You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 11:40 a.m.

Dave Brandon: Dissolution of Big Ten-Pac-12 collaboration won't change Michigan's future schedule

By Nick Baumgardner

The Big Ten and the Pac-12 collaborative effort has collapsed.

But Michigan's relationship with the Pac-12 is far from over.

The leagues ended their pact before it ever really started. But the Michigan football program fully complied with the idea well before the 2017 mandate, scheduling games against Utah, Oregon State and Colorado.

Will Michigan go through with its Pac-12 commitments?

"Yes," Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon said in an email Friday. "(The contracts are signed) and we are pleased to have the games on our schedule."


Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon says the Wolverines will to play their previously-scheduled Pac-12 football opponents, despite the suspension of the Big Ten-Pac-12 deal. file photo

Michigan's home-and-home series with Utah, beginning in 2014, and it's one-game deals with Colorado (2016) and Oregon State (2015) were agreed upon under the umbrella of the Big Ten-Pac-12 pact. An arrangement that now seems well on its way to being extinct.

But even so, Brandon says Michigan intends to move forward with its current set of future dates, and also won't rule out other future Pac-12 opponents for both football or men's basketball.

Last month, Brandon seemed a bit concerned about the overall health of the now former Big Ten-Pac-12 agreement, saying the entire process seemed to be spinning its wheels.

On Friday, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said he was disappointed the idea couldn't be finalized -- a sentiment Brandon agreed with.

"It had some great potential," Brandon wrote. "However, if it doesn't work for both conferences, then it wasn't meant to be."

Nick Baumgardner covers Michigan sports for He can be reached at 734-623-2514, by email at and followed on Twitter @nickbaumgardner.



Sun, Jul 15, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.

It seems this article is not complete by not providing a little more background as to why the collaboration fell apart. Was it a money issue? Was it related to the TV contracts/schedules? Some other factors? It'd be interesting to know.


Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.

Well, this story is not about the dissolution of the scheduling agreement. This story is the follow up about whether UM's previously announced games against PAC-12 schools would still be played despite that dissolution. All of the stories about the agreement falling through (that I've seen, anyway) say that the PAC-12 pulled out because 4 or so of their members adamantly did not want to be forced into that scheduling pattern. While nobody would name the schools, all of the analysts seem to think that it centered around schools that have other long term non-conference rivalries (like USC and Stanford with Notre Dame). The thinking is that with a 9 game conference schedule, the alternating P12 - B10 games, and a non-conference alternating rivalry game, those schools would have at least 11 road games per 2 year cycle. That means at most 13 home games per 2 years, which has budget implications for athletic departments that rely on those football revenues to pay for other sports.

Craig Lounsbury

Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 7:27 p.m.

"I don't believe we can or should go on the road for nonconference games when we can put 113,000 people in our stadium. It's, financially, the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do for our fans, in terms of their ticket packages. And we're going to alternate with Notre Dame, so we're going to have one game on the road every other year. So the rest of those games, I would like to have at Michigan Stadium." David Brandon July 2011 Detroit Free Press. That quote is not outdated folks. That will always be a huge factor in signing any games. If the opponent wants a return visit its a huge strike against them.

Wally the Wolverine

Sun, Jul 15, 2012 : 4:39 p.m.

With the new 4-team playoff on the horizon, a quality non-conference schedule could be the difference maker if you have several teams that win-out or only have one loss. If we don't offer a home and home, the big boys have no incentive to come play here.

Craig Lounsbury

Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.

Eastern.... home Eastern.....home Big shot school...away Eastern.....home Big shot school...home repeat 4 home games for every away game in the non-conference schedule. That is the kind of thing I expect to transpire over the next few years. There will be convenient excuses as to why we can't fit better teams in regularly but in the end it will be about maximizing home games.


Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 6:03 p.m.

Good to see that Michigan has it's own Pac-12 agreement with Utah, Oregon State and Colorado.


Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 4:16 p.m.

Who needs Pac-10? Pac-10 realized it cannot compete with B1G unless it is held in the Rose Bowl. NEXT! GO BLUE!


Sun, Jul 15, 2012 : 10:40 a.m.

SEC, Your worthless conference is also avoiding my B1G, too.


Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.

Nothing has stopped the little girl "big" 10 from playing the pac except fear! Ohh , and once again the little girls of the midwest cry that their bowl game is unfair and that's why they keep losing. Waaa. Waaaaa. Mommy will get u some milk.


Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 4:35 p.m.

Oregon, USC, Stanford can't compete with us D21 ? What I'd like to know is, why the breakdown ? Makes no sense to me. Does this stop the Rose Bowl game tradition or what ? Who stopped the collaboration and why ??