Sacramento St tickets trading for $9
You knew it costs more to see the Central vs. South Dakota Mines game right?
Comments
-
Still too high
-
You know, Sac State once beat Oregon State...
-
But how is our program a complete dreckfest in every possible way?
-
Also beat Colorado...they won't win here but it could by like the Georgia state game.
-
So glad I didn't renew.
-
-
I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
-
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
-
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State. -
STING THE BEES!!!!!
-
I heard even Crazy Larry won't be at that game
-
Woof
-
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pickIdaho StateWestern's Intramural squad. -
Obvious fix is obviousTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Eastern Washington. -
there is no point at all in playing Idaho st. You might as well line up tackling dummies and have a game. But you should book a contender from the lower conference. I think you assholes think it's a disgrace to play I-AA, but if you followed more of college football as a whole it is common to play out of levels.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State. -
ApostleofGrief said:
there is no point at all in playing Idaho st. You might as well line up tackling dummies and have a game. But you should book a contender from the lower conference. I think you assholes think it's a disgrace to play I-AA, but if you followed more of college football as a whole it is common toTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.play out of levelsto be a pussy and not face anyone of consequence. -
well, all I can say is that last year's game with a I-AA WAS THE ONLY GAME WITH ANY MOTHERFUCKING COMPETITION. The problem is scheduling SHITTY PUSSY TEAMS. If you schedule a contender I-AA team with a history you will likely get a good football game.topdawgnc said:ApostleofGrief said:
there is no point at all in playing Idaho st. You might as well line up tackling dummies and have a game. But you should book a contender from the lower conference. I think you assholes think it's a disgrace to play I-AA, but if you followed more of college football as a whole it is common toTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.play out of levelsto be a pussy and not face anyone of consequence. -
Disagree. Garbage in. Garbage out.ApostleofGrief said:
well, all I can say is that last year's game with a I-AA WAS THE ONLY GAME WITH ANY MOTHERFUCKING COMPETITION. The problem is scheduling SHITTY PUSSY TEAMS. If you schedule a contender I-AA team with a history you will likely get a good football game.topdawgnc said:ApostleofGrief said:
there is no point at all in playing Idaho st. You might as well line up tackling dummies and have a game. But you should book a contender from the lower conference. I think you assholes think it's a disgrace to play I-AA, but if you followed more of college football as a whole it is common toTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.play out of levelsto be a pussy and not face anyone of consequence. -
I just hope these guys don't start stemming like those rotten SOB's that confused Sark and our OL last time.
-
well, if you want the best games, not garbage, schedule Notre Dame, Miami, and Alabama! If you want a realistic schedule it is better to have a contender I-AA team like Eastern than a shitty team like Georgia State or whatever, Utah State is not much more interesting. You guys keep saying that just having I-AA teams is the problem, but it is which teams that is the problem. You can get crappy IA teams and get worse results.MisterEm said:
Disagree. Garbage in. Garbage out.ApostleofGrief said:
well, all I can say is that last year's game with a I-AA WAS THE ONLY GAME WITH ANY MOTHERFUCKING COMPETITION. The problem is scheduling SHITTY PUSSY TEAMS. If you schedule a contender I-AA team with a history you will likely get a good football game.topdawgnc said:ApostleofGrief said:
there is no point at all in playing Idaho st. You might as well line up tackling dummies and have a game. But you should book a contender from the lower conference. I think you assholes think it's a disgrace to play I-AA, but if you followed more of college football as a whole it is common toTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Disagree completely.ApostleofGrief said:
quite possibly both of them. It seems like if you are going to book a I-AA, book a good one, not a mediocre one, and make it your first game to get warmed up on. I guess you could make the case that they have won PAC-12 games. But, they should concentrate on I-AA teams with a strong tradition and line them up first for warm ups.DerekJohnson said:I would love to know if this was completely Woodward's doing or if Sark was the one pushing for it.
If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.play out of levelsto be a pussy and not face anyone of consequence.
-
I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better. -
I'm down with this.
How about relegation/promotion?
Best team from the Group of 5 or whatever they're calling themselves gets advanced to the cool kids table, crappiest team from the Power conferences goes to the shit leagues.
Give Boise a chance -
I don't think playing Sac State or EWU is a bad idea if it avoids giving fucking teams like BYU or Boise or Rice or Hawaii or SDSU a return trip. Fuck that. What's the point. Those teams don't draw much interest and you gotta give them a home game in return.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
I'd play two home scrimmages and then one real big challenger from a major conference every year. -
Beating Texas in Jerry World with Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything UW has done OOC since 2000.BallSacked said:
I don't think playing Sac State or EWU is a bad idea if it avoids giving fucking teams like BYU or Boise or Rice or Hawaii or SDSU a return trip. Fuck that. What's the point. Those teams don't draw much interest and you gotta give them a home game in return.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
I'd play two home scrimmages and then one real big challenger from a major conference every year. -
Right. Play a Texas every year, but giving return trips to Boise, BYU, Memphis, Rice, Houston like UW and UCLA have done/will do...not worth it. Just plunger some retards from FCS at home instead.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Beating Texas in Jerry World with Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything UW has done OOC since 2000.BallSacked said:
I don't think playing Sac State or EWU is a bad idea if it avoids giving fucking teams like BYU or Boise or Rice or Hawaii or SDSU a return trip. Fuck that. What's the point. Those teams don't draw much interest and you gotta give them a home game in return.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
I'd play two home scrimmages and then one real big challenger from a major conference every year.
