Alabama vs USC in Cowboys stadium in 2016?

[Bandwagonbo2]

BWB... 7000 well done

Thanks, I always miss that when I am posting. Do I get a free spa day or something, maybe a nice new pair of birkenstocks so i can begin my conversion to Team PAC

 

[WhiteMamba]

Thanks, I always miss that when I am posting. Do I get a free spa day or something, maybe a nice new pair of birkenstocks so i can begin my conversion to Team PAC

When u get to 10,000 you get to come to the exclusive Free hooker Friday with all the beer you can drink.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

When u get to 10,000 you get to come to the exclusive Free hooker Friday with all the beer you can drink.

Got another season to go then

 

[WizardHawk]

Lets recap so you can get it, didnt think it was that hard to see.

PAC is at nine
Big 12 plays round robin of nine
B1G is at 8 but has voted to move to nine
SEC is at 8 and wont budge(except one lone voice of reason)
If the ACC had moved to nine when all others would be at nine by 2016, this would facilitate the SEC to move or wither on the vine(so to speak) as the SoS would suffer due to other conference getting an extra in conference game.

I am on your side and think Saban is right to want the ninth game, but I dont get the hate(and yes with some of you it is hate and not reason) for the SEC when another conference is currently employing said model and eats FCS teams like candy(sometimes two per year). Do you get it now?

lol, so when you don't get it you think speaking down to others will change things?

The ACC moving to 9 isn't going to be the tipping point and can't be. Even moving to 9 their SOS won't come up to what the SEC's is now. If their argument really is that they don't need 9 where everyone else does because their IC is so strong then how is the ACC moving slightly up going to change that?

Do YOU get it now?

It would seem that only some perceived slight by the playoff committee will have the chance of swaying enough of the other coaches to jump on board with going to 9. The ACC will have nothing to do with it what so ever.

 

[trojanfan12]

I am not crying, but merely trying diligently to educate you uneducated heathens out west.

And please tell me when I stated that Bama was following anyone, least of all the ACC. Its all there to read and comprehend, one part seems to be missing on that end. Dont know which

Don't bother trying to educate USC fans about the wonders of playing FCS teams. We'll never understand.

Let's see: The SEC likes to claim that they are "the strongest conference in the land". Right?

As "the strongest conference in the land" they should be leaders in cfb. Correct?

Yet, Team SEC points to the ACC and says "look, they're doing it too" or "Why should we change when they don't?"

Additionally, here are your own words:

SEC is at 8 and wont budge(except one lone voice of reason)
If the ACC had moved to nine when all others would be at nine by 2016, this would facilitate the SEC to move or wither on the vine(so to speak) as the SoS would suffer due to other conference getting an extra in conference game

So, you feel that the lowly ACC should have forced the "mighty SEC" to go to a 9 game IC schedule? Considering that the PAC, B1G and Big 12 are already at or moving to 9 game IC schedules, why does the SEC feel they need to wait for the ACC to move to 9 games before they do it? Why not be the leaders that Team SEC claims the conference is and force the ACC to go to 9 IC games by doing so themselves?

You bring up Saban being the only SEC coach who wants to go to 9 games, yet you defend the SEC staying at 8 and use the ACC as your justification.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

lol, so when you don't get it you think speaking down to others will change things?

The ACC moving to 9 isn't going to be the tipping point and can't be. Even moving to 9 their SOS won't come up to what the SEC's is now. If their argument really is that they don't need 9 where everyone else does because their IC is so strong then how is the ACC moving slightly up going to change that?

Do YOU get it now?

It would seem that only some perceived slight by the playoff committee will have the chance of swaying enough of the other coaches to jump on board with going to 9. The ACC will have nothing to do with it what so ever.

And you dont see that the ACC has made strides in recent years to get better in football and several teams(including Duke this last season) made an impact on the national scales. Its not hard to believe that them moving to nine would force the SEC to follow suit, either that or we are all now in agreement that the SEC is the premier conference and their in-conference schedule is brutal

And believe me, I get it just fine and know what the motive of many that have been posting is. You dont fall into that crowd, but several others have their slips showing.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Don't bother trying to educate USC fans about the wonders of playing FCS teams. We'll never understand.

Let's see: The SEC likes to claim that they are "the strongest conference in the land". Right?
Rarely do I see this term used by anyone pulling for an SEC team, its usually a hater phrase or a Media Hack.
As "the strongest conference in the land" they should be leaders in cfb. Correct?
WE got enough problem with leaders in this country, you want an entire conference to get involved in trying to lead the NCAA?

