our home schedule this season, and with only having 6 home games this will make up for the revenue lost. Michigan had the third highest operating athletic budget last year but we will still be able to come out on top money wise.

2) Michigan vs. Alabama. Hoke vs. Saban. National television, neutral site of that being the home of the Dallas Cowboys. The atmosphere will be like that of a bowl game, yet this is the season opener. 'Bama will have their band there, and they will more than likely pipe in recorded music, but this isn't about how much they'll play but the fact they will be there to play. It's a long trip down to Texas and we need all the support we can get. If having the band can be there to support our team, the more comfortable the team will feel playing away from the Big House.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those That Believe Michigan Should Not Send Its Marching Band To Dallas

1) Let's be real about this. Does the athletic department have the capability to pay for the band's trip to Dallas? Of course they do. However, the athletic department has the capability to pay for a lot of things, but that doesn't make them right. The debate shouldn't center around whether the athletic department can pay for the trip, but whether it's a worthwhile expenditure. It's estimated that it will cost $400 K to send the band to Dallas. That's nearly double the cost of sending the football team, primarily because the athletic department will have to purchase tickets to seat the band. To me, this is an insane expenditure for something that won't necessarily add that much to the game and atmosphere. People are there to see the team, not the band. The band will already likely be making trips to South Bend, Columbus, and to a bowl location (hopefully Pasadena). To send them to another game for this insane price seems almost wasteful. Would it be nice? Sure, but personally, I'd rather see that money go somewhere else since they already get to make a lot of trips already.

2) There's been a lot of talk about the Michigan band "completing" the Michigan experience. I assume this is in reference to the many Alabama fans and viewers that will watch this game (will likely be the marquee match-up of week 1). Surely, many of these fans have never been able to get the full Michigan experience and the band would add to that. However, going off my first point, the question has to focus on whether this "full" experience for Alabama and a national audience is worth $400 K. I'm sure for most fans, this completely seems worth the cost. However, if you've ever been to a neutral game at a pro stadium, the band doesn't really add a lot. First, both bands have to split playing time. This isn't that big of a deal, but the stadiums also constantly play advertisements and music over the top. Honestly, if the band played 1/3 of what they do at the Big House, I would be amazed. This is the big factor for me. It's not going to be the real Michigan experience whether the band comes of not because of the horrible neutral site location.

-----

Final Points

Kyle - OK, take the money factor out of it. Take the "how much they're going to be playing" factor out of it. Superstition had an enormous hand in the world of sports. How would we feel as fans, if Michigan plays Alabama without OUR band, and Bama has theirs, and we lose? A common cliche is to err on the side of caution and that's what we should be doing here. Having the band in Dallas will hopefully provide some of the home team atmosphere we're going to lack. This isn't about the fans, who's watching on TV, or the head honchos in charge. It's about the team, the team, the team...and I believe Team 133 has a better chance with our band playing there for them.

Thomas - As I said earlier, I don't think there's any doubt that the athletic department could afford to send the band to Dallas. However, this alone isn't a reason to bring the band. Along with this, I still don't believe that the band is truly necessary to the Michigan experience in this game. Yes, Alabama is bringing their band, but that doesn't mean Michigan has to bring our band too. It's going to be something that's nice, but I'd be willing to bet that most people watching on TV wouldn't have even realized if the bands weren't there. With all the extra factors like commercials, piped in music, and the announcers, the bands aren't really that evident. Once in a while they're show the pre-game ritual by the bands, but I don't see that happening on such a nationally televised game for Michigan. Of course there will be some shots of the band during the game, but is that worth $400 K? I'm not so sure. To me, it's just a waste. People always complain about things like ticket prices going up, but these types of expenditures are the reason they do consistently increase.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Friday, April 20, 2012

Hot Topics: Should Michigan Get A Mascot?

Friday, April 13, 2012

Hot Topics: Should Spring Games Be Played Between Two Teams?

Each week, our writers break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and allow them to express their opinions. Topics cover everything from rivalry games to team and fan apparel. Writers have their own opinion and readers are welcome to comment or contact them via Twitter with their thoughts.

Kyle Curtiss - Representing Those That Believe Spring Games Should Be Between Two Teams

1) Denard throwing a pass. Denard going for a big run. Michigan's defense putting a stop to some of that. In essence, the spring game is a glorified scrimmage. Of course, we don't want our players getting hurt, but watching college flag football can be downright monotonous. Even if the powers that be decide that Michigan vs. Indiana for the spring game is a good idea, there are those who just want the privacy of their own team. I understand that but how do you know your right guard will effectively block more against Indiana or the White squad? By having them play against others they don't know as well. If it were me, I'd always end up playing differently against my teammate than my opponent.

