T1B

He doesn't like neutral site games. Says they don't count.

These neutral site games - especially at Jerrah World - suck major donkey dick.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:These neutral site games - especially at Jerrah World - suck major donkey dick.

Yep. Totally shafting season ticket holders.

My understanding is that the majority of the seats in Jerry World are so far from the field, you wind up watching the entire game on the jumbotron.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:These neutral site games - especially at Jerrah World - suck major donkey dick.

The ones in Miami in January suck, too.

Sin,
ND fans

One off neutral site games may suck, but rivalries played at a neutral site seem to do very well for the teams involved; see Florida, Georgia, OU and Texas.


Yes, most people at Jerry World do end up watching some of the game from the jumbotron, not because the seats suck, but because it is so big it is hard not to. The building is great from a fan perspective and a ton of the seats are amazing. Hell, two of the locker rooms require the teams to walk thru a fan concourse. On top of that the press and radio guys get end zone seating so more fans get yard line seats.

The seats I cant understand are the field level suites. These "suites" are actually 3 feet lower than the field level. So you are about waist high to those on the sidelines. Since these "suites" are on the sides of the field you have to look thru the team benches, staff, tv and press folks, etc. I guess the one positive for some is the Cowboy cheerleaders are five feet away.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:These neutral site games - especially at Jerrah World - suck major donkey dick.

Yep. Totally shafting season ticket holders.

Yet you think the Auburn-Alabama game should have stayed at a "neutral" site.

Go chug a gallon of your mop water, dipshit.

Carson wrote: Yet you think the Auburn-Alabama game should have stayed at a "neutral" site.

Go chug a gallon of your mop water, dipshit.

Allbarn-Bama is an annual matchup going back almost 100 years and traditionally played at a neutral site, sperm depository. I understand you're a little gun shy as Bama refused to play at Allbarn for about 50 years. But don't be a bitter little bitch.

These sackless teams are simply afraid of playing each other at opposing stadiums, so they water down their home schedules and play these "tough" opponents at neutral sites. Bullshit.

Screw_Michigan wrote: These sackless teams are simply afraid of playing each other at opposing stadiums, so they water down their home schedules and play these "tough" opponents at neutral sites. Bullshit.

If that is the reason then we need to add ND to the list.

Left Seater wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote: These sackless teams are simply afraid of playing each other at opposing stadiums, so they water down their home schedules and play these "tough" opponents at neutral sites. Bullshit.

If that is the reason then we need to add ND to the list.

Eh, I guess. I don't think ND is afraid of playing anyone at their home stadium. If you look at the Shamrock Classic, it hasn't exactly been a who's who of current college football powers:

2009: Washington State in Texas
2010: Army in New York
2011: Maryland in D.C.
2012: Miami in Chicago
2013: ASU in Texas
2014: Purdue in Indianapolis

They're going to ASU this year, so they basically scheduled a home and home with them and decided to play their home game on the road.

ND played MSU, OU, and USC last year at home. I wouldn't exactly call that watering down their home schedule.

I prolly could have done a better job of word smithing that.

My point was not that ND waters down their home schedule, but that they play more neutral site games to avoid playing true road games. See FSU back in the day when ND refused to play in Tally, see the Miami game a few years ago in Chicago, see the fact they have never played in Navy Marine Corp Stadium, see the recent negotiations with Texas where ND wanted one of the Texas home games to be played at Jerry World. Plenty of other examples.

So if playing neutral site games is bad as others have stated then ND is guilty.

All of ND's recent neutral site games have come at the expense of one of their home games, not a road game. ND has gone with the 6-5-1 model instead of 7-5.

They don't play Navy in Marine Corps Stadium because it is better financially for Navy for those games to take place in neutral sites. At those games, Navy is always the home team and gets the home team share of the gate, which is typically in a stadium that holds over 80K as opposed to the 34K held by MCS.

I have no idea why ND wanted to play FSU in Disney in '94, but since then they played a home and home. As far as Texas, I thought they were looking to play a 1-1-1 schedule with a home game at each place and then a neutral site game on the east coast.

^^^ How did that make you feel, lil' buddy? :)

Rack schmick.

Wow what a cash crab by the PAC 12. We will only allow our members to play one off neutral site games if we control broadcast and all other rights.

That rule takes USC vs Texas in Mexico City and Dubai off the table.

schmick wrote: If Mexico City or Dubai are Texas' home game in a home and home and Texas plays at USC, then they are possible.

schmick wrote:Sure because they are scared to play in away stadiums so they will play at home or at neutral sites closer to their home than the other teams home.

As if Mexico City or Dubai is considerably closer to one school or the other.

schmick wrote:The Pac is tired of their schools playing in other schools stadiums and then not playing the Pac school in their stadium.

So what you are saying above is that the PAC 12 conference has to protect their member schools from their own athletic directors. :? No one forces PAC 12 schools to sign game contracts where they play a road game without the return home game.

Save us please from ourselves.

Jsc810 wrote:When I first heard the possibility of USC vs Alabama, I was wondering how could I pick a team in that game. Couldn't there be a way for both teams to lose?

After reading this thread, however, the decision becomes easier.

Give us a fucking break. The conference loyalty gene would kick in and we would be left with muffled sounds of "MMMFFF EEHHH SEEEHHH! MMMFFF EEHHH SEEEHHH!" as the SEC slowly pumped your mouth.

Left Seater wrote:

schmick wrote:The Pac is tired of their schools playing in other schools stadiums and then not playing the Pac school in their stadium.

So what you are saying above is that the PAC 12 conference has to protect their member schools from their own athletic directors. :? No one forces PAC 12 schools to sign game contracts where they play a road game without the return home game.

Save us please from ourselves.

agree with lefty here. don't see how the function of a conference is to control a school's right to make it's own schedule. to give up or not determine it's own financial or sporting interests.