Yet, Team SEC points to the ACC and says "look, they're doing it too" or "Why should we change when they don't?" Dont believe that anyone has stated the last part you said, did make mention that they are doing it and if its about level playing field then a similar disdain towards them should be in order...in the vain of fairness and all

Additionally, here are your own words:



So, you feel that the lowly ACC should have forced the "mighty SEC" to go to a 9 game IC schedule? Considering that the PAC, B1G and Big 12 are already at or moving to 9 game IC schedules, why does the SEC feel they need to wait for the ACC to move to 9 games before they do it? Why not be the leaders that Team SEC claims the conference is and force the ACC to go to 9 IC games by doing so themselves?

You bring up Saban being the only SEC coach who wants to go to 9 games, yet you defend the SEC staying at 8 and use the ACC as your justification.

Not my own words at all, but a twisting of them. I didnt say anything about the ACC forcing the SEC to do anything, I stated that if the ACC had gone to nine and the other conferences all being at or moving to a nine game that it would force the SEC to move to a nine game or wither on the vine. Big difference in what you said I posted and what I posted. One way is a conference forcing the other(which won happen) and one is the conference having change to because all others around them had done so. Clearly not the same.

And finally i am not defending the SEC staying at 8 and I dont recall you ever reading that in one of my posts. What I have stated is that there is no incentive as long as the conference schedule is as strong as it is(you guys must agree because you use words like "the strongest conference in the land" to describe the SEC). Frankly i have stated I agree with Saban in this thread already, but that would require reading the posts and you guys from Cali seem to not do that...or you only read what you want to and interpret it how it fits into your argument.

In the end the SEC will go to nine eventually, but only if some other form of measurement criteria like the RPI in Basketball is not formulated for football and used as a measuring stick to promote bowl games and such.

 

[WizardHawk]

If the other conferences haven't made the SEC even budge a little then there is no chance the ACC will given their status.

I don't think anyone has seriously denied that the SEC has a challenging conference schedule. Well many teams do each year. Can't say all as this unbalanced thing makes it wildly different team to team year to year. I can only speak for me, but I do respect LSU far more than Bama when it comes to their willingness to risk a loss going on road trips they actually have to fly to. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can both say a team has a challenging schedule and still question their lack of anything that resembles a decent OOC schedule.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

If the other conferences haven't made the SEC even budge a little then there is no chance the ACC will given their status.

I don't think anyone has seriously denied that the SEC has a challenging conference schedule. Well many teams do each year. Can't say all as this unbalanced thing makes it wildly different team to team year to year. I can only speak for me, but I do respect LSU far more than Bama when it comes to their willingness to risk a loss going on road trips they actually have to fly to. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can both say a team has a challenging schedule and still question their lack of anything that resembles a decent OOC schedule.

I have spoken to the administration and voiced my opinion on the three OOC games of lesser strength, especially while we have the 7 million dollar man on staff. It was to no avail and would take a monumental effort to get it changed while its not "hurting" them in terms of actually making a title game or bowl game. This is really a symptom of a much larger issue that is out of the hands of fans and teams playing in the NCAA. Its about the money the networks and ESPN can make due to numerous bowls, if teams would not accept a bid to these lesser bowls their fans dont want to travel to, then we might get back to some semblance of sanity. Unitl the NCAA wants to stop making big money, the Networks and ESPN want to stop making big money, we dont stand a chance of seeing changes that will affect what we see at Bowl and Championship game time.

 

[socaljim242]

In the same vain, the teams who played the sisters of the poor in weeks one through 3 are sitting pretty because they didnt take a chance on playing anyone of note and can move up in the polls if a team does lose, while the Alabama's of the world agree to play a team from a power 5 conference that looked better when it was scheduled than it did when it was played(happens to the best of teams sometimes) and then played a top 5 opponent on it's home field two weeks later in conference before playing any of its nobodies it schedules throughout the season versus playing them all to start a season. Thank God for having few teams willing to play a power 5 conference to start a season and maybe playing a conference foe in the second or third week instead of playing cupcakes. That makes the season bearable for more than 8 weeks or nine weeks a year, it makes it viable for the entire season. You last question is laughable based on they played their cupcakes to start the season, while others were taking risks. Kinda tit for tat isnt it?

The cupcakes Bama plays are the special one legged blind in one eye kind so don't even go there trying to compare. The cupcakes Bama plays are only for home cooking ever hear of Bama going to Furman or Chattanooga or North texas to play? Do these teams have an actual stadium? . PAC teams actually go to their OCC games at least one out of every three.
Everyone knows it's better to lose early not late in the season. So it's better to play anyone with a pulse early. But I'm sure you know that. The SEC schedules an easy win for every team on the second to the last game by putting a cupcake there when every other conference is playing each other. So keep your eye on the rankings in week 11 when not one SEC team drops from the standings because they all played their late cupcake .

