Sacramento St tickets trading for $9

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

 

[AZDuck]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding Incidentally 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.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

Well duh. You don't bring Baylor without Texas at least.

 

[AZDuck]

Baylor brings nothing to the table. They are less than Utah.

 

[BallSacked]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.

Such moron, boobs

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.

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]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.

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.

Hi. You're a Twister.

Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy.

 

[ApostleofGrief]

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.

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.

Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.

 

[TierbsHsotBoobs]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.

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.

Hi. You're a Twister.

Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy.

Of course. I fantasize about the day where the conference doesn't have a tennis pro in charge.

 

[BallSacked]

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.

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.

Hi. Adding the Waco market is worth it if you also get the Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio markets.

It's even better if you can somehow dump the Seattle/Spokane/Pullman/Portland/Eugene markets along the way.

Yeah those markets are probably ravenous for some hot Baylor action. Said no one ever.

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.

Hi. You're a Twister.

Why don't we add Alabama and LSU while we are talking about fantasy.

Of course. I fantasize about the day where the conference doesn't have a tennis pro in charge.

Agree to AGREE

 

[greenblood]

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.

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.

Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.

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?

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.

 

[ApostleofGrief]

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.

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.

Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.

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?

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.

 

[greenblood]

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.

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.

Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.

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?

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."

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.

 

[ApostleofGrief]

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.

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.

Well, fuck the selection committee. You sound like an AD. It doesn't help that fans also take the weasel schedule approach.

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?

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."

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.

disagree