Is The 2006 Schedule Set In Stone?

by **Stallion** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:12 pm

yes that is how that contract was signed originally-I think it was a 3 for 5 series. SMU should play TCU, Texas should play OU, USC should play UCLA and every other possible opponent should be secondary. Now if we can't swing it because of the conference shifts then fine-but everything should be done to preserve that series as well I might add the series with baylor.

by **Charleston Pony** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:26 pm

Stallion wrote:yes that is how that contract was signed originally-I think it was a 3 for 5 series. SMU should play TCU, Texas should play OU, USC should play UCLA and every other possible opponent should be secondary. Now if we can't swing it because of the conference shifts then fine-but everything should be done to preserve that series as well I might add the series with baylor.

couldn't agree more about TCU and I agree we should try to ink a home/home deal with Baylor as well. If they don't want to play every year, get UNT to alternate with Baylor so our schedule has one of those 3 (TCU, Baylor or UNT) at home and one on the road EVERY year.

by **DiamondM** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:05 pm

Well, I'm bitter and vindictive about TCU's uppity attitude about their recent success, so I personally don't mind that they don't get the benefit of any more nearby games than they have now. I want their travel schedule to hurt and cost a lot of money. I want them travelling far outside the metroplex to cold places in the Mountain and Pacific time zone that no one pays much attention to.

Plus, I don't want to add them to the schedule in place of Tech (for personal reasons) and I don't want to add an away game with them. I'd rather trade a home game against Sam Houston, which is a no win situation even if we win. They won't draw attendance, no one will care if we beat them, and if, God forbid, we lose, then it is the worst possible disaster. I'd rather play TCU than Sam Houston, where attendance is boosted, a win (which if last year is any indication is very possible) gets press and respect, and a loss is not the end of the world (as much as I HATE losing to those purple sleeztaks).

by PK » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:21 pm

sleeztaks???

by **KnuckleStang** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:30 pm

by **jtstang** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:46 pm

Notice the family resemblance:

by **Hilltopper** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:52 pm

Good eye, JT!

by **ponyplayer** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:30 pm

KnuckleStang wrote:

are those sleeztaks??

by **mrydel** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:34 pm

ponyplayer wrote:
KnuckleStang wrote:

are those sleeztaks??

The 2 on the left are. I am not certain of the one on the right.

by **ponyplayer** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:37 pm

mrydel wrote:
ponyplayer wrote:
KnuckleStang wrote:

are those sleeztaks??

The 2 on the left are. I am not certain of the one on the right.

maybe he is just a ztak............

by **MrMustang1965** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:38 pm

For those of us who were already adults by the late 1970s, these characters were in a Saturday morning program called "Land of the Lost" by those famous puppeteers, Sid & Marty Kroft...the same guys who brought you "H.R. Pufnstuff" and "The Banana Splits".

http://www.jd.gosling.btinternet.co.uk/lotl.htm

by **ponyplayer** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:34 pm

I could have swore i saw one of those things running around waving a license plate and trying to ring a cowbell at the OU game the other night....could have also been the effects of alcohol.........

by **Hoofprint** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:41 pm

Nah, there's no drinking on the SMU campus except on the Boulevard before football games. University Park is dry.

by **ponyplayer** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:47 pm

Is Humperdinks part of the campus? Pretty close........

by **Hoofprint** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:53 pm

It must be. I used to refer to it as "going to the library."

Is The 2006 Schedule Set In Stone?

Who is online