 

[WizardHawk]

We will see what impact the new playoff committee has, if any. I agree that the problem is larger than any one conference or team. Money may be ruling the decisions made now, but alumni and other ticket holders need to band together and keep our voices heard.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

The cupcakes Bama plays are the special one legged blind in one eye kind so don't even go there trying to compare. The cupcakes Bama plays are only for home cooking ever hear of Bama going to Furman or Chattanooga or North texas to play? Do these teams have an actual stadium? . PAC teams actually go to their OCC games at least one out of every three.
Everyone knows it's better to lose early not late in the season. So it's better to play anyone with a pulse early. But I'm sure you know that. The SEC schedules an easy win for every team on the second to the last game by putting a cupcake there when every other conference is playing each other. So keep your eye on the rankings in week 11 when not one SEC team drops from the standings because they all played their late cupcake .

I read all that and in my head I kept hearing Blah, Blah, Blah. Your blatant disregard for the truth is apparent. I have openly admitted Bama's short comings on its OOC cupcakes and admitted they need to stop it, you blindly disregard yours and even felt that traveling to a cupcakes 25-35K stadium is somehow a difference maker. Facts be known if a team can beat you it will be on your field or theirs, but home cooking for those little schools rarely exists, in fact it works in reverse many times. Those smaller schools would rather beat you in front of your fans than in front of theirs as evidenced on numerous occasions in recent years in Michigan, Kansas State and even Oregon State. Only in like versus like is the home cooking usually a decider. Good luck with that holier than thou attitude and the chip on your shoulder that you obviously carry for the SEC and Bama in general.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

We will see what impact the new playoff committee has, if any. I agree that the problem is larger than any one conference or team. Money may be ruling the decisions made now, but alumni and other ticket holders need to band together and keep our voices heard.

I thought that if we as CFB fans could organize a grass roots effort to stop the fans from buying tickets to these no name bowls enough to make an impact, it might force the networks and ESPN to revisit the number of bowls its helping to support with TV contracts and money. If they dont make any on ticket sales and we refuse to watch the games on TV, it might send a signal. One voice is not enough, but if we all banded together and put the word out on all the sites we go to it might just be enough to make a point.

Hell, we could even find a person with a webserver that would be willing to support a special interest site that would promote a "holiday season without bowls". I know its a far fetched idea, but stranger things have worked. We got some gret posters on here and we could get a name for the Hoop if we were charging in the lead to end this bullshit overuse of the bowl season and get back to what made that time of year great back in the day.

 

[trojanfan12]

Not my own words at all, but a twisting of them. I didnt say anything about the ACC forcing the SEC to do anything, I stated that if the ACC had gone to nine and the other conferences all being at or moving to a nine game that it would force the SEC to move to a nine game or wither on the vine. Big difference in what you said I posted and what I posted. One way is a conference forcing the other(which won happen) and one is the conference having change to because all others around them had done so. Clearly not the same.

And finally i am not defending the SEC staying at 8 and I dont recall you ever reading that in one of my posts. What I have stated is that there is no incentive as long as the conference schedule is as strong as it is(you guys must agree because you use words like "the strongest conference in the land" to describe the SEC). Frankly i have stated I agree with Saban in this thread already, but that would require reading the posts and you guys from Cali seem to not do that...or you only read what you want to and interpret it how it fits into your argument.

In the end the SEC will go to nine eventually, but only if some other form of measurement criteria like the RPI in Basketball is not formulated for football and used as a measuring stick to promote bowl games and such.

Uh, those are not a twisting of your words. They are your exact words, copied and pasted from post #158. All of your posts to this point have been defending staying at 8 or deflecting to the ACC. You can try and deny it all you want, but your words are there, in black and white, for all to see.

Also, you need look no further than a few 4d20 posts to see the SEC touted as "the strongest conference in the land". You not saying it, doesn't mean it's not being said by many of your SEC brethren. I personally use the term to mock the SEC "fanboys" (which I do not consider you to be) because I think the whole "strongest conference" thing is a myth.

And another nice deflection: what the hell do the problems in the country have to do with the NCAA? No one is suggesting that the SEC should fix Obamacare, just that they should go to 9 IC games instead of waiting for the ACC to do it first (especially since 3 of the 5 BCS conferences already have) and quit scheduling like pussies.

 

[WizardHawk]

I thought that if we as CFB fans could organize a grass roots effort to stop the fans from buying tickets to these no name bowls enough to make an impact, it might force the networks and ESPN to revisit the number of bowls its helping to support with TV contracts and money. If they dont make any on ticket sales and we refuse to watch the games on TV, it might send a signal. One voice is not enough, but if we all banded together and put the word out on all the sites we go to it might just be enough to make a point.

