Who would you want your school to play?
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
Who would you want your school to play?
If you could choose one out of conference opponent for your favorite school to play that you have never seen them play before who would it be and why? How do you think that game would turn out if it was played in the middle of this upcoming season?
Tennessee due to geographical proximity. The owner ofthe Bristol raceway has been trying to put a game together at the track with the offer to completely convert the property to a football field with something like a 160,000 capacity and offered each school beaucoup bucks to stage it. Last I heard, Tech accepted and Tennessee declined but he was still hoping to put it together sometime in the next two-three years. Gotta admit, that would be cool.
Hard to say out it ould turn out. Depends on the talent-level of each squad at the time. In past years, I think it would have probably favored Tennessee. Not sure about that any more.
Hard to say out it ould turn out. Depends on the talent-level of each squad at the time. In past years, I think it would have probably favored Tennessee. Not sure about that any more.
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."
I guess I didn't answer myself. Actually, I'd like to see my Akron Zips get the chance to play any middle of the pack or better BCS program at home.
Other than that, for personal reasons, I'd like to see Akron play either Michigan State (in Akron) or New Mexico State (either home or away). Those were the two 1-A football schools that showed the most interest in me going there out of high school. Well, at least for all schools that I haven't already seen them play.
Other than that, for personal reasons, I'd like to see Akron play either Michigan State (in Akron) or New Mexico State (either home or away). Those were the two 1-A football schools that showed the most interest in me going there out of high school. Well, at least for all schools that I haven't already seen them play.
-
colorado_loves_football
Well, my answer is probably obvious to most people. I would like to see how TCU might fare against Ohio State, but I'd like for it to happen at a neutral site. Interesting thing, is that it might have happened, in 2003, but for the fact TCU lost to S. Mississippi (and K.State beat Oklahoma).
Barring those two events, it's very likely, maybe even 'probable' those two teams face-off. Given how well OSU played against K-State, maybe 'fate' intervened, as TCU lost to Boise St, in the Ft. Worth Bowl.
(It also might have happened, last year, assuming TCU wins every game). But with Notre Dame in the mix, it's still possible TCU goes 11-0, and is passed over by the Irish. As it was, TCU had their hands full with Iowa St.
Outside of OSU, strangely enough I think I would like to see TCU play LSU. The reason is simple, I suppose. Both teams were good back in the '50s. Both have had problems getting back 'on top', and they both play a style of football I like to watch. I think TCU scheduling them will likely benefit both football programs.
TCU vs. Notre Dame would be interesting, but not too likely to happen anytime soon. I would also like to see TCU play W. Virginia, as one other 'variation' to the Fiesta Bowl, this year, if both teams qualify.
Barring those two events, it's very likely, maybe even 'probable' those two teams face-off. Given how well OSU played against K-State, maybe 'fate' intervened, as TCU lost to Boise St, in the Ft. Worth Bowl.
(It also might have happened, last year, assuming TCU wins every game). But with Notre Dame in the mix, it's still possible TCU goes 11-0, and is passed over by the Irish. As it was, TCU had their hands full with Iowa St.
Outside of OSU, strangely enough I think I would like to see TCU play LSU. The reason is simple, I suppose. Both teams were good back in the '50s. Both have had problems getting back 'on top', and they both play a style of football I like to watch. I think TCU scheduling them will likely benefit both football programs.
TCU vs. Notre Dame would be interesting, but not too likely to happen anytime soon. I would also like to see TCU play W. Virginia, as one other 'variation' to the Fiesta Bowl, this year, if both teams qualify.
Give me USC!!!!!!!!!
Go you silver britches!!!!!!!
Aint worried about Texas...WHY?? Let's see how many true texans we have....What time is it in Texas?????
10 to 9.
Go you silver britches!!!!!!!
Aint worried about Texas...WHY?? Let's see how many true texans we have....What time is it in Texas?????
10 to 9.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.
See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.
- John Madden
I would pick Ohio State here at Lincoln.
Nebraska played them in the 50's two times.
Both times the game was in the so called shoe.
I liked to see them here.
Mich. here in Lincoln.
Nebraska played in there house in 1962,and all the other time was on neutral field.
The game in 1962 was the spring board for Bob Devaney.
He took a 1-9 team the year before and brought home a 25-13 win.
And ended up 9-2.
