- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 9/4/08 at 3:47 pm to Canuck4LSU
I'd love to see this border war between TX & LSU annually, if not TX, then renew TX A&M. Neither will ever happen though.
Would rather a home & home, but once a yr in Houston wouldn't be too shabby.
Would rather a home & home, but once a yr in Houston wouldn't be too shabby.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 4:21 pm to DEANintheYAY
A few counterpoints for Fowler, who has some pretty good points in this article:
1. Neutral sites are good when the neutral stadium is bigger than either home team's stadium. That's why Penn State won't go to Pittsburgh. They already own the state; it does not behoove them to go neutral with WVU.
2. Some teams are better off staying at home. Notre Dame (for obvious reasons) and Alabama (because they can't rely on just Alabama talent anymore) have to try to have a "national" presence. That's why their future schedules are littered with neutral sites. (LSU can seal off Louisiana and win a national title with those kids.)
3. A roof is a good thing, especially in September, and especially if we're talking about LSU and a Texas team (I prefer A&M because of the traditional rivalry). A game in Reliant Stadium will be very friendly to the fans who make the trip. Room temperature feels very good.
4. Scheduling should be treated like picking a bowling ball. You generally should pick the heaviest ball you think you can control. If LSU scheduled three middle-tier BCS schools (+ Tulane) every year, more often than not, they'd go undefeated against them. Why the hell don't we do that? What are we afraid of, and why do I want to watch LSU play Troy? Or North Texas? Or any FCS team?
1. Neutral sites are good when the neutral stadium is bigger than either home team's stadium. That's why Penn State won't go to Pittsburgh. They already own the state; it does not behoove them to go neutral with WVU.
2. Some teams are better off staying at home. Notre Dame (for obvious reasons) and Alabama (because they can't rely on just Alabama talent anymore) have to try to have a "national" presence. That's why their future schedules are littered with neutral sites. (LSU can seal off Louisiana and win a national title with those kids.)
3. A roof is a good thing, especially in September, and especially if we're talking about LSU and a Texas team (I prefer A&M because of the traditional rivalry). A game in Reliant Stadium will be very friendly to the fans who make the trip. Room temperature feels very good.
4. Scheduling should be treated like picking a bowling ball. You generally should pick the heaviest ball you think you can control. If LSU scheduled three middle-tier BCS schools (+ Tulane) every year, more often than not, they'd go undefeated against them. Why the hell don't we do that? What are we afraid of, and why do I want to watch LSU play Troy? Or North Texas? Or any FCS team?
Posted on 9/4/08 at 4:55 pm to xiv
quote:
Notre Dame (for obvious reasons) and Alabama (because they can't rely on just Alabama talent anymore) have to try to have a "national" presence.
In case you've been living under a rock, they both have a national presence. They're past the point of trying.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 4:58 pm to DEANintheYAY
He wants to see USC-Auburn, which already had a home and home, but not LSU-USC? 
Posted on 9/4/08 at 4:59 pm to bigpapamac
quote:No, they aren't. Both teams have sucked this decade, and they are trying to regain what they once had. If not, they would never feel compelled to schedule so many neutral games.
They're past the point of trying.
This post was edited on 9/4/08 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 9/4/08 at 5:01 pm to usc6158
quote:I think maybe he just didn't want to mention LSU twice in the article. That's what I suspect.
He wants to see USC-Auburn, which already had a home and home, but not LSU-USC?
Posted on 9/4/08 at 5:10 pm to DEANintheYAY
From what I have been told from alumni of Texas, the only chance we have to play in Houston would be against the University of Houston, or some school like Baylor or Texas Tech. UT or A&M do not want us playing in their backyard, and neither will allow Rice to play us.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 5:18 pm to Chicken
quote:
Both teams have sucked this decade
That has nothing to do with having a national presence. You are really going to sit here and tell me Notre Dame doesn't have a national presence just because they've been down the past few years? They have their very own contract with NBC. In case you haven't noticed, people are always talking about Alabama too. Those schools have a national reputation and it doesn't matter if they've "sucked this decade." The Cubs have sucked for 100 years and they have a national presence, it has very little to do with winning.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 5:27 pm to bigpapamac
I do agree with Fowler that the “preseason” neutral site game might be the wave of the future. No one wants to give up home dates, which makes a home and home so difficult. If AD’s are claiming they schedule patsies just to make the bottom-line work, make it profitable to play a major power.
I would love an LSU-Texas game in Houston. Hell, as a Dallas resident, I’d love to see LSU play Texas Tech in the new Cowboys stadium. Or hell, play USC in Dallas. I don’t care.
And our OOC slate is deserving of mockery. You’re telling me we couldn’t at the very least add an ACC or Big East school to the schedule? Wake travelled to Baylor. They couldn’t have come to Baton Rouge?
I would love an LSU-Texas game in Houston. Hell, as a Dallas resident, I’d love to see LSU play Texas Tech in the new Cowboys stadium. Or hell, play USC in Dallas. I don’t care.
