Bama vs Michigan

[Cynical]

Since losing the Big XII-2 conference championship game, ole' Jerry Jones is looking for a new angle to help payoff that stadium.

 

Mash here

 

If Bama and Michigan do hook up, I hope they reconsider doing a home and home series. !@#$ Jones. I hope Jerry chokes on that monstrosity.

[bartshan-83]

While I'd say !@#$ Jerry Jones on principle as well, I'm not totally against these neutral site games as long as they are part of a home-and-home.

 

What I can't stand is the kind of barnstorming, revenue whoring games that many teams schedule to take advantage of weaker opponents. ND's last AD (Kevin White) engaged in this disgrace and we ended up getting games like Washington St. in San Antonio.

[el Tigre]

I don't care for the "nuetral" site idea. There's no such thing anyway. I'd much rather it be a home and home.

[Cynical]

What I can't stand is the kind of barnstorming, revenue whoring games that many teams schedule to take advantage of weaker opponents. ND's last AD (Kevin White) engaged in this disgrace and we ended up getting games like Washington St. in San Antonio.

 

I am on the fence on such games. It looks bad for big schools, but the weaker and/or smaller schools benefit financially (more than usual) and, hopefully, competitively. About 3 years ago, UB traveled to Auburn. Auburn stomped the snot out of UB, but, IIRC, UB received a check that was bigger than anything they received playing a conference rival. Besides, this is how the weaker/smaller schools move up.

 

Look at Boise St. Today, people are running around yelping about how the big schools are scared to play them. Yet, if the same big schools played Boise St 10 years ago, the same people would B word about how the big school was packing their schedule with a powder puff opponent, with absolutely no thought that Boise State MAY have wanted such a match up.

[bartshan-83]

I am on the fence on such games. It looks bad for big schools, but the weaker and/or smaller schools benefit financially (more than usual) and, hopefully, competitively. About 3 years ago, UB traveled to Auburn. Auburn stomped the snot out of UB, but, IIRC, UB received a check that was bigger than anything they received playing a conference rival. Besides, this is how the weaker/smaller schools move up.

 

Look at Boise St. Today, people are running around yelping about how the big schools are scared to play them. Yet, if the same big schools played Boise St 10 years ago, the same people would B word about how the big school was packing their schedule with a powder puff opponent, with absolutely no thought that Boise State MAY have wanted such a match up.

No no...I agree with all that. I have a slight problem with power conference schools only scheduling these powder puff games at home, but overall, I agree that the lesser school wants it badly so who am I to stop that.

 

What I was talking about is when these matchups occur at bizarre neutral sites. There was no reason whatsoever for ND to play a WASHINGTON ST. school in SAN ANTONIO. It was a shameless money-grab. I don't like big schools scheduling these inequitable 7-4-1 models.

 

I mean, ND is playing only THREE true away games this year. We are doing and 8-3-2!! Sickening. Now the Navy at Giants stadium is kind of a standard deal for us and the Army at Yankees stadium is okay with me as a traditional throwback (as long as it doesn't happen again for 10 years). But I don't like how we strong-armed WSU last year and I don't like how we scheduled UConn to a 10-year home-and-home when all five UConn "home" games will be outside of Storrs.

 

This was all the work of Kevin White and his lunacy. Now with adding Texas, Miami and OU back to our schedules in the next 5-10 years, we will be getting back to normal.