Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp Randall

  • kowitzc
  • Senior
  • 7461 posts this site

Posted: 7/30/2014 4:25 PM

LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp Randall 


http://host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?
SRS80 wrote: Arizona outclassing Wisconsin. Better athletes. Bo is losing his cool and so is the team. Zona should be up 10 at least. They will win by a comfortable margin though.

Said during Elite Eight Game UW won 64-63.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 5:12 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:

host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 7/30/2014 5:14 PM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 5:49 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


“I’d love to do it,” he said. “I’ve approached a lot of those (SEC) schools. I  have one that we’re talking to for a home-and-home, but we’re just in the infant  stages of it.”


Maybe you ought to read the article before commenting, eh? VT already is on the schedule for a home-and-home in 2019-20; those are the games we re-scheduled to allow for the LSU game in 2016.
These ARE the Good Old Days.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 6:37 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


When did BA approach these schools? Being in the 'infant stages' would seem to indicate fairly recently. Perhaps, you should worry a little bit less about my reading ability.

What schools turned BA down in the early 2000s?

As for VT...didn't UW already bump that series back once before? 'Scheduling' is nice but actually playing the games is really the important part.

---------------------------------------------
--- OlBadger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


“I’d love to do it,” he said. “I’ve approached a lot of those (SEC) schools. I  have one that we’re talking to for a home-and-home, but we’re just in the infant  stages of it.”


Maybe you ought to read the article before commenting, eh? VT already is on the schedule for a home-and-home in 2019-20; those are the games we re-scheduled to allow for the LSU game in 2016.

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 7/30/2014 7:18 PM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote
  • Bmoken
  • Sophomore
  • 2453 posts this site

Posted: 7/30/2014 6:56 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


As long as the one "interested" SEC school isn't Kentucky.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 8:19 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


For me, I hope Barry is talking to Texas A&M...and we play them after the renovations at Kyle Field are done.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 8:23 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:

host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?

---------------------------------------------
Not only that, ph, I don't recall anybody saying who they should play, or where the games had to be played, but did want the AD to scheduling High School teams. Bielema disappears, Delany hands out a directive and PRESTO! Magically we get LSU and Alabama on our schedules.

Last edited 7/30/2014 8:27 PM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 8:31 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote: When did BA approach these schools? Being in the 'infant stages' would seem to indicate fairly recently. Perhaps, you should worry a little bit less about my reading ability.

What schools turned BA down in the early 2000s?

As for VT...didn't UW already bump that series back once before? 'Scheduling' is nice but actually playing the games is really the important part.

---------------------------------------------
--- OlBadger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


“I’d love to do it,” he said. “I’ve approached a lot of those (SEC) schools. I  have one that we’re talking to for a home-and-home, but we’re just in the infant  stages of it.”


Maybe you ought to read the article before commenting, eh? VT already is on the schedule for a home-and-home in 2019-20; those are the games we re-scheduled to allow for the LSU game in 2016.

---------------------------------------------
Bielema bumped it back because he thought the schedule that year would be too hard. Ha! Then he got out of town before he had to finally play them. During the Bielema era 28 OOC games were scheduled. 4 of those were BCS teams, none with much of a history of being all that strong. The VT game that has now been pushed back over 10 years, and the WSU game in 2007 were scheduled prior to Bielema grabbing the reins.

BTW, when BA was coach the OOC schedules were noticeably more challenging.

Last edited 7/30/2014 8:46 PM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 8:38 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Alabama and LSU have little to gain coming to Madison.  As Gary Andersen said, it was apparent in the very early stages the only way either of these were going to get done was playing at a neutral site.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/30/2014 10:39 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote:

Perhaps, you should worry a little bit less about my reading ability.



I wasn't questioning your ability to read. But it seems pretty clear you didn't read the article before posting.

