01-09-2012, 01:38 PM
He says it's the presidents who are to blame.
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
Purdy on the ruining of Big Game
01-09-2012, 01:38 PM
He says it's the presidents who are to blame.
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
01-09-2012, 01:38 PM
He says it's the presidents who are to blame.
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
01-09-2012, 01:38 PM
He says it's the presidents who are to blame.
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
http://www.bnd.com/2012/01/08/2007549/bl...cking.html
01-09-2012, 01:52 PM
For me, it's a real barometer of how bad something is when I agree with Mark Purdy's take on it...
01-09-2012, 01:52 PM
For me, it's a real barometer of how bad something is when I agree with Mark Purdy's take on it...
01-09-2012, 01:52 PM
For me, it's a real barometer of how bad something is when I agree with Mark Purdy's take on it...
01-09-2012, 01:52 PM
For me, it's a real barometer of how bad something is when I agree with Mark Purdy's take on it...
01-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
01-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
01-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
01-09-2012, 03:24 PM
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
Ummmm, the BigTen is Ohio State vs. Michigan. If those programs demand the game be played at 1AM on a Tuesday, it WILL happen.
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
The Big Game does not really carry that kind of negotiating power. It is nice to say that Michigan and Ohio State got their way, but to imply that Stanford and C.al just needed to flex their muscle too is a joke. If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless, and this October 20th thing was just another example of that lack of power.
But if they ("we") don't like it, I am sure the WAC would let us play the Big Game in late November.Â
01-09-2012, 03:48 PM
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
01-09-2012, 03:48 PM
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
01-09-2012, 03:48 PM
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
01-09-2012, 03:48 PM
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
It is simply a symptom of football becoming more and more of a television only sport. I have a love/hate relationship with that. For all those years I lived outside of California I longed for Stanford football to be televised so I could see it.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
But Television corrupts the game in a great many ways--probably all of which have been recounted on this board before. Destroying traditions and ignoring the preferences of people who actually attend the game are just part of the collateral damage.
Do we have any folks on this board who attended games prior to television? They would have to be very elderly now and must have attended when they were kids. But it had to be a different atmosphere. I do know that they expanded Stanford stadium several times in its first decade to accommodate ever growing crowds. This would also have been the era before pro football caught on--especially on the west coast. It was the biggest show in town.
01-09-2012, 04:05 PM
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
01-09-2012, 04:05 PM
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
01-09-2012, 04:05 PM
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
01-09-2012, 04:05 PM
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
Quote:If anything the Pac12 has already established that the Northern California pair are near powerless
How do you explain that "the weekenders" were maintained in the scheduling, despite Cal and Stanford being in separate divisions from USC and UCLA? Or the allowance to continue ND later in the season in odd number years, despite Scott's desire to keep all OOC games in September for scheduling simplification? Clearly, we had some influence there. Or was that just the power of USC and UCLA in negotiations?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »