Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Pitt Added In 2017
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #41
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-13-2016 10:00 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 02:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 12:40 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-12-2016 10:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-12-2016 06:27 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I'm tired of reading comments like "I don't like directional schools...I don't like playing teams I've never heard of....I don't like playing teams that are Sun Belt like" and then turnaround and reading "playing Pitt is too hard, playing UH is too hard...playing anyone is too hard."
Ab-so-f-ing-lute-ly.
WTF do people want? We've got to do one or the other. Actually, right now, Rice has to do some of both.
I really don't understand what some people are thinking. Maybe that's because they aren't.
I hope you guys aren't referring to me, because I've never complained about CUSA competition. As a matter of fact, I've mentioned several times that CUSA is a young and improving conference. We've been down this road many times before. Rice has always had to sacrifice itself for paydays and I hate what it does to our team. It's exciting, but it usually ends badly in more ways than one.
The thinking part certainly should be referring to you. And why? I highlighted yet another inane, thoughtless statement. And yes, you did whine about playing Pitt and losing.
Ever since Bailiff was linked with UTSA, Afflicted has had his panties in a bunch. Really inspires some questions as to what the bond/attachment/motives are.
Yes, I am concerned about us scheduling so much P5 competition in nonconference play, but I've never bad-mouthed CUSA or referred to it's schools as "directional universities" or "sunbelt-like." Quite the opposite, many times I've stood up for the conference while everyone around here (like you) tears it down.
Your response to my comment is the exact kind of stupid bull**** that I was referring to yesterday on another thread. It's typical of you and of many other posters on this board. It's meant to get me hot and pull me into a meaningless argument. You're an instigator. It's fun to you, but I'm through with it. I don't have the time or energy for it. Have fun playing with yourself around here.

Could somebody explain to me why moving to a P5 conference and playing at least 8 P5 opponents and at most 4 Non-P5 opponents is a desirable goal, but playing 4 P5 opponents and 8 non-P5 opponents is too hard? If 4 P5's is too hard, then 8 P5's is that much harder. And yes, if we make the move we will be recruiting and hiring as a P5 with certain possibilities open to us that are not now. But, it's still a major step up, and we are saying on the one hand that we want to make it, but on the other that even a baby step in that direction is too hard. Doesn't make sense.
01-14-2016 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #42
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 10:00 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 02:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 12:40 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-12-2016 10:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Ab-so-f-ing-lute-ly.
WTF do people want? We've got to do one or the other. Actually, right now, Rice has to do some of both.
I really don't understand what some people are thinking. Maybe that's because they aren't.
I hope you guys aren't referring to me, because I've never complained about CUSA competition. As a matter of fact, I've mentioned several times that CUSA is a young and improving conference. We've been down this road many times before. Rice has always had to sacrifice itself for paydays and I hate what it does to our team. It's exciting, but it usually ends badly in more ways than one.
The thinking part certainly should be referring to you. And why? I highlighted yet another inane, thoughtless statement. And yes, you did whine about playing Pitt and losing.
Ever since Bailiff was linked with UTSA, Afflicted has had his panties in a bunch. Really inspires some questions as to what the bond/attachment/motives are.
Yes, I am concerned about us scheduling so much P5 competition in nonconference play, but I've never bad-mouthed CUSA or referred to it's schools as "directional universities" or "sunbelt-like." Quite the opposite, many times I've stood up for the conference while everyone around here (like you) tears it down.
Your response to my comment is the exact kind of stupid bull**** that I was referring to yesterday on another thread. It's typical of you and of many other posters on this board. It's meant to get me hot and pull me into a meaningless argument. You're an instigator. It's fun to you, but I'm through with it. I don't have the time or energy for it. Have fun playing with yourself around here.

Could somebody explain to me why moving to a P5 conference and playing at least 8 P5 opponents and at most 4 Non-P5 opponents is a desirable goal, but playing 4 P5 opponents and 8 non-P5 opponents is too hard? If 4 P5's is too hard, then 8 P5's is that much harder. And yes, if we make the move we will be recruiting and hiring as a P5 with certain possibilities open to us that are not now. But, it's still a major step up, and we are saying on the one hand that we want to make it, but on the other that even a baby step in that direction is too hard. Doesn't make sense.

Because its an excuse, a poison pill. For example, throwing in something so ludicrous or out-there into a deal or discussion that it torpedoes the conversation. Since P5 is currently essentially unattainable given where the program is, P5 membership is an easy idea to chuck out there.

Beating a mediocre Texas, on the other hand, is a far more reasonable prospect. And as a result, the Bailiff homers try to discount the clear and present necessity of doing so, as it preserves the status quo. I feel that if we were in a P5 with Bailiff, we would hear the same arguments, that expecting us to go anything better than 1-7 is unreasonable; since its a pie-in-the-sky concept right now, its easier to ignore the realities and difficulties.

