New B10 schedules released for 2024 and uh...

[Deep Creek]

Next year will be a pretty drastically different look for CFB. I'm interested to see how it looks and feels and what really happens near the end of the season. But it's really hard to look at the SEC and now B10 schedules for 2024 and see how any of the other conferences are going to get any kind of media coverage.

That is why the B1G and SEC schools will get the big media bucks. Media contracts are scaled to viewership. The larger the payouts, viewership the larger the coverage. With the addition of the new six schools in those conferences, the ACC and Big 12 games that are scheduled up against the B1G and SEC games will probably take a viewership dive. They may have to resort to scrub night to get many eyeballs...unless they have a highly ranked match up toward the end of the year. Outside of FSU and Clemson, name another school that can command viewership if up against a B1G or SEC game. Even an Illinois vs Rutgers outdraws most of Big 12 or ACC games.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Currently ranked teams on Michigan’s 2024 schedule:
#24 Fresno State
#3 Texas@
#7 Washington
#8 Oregon
#9 USC@
#4 Ohio State

Just below a typical SEC West schedule so cry me a river. Try playing Alabama, Georgia, LSU and aTm every year. Oh and LOL at you for putting Fresno State on your list.

For the record in 2024 we play:



Welcome to big boy football you have been living off easy schedules for years and now its time to earn it.

 

[DayButtAssMans’s]

Why?

Because they’ll be largely meaningless outside of the nostalgic rivalry aspect. As it is those games typically have an added factor for final conference positioning. I get keeping the games, but playing out of conference to end the year is lame.

 

[Across The Field]

Agreed, only time will tell but I would hope this is the flavor they will commit to. Its a more run oriented offense, which is fine if it works. I can't believe i am saying this, but finding a 1,000 rusher is a lot easier than trying to find a 4-5 star WR or Qb

We'll see how that Davis kid pans out. Even I can say I don't want to see michigan in a spot where he has to be the starter as a true freshman. If he succeeds immediately that's great, but that's also a great way to just bury a kid's self-confidence if he fails, and Harbaugh hasn't shown to be anything close to the QB developer that it takes to bring in a true freshman and have him be great right away. My guess is the portal will be michigan's friend again this offseason, at least on offense.

 

[Deep Creek]

That has been a frustration for the first few years of his tenure. Nothing dynamic has happened with the QB position for a guy that was supposed to be a guru. They also didn't have an offensive identity. It felt like a hodgepodge of different styles. Were they a power running team or a spread offense? You could never tell and it showed. I think the past 3 seasons they have finally settled on something and committed to it.

I was listening to some of the talking heads the other day about QBs from college to pros. Started with Justin Fields struggles (prior to last night's game) and ended up being a discussion about the lack of successful NFL QBs from some of the name brand colleges. Ohio State was the one that started the conversation but the list grew long. (At least Michigan has the Brady.)

Then the discussion went to Bama. They had a void from the Stabler/Namath days but now have four starters in the NFL...if you count Hurts. It coincided when Saban decided to transition from a game manager model (whatever the hell that is) to a more modern offensive mindset.

I got to thinking about the two flagship schools in my state. We are supposed to have a lot of QB talent. Outside of Tannehill, neither Texas or A&M have had a lot of starting QBs in the NFL...at least that I can think of recently. Texas high schools have had several starting NFL QBs, but they didn't go the UT or A&M route. Stafford (Georgia), Mayfield, Murray, Hurts (OU...with Tech, A&M, Bama originally), Mahomes (Tech), Brees (Purdue), Dalton (TCU), RGIII (Baylor), Fowles (Sparty/Zona)...all the way back to Sammy Baugh (TCU).

Seems strange that several "blue bloods" have a history of missing on future NFL QBs. The question is why?

 

[PeoplesChicken]

I was listening to some of the talking heads the other day about QBs from college to pros. Started with Justin Fields struggles (prior to last night's game) and ended up being a discussion about the lack of successful NFL QBs from some of the name brand colleges. Ohio State was the one that started the conversation but the list grew long. (At least Michigan has the Brady.)

Then the discussion went to Bama. They had a void from the Stabler/Namath days but now have four starters in the NFL...if you count Hurts. It coincided when Saban decided to transition from a game manager model (whatever the hell that is) to a more modern offensive mindset.

I got to thinking about the two flagship schools in my state. We are supposed to have a lot of QB talent. Outside of Tannehill, neither Texas or A&M have had a lot of starting QBs in the NFL...at least that I can think of recently. Texas high schools have had several starting NFL QBs, but they didn't go the UT or A&M route. Stafford (Georgia), Mayfield, Murray, Hurts (OU...with Tech, A&M, Bama originally), Mahomes (Tech), Brees (Purdue), Dalton (TCU), RGIII (Baylor), Fowles (Sparty/Zona)...all the way back to Sammy Baugh (TCU).

Seems strange that several "blue bloods" have a history of missing on future NFL QBs. The question is why?

