Sacramento St tickets trading for $9

You know, Sac State once beat Oregon State...

STING THE BEES!!!!!

Woof

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

ApostleofGrief said:

DerekJohnson said:

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.

Disagree completely.

If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Eastern Washington.

Obvious fix is obvious

ApostleofGrief said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

ApostleofGrief said:

DerekJohnson said:

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.

Disagree completely.

If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.

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 to be a pussy and not face anyone of consequence.

ApostleofGrief said:

topdawgnc said:

ApostleofGrief said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

ApostleofGrief said:

DerekJohnson said:

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.

Disagree completely.

If you're going to book a scrimmage, pick Idaho State.

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 to 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.

Disagree. Garbage in. Garbage out.

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

RoadDawg55 said:

BallSacked said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

BallSacked said:

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 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.

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.

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.

Going to Boise or Provo is better entertainment than playing FCS dreck at home.

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.

HuskyInAZ said:

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 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.

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.

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.