Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Sacramento St tickets trading for $9
Comments
-
Pac will *never* take Baylor
-
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
-
*sizzle
-
Quite honestly, we were lucky to schedule Sacramento State when we did. Now it seems, everybody is trying to land them on their schedule, which proves we were a little bit ahead of the rest of the conference in game schedule management
-
WDWYAAZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
-
Any conference realignment that includes Baylor is not a great deal. Texas already delivers everything Central Texas has to offer.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
Baylor is still a small, fairly shitty church school. Under the hypothetical that we're not discussing, the Pac is already taking one of those in TCU, which at least is in the D/FW metro area.
Also, Texas and Oklahoma will never split up again.
These are things I know from having grown up in Texas.
/texassuperiorityguy -
If you schedule any 1-AA team, it better be bad one. If you beat a good one like Eastern Washington you'll get the same credit as beating Savannah St. And if you lose, you might as well have lost to Savannah St. We all know that there are many 1-AA schools that would beat San Jose St and SMU 9 out of 10 times, but you still get more credit beating San Jose St. and SMU.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. -
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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. -
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way. -
TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
AddingIncidentally adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets because you brought in Texas and Oklahoma or Texas A&M.
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way. -
Well duh. You don't bring Baylor without Texas at least.
-
Baylor brings nothing to the table. They are less than Utah.
-
Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.
Such moron, boobs
-
CHRIST. Baylor obviously isn't a first choice for part of the expansion to 16 teams, but I'd take Baylor in a heartbeat if I was also getting Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.BallSacked said:
Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.
Such moron, boobs -
Hi. You're a Twister.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
CHRIST. Baylor obviously isn't a first choice for part of the expansion to 16 teams, but I'd take Baylor in a heartbeat if I was also getting Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.BallSacked said:
Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.
Such moron, boobs
Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy. -
Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.greenblood said:
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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. -
Of course. I fantasize about the day where the conference doesn't have a tennis pro in charge.BallSacked said:
Hi. You're a Twister.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
CHRIST. Baylor obviously isn't a first choice for part of the expansion to 16 teams, but I'd take Baylor in a heartbeat if I was also getting Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.BallSacked said:
Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.
Such moron, boobs
Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy. -
Agree to AGREETierbsHsotBoobs said:
Of course. I fantasize about the day where the conference doesn't have a tennis pro in charge.BallSacked said:
Hi. You're a Twister.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
CHRIST. Baylor obviously isn't a first choice for part of the expansion to 16 teams, but I'd take Baylor in a heartbeat if I was also getting Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.BallSacked said:
Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.BallSacked said:
I think it would be a bad business decision. Will adding the Waco/Baylor Market increase or dilute the pac12s TV money? My guess is the latter.dnc said:
It would be so very Pac12 to be the ones to turn down a great deal for themselves on ideological grounds.AZDuck said:Pac will *never* take Baylor
It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.
Such moron, boobs
Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy.
-
I'm actually for not playing any 1-AA games, but if you schedule one, schedule a bad one. If the weasel approach is the deciding factor whether you get selected for a playoff birth or major bowl game vs a December bowel game, how does this not help the fans?ApostleofGrief said:
Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.greenblood said:
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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.
So I can put you down as for having a close game against Eastern Washington be used against you, rather than just blowing out Savannah St?
If your goal is 7-8 wins every season, then fine, give the fans a competitive 1-AA game. But, most fans want major January bowl games, and giving them that any way possible trumps playing against the tallest circus midget in September. -
greenblood said:
I'm actually for not playing any 1-AA games, but if you schedule one, schedule a bad one. If the weasel approach is the deciding factor whether you get selected for a playoff birth or major bowl game vs a December bowel game, how does this not help the fans?ApostleofGrief said:
Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.greenblood said:
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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.
So I can put you down as for having a close game against Eastern Washington be used against you, rather than just blowing out Savannah St?
If your goal is 7-8 wins every season, then fine, give the fans a competitive 1-AA game. But, most fans want major January bowl games, and giving them that any way possible trumps playing against the tallest circus midget in September.
I understand your rationale, but it is defective. You are viewing all I-AA teams as inferior, some more inferior than others, which is simply not true. A team of Eastern's caliber would defeat a substantial number of mediocre IA teams. If the selection committee doesn't see that, they are not following college football... My only argument here is that instead of playing a mediocre or even shitty IA team, you could play a contender I-AA team.
-
I made a previous post that read, "many 1-AA could beat San Jose St and SMU 9 out of 10 times, but you'll get more credit beating San Jose St. and SMU."ApostleofGrief said:greenblood said:
I'm actually for not playing any 1-AA games, but if you schedule one, schedule a bad one. If the weasel approach is the deciding factor whether you get selected for a playoff birth or major bowl game vs a December bowel game, how does this not help the fans?ApostleofGrief said:
Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.greenblood said:
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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.
So I can put you down as for having a close game against Eastern Washington be used against you, rather than just blowing out Savannah St?
If your goal is 7-8 wins every season, then fine, give the fans a competitive 1-AA game. But, most fans want major January bowl games, and giving them that any way possible trumps playing against the tallest circus midget in September.
I understand your rationale, but it is defective. You are viewing all I-AA teams as inferior, some more inferior than others, which is simply not true. A team of Eastern's caliber would defeat a substantial number of mediocre IA teams. If the selection committee doesn't see that, they are not following college football... My only argument here is that instead of playing a mediocre or even shitty IA team, you could play a contender I-AA team.
It's all about perception. In many of these members mind, yes they'll score an Eastern Washington win very similar to Savannah St. They spend enough time comparing FBS strength, they don't have the time to determine strength differences at the 1-AA level. App St. was a top rate 1-AA when they beat Michigan in the big house. How much crap does Michigan still get today over that loss? The consequences way and beyond outweigh the rewards of playing top level 1-AA teams. Either play a shitty FBS team, and if you lose it's at least to a FBS school, or play a 1-AA team bad enough that if you lose, you're probably not a bowl team anyways. -
disagreegreenblood said:
I made a previous post that read, "many 1-AA could beat San Jose St and SMU 9 out of 10 times, but you'll get more credit beating San Jose St. and SMU."ApostleofGrief said:greenblood said:
I'm actually for not playing any 1-AA games, but if you schedule one, schedule a bad one. If the weasel approach is the deciding factor whether you get selected for a playoff birth or major bowl game vs a December bowel game, how does this not help the fans?ApostleofGrief said:
Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.greenblood said:
You might have a good game, but a close win over any 1-AA team hurts you with the selection committee. It's not just the playoff, it hurts when the committee picks the other major bowl games. Schedule FBS schools or if you do schedule a 1-AA team you better make damn sure it's a team that will allow you to play your 4th-5th string and walkons at the start of the fourth quarter.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.
So I can put you down as for having a close game against Eastern Washington be used against you, rather than just blowing out Savannah St?
If your goal is 7-8 wins every season, then fine, give the fans a competitive 1-AA game. But, most fans want major January bowl games, and giving them that any way possible trumps playing against the tallest circus midget in September.
I understand your rationale, but it is defective. You are viewing all I-AA teams as inferior, some more inferior than others, which is simply not true. A team of Eastern's caliber would defeat a substantial number of mediocre IA teams. If the selection committee doesn't see that, they are not following college football... My only argument here is that instead of playing a mediocre or even shitty IA team, you could play a contender I-AA team.
It's all about perception. In many of these members mind, yes they'll score an Eastern Washington win very similar to Savannah St. They spend enough time comparing FBS strength, they don't have the time to determine strength differences at the 1-AA level. App St. was a top rate 1-AA when they beat Michigan in the big house. How much crap does Michigan still get today over that loss? The consequences way and beyond outweigh the rewards of playing top level 1-AA teams. Either play a shitty FBS team, and if you lose it's at least to a FBS school, or play a 1-AA team bad enough that if you lose, you're probably not a bowl team anyways.