That's a great question. One thing that comes to mind is the Qb's that you listed above may not have wanted to wait in line at the blue blood schools and had an opportunity to play right away or at least earlier. Another thought, using Brees as an example, Joe Tiller basically built his offense around him. I can see an alpha Qb wanting to play there

 

[Brutus]

But when are you gonna play those teams? And I am not saying one at a time

I don’t look at schedules until that season starts but hopefully sooner rather than later

 

[Across The Field]

I was listening to some of the talking heads the other day about QBs from college to pros. Started with Justin Fields struggles (prior to last night's game) and ended up being a discussion about the lack of successful NFL QBs from some of the name brand colleges. Ohio State was the one that started the conversation but the list grew long. (At least Michigan has the Brady.)

Then the discussion went to Bama. They had a void from the Stabler/Namath days but now have four starters in the NFL...if you count Hurts. It coincided when Saban decided to transition from a game manager model (whatever the hell that is) to a more modern offensive mindset.

I got to thinking about the two flagship schools in my state. We are supposed to have a lot of QB talent. Outside of Tannehill, neither Texas or A&M have had a lot of starting QBs in the NFL...at least that I can think of recently. Texas high schools have had several starting NFL QBs, but they didn't go the UT or A&M route. Stafford (Georgia), Mayfield, Murray, Hurts (OU...with Tech, A&M, Bama originally), Mahomes (Tech), Brees (Purdue), Dalton (TCU), RGIII (Baylor), Fowles (Sparty/Zona)...all the way back to Sammy Baugh (TCU).

Seems strange that several "blue bloods" have a history of missing on future NFL QBs. The question is why?

When you really look at it, there is no "QBU" if you're judging it on NFL success. You think about Fields' struggles, but how much of that is that he was drafted by historically the worst team in the NFL at developing QBs? How good could he be right now if SF hadn't fucked up and taken Lance instead of Fields? On the flipside, can michigan really claim Brady if they couldn't even develop him to anything more than a 6th round pick?

At the end of the day, especially nowadays with the emphasis on explosive offense and elite QB play, you're gonna look at the program that's going to get you to the pros, and get you drafted high. Anything that happens after that is a total crapshoot.

 

[ericd7633]

When you really look at it, there is no "QBU" if you're judging it on NFL success. You think about Fields' struggles, but how much of that is that he was drafted by historically the worst team in the NFL at developing QBs? How good could he be right now if SF hadn't fucked up and taken Lance instead of Fields? On the flipside, can michigan really claim Brady if they couldn't even develop him to anything more than a 6th round pick?

At the end of the day, especially nowadays with the emphasis on explosive offense and elite QB play, you're gonna look at the program that's going to get you to the pros, and get you drafted high. Anything that happens after that is a total crapshoot.

How can you say San Fran fucked up when Fields' hasn't looked great though? Lance obviously isn't any good, but I'm not sure they'd be as good as they are with Fields as opposed to Purdy. Sure they got fortunate Purdy fell into their lap, but he's been awesome ever since becoming the starter.

 

[PeoplesChicken]

When you really look at it, there is no "QBU" if you're judging it on NFL success. You think about Fields' struggles, but how much of that is that he was drafted by historically the worst team in the NFL at developing QBs? How good could he be right now if SF hadn't fucked up and taken Lance instead of Fields? On the flipside, can michigan really claim Brady if they couldn't even develop him to anything more than a 6th round pick?

At the end of the day, especially nowadays with the emphasis on explosive offense and elite QB play, you're gonna look at the program that's going to get you to the pros, and get you drafted high. Anything that happens after that is a total crapshoot.

Playing QB in the NFL is one of the hardest things in sports. Being an elite QB is above that. Brady was nothing special while at Michigan. I even remember thinking when he replaced Bledsoe "this isn't going to work, you don't just replace a Drew Bledsoe!"

I believe that an elite NFL QB is less about athleticism and more about preparation.

Editor's Note:
Kyler Murray fucked around and found out

 

[Across The Field]

How can you say San Fran fucked up when Fields' hasn't looked great though? Lance obviously isn't any good, but I'm not sure they'd be as good as they are with Fields as opposed to Purdy. Sure they got fortunate Purdy fell into their lap, but he's been awesome ever since becoming the starter.

I mean, I can say they fucked up because Lance never did anything and ended up being traded for beans. If Lance looked as awful as he did in that system, while Fields has actually shown multiple glimpses of elite play in Chicago's system, I can say very confidently he's a better QB than Lance and SF fucked up.

 

[Across The Field]

Playing QB in the NFL is one of the hardest things in sports. Being an elite QB is above that. Brady was nothing special while at Michigan. I even remember thinking when he replaced Bledsoe "this isn't going to work, you don't just replace a Drew Bledsoe!"

I believe that an elite NFL QB is less about athleticism and more about preparation.