Of course, this is rampant speculation to try to understand a logic free argument. Occams Razor suggests that the simpler explanation is the correct one - Afflicted didn't think before typing. Because Army, Wagner and 5-7 UT are real toughies for an OOC schedule.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 01:42 PM by Antarius.)
01-14-2016 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 12:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 10:00 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 02:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-13-2016 12:40 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-12-2016 10:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Ab-so-f-ing-lute-ly.
WTF do people want? We've got to do one or the other. Actually, right now, Rice has to do some of both.
I really don't understand what some people are thinking. Maybe that's because they aren't.
I hope you guys aren't referring to me, because I've never complained about CUSA competition. As a matter of fact, I've mentioned several times that CUSA is a young and improving conference. We've been down this road many times before. Rice has always had to sacrifice itself for paydays and I hate what it does to our team. It's exciting, but it usually ends badly in more ways than one.
The thinking part certainly should be referring to you. And why? I highlighted yet another inane, thoughtless statement. And yes, you did whine about playing Pitt and losing.
Ever since Bailiff was linked with UTSA, Afflicted has had his panties in a bunch. Really inspires some questions as to what the bond/attachment/motives are.
Yes, I am concerned about us scheduling so much P5 competition in nonconference play, but I've never bad-mouthed CUSA or referred to it's schools as "directional universities" or "sunbelt-like." Quite the opposite, many times I've stood up for the conference while everyone around here (like you) tears it down.
Your response to my comment is the exact kind of stupid bull**** that I was referring to yesterday on another thread. It's typical of you and of many other posters on this board. It's meant to get me hot and pull me into a meaningless argument. You're an instigator. It's fun to you, but I'm through with it. I don't have the time or energy for it. Have fun playing with yourself around here.

Could somebody explain to me why moving to a P5 conference and playing at least 8 P5 opponents and at most 4 Non-P5 opponents is a desirable goal, but playing 4 P5 opponents and 8 non-P5 opponents is too hard? If 4 P5's is too hard, then 8 P5's is that much harder. And yes, if we make the move we will be recruiting and hiring as a P5 with certain possibilities open to us that are not now. But, it's still a major step up, and we are saying on the one hand that we want to make it, but on the other that even a baby step in that direction is too hard. Doesn't make sense.

For me, I'm resigned to the fact that Rice isn't going to spend the money to be competitive against too much P5 competition. If Rice is content with being a competitive G5 member, and it is, then I want us playing G5 competition. If Rice spent the money to build a P5 product, I'd be much more comfortable playing a full schedule of P5 competition. For now, and probably forever, Rice is only going to invest at the G5 level, or lower. Playing a bunch of P5 schools, in that scenario, only leads to injuries, embarassment, and fan disinterest. I enjoy wins and bowl games, no matter who we stomp to get there and no matter who we thump when we arrive.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 04:21 PM by Afflicted.)
01-14-2016 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kayjay Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 525
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
Yikes! So many of these topics have lately "devolved" into some pretty contentious conversations. Snide remarks and insults seldom move conversations forward. (I'll get off of my soapbox now!)

I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed). He then restructured the annual series they had against Oklahoma (that the previous administration had agreed to host on a regular basis in Oklahoma, again for $$) to make sure that the game was played at KSU every other year.

As the wins kept mounting and his overall player recruiting improved, and he slowly increased the quality of his non-conference opponents but still made sure that the non-conference schedule had several wins dialed-in as a high probability of success.

Granted, by being in the Big 12 and having access to the conference media/tv $$ shares, KSU did not have the financial issues and risks that a small school like Rice faces, which gave them time to implement his scheduling strategy in such a manner that allowed them to build a successful program that now generates strong $$ for the athletic department.

All of that said, I like the move to play Pitt much more than the one against LSU, despite the geographic and historic ties to the later program. LSU is historically a top 15 program it is just unlikely that Rice can compete, given the coaching, recruiting and resource advantages. Quite frankly, I liked the games against Purdue and Kansas, because Rice could be competitive against these P5 teams and hopefully with increased exposure, could step up slowly to the next levels (e.g.: teams like Pitt, K. State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland etc.). Start winning at that level and Rice can begin to recruit and play with some of the top 30 teams. Then it is time to begin playing the LSU's, and other programs that habitually are in the top 25.

My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.
01-14-2016 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
But Kansas State had good opponents in the Big 12 so there was no need to schedule big name opponents OOC. Whoever was there before him made a big mistake playing a conference opponent (Oklahoma) just at their place. It could be debatable whether Bear Bryant made the same mistake at A&M by having all the Rice-A&M games at HRS from 1956-1966 but it did get a better gate back then. The 1957 game would have been at HRS anyway since our year was always the odd year.