2) Rules can be set in stone for it. Tickets may be issues for it, and since it's just a scrimmage make it cheap. A lot of people know this but guess what: the pros do it all the time toward the middle/end of training camps and before preseason games. Spring games are always a lot more casual than the regular season. I know, you're saying "well duh"...but my point is just because it's casual doesn't mean we can't test the competition. Here's a thought, and stay with me because maybe I could have a good one here. Play the spring game against Alma. Play Wayne State. Play a college that has everything to gain by scrimmaging against us but never really has a shot onto making the regular season schedule. Neither team gets money for it, but the incoming team would get a lot of publicity for it.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those That Believe Spring Games Should Not Be Between Two Teams

1) What makes the spring game special? The fact that fans can go to the stadium and enjoy their own team. Nobody else, no rivalries, no opposing fans, just their team. No matter the result, fans can be excited about their team and avoid disappointment. Yes, it may sounds cheesy, but I enjoy the one game a year without intensity and stress about long-term effects. Even facing sub-par teams like Eastern Michigan now leave a small trace of fear since The Horror in 2006. However, the Spring Game doesn't have any of these issues. It's just a scrimmage involving one team, Michigan. I enjoy the fact that, whether one side does good or bad, there are always positives that come from the game, which can't be said about games against opponents.

2) If the Spring Game was scheduled against another team, it would also lead to extreme hype and excitement, removing the laid-back feel currently held by the game. Sure, having a packed stadium to face an opponent would be fun, but isn't it nice to have a donation-based game once a year without the endless crowd? Plus, there is little doubt that the athletic department would begin selling, not just tickets, but extremely expensive tickets for the game. Essentially, the key elements of the current Spring Game would be destroyed and replaced with just another game. I find it doubtful they would ever be scheduled against legitimate competition, so it would only be a chance for Michigan to lose. For instance, facing a team like Eastern Michigan is fun, but what if Michigan lost? Facing easy competition is nice, until the team loses. In a spring setting with a half-filled roster, upsets would be very frequent and that's not something I'd like to see.

-----

Final Points

Kyle - The spring game is iconic to the fans. It's a time where we can all get together and celebrate OUR team. Tomorrow I will be seeing the alumni game for the first time. For the past few years I was working a midnight job so I've been unable to see it due to sleep. The alumni game for just Michigan players is a great thing to see. Same thing with the spring game. I don't think the guidelines would ever change anyway. If the NCAA can't come to a conclusion on a BCS playoff format, then why would they change the spring game rules? I'd vote they should just to give it an extra punch. As I said earlier it doesn't have to be a conference foe, or even a FBS foe. I just truly believe that if we had a friendly scrimmage against someone else, we'd have a better idea of where we stand as a team.

Thomas - Publicity is great and I don't think there's any doubt that there'd be more excitement for the game if there was a game between two teams. However, that doesn't mean it's the best thing for college football and the NCAA. The spring game is a special time for fans, teams, and the nation. Not just because of tradition, but because it's a unique experience where fans can truly experience their team. Nobody else's team, no worries about losing, and no opposing fans. It's a win-win situation for everybody involved. Even programs like Michigan, that would probably annihilate the weak opponents they would play. There's no risk of losing to a bad opponent, fans demanding a better match-up, and having to endure the annoying fanbases that travel to Ann Arbor. I enjoy the spring game, and I know I'm not the only one, for its special place in the football schedule. If it became a normal game, it would lose the special aspects that it holds for the fans. Yes, it might be more exciting and get more publicity, but it would take a very special experience away from the fans.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Photo Credit: AnnArbor.com

Friday, April 6, 2012

Hot Topics: Should The Spring Game Sell Tickets?

Friday, March 30, 2012

Hot Topics: Is Some NCAA Tournament Success Better Than Regular Season Success?

Each week, our writers break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and allow them to express their opinions. Topics cover everything from rivalry games to team and fan apparel. Writers have their own opinion and readers are welcome to comment or contact them via Twitter with their thoughts.

Kyle Curtiss - Representing Those That Believe Some NCAA Tournament Success Is Better Than Regular Season Success

1) Ah, March Madness. Euphoric and destructive at the same time. Second in popularity to the Super Bowl. Bracketology. Sum it all up and March is one crazy month. Not as many fan watches the dredges of non-conference play in December, when the NFL is winding down their regular season. Not many tune in to the beginning of conference play, for that's when NFL playoffs are going on. So when, in truth do people really start paying attention to college basketball? That's right! In February! When conference races get tighter, bracketologists such as Lunardi talk on TV every day, and you wonder where in the Big Dance you'll be seeded.

2) One word: Cinderella. The nation becomes captivated every year by Cinderella teams every year, whether it's Butler, VCU, Norfolk State, George Mason...I could go on and on babeee! (channeling my inner Vitale there). This season, Michigan was a 4 seed. They lost to Ohio (aka Cinderella team) and not only did they lose, but they were pummeled. The score was closer than it really was. Next season what are fans going to remember the most? Ohio advancing to play North Carolina and taking them to overtime or Michigan losing in the first round? Exactly..it's that important to win!