As far as scheduling today vs. earlier is concerned, I really think some of you are so busy trying to score points against our ex-coach (a waste of time) that you've either suppressed or forgotten the two key changes that have affected how everyone schedules. So, to remind you, here's a snippet from a 2005 USA Today piece:

"Look for more NCAA Division I-A football teams to schedule games against I-AA opponents as a result of the NCAA Division I board of directors' decision Thursday to permit I-A teams to play 12-game schedules starting in 2006. The board also adopted a proposal allowing I-A teams to reach bowl eligibility by counting a win against a I-AA opponent every year, effective for the 2005 season. Until now, teams could count a win against a I-AA school once every four years. This season, 50 games have been scheduled between I-A and I-AA teams, but that number is bound to rise in future seasons."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...e-changes_x.htm

This article was precisely correct. Most years since 2006 there have been about 100 games between I-A and I-AA programs, and most schools adopted a model of 1 game vs. a BCS opponent, 2 vs. other I-A teams, and one vs. a I-AA school, with 8 conference games. Beginning this year, there's a new playoff that emphasizes SOS. Shockingly, Power 5 conference schools have been adjusting their schedules to play each other more, with the effect that it's suddenly easier for Wisconsin (or any other P5 member) to find willing partners. As ESPN's Mitch Sherman put it just today:

"If you don’t think the College Football Playoff is impacting the way teams schedule, you’re not paying attention. No doubt, programs are planning games with the selection committee's focus on schedule strength in mind."

Instead of playing personality-driven games of retribution, it makes more sense to look at the incentives built into the system. From 2006-13, the system rewarded playing weak non-conference schedules, and schedules at most schools got weaker (think of Florida State playing not one but two I-AA schools in the same season, as they did in both 2008 and 2012). Now, the system rewards playing a tougher schedule, and--voila!--schedules are getting tougher. That's a much better explanation than "Bielema did it!"
These ARE the Good Old Days.

Last edited 7/30/2014 10:42 PM by OlBadger

Reply | Quote
  • EarthX
  • Freshman
  • 1034 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 1:12 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:

host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?

---------------------------------------------
Texas said no to coming to Madison just a couple of years ago.

The big schools do fear scheduling a possible road loss to a team that isn't a blueblood name like Michigan or Ohio State.

Heck, I feel safe in assuming the delay that occurred in making the LSU deals official was that LSU was trying to get an "out" written into the deal for the GB game (you know, if "special circumstances" were somehow "discovered" down the road...)

We just saw ND try to bail on a scheduled trip to AZ ST, so you can't give these guys any leeway if you want them to actually show up in your neck of the woods.
Reply | Quote
  • EarthX
  • Freshman
  • 1034 posts this site
Avatar

Posted: 7/31/2014 1:22 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



UnknownBadger wrote:
Ph3431 wrote: When did BA approach these schools? Being in the 'infant stages' would seem to indicate fairly recently. Perhaps, you should worry a little bit less about my reading ability.

What schools turned BA down in the early 2000s?

As for VT...didn't UW already bump that series back once before? 'Scheduling' is nice but actually playing the games is really the important part.

---------------------------------------------
--- OlBadger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: Bama and LSU aren't the only big time opponents in existence...so there's that.

Did Georgia, USC, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, VTech, Oregon, etc...all say no too?


“I’d love to do it,” he said. “I’ve approached a lot of those (SEC) schools. I  have one that we’re talking to for a home-and-home, but we’re just in the infant  stages of it.”


Maybe you ought to read the article before commenting, eh? VT already is on the schedule for a home-and-home in 2019-20; those are the games we re-scheduled to allow for the LSU game in 2016.

---------------------------------------------
Bielema bumped it back because he thought the schedule that year would be too hard. Ha! Then he got out of town before he had to finally play them. During the Bielema era 28 OOC games were scheduled. 4 of those were BCS teams, none with much of a history of being all that strong. The VT game that has now been pushed back over 10 years, and the WSU game in 2007 were scheduled prior to Bielema grabbing the reins.

BTW, when BA was coach the OOC schedules were noticeably more challenging.
I don't know about "noticeably."  I don't think it's a secret that Barry wanted no part of the really good teams of the era.  He didn't schedule those Syracuse, Colorado or Washington games (and he wanted the 2nd WA game cancelled, which it was).

His non-con opponents were okay, but there was a definite pattern of scheduling big-conf teams when they were at their peak (or appeared to be), and there was no reason to think they were still be at that level when the games were played.

Oregon was still good (although not today's Oregon), and VT is still pretty good (although that series keeps getting pushed back again and again).

As for the rest:  How many times did we hear from fellow fans "They were good when we scheduled them!"

Not many stories of the team trying to schedule FL, Miami, etc from back then, that's for sure.

Last edited 7/31/2014 1:24 AM by EarthX

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 6:28 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 





---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:

host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?