(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Yikes! So many of these topics have lately "devolved" into some pretty contentious conversations. Snide remarks and insults seldom move conversations forward. (I'll get off of my soapbox now!)

I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed). He then restructured the annual series they had against Oklahoma (that the previous administration had agreed to host on a regular basis in Oklahoma, again for $$) to make sure that the game was played at KSU every other year.

As the wins kept mounting and his overall player recruiting improved, and he slowly increased the quality of his non-conference opponents but still made sure that the non-conference schedule had several wins dialed-in as a high probability of success.

Granted, by being in the Big 12 and having access to the conference media/tv $$ shares, KSU did not have the financial issues and risks that a small school like Rice faces, which gave them time to implement his scheduling strategy in such a manner that allowed them to build a successful program that now generates strong $$ for the athletic department.

All of that said, I like the move to play Pitt much more than the one against LSU, despite the geographic and historic ties to the later program. LSU is historically a top 15 program it is just unlikely that Rice can compete, given the coaching, recruiting and resource advantages. Quite frankly, I liked the games against Purdue and Kansas, because Rice could be competitive against these P5 teams and hopefully with increased exposure, could step up slowly to the next levels (e.g.: teams like Pitt, K. State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland etc.). Start winning at that level and Rice can begin to recruit and play with some of the top 30 teams. Then it is time to begin playing the LSU's, and other programs that habitually are in the top 25.

My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.
01-14-2016 04:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Yikes! So many of these topics have lately "devolved" into some pretty contentious conversations. Snide remarks and insults seldom move conversations forward. (I'll get off of my soapbox now!)

I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed). He then restructured the annual series they had against Oklahoma (that the previous administration had agreed to host on a regular basis in Oklahoma, again for $$) to make sure that the game was played at KSU every other year.

As the wins kept mounting and his overall player recruiting improved, and he slowly increased the quality of his non-conference opponents but still made sure that the non-conference schedule had several wins dialed-in as a high probability of success.

Granted, by being in the Big 12 and having access to the conference media/tv $$ shares, KSU did not have the financial issues and risks that a small school like Rice faces, which gave them time to implement his scheduling strategy in such a manner that allowed them to build a successful program that now generates strong $$ for the athletic department.

All of that said, I like the move to play Pitt much more than the one against LSU, despite the geographic and historic ties to the later program. LSU is historically a top 15 program it is just unlikely that Rice can compete, given the coaching, recruiting and resource advantages. Quite frankly, I liked the games against Purdue and Kansas, because Rice could be competitive against these P5 teams and hopefully with increased exposure, could step up slowly to the next levels (e.g.: teams like Pitt, K. State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland etc.). Start winning at that level and Rice can begin to recruit and play with some of the top 30 teams. Then it is time to begin playing the LSU's, and other programs that habitually are in the top 25.

My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.

I couldn't agree more. Well said. At this point, I feel like we are biting off a lot more than we can chew. I like your dream schedule. It's just right.
01-14-2016 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #47
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.

We need $$$ desperately. Kansas and Purdue do not come close to paying what LSU does. Also, we get absolutely no exposure. Sure, they are "p5" but beating Kansas in football gets you about as much street cred as punching a kid in the face and stealing their candy.

We beat ourselves into a pulp against a very very mediocre Texas. I'd rather we take the money.
01-14-2016 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
greyowl72 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,643
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Rice
Location: Permanent Basement
Post: #48
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 04:53 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Yikes! So many of these topics have lately "devolved" into some pretty contentious conversations. Snide remarks and insults seldom move conversations forward. (I'll get off of my soapbox now!)

I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed). He then restructured the annual series they had against Oklahoma (that the previous administration had agreed to host on a regular basis in Oklahoma, again for $$) to make sure that the game was played at KSU every other year.

As the wins kept mounting and his overall player recruiting improved, and he slowly increased the quality of his non-conference opponents but still made sure that the non-conference schedule had several wins dialed-in as a high probability of success.

Granted, by being in the Big 12 and having access to the conference media/tv $$ shares, KSU did not have the financial issues and risks that a small school like Rice faces, which gave them time to implement his scheduling strategy in such a manner that allowed them to build a successful program that now generates strong $$ for the athletic department.

All of that said, I like the move to play Pitt much more than the one against LSU, despite the geographic and historic ties to the later program. LSU is historically a top 15 program it is just unlikely that Rice can compete, given the coaching, recruiting and resource advantages. Quite frankly, I liked the games against Purdue and Kansas, because Rice could be competitive against these P5 teams and hopefully with increased exposure, could step up slowly to the next levels (e.g.: teams like Pitt, K. State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland etc.). Start winning at that level and Rice can begin to recruit and play with some of the top 30 teams. Then it is time to begin playing the LSU's, and other programs that habitually are in the top 25.