And the rest is history.
Nebraska played them in the 50's two times.
Both times the game was in the so called shoe.
I liked to see them here.
Mich. here in Lincoln.
Nebraska played in there house in 1962,and all the other time was on neutral field.
The game in 1962 was the spring board for Bob Devaney.
He took a 1-9 team the year before and brought home a 25-13 win.
And ended up 9-2.
And the rest is history.
-
Spence
- Administrator
- Posts: 20982
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
- Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
- Contact:
I would pick Ohio State here at Lincoln.
Nebraska played them in the 50's two times.
Both times the game was in the so called shoe.
I liked to see them here.
Howdy, I wouldn't mind seeing that one come to pass also. We got your boys in '55 and '56. Nebraska was in between coaches at the time and Hayes has firmly entrenched at Ohio State. It would be cool to get those two teams back together again. I can't travel to very many games anymore for family reasons, but I would think hard about making that trip. Nebraska fans are a lot like Buckeye fans.
Places I would like to go because of the fan base...
Alabama
Virginia Tech
Nebraska
Tennessee
Georgia
West Virginia
LSU
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida St.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain
-
colorado_loves_football
Another team I want to include on this list is Baylor. TCU hasn't played them since 1995, TCU holds a 49-47-7 'edge' over them, overall.
But perhaps even more interesting is the fact Baylor has beaten TCU 6/8 times, and 18/24. Playing them in Waco, is anything but an 'automatic' win for the Frogs.
I like 'traditional' pairings. It's becoming more obvious, now why TCU has made the schedules it has, it wants to 'preserve' tradition, something I also support. And, Spence, they would likely schedule Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, if they could. Those are the teams they played regularly as a member of the SWC conference,and likely the teams that would 'assure' TCU of a sellout.
I would like to see a 'partial' reunion of the SWC. Arkansas seems logistically misassigned to the SEC. It would require that the Big XII reconfigure itself, to allow for those two teams.
Missouri and Iowa St, then could be 'free' to negotiate a deal with the Big Ten Conference. I like the idea, myself, since it would honor tradition.
Who was it discovered that Iowa was once a member of the Big 6?
Iowa St. and Missouri are traditional 'rivals' would complement the Big Ten, competitively speaking. The Big East could then reconfigure itself to accomodate Penn St. a more suitable conference, geographically-speaking.
For the SEC to remain a twelve-team conference, they could 'add' S. Mississippi. Rolltide implied they were competitve with Alabama. And they would be geographically more appropriate there.
One problem I have with the Big East, presently, is gegraphically, they include a team from the S.E. (S.Florida). I would be inclined to reassign them to either C-USA, or perhaps even the Sun-Belt since it's become something of a SE conference.
Two other teams I believe are mis-assigned are Tulane and Louisiana Tech. Both teams, in my opinion, would be more 'geographically' appropriate to the Sun Belt. N.Texas could be reassigned to C-USA.
Imagine how much more 'balanced' the conferences would be if that were to happen? Rather than having Arkansas St. represent the Sun Belt, it would more likely be a Louisiana school (Tulane or Louisiana Tech). Tulane went 12-0, 1997, back before the BCS existed.
This is related to my argument that every conference be represented in the BCS in some fashion. Since that time several teams, including Marshall from the MAC, Utah from the MWC, and Boise St, have gone undefeated, regular-season. Other teams have come close (Miami, OH) 2003, TCU (2003, 2005). I for one would like to see how these teams might do in a BCS pairing.
But perhaps even more interesting is the fact Baylor has beaten TCU 6/8 times, and 18/24. Playing them in Waco, is anything but an 'automatic' win for the Frogs.
I like 'traditional' pairings. It's becoming more obvious, now why TCU has made the schedules it has, it wants to 'preserve' tradition, something I also support. And, Spence, they would likely schedule Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, if they could. Those are the teams they played regularly as a member of the SWC conference,and likely the teams that would 'assure' TCU of a sellout.
I would like to see a 'partial' reunion of the SWC. Arkansas seems logistically misassigned to the SEC. It would require that the Big XII reconfigure itself, to allow for those two teams.
Missouri and Iowa St, then could be 'free' to negotiate a deal with the Big Ten Conference. I like the idea, myself, since it would honor tradition.
Who was it discovered that Iowa was once a member of the Big 6?
