but I understand the “meh” feeling. Still, they’re here to stay in football (if not quite fully arrived), and it’s a top-tier school academically, so it has that in common with U-M. And their nickname has to be the best joke ever in that department. [UConn = Yukon]

I honestly think there is a good shot that UConn will be higher ranked than Michigan at the end of this year, which presumably would mean a higher ranking in the Fall of 2010. It’s not a terrible shitty little matchup. It’s a Big East school. I’m relatively meh, but not to the point of anger over anything.

Was it really worth giving up an away game in 2013 for? Especially for a venue ilke UConn’s. I know that scheduling especially on a short term basis is always tough when things like these are made years in advance, but UConn or any school of UConn’s caliber should have just been paid to play a 1 game series at Michigan and be done with. Now Michigan has to suffer an away game in 2013 in UConn of all places quite possibly eliminating the chance of a bigger marquee matchup. Oh well.

When the news broke of a “BCS opponent” and a “home and home” setup, nobody was like “hey, what about UConn?” I’m not going to be a chicken little and say this needed to be a blockbuster, but it certainly would’ve been great to see a bigger name come on board. This is an awful lot like scheduling Utah last year if you ask me in terms of the danger of them being a quality team that nobody (media-wise) recognizes at such.

I look at these games very simply: what’s the upside if we win? What’s the downside if we lose?

The answers to those two questions when you insert “UConn” as the opponent: are little and lots respectively.

First, in response to Charlie@nwo:

I agree with you. The longstanding excuse by our AD about not scheduling blockbuster OOC games has been “we don’t want to give up a home game.” So then they go out and actually give up a home game for…Uconn? It seems to me that something better could have been done. On the flipside, however, at least they gave up a home game. This could open doors for future opponents on a home-at-home basis.

Second, in response to SCM:

I agree that this on paper is a “meh” matchup. However, there is a very, very realistic shot that Uconn is ranked higher than Michigan when we play them in 2010. Yes, against the Lloyd Carr Michigan teams who won 9 or 10 games every season, this would be another Utah. However, this is now a Michigan team that went 3-9 last year, and will consider themselves fortunate if they get to a bowl – any bowl – this season. I think you have to adjust your expectations a little. The only way Uconn is an underdog is in name recognition at this point.

They don’t need the money. Disagree about the venue — I actually think it is one of the reasons for the choice. The stadium is new — the same age as UConn’s Big East football team — and it is designed to be expanded, which may explain why 2013. Regardless, it’s in Hartford, pretty much equidistant between Boston and New York, a couple of hours away from both. A lot of alumni live around here. I don’t know how many season tickets the Huskies sell, but they’re going to find a lot of Michigan people among the remainder.

Agree about the Utah feel. UConn, now that they’ve committed to football, is almost always going to be half-decent but it will be long time before losing to them will have any upside.

One other thing I’ll add — I don’t think it’s a coincidence Martin has scheduled UMass and UConn in the same year. This is about television audiences — Michigan draws big numbers in the Northeast. I pay a ransom to my cable company for their lousy “sports package” so I’ll get that one extra (i.e., BTN) game a year, but the truth is that a Michigan fan living out here is going to see most of the schedule without it. The only real threat is getting bumped for a damned Penn State game. This is simply not true in places like Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Georgia.