My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.

I couldn't agree more. Well said. At this point, I feel like we are biting off a lot more than we can chew. I like your dream schedule. It's just right.

Kayjay, I like your ideas and dream schedule. But I'm getting the impression from the way we are scheduling for future games that we need the $$ that we get for LSU, Stanford, A&M.
I do think that an important part of the picture is the series with UH.
01-14-2016 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
loki_the_bubba Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,696
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 701
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 05:46 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  
(01-14-2016 04:53 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  
(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  Yikes! So many of these topics have lately "devolved" into some pretty contentious conversations. Snide remarks and insults seldom move conversations forward. (I'll get off of my soapbox now!)

I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed). He then restructured the annual series they had against Oklahoma (that the previous administration had agreed to host on a regular basis in Oklahoma, again for $$) to make sure that the game was played at KSU every other year.

As the wins kept mounting and his overall player recruiting improved, and he slowly increased the quality of his non-conference opponents but still made sure that the non-conference schedule had several wins dialed-in as a high probability of success.

Granted, by being in the Big 12 and having access to the conference media/tv $$ shares, KSU did not have the financial issues and risks that a small school like Rice faces, which gave them time to implement his scheduling strategy in such a manner that allowed them to build a successful program that now generates strong $$ for the athletic department.

All of that said, I like the move to play Pitt much more than the one against LSU, despite the geographic and historic ties to the later program. LSU is historically a top 15 program it is just unlikely that Rice can compete, given the coaching, recruiting and resource advantages. Quite frankly, I liked the games against Purdue and Kansas, because Rice could be competitive against these P5 teams and hopefully with increased exposure, could step up slowly to the next levels (e.g.: teams like Pitt, K. State, Texas Tech, Indiana, Minnesota, Maryland etc.). Start winning at that level and Rice can begin to recruit and play with some of the top 30 teams. Then it is time to begin playing the LSU's, and other programs that habitually are in the top 25.

My dream schedule (as long as the program is situated in CUSA) would include 1 G5 game (WAC, AAC, etc.), 1 game against a service academy, 2 lower echelon P5 games as the non-conference schedule. As the team develops the ability to win those 4 games (or at least 3 of 4) on an annual basis, I would upgrade the lower echelon P5 games to P5 mid-echelon games. Being successful against this type of schedule over several years will significantly improve the recruiting profile for the school.

I couldn't agree more. Well said. At this point, I feel like we are biting off a lot more than we can chew. I like your dream schedule. It's just right.

Kayjay, I like your ideas and dream schedule. But I'm getting the impression from the way we are scheduling for future games that we need the $$ that we get for LSU, Stanford, A&M.
I do think that an important part of the picture is the series with UH.

Isn't Stanford a home-and-home? We won't get paid for that I assume.
01-14-2016 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Afflicted Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,249
Joined: Sep 2009
I Root For: Rice and UH
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
Let's look on the bright side. No matter what happens in these tough games, it's a scheduling strategy that's attractive to recruits, pays us good money, speeds us up, and gives us a chance to pull off a big upset somewhere. I just really hate how these games usually end. They hurt as much as they help.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 07:40 PM by Afflicted.)
01-14-2016 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
RE: Pitt Added In 2017
(01-14-2016 04:48 PM)75src Wrote:  But Kansas State had good opponents in the Big 12 so there was no need to schedule big name opponents OOC.
(01-14-2016 04:34 PM)Kayjay Wrote:  I understand the need for the $$ games against some of the P5 opponents that Rice has/will play, but I really like the strategy that Bill Snyder used when he arrived at Kansas State. He took all the "body bag $$" off his schedule and fattened up his record against schools that KS "should" win (it did not always happen, but they began to win more of those games as the seasons progressed).

Exactly, although it was the Big 8 when Snyder started. Snyder also got to admit just about anybody he wanted. At one time, they had something like an 11% graduation rate for football players.

With an 11-game schedule, Snyder has 7 games against what we would now call P5 opponents and 4 games against sub-P5 opponents. We already have 8 games against sub-P5 opponents, so even if we schedule 4 against p5's, we still have a much easier schedule than Snyder had. And we badly need to find the revenue somewhere that he was getting from playing Nebraska and Oklahoma within the conference.

It's going to be extremely difficult for us to overcome the situation that the last 50 years have created for us. But no matter how difficult, we have to do it. And no matter how difficult, it will be easier than waiting another 5-10 years to start.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 07:52 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
01-14-2016 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.