Iowa St. and Missouri are traditional 'rivals' would complement the Big Ten, competitively speaking. The Big East could then reconfigure itself to accomodate Penn St. a more suitable conference, geographically-speaking.
For the SEC to remain a twelve-team conference, they could 'add' S. Mississippi. Rolltide implied they were competitve with Alabama. And they would be geographically more appropriate there.
One problem I have with the Big East, presently, is gegraphically, they include a team from the S.E. (S.Florida). I would be inclined to reassign them to either C-USA, or perhaps even the Sun-Belt since it's become something of a SE conference.
Two other teams I believe are mis-assigned are Tulane and Louisiana Tech. Both teams, in my opinion, would be more 'geographically' appropriate to the Sun Belt. N.Texas could be reassigned to C-USA.
Imagine how much more 'balanced' the conferences would be if that were to happen? Rather than having Arkansas St. represent the Sun Belt, it would more likely be a Louisiana school (Tulane or Louisiana Tech). Tulane went 12-0, 1997, back before the BCS existed.
This is related to my argument that every conference be represented in the BCS in some fashion. Since that time several teams, including Marshall from the MAC, Utah from the MWC, and Boise St, have gone undefeated, regular-season. Other teams have come close (Miami, OH) 2003, TCU (2003, 2005). I for one would like to see how these teams might do in a BCS pairing.
-
colorado_loves_football
When I mentioned S. Mississippi as a possible addition to the SEC, I wasn't necessarily implying I thought they 'deserved' to be there, competitively speaking, but someone suggested they were a good C-USA team, and so I simply made the supposition they were good enough, without sufficient evidence to support my hypothesis.rolltide wrote:I meant to say about s.Miss: they do play Alabama tough, but they usually save one of their best games for Alabama. Week in and week out in the SEC would probably leave them toward the bottom of the SEC.
I think Vandy would do well in the MAC or C-USA. They actually wouldn't be a bad addition to the Big East. Much better than Cincinatti.
As far as 'trimming' the SEC down to ten teams, that's where they were before they added Arkansas, and I believe it was S. Carolina. I don't see how 'trimming' teams from an established conference necessarily makes it any better. But, if the teams being replaced are subsitituted with teams of comparable ability, I see it as a 'trade-off', competitively-speaking.
Vanderbilt, maybe isn't the best example of an SEC 'powerhouse' but they were a competitive football team not long ago, under Gerry DiNardo. I havent' followed them since then.
I met the president of the University of Colorado back in 1988. That's when I was an undergraduate there, and he hadn't been there very long, after having been president of West Virginia University. My impression is he was a person who seemed to have a pretty good grasp of how to make a university look good in the eyes of the media. He earned a law degree from the University of Utah, and now is the president of Brown University, and he was at Vanderbilt not long ago.
His credentials are pretty good, after all he's been president of several big schools, including Ohio State University. But I'm not sure he's exactly what you would call an 'athletics'-minded individual. There's a reason he's at Brown, is what I'm getting at. And I know for a fact he's one of the main objectors to the NCAA adopting a 'playoff' format with respect to football. Like I said, I thought he was ok from an intelligence standpoint, but likely he never 'starred' in any athletic endeavor. Most likely he wanted Vanderbilt to 'shine' on the academic side of the coin.
At Colorado he seemed to share an interest in CU's athletic prominence, but he left not long after Colorado won their first (and only) national championship. My impression is he likely wasn't that interested in seeing Vanderbilt 'prosper' as an athletic institution, but I could be wrong.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
colorado_loves_football
Actually, if non-conference games were 'removed' from every team's schedules, then it would be possible for every team, in a 12-team conference to play each other.rolltide wrote:I don't have a problem with the 12 team conferences. I think they have worked out okay for the most part. I do like the idea of everyone playing each other though.
I know that's not necessarily the 'best' solution, but considering that teams have a hard time finding good 'non-conference' opponents that meet their standards, that would be one option, and it would likely 'eliminate' the need for a 'championship' game, barring a 'tie'.
One reason I support the 12-team 'arrangement', is it gives a team some 'flexibility' they play approx 75% of their confernece, and also a non-conference schedule of their own choosing. Then, if they are sufficiently good enough, they are 'rewarded' with a conference championship 'bid'. I prefer it over other arrangments, personally.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests