Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The REAL definition of the A-B-C schedule
TierbsHsotBoobs
Member Posts: 39,680
Here's how the A-B-C schedule used to be defined before the 0-12 season that confirmed Washington as a pussified former football school forever:
Originally, UW was to play Nevada and Illinois at home in 2009, along with a game at Notre Dame, a schedule that would have pretty much followed the old "A-B-C'' philosophy of scheduling one marquee game (at Notre Dame), one home game against a good team but one that in most years you should be able to beat (Illinois) and one relative gimme (Nevada --- and yes, I know what happened last time they played the Wolf Pack in Seattle, but for the sake of this argument, we're looking at the historical statures of the programs in question). But both Illinois and Nevada backed out of the games leaving UW scrambling to fill the holes.
So now in 2009 it's LSU and Idaho at home and at Notre Dame, a schedule that Baird, Mahler and others think is too tough for the Huskies right now. Maybe, though as I argued last month, there's something that should be applauded about trying to schedule tough games and giving the fans their money's worth (and I think most of the players would rather play those types of schedules, as well).
And here's another reason the Huskies may have decided to schedule LSU for 2009 that I haven't heard talked about much --- that it could help the effort to get $150 million in public money out of the state legislature for a renovation of Husky Stadium.
Part of UW's selling point in that quest will be the economic benefits to the region of Husky football games, especially contests against marquee non-conference teams that are likely to bring in a lot of fans.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/huskyfootball/2008/06/another_reason_for_scheduling.html
Originally, UW was to play Nevada and Illinois at home in 2009, along with a game at Notre Dame, a schedule that would have pretty much followed the old "A-B-C'' philosophy of scheduling one marquee game (at Notre Dame), one home game against a good team but one that in most years you should be able to beat (Illinois) and one relative gimme (Nevada --- and yes, I know what happened last time they played the Wolf Pack in Seattle, but for the sake of this argument, we're looking at the historical statures of the programs in question). But both Illinois and Nevada backed out of the games leaving UW scrambling to fill the holes.
So now in 2009 it's LSU and Idaho at home and at Notre Dame, a schedule that Baird, Mahler and others think is too tough for the Huskies right now. Maybe, though as I argued last month, there's something that should be applauded about trying to schedule tough games and giving the fans their money's worth (and I think most of the players would rather play those types of schedules, as well).
And here's another reason the Huskies may have decided to schedule LSU for 2009 that I haven't heard talked about much --- that it could help the effort to get $150 million in public money out of the state legislature for a renovation of Husky Stadium.
Part of UW's selling point in that quest will be the economic benefits to the region of Husky football games, especially contests against marquee non-conference teams that are likely to bring in a lot of fans.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/huskyfootball/2008/06/another_reason_for_scheduling.html
Comments
We should never forget that the relatively low payout to FCS schools nets considerably more revenue desperately needed in UW coffers to cover the costs of non-revenue sports. A large part of why Sarkwood choose to insult us with Idaho State and other football OOC donut holes must be accountable to Title IX, softball, volleyball, baseball, golf, tennis, X-country, track, soccer, and all that other Olympic crap no-one really cares about.
I was like blame Sark for blowing ND, ASU and UCLA.