It's such a wild crapshoot man. Look just in the 2000-2010s. Some of the top QBs went to colleges like Northern Iowa, Miami (OH), Southern Miss, Delaware, TCU, Fresno St., etc. OSU gets ripped for never producing an NFL QB worth a damn, but there are a lot of blue bloods and traditional powers you can say that about

 

[Thiefery]

That is why the B1G and SEC schools will get the big media bucks. Media contracts are scaled to viewership. The larger the payouts, viewership the larger the coverage. With the addition of the new six schools in those conferences, the ACC and Big 12 games that are scheduled up against the B1G and SEC games will probably take a viewership dive. They may have to resort to scrub night to get many eyeballs...unless they have a highly ranked match up toward the end of the year. Outside of FSU and Clemson, name another school that can command viewership if up against a B1G or SEC game. Even an Illinois vs Rutgers outdraws most of Big 12 or ACC games.

Baylor is playing Tech Sat night and no one is talking about it... There's not one Big12 game that's getting national coverage/ being talked about.. I just heard about okie st game because it takes place tonight.

 

[OregonDucks]

Grow a pair and enjoy the games.

I LOVE Oregon's new B1G schedule! No more wasted CAL weekends or Colorado weekends, or Arizona weekends, or Arizona State weekends. We get some good football every. single. week.

 

[Deep Creek]

When you really look at it, there is no "QBU" if you're judging it on NFL success. You think about Fields' struggles, but how much of that is that he was drafted by historically the worst team in the NFL at developing QBs? How good could he be right now if SF hadn't fucked up and taken Lance instead of Fields? On the flipside, can michigan really claim Brady if they couldn't even develop him to anything more than a 6th round pick?

At the end of the day, especially nowadays with the emphasis on explosive offense and elite QB play, you're gonna look at the program that's going to get you to the pros, and get you drafted high. Anything that happens after that is a total crapshoot.

Yeah, I would agree there isn't a QBU. But wouldn't one think the "biggies" could at least stumble upon a good one every now and then? I mean, they get the pick of the litter.

And I may be completely overlooking some.

 

[Deep Creek]

How can you say San Fran fucked up when Fields' hasn't looked great though? Lance obviously isn't any good, but I'm not sure they'd be as good as they are with Fields as opposed to Purdy. Sure they got fortunate Purdy fell into their lap, but he's been awesome ever since becoming the starter.

Purdy's another good example. Iowa State isn't exactly know as QB Development U either.

 

[Deep Creek]

It's such a wild crapshoot man. Look just in the 2000-2010s. Some of the top QBs went to colleges like Northern Iowa, Miami (OH), Southern Miss, Delaware, TCU, Fresno St., etc. OSU gets ripped for never producing an NFL QB worth a damn, but there are a lot of blue bloods and traditional powers you can say that about

Didn't I state that in my first post about this? I referenced the two flagship schools in my state as well. I wasn't just ragging Ohio State. The pundits conversation started with Fields which brough tOSU into the conversation and then went on to point out exactly what you are saying. My question is why "a slot of blue bloods and tradtional powers" haven't had any to speak of? They have everything going for them but haven't. One theory is those from the schools like you mentioned haven't had the talent around them that traditional powers do so they had to get much better just to survive!!!!!!!

I'll be the first to admit several of them have had some good college QBs.

 

[Deep Creek]

Baylor is playing Tech Sat night and no one is talking about it... There's not one Big12 game that's getting national coverage/ being talked about.. I just heard about okie st game because it takes place tonight.

My point exactly. And that will continue...even with the addition Colo, Utah, Zona and Ariz State. There will be 16 pretty decent schools but not one "needle mover" in the bunch. At least as far as it translates to eyeballs/viewership. Right now the only "needle mover" of those 16 schools is the celebrity influence of Prime and Colorado. And that ain't going to come close to the ratings the B1G and SEC games get no matter how good Colorado is.

 

[Deep Creek]

Grow a pair and enjoy the games.

I LOVE Oregon's new B1G schedule! No more wasted CAL weekends or Colorado weekends, or Arizona weekends, or Arizona State weekends. We get some good football every. single. week.

Purdue? Illinois? Indiana? Look a lot like Cal, Colorado, Arizona and Arizona State to me.

 

[Across The Field]

Didn't I state that in my first post about this? I referenced the two flagship schools in my state as well. I wasn't just ragging Ohio State. The pundits conversation started with Fields which brough tOSU into the conversation and then went on to point out exactly what you are saying. My question is why "a slot of blue bloods and tradtional powers" haven't had any to speak of? They have everything going for them but haven't. One theory is those from the schools like you mentioned haven't had the talent around them that traditional powers do so they had to get much better just to survive!!!!!!!

I'll be the first to admit several of them have had some good college QBs.

I wasn't aiming anything at you. It was moreso just a surprising statement of fact. When you look at other positions like OL, RB, WR, DL, LB, and DB in the NFL it is still dominated by the big guys, but as offenses become more QB-centric, you'll start seeing that shift at the college level.