---------------------------------------------

FWIW the LSU AD says those conversations never took place.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 7:05 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


In typical fashion....a lot of text and little meaning to the actual subject matter. Let's recap:

I did read the article. It mentioned Alvarez had approached most SEC teams but implied it was recently (’talks in their infancy'). So my question still stands: What happened in all the years prior to about 2012 or so (assuming that's when these conversations started)?

As for VT...UW already pushed it back once because their schedule was going to be 'too hard.' No UW schedule from the last 15 years was 'too hard.' And they STILL haven't played VT.

Despite all your excuses, other teams were able to schedule home and homes. Before 2006 and today. All these other games are going on and yet poor UW can't get anyone of substance to play? I don't buy it.

For the record: I think it was more Bielema than Alvarez....but of course, BA is captain of the ship.

---------------------------------------------
--- OlBadger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote:

Perhaps, you should worry a little bit less about my reading ability.



I wasn't questioning your ability to read. But it seems pretty clear you didn't read the article before posting.

As far as scheduling today vs. earlier is concerned, I really think some of you are so busy trying to score points against our ex-coach (a waste of time) that you've either suppressed or forgotten the two key changes that have affected how everyone schedules. So, to remind you, here's a snippet from a 2005 USA Today piece:

"Look for more NCAA Division I-A football teams to schedule games against I-AA opponents as a result of the NCAA Division I board of directors' decision Thursday to permit I-A teams to play 12-game schedules starting in 2006. The board also adopted a proposal allowing I-A teams to reach bowl eligibility by counting a win against a I-AA opponent every year, effective for the 2005 season. Until now, teams could count a win against a I-AA school once every four years. This season, 50 games have been scheduled between I-A and I-AA teams, but that number is bound to rise in future seasons."

usatoday30.usatoday.com...e-changes_x.htm

This article was precisely correct. Most years since 2006 there have been about 100 games between I-A and I-AA programs, and most schools adopted a model of 1 game vs. a BCS opponent, 2 vs. other I-A teams, and one vs. a I-AA school, with 8 conference games. Beginning this year, there's a new playoff that emphasizes SOS. Shockingly, Power 5 conference schools have been adjusting their schedules to play each other more, with the effect that it's suddenly easier for Wisconsin (or any other P5 member) to find willing partners. As ESPN's Mitch Sherman put it just today:

"If you don’t think the College Football Playoff is impacting the way teams schedule, you’re not paying attention. No doubt, programs are planning games with the selection committee's focus on schedule strength in mind."

Instead of playing personality-driven games of retribution, it makes more sense to look at the incentives built into the system. From 2006-13, the system rewarded playing weak non-conference schedules, and schedules at most schools got weaker (think of Florida State playing not one but two I-AA schools in the same season, as they did in both 2008 and 2012). Now, the system rewards playing a tougher schedule, and--voila!--schedules are getting tougher. That's a much better explanation than "Bielema did it!"

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:22 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote: In typical fashion....a lot of text and little meaning to the actual subject matter. Let's recap:

I did read the article. It mentioned Alvarez had approached most SEC teams but implied it was recently (’talks in their infancy'). So my question still stands: What happened in all the years prior to about 2012 or so (assuming that's when these conversations started)?

As for VT...UW already pushed it back once because their schedule was going to be 'too hard.' No UW schedule from the last 15 years was 'too hard.' And they STILL haven't played VT.

Despite all your excuses, other teams were able to schedule home and homes. Before 2006 and today. All these other games are going on and yet poor UW can't get anyone of substance to play? I don't buy it.

For the record: I think it was more Bielema than Alvarez....but of course, BA is captain of the ship.

---------------------------------------------

Say what you want about Bielema's scheduling, I would argue that the highest profile non conference game (non bowl) in the history of the program came about because of the level of success he was able to achieve during his time at UW.  There is no way that Wisconsin ends up with a season opener against Alabama in Dallas if the Badgers had not won multiple conference championships in the years leading up to the creation of the game.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:28 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Ok: The non-conference scheduling during Bielema's tenure was mostly atrocious.

How does a non-conference game impact UW's ability to win the B1G?


---------------------------------------------
--- D3Badger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: In typical fashion....a lot of text and little meaning to the actual subject matter. Let's recap:

I did read the article. It mentioned Alvarez had approached most SEC teams but implied it was recently (’talks in their infancy'). So my question still stands: What happened in all the years prior to about 2012 or so (assuming that's when these conversations started)?