Hell, we could even find a person with a webserver that would be willing to support a special interest site that would promote a "holiday season without bowls". I know its a far fetched idea, but stranger things have worked. We got some gret posters on here and we could get a name for the Hoop if we were charging in the lead to end this bullshit overuse of the bowl season and get back to what made that time of year great back in the day.

I'm also looking at the FCS and bottom dwelling FBS games we are increasingly spoon fed as the new norm. I know I've pitched a big stink to UW over their scheduling, but all season ticket holders need band together and have their voices heard. If the teams want to tell us how necessary these really are then we need to tell them how necessary a reduction in ticket prices needs to be.

 

[socaljim242]

I read all that and in my head I kept hearing Blah, Blah, Blah. Your blatant disregard for the truth is apparent. I have openly admitted Bama's short comings on its OOC cupcakes and admitted they need to stop it, you blindly disregard yours and even felt that traveling to a cupcakes 25-35K stadium is somehow a difference maker. Facts be known if a team can beat you it will be on your field or theirs, but home cooking for those little schools rarely exists, in fact it works in reverse many times. Those smaller schools would rather beat you in front of your fans than in front of theirs as evidenced on numerous occasions in recent years in Michigan, Kansas State and even Oregon State. Only in like versus like is the home cooking usually a decider. Good luck with that holier than thou attitude and the chip on your shoulder that you obviously carry for the SEC and Bama in general.

'Your blatant disregard for the truth" followed by "I opendly admit Bamas shortcomings on its OCC cupcakes"

So you admit it's the truth . Bama schedules one decent OCC game almost always at home and if they wont agree to that they play them at a neutral site. The same nuetral site you use every other year. You play them at the beginning only so if by change you lose it's done and over . Bama schedules crap teams for the other OCC games and only at home. No Boston College , no Northwestern , no Minnesota, no Syracuse level teams that would like a home and home and could actually have a decent team. Nope you play North texas and southern Carolina or Florida International.

You're almost there. Just admit the facts.

 

[Edisto_Tiger]

So .... what's goin in here?

 

[trojanfan12]

So .... what's goin in here?

Nothin' much. Kind of slow and boring actually.

 

[7Samurai13]

I'm also looking at the FCS and bottom dwelling FBS games we are increasingly spoon fed as the new norm. I know I've pitched a big stink to UW over their scheduling, but all season ticket holders need band together and have their voices heard. If the teams want to tell us how necessary these really are then we need to tell them how necessary a reduction in ticket prices needs to be.

As you can see from all of the fans here, they do not care about seeing good football games. They want to see easy winnable games that bring in money and puts as little threat as possible in effecting their chances at a national championship and that every school in the nation should do the same thing.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Uh, those are not a twisting of your words. They are your exact words, copied and pasted from post #158. All of your posts to this point have been defending staying at 8 or deflecting to the ACC. You can try and deny it all you want, but your words are there, in black and white, for all to see.

Also, you need look no further than a few 4d20 posts to see the SEC touted as "the strongest conference in the land". You not saying it, doesn't mean it's not being said by many of your SEC brethren. I personally use the term to mock the SEC "fanboys" (which I do not consider you to be) because I think the whole "strongest conference" thing is a myth.

And another nice deflection: what the hell do the problems in the country have to do with the NCAA? No one is suggesting that the SEC should fix Obamacare, just that they should go to 9 IC games instead of waiting for the ACC to do it first (especially since 3 of the 5 BCS conferences already have) and quit scheduling like pussies.

My apologies, you are correct. The quote didnt come through when I went to post back to you and I was working off your words. I also noticed you didnt reference all that I stated which would have further gone to prove what i feel to be correct. In the same vain though, I did post similar words in my repost to you about what i stated in the quote you referenced and it still doesnt say the ACC would force the SEC to do a thing. My thoughts are that if all around you are doing something(which is what my post you quoted encompasses), eventually you will also in order to survive. either that or find a new way to make an impact.

I will take issue with you on the point of me defending the 8 game, this i have not done and you can even look back at many of my posts and see where I have spoken on condition of the three cupcake OOC's and talked about how I am not in favor of them and spoken to the school administration on the matter via email or letter. My defense has been about the scheduling of the neutral site game and why its done and never about the lower tier OOC games that are a source of irritation for you guys. I have mentioned how its done throughout the season instead of all at once like some teams do, but I have never defended the practice at all and I defy you to show me via my own words where I am in favor of these games.