-
Going to Boise or Provo is better entertainment than playing FCS dreck at home.BallSacked said:
Right. Play a Texas every year, but giving return trips to Boise, BYU, Memphis, Rice, Houston like UW and UCLA have done/will do...not worth it. Just plunger some retards from FCS at home instead.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Beating Texas in Jerry World with Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything UW has done OOC since 2000.BallSacked said:
I don't think playing Sac State or EWU is a bad idea if it avoids giving fucking teams like BYU or Boise or Rice or Hawaii or SDSU a return trip. Fuck that. What's the point. Those teams don't draw much interest and you gotta give them a home game in return.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
I'd play two home scrimmages and then one real big challenger from a major conference every year. -
It's a shame how many good opponents we wasted under Gilby and Ty.
Instead of trying to get better we stopped scheduling them. -
Agree to disagree. It's marginal if anything AND you gotta play on the road. I just think that's a bad trade off. Play power 5 home n homes or play FCS dreck only at home.RoadDawg55 said:
Going to Boise or Provo is better entertainment than playing FCS dreck at home.BallSacked said:
Right. Play a Texas every year, but giving return trips to Boise, BYU, Memphis, Rice, Houston like UW and UCLA have done/will do...not worth it. Just plunger some retards from FCS at home instead.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Beating Texas in Jerry World with Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything UW has done OOC since 2000.BallSacked said:
I don't think playing Sac State or EWU is a bad idea if it avoids giving fucking teams like BYU or Boise or Rice or Hawaii or SDSU a return trip. Fuck that. What's the point. Those teams don't draw much interest and you gotta give them a home game in return.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
I'd play two home scrimmages and then one real big challenger from a major conference every year.
-
I could not agree more with nearly everything you've laid out. 4 conferences (bye bye B12), 16 teams per conference, 11 conference games, 1 non-conference game. To avoid stretching out the season, I'd use the conference championship games as the round of 8. P12 vs B1G and SEC vs ACC as the round of 4. The stupid fucking media voting and the stupid fucking BCS committee would go away.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better. -
How would they lay out the 16 team conferences? It's hard to imagine anyone on board with completely blowing up the current allegiances, though that might make the most sense. If you don't blow it up, it would get pretty crazy trying to slot everyone in somewhere.HuskyInAZ said:
I could not agree more with nearly everything you've laid out. 4 conferences (bye bye B12), 16 teams per conference, 11 conference games, 1 non-conference game. To avoid stretching out the season, I'd use the conference championship games as the round of 8. P12 vs B1G and SEC vs ACC as the round of 4. The stupid fucking media voting and the stupid fucking BCS committee would go away.RoadDawg55 said:I'm kind of surprised school presidents sign off on these schedules. I know coaches and AD's like it because it pads win totals and can save jobs, but it's still ridiculous.
Wouldn't it benefit everyone (Attendance, TV Ratings, Advertisements, Fan satisfaction) benefit from big time match ups?
It's time for 4 power conferences. 64 teams. Tough shit for Boise State and others that don't get in. Allow one game each season to be scheduled with teams from outside the power conferences. Maybe once every four or five years, a power conference team could even schedule an FCS school.
Have a 16 team playoff. If you really want to be diplomatic, allow one non power conference team in the playoff. Maybe even have the top two non power conference teams face off to get in. College football could be so much better.
My best guesses:
Big 10
Current 14 minus Pedo State, Maryland and Rutgers (to ACC)
Plus Kansas schools, Oklahoma schools and Iowa State
Net win for the Big 10 though not huge
SEC
Current 14
Plus old SEC schools Georgia Tech and Clemson
Big win for the SEC taking two of the four best football schools from the ACC, but you already know they're not taking a loss. In this event they'd move Missouri to the west where it belongs and the divisions are taken care of.
ACC
Current 14 minus Georgia Tech and Clemson (to SEC)
Plus Pedo State, Maryland, Rutgers and West Virginia
Somebody has to be the SEC's bitch in this, the ACC is the obvious choice. Net loss for the ACC on the field, but gaining Pennsylvania's TV market (along with getting Maryland's back) probably makes up for losing Georgia's and South Carolina's.
Pac
Current 12
Plus Texas, Texas Dreck, Baylor, TCU
I wouldn't expect the Pac to be the big winners in this, but nobody else has room for all four Big XII Texas schools and we know they're not breaking up.
New 8 team east division has the Texas schools, Arizona schools and mountain schools, with everyone else in the west.
This would be a home run for UW. This is why it will probably never happen.