3) As a continuation of my second point, Michigan played badly in the Big Ten tournament as well as the Big Dance. We won part of the "regular season title" but did nothing after that. A 3-way tie to crown the Big Ten regular season champ? Don't get me wrong, I am proud of that. Yet, just as I make fun of Sparty or Ohio being part of a 3-way tie on the football side of things a couple seasons ago, how can I feel proud of this? We didn't win it outright, and we showed we're the weaker of the 3 teams. State has their up and down regular seasons, but Izzo always has them ready in March. Isn't that part of the formula that we want?

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those That Believe Regular Season Success Is Better Than Some NCAA Tournament Success

1) The first thing I'd like to do is specify my stance on this issue. When I'm talking about NCAA Tournament success, I'm not referring to national championships, national championship games, and Final Four appearances. I'm speaking primarily about teams that make it to the Round of 32 and the Sweet Sixteen. Winning tournament games is respectable and a great accomplishment, but I can't justify winning 1-2 games over something like a conference championship. Yes, it's nice to be involved in March Madness for a long period of time, but isn't the NCAA Tourney just that? Madness? Sure, the best teams tend to win, but that's it, they just tend to win. Winning 1-2 games doesn't prove that you're a great team, it just proves that you got two decent match-ups and were hot enough to win those 1-2 games. Winning a conference championship requires playing good basketball for months, not just two nights. Plus, if you win the championship you are going to have to play good teams numerous times and aren't really going to benefit much from Selection Sunday and getting a great match-up.

2) Another thing to consider is the fact that the Round of 32 and even the Sweet Sixteen are filled with teams that ultimately come away with nothing. In fact, as far as I know, Michigan doesn't hang banners for anything in the NCAA Tournament except Final Four appearances and national championships. This basically means that besides some cool stats, the team is going to ultimately come away with nothing if they win 1-3 games. Now, I think the Elite Eight is pretty meaningful so I won't go quite that far, but the point is still there. Most of the teams in the Round of 32 and Sweet 16 end up accomplishing little to nothing in the tournament. In fact, 28 of the 32 teams that win a game in the NCAA Tournament don't even make the Final Four. Look at Indiana for a second. They had a relatively good regular season, but failed to win the Big Ten. However, they did win two games in the tournament. The thing to note from the case of Indiana is that they came away with the same thing Michigan did, absolutely nothing from the NCAA Tournament. To me, this is crucial to understand because unless you make a deep run, you're going to come away with almost nothing.

3) The final thing I think fans should consider is the accomplishment of winning a conference championship. Yes, the NCAA Tournament removes some of the importance of the regular season and conference championships, but it is still a remarkable accomplishment. Look at Michigan. Although they didn't have a ton of success in March, they did win the Big Ten. This means that over 18 games they were the best of the 12 teams (or at least tied). Along with this, Michigan will be awarded with a championship banner in Crisler and received championship rings. Does a team that make the Round of 32 or Sweet Sixteen get those types of rewards? I don't think so. I will fully admit that a Final Four or national championship game appearance should be more valuable than a conference championship, but making those is a lot more significant than making something like the Round of 32 or Sweet Sixteen. Here's a fun challenge. Try to name the teams that made the Round of 32 or Sweet Sixteen that didn't make it further. Then try to name the teams that won the Big Ten Championship. Yes, there are fewer teams, but winning a championship is just more long-lasting than winning 1-2 NCAA Tournament games.

-----

Final Points

Kyle - Bottom line, it may be somewhat true that in the first round (or second as it's now referred to) the games don't matter as much because no one remembers them well. You can't expect the teams to get an award for making the tournament, that's reserved for later down the line. Imagine two years from now: Burke, Hardaway, McGary, and Robinson are all gone from the team. Michigan is in the cellar with Penn St and Minnesota. We will look to the regular season championship banner with hope, there's no doubt about that. But as fans we want that seed to the Big Dance. We need that seed! We are Michigan!

Thomas - I completely agree that the NCAA Tournament is great and is the best time of the year for college basketball. However, I don't believe it's the only time of the year that matters. Fans certainly remember the "Cinderella" teams and the heart-breaking loss to Ohio in the first round, but I think the pride in winning a conference championship will last much longer than these memories. I mean, compare Michigan's 2011 NCAA Tournament success to its 2012 success. If you had to select one of these seasons, I guarantee that 99% of people are going to select this season. Yes, Michigan did much better in the NCAA Tournament last year (won their first round game in record-breaking fashion and lost a close game to #1 seed Duke), but it still ended the same way this season did, an early exit from the tourney. Is winning that one or maybe even that second game better than a regular season full of success and a conference championship? I just really don't believe that's true.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with their thoughts

Photo Credit: Press Coverage

Pages