As for VT...UW already pushed it back once because their schedule was going to be 'too hard.' No UW schedule from the last 15 years was 'too hard.' And they STILL haven't played VT.

Despite all your excuses, other teams were able to schedule home and homes. Before 2006 and today. All these other games are going on and yet poor UW can't get anyone of substance to play? I don't buy it.

For the record: I think it was more Bielema than Alvarez....but of course, BA is captain of the ship.

---------------------------------------------

Say what you want about Bielema's scheduling, I would argue that the highest profile non conference game (non bowl) in the history of the program came about because of the level of success he was able to achieve during his time at UW.  There is no way that Wisconsin ends up with a season opener against Alabama in Dallas if the Badgers had not won multiple conference championships in the years leading up to the creation of the game.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:34 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:36 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


I can't see you over all of my championship rings and trophys...it's so bright. Is someone there?

---------------------------------------------
--- rmh924 wrote:

Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.

---------------------------------------------

Last edited 7/31/2014 8:37 AM by Ph3431

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:40 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



Ph3431 wrote: Ok: The non-conference scheduling during Bielema's tenure was mostly atrocious.

How does a non-conference game impact UW's ability to win the B1G?


---------------------------------------------
--- D3Badger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: In typical fashion....a lot of text and little meaning to the actual subject matter. Let's recap:

I did read the article. It mentioned Alvarez had approached most SEC teams but implied it was recently (’talks in their infancy'). So my question still stands: What happened in all the years prior to about 2012 or so (assuming that's when these conversations started)?

As for VT...UW already pushed it back once because their schedule was going to be 'too hard.' No UW schedule from the last 15 years was 'too hard.' And they STILL haven't played VT.

Despite all your excuses, other teams were able to schedule home and homes. Before 2006 and today. All these other games are going on and yet poor UW can't get anyone of substance to play? I don't buy it.

For the record: I think it was more Bielema than Alvarez....but of course, BA is captain of the ship.

---------------------------------------------

Say what you want about Bielema's scheduling, I would argue that the highest profile non conference game (non bowl) in the history of the program came about because of the level of success he was able to achieve during his time at UW.  There is no way that Wisconsin ends up with a season opener against Alabama in Dallas if the Badgers had not won multiple conference championships in the years leading up to the creation of the game.

---------------------------------------------
I doesn't.  I am simply pointing out that the reason UW has been able to gain high profile NC games on neutral fields with huge network support is because of what was accomplished when Bielama was the coach.  I hope and believe that 3-4 years from now when the conference is looked at for these high profile games Wisconsin will remain on the radar.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:43 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



D3Badger wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- kowitzc wrote:

host.madison.com/sports...c7038e2ba4.html

So, for anyone who was claiming Barry could easily get big time opponents to play in Camp Randall still want to make that claim?

---------------------------------------------

FWIW the LSU AD says those conversations never took place.
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index....e-and-home.html

I'm going to assume this is the article you're referring to.  It is a bit confusing, but here's what I got from the quotes in the article: Verge was vague.  He said a home-and-home was never discussed and they had a mission to play a [neutral site] game in Houston.  He didn't deny what Alvarez said.

http://theadvocate.com/sports/...u-football-game

Seems like from the get-go, the higher-ups in the Athletic Department had an objective from playing at Reliant.

Regardless of what Alvarez said, LSU wanted this game in Houston.  I don't think it has anything to do with fear, etc.  They have a huge alumni base there and will generate a nice coin.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 8:44 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Ok, then we agree. Bielema was extremely successful during his time at UW (no qualifiers needed) and I believe improved the program from the Alvarez years.

In doing that, his non-conference scheduling was closer to cowardly than courageous.

I hope GA can continue to improve of BA's foundation and BB's success.


---------------------------------------------
--- D3Badger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: Ok: The non-conference scheduling during Bielema's tenure was mostly atrocious.

How does a non-conference game impact UW's ability to win the B1G?


---------------------------------------------
--- D3Badger wrote:


Ph3431 wrote: In typical fashion....a lot of text and little meaning to the actual subject matter. Let's recap:

I did read the article. It mentioned Alvarez had approached most SEC teams but implied it was recently (’talks in their infancy'). So my question still stands: What happened in all the years prior to about 2012 or so (assuming that's when these conversations started)?

As for VT...UW already pushed it back once because their schedule was going to be 'too hard.' No UW schedule from the last 15 years was 'too hard.' And they STILL haven't played VT.