And our OOC slate is deserving of mockery. You’re telling me we couldn’t at the very least add an ACC or Big East school to the schedule? Wake travelled to Baylor. They couldn’t have come to Baton Rouge?
Posted on 9/4/08 at 5:48 pm to bigpapamac
quote:Yep.
You are really going to sit here and tell me Notre Dame doesn't have a national presence just because they've been down the past few years?
quote:Right, as in "Alabama used to have a national presence, but they really don't anymore," or "Remember when Alabama used to have a national presence?"
people are always talking about Alabama too.
quote:Jesus Christ what a stupid point.
The Cubs have sucked for 100 years and they have a national presence, it has very little to do with winning.
National presence = national recruiting. Alabama and Notre Dame (and Nebraska, too) have sucked this decade because they aren't nationally revered like they once were. Therefore, the best players go elsewhere. Therefore, Alabama and Notre Dame don't win titles anymore. Therefore, their fans get pissy. Therefore, they make less money. Therefore, they have to find new ways of reestablishing that national presence so that they can get the quality athletes they once got so that they can win titles again so that their fans will be happy and spend money.
For Notre Dame to play a game in San Antonio might make some kid somewhere in Texas say to himself, "You know, I kinda like Notre Dame. Dad, if I'm lucky enough to play college football, I'm going to go to Notre Dame."
This post was edited on 9/4/08 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:04 pm to bigpapamac
Whatever happened to that SEC/Big Ten Challenge to open the season in 2016 and 2017? The idea was that 11 out of 12 SEC schools would open the season against the 11 Big Ten teams at neutral sites. For example: LSU/Michigan in Detroit in 2016 and Penn State/LSU in New Orleans in 2017....... that would be awesome!!!!!!! not just for LSU but for the SEC and all of college football!
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:11 pm to lesgeaux
quote:
that they can win titles again so that their fans will be happy and spend money.
I just went back over your jibberish, when was the last time Notre Dame or Alabama didn't sell every ticket to every game?
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:18 pm to bigpapamac
quote:Doesn't matter. Those players suck compared to the ones they used to get. If Notre Dame had more of a national presence, those players would be better. As it is, the better players are going elsewhere. A bigger national presence would affect the decisions of the blue chippers.
There is a list of Notre Dame's 2008 recruiting class. Tell me that isn't national. 23 kids, 16 states. You're insane.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:25 pm to bigpapamac
quote:Don't know. But you imply a need for an explanation for my point.
I just went back over your jibberish, when was the last time Notre Dame or Alabama didn't sell every ticket to every game?
Notre Dame and Alabama have fewer out-of-state fans per capita today than they did 30 years ago. Out-of-state fans don't attend games as much as in-state fans, so their presence is felt by buying stuff called "merchandise." When people by this "merchandise," the schools get more money.
It behooves schools like Notre Dame and Alabama to play neutral-site games out of state so that they can obtain more of a national presence than they currently have. If you can't see that, you are in no position to judge who is and is not insane.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:27 pm to xiv
quote:
Doesn't matter. Those players suck compared to the ones they used to get. If Notre Dame had more of a national presence, those players would be better. As it is, the better players are going elsewhere. A bigger national presence would affect the decisions of the blue chippers.
You actually do seem a bit odd on this one.
Sometimes ESPN should say Barkley didn't look that good instead of saying "OH MY GOD HE LOOKED AMAZING." It's ok to admit you were wrong instead of digging a bigger hole.
Bama and ND had 2 of the top 5 classes. ND has a huge TV deal. The media is obsessed with Saban. The teams have a national presence.
Saying ND had a top 3 recruiting class but it doesnt matter because the players suck compared to the old teams seems really daft.
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:31 pm to arwicklu
quote:We won't know until those boys graduate.
Bama and ND had 2 of the top 5 classes.
Bama sucks compared to the old days. If they didn't, they would NEVER play Florida State in Jacksonville.
Notre Dame sucks compared to the old days. If they didn't, they would NEVER play Washington State in Orlando (or whatever the hell is going on with them).
Bottom line: they're trying to fix it because it's broke.
ps--it'll never be fixed.
This post was edited on 9/4/08 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 9/4/08 at 6:50 pm to xiv
So after you said that Notre Dame needed to recruit nationally, and I showed you they signed players from 16 states last year, you have nothing to say on that front?
Posted on 9/4/08 at 8:17 pm to bigpapamac
I completely disagree with Ohio State vs Notre Dame. No way would this benefit Ohio St. I like the LSU vs USC on a home and home once; that would be worth paying for. The battle of the three letters.
I liked the Ohio State vs Texas series and felt it should be an annual thing. I also like a SEC vs Big Ten Challenge like the Big Ten does with the ACC in basketball; however, right now, it would be SEC domination I believe...but it would be fun and it would make a lot of money.
I liked the Ohio State vs Texas series and felt it should be an annual thing. I also like a SEC vs Big Ten Challenge like the Big Ten does with the ACC in basketball; however, right now, it would be SEC domination I believe...but it would be fun and it would make a lot of money.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News