Despite all your excuses, other teams were able to schedule home and homes. Before 2006 and today. All these other games are going on and yet poor UW can't get anyone of substance to play? I don't buy it.

For the record: I think it was more Bielema than Alvarez....but of course, BA is captain of the ship.

---------------------------------------------

Say what you want about Bielema's scheduling, I would argue that the highest profile non conference game (non bowl) in the history of the program came about because of the level of success he was able to achieve during his time at UW.  There is no way that Wisconsin ends up with a season opener against Alabama in Dallas if the Badgers had not won multiple conference championships in the years leading up to the creation of the game.

---------------------------------------------
I doesn't.  I am simply pointing out that the reason UW has been able to gain high profile NC games on neutral fields with huge network support is because of what was accomplished when Bielama was the coach.  I hope and believe that 3-4 years from now when the conference is looked at for these high profile games Wisconsin will remain on the radar.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 10:22 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


I actually think Barry is tired of seeing only 70,000 show up to watch his team pound a good HS team and that it was apparent within hours of Bielema skipping town.

Last edited 7/31/2014 10:23 AM by UnknownBadger

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 11:25 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



rmh924 wrote: Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.
rolleyes
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 3:49 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



hoopsgalore wrote:
rmh924 wrote: Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.
rolleyes
Maybe playing a game at CR where he had everything to lose if he lost and not a ton to gain might have something to do with it.  I fully understand that a guy like Saban is in the driver's seat when it comes to scheduling.  Anyway, just what the f--k do you know what's going through Saban's mind oh Wise One?  Go stuff it.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 3:56 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Scheduling for UW has gotten easier for attracting top opponents over the years, Why?  Because they have proven to be good for the long term and in a perennial team in the top 25.  That was not the case before the three trips to the Rose Bowl.  the UW brand is different now.

No way any SEC team was going to take a road game in Madison in the past but and difficult now but it will become more likely if UW proves to be a top 3 Big Ten team year after year.

You also have to remember the opposing fans.  Are they going to be excited to play Wisconsin?  Not in the past.  This is why only Penn St, Michigan, and Ohio St have been able to get home and away games.  They have the name no matter the talent.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 4:07 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


The driver's seat part. No thank you.


---------------------------------------------
--- rmh924 wrote:


hoopsgalore wrote:
rmh924 wrote: Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.
rolleyes
Maybe playing a game at CR where he had everything to lose if he lost and not a ton to gain might have something to do with it.  I fully understand that a guy like Saban is in the driver's seat when it comes to scheduling.  Anyway, just what the f--k do you know what's going through Saban's mind oh Wise One?  Go stuff it.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 4:13 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 



rmh924 wrote: Somebody should ask Nick Saban if having his ass handed to him the last time he coached a team playing UW at Camp Randall had anything to do with his lack of interest in a home & home.
Yes, I'm sure it haunts his every waking moment and takes most of the joy out of the four national championships he has won since that day.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 4:17 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp Randa 


The Va Tech series was actually rescheduled twice, most recently so we could get in the Lambeau game against LSU. IIRC Barry was reluctant to ask them to reschedule again since we'd already pushed it back once.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/31/2014 9:12 PM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 


Not a case of it haunting his every waking moment, but maybe he figures he's got more to lose than gain playing a game at CR.  Anyway, my original remark on this subject was meant more as a poke at Saban who I  think is a jerk(like leaving the Dolphins the way he did at roughly mid year).  Sorta funny how some people on this board have had no problem ripping the guy a new one over the way he runs his program now want to run to his defense. Swell.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 8/1/2014 7:10 AM

Re: LSU and Alabama were not interested in playing at Camp 





---------------------------------------------
--- rmh924 wrote:

Not a case of it haunting his every waking moment, but maybe he figures he's got more to lose than gain playing a game at CR.  Anyway, my original remark on this subject was meant more as a poke at Saban who I  think is a jerk(like leaving the Dolphins the way he did at roughly mid year).  Sorta funny how some people on this board have had no problem ripping the guy a new one over the way he runs his program now want to run to his defense. Swell.

---------------------------------------------

By most accounts Saban is a jerk. I have never been critical on this board of the way he runs his program though I probably have been in conversation. I simply find it funny that someone would think that a coach with four national championships, yearly games at places like Baton Rouge, Auburn, College Station, Athens , etc would find terror in the thought of playing in Madison because of something that happened 15 years and four coaching stops earlier.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >