K-State wavering on 2010 football game

After giving this some thought, I realize that there's an obvious choice if they are available: Miami.

What better way to launch a dynasty than in the graveyard of the last one?

Plus, it would give UCLA badly needed exposure (for things like recruiting) in Florida.

who would want to play k-state anyway? any clue on who this other team could be?

Sounds great to me. Lets get it done.

Brian - On one hand you make it sound like K-State wavering for 2010 is an issue (a not so pleasant issue if it means trying to replace them on the schedule at such a late date???). On the other hand, you say that ESPN is trying to schedule a marquee game between UCLA and ???. Well, that sounds like a great opportunity. So, who cares if K-State is wavering. If I was UCLA I'd say, great. Go. Get off our schedule so we can do a better deal. Afterall, Neuheisel desires the marquee national TV exposure.

Would rather play K-State and get a victory.

After giving it some though, I realized there is an obvious choice if avialable: Miami.

Where better to launch a new dynasty than in the graveyard of the old one?

Plus, this game would UCLA badly needed exposure in Florida.

i'm a Bruin fan and marquee game against a big-name opponment would be great.

But what makes UCLA so appealing to ESPN versus other schools? is it the LA market?

what about UW vs. Tenn in matchup of old Pete Carrol assistants?
Cal vs. West Virginia in the same-uni deign battle?
Oregon vs. Texas.
In all honesty Brian. UCLA home and home with Rutgers would be great, because of it's proximity to NYC.

Why is ESPN/ABC trying so intently for that matchup involving UCLA on that day? Does it have anything to do with the expected talent level of our team that year? Are other 20 top teams undesirable/unavailable for TV audiences on that day only? And why is KSU now trying to get out of the home and home in their place, do they fear they will be jilted eventually, so they want to break it up first?

In recent years, we've been in on a few recruits from Michigan - what about a primetime Michigan v. UCLA or Michigan State vs. UCLA?
I'd also like for us to get another shot at Notre Dame.

UCLA needs to step outside the box and play a school like Virginia Tech. Tons of potential recruits in VA who'd love to see some west-coast football. Hokies are always at the top of the ACC, but don't travel well so a game at UCLA would be a real home opportunity for the Bruins. That said, they'd get destroyed in Blacksburg.

Anon - is there a point in your comment?

No wonder people from Missouri hate those baztards.

K-State.... pffffff.... What a bunch of spineless pansies. They poop their pants at the thought of facing Norm Chow's future offense and our massive meat package of a defensive line. So be it! We didn't want to waste time with their stupid girly team anyway.

K-State... .LOL

I love that ESPN is so determined to make something happen here. I'm thinking they're targeting UCLA for a few reasons: 1) The huge LA media market. Not only will UCLA fans tune in, but USC fans will as well in hopes of watching us lose (lol), 2) A pretty large and loyal fan base. UCLA doesn't get a lot of hype in that respect, but even though the fan base is pretty low-key and non-intrusive, it's still a very large and loyal fan base, 3) Past success in the UCLA v. UT Labor Day game. If I'm not mistaken, the viewing audience for that game was huge, and I think ESPN figures those same people who tuned in for that game will tune in again, and finally, 4) I think there's every reason to believe we'll be a good team in 2010 and very much on the rise. I like it. I like it a lot. GO BRUINS!

I love that ESPN is so determined to make something happen here. I'm thinking they're targeting UCLA for a few reasons: 1) The huge LA media market. Not only will UCLA fans tune in, but USC fans will as well in hopes of watching us lose (lol), 2) A pretty large and loyal fan base. UCLA doesn't get a lot of hype in that respect, but even though the fan base is pretty low-key and non-intrusive, it's still a very large and loyal fan base, 3) Past success in the UCLA v. UT Labor Day game. If I'm not mistaken, the viewing audience for that game was huge, and I think ESPN figures those same people who tuned in for that game will tune in again, and finally, 4) I think there's every reason to believe we'll be a good team in 2010 and very much on the rise. I like it. I like it a lot. GO BRUINS!

San Diego Stated peaced out of a 2008 game with us that left us scrambling to get Fresno State last year.

You can probably count on two hands the number of UCLA fans that would fire up for a trip to Manhattan, Kansas considering the Bruins head to Austin, Texas on September 18...THAT one will be a fun trip.

I'd personally be in favor of bringing in a San Jose State, Idaho, or other lower tier D1 team to whack at the Rose Bowl if a neutral site game against a big tiem team can't be found. The non-conference strength will still balance out with the trip to Texas.

Lets play the toejams twice!

It probably has a lot to do with ESPN trying to make its money back from that huge deal they made with teh SEC. They know that UCLA is willing to take more "risks" with their schedule because they are behind USC in hometown exposure. No other PAC-10 school has that problem except for Stanford.

Here's what I would do:

Looking at the 2010 UCLA nonconference schedule, I would move the UCLA/Texas game from 9/18/2010 to 9/4/2010 and have it played at the new Dallas Cowboys stadium. UCLA can fill the open date with another nonconference BCS team (Georgia and Michigan have open dates on 9/18/2010).

Brian,
Can you please connect the dots on this post? What does Kansas State waivering have to do with the ESPN/ABC deal? Anything?

I agree. This post is written strangely. It would make more sense if UCLA was wavering on the KSU game, because the Bruins were hoping to secure a match-up with another more attractive opponent (not that KSU is chopped liver) for a national broadcast.

Or because KSU doesn't want to play UCLA, ESPN is trying to help out the Bruins by setting up a marquee match-up for national broadcast. Something like the Kick-off Classic.

Anyway, I thought I heard that CRN was not happy with our non-conference schedules because he felt we played too many tough opponents in the non conference, and it makes for too difficult a schedule overall? With Texas already on the schedule, I would say that dropping KSU for a more difficult opponent, is not such a wise choice.

UCLA doesn't travel well; how many Bruin fans would show up at KSU?

How about a road game with the SEC, ACC, or Big 12

k-state: SCARED!!! LOL

TruBruin And J Doe: If I'm not mistaken, the reason is that initially, ESPN was offering to buy out our contract w/ K-State in 2010 so that they could create some kind of marquee match up at a neutral site to kick off the season; mostly, I think, because last year's game against Tennessee turned out to be a huge draw for ESPN. Auburn, who was first approached about playing us declined. Now it would seem that K-State has decided they don't want to play us, perhaps because they're insulted that we had no problem brushing them off, or maybe they're getting pressure from ESPN to back out to make the deal easier. Or perhaps because they figure if Auburn doesn't want to play us, there must be a good reason, or perhaps because if ESPN seems to think we'll be good enough to open the season in such a fashion, then they'd rather pad their schedule with a cupcake Div. 1AA team. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this, but like I said, I like the media interest.

I think that K-State is trying to get out of the 2010 game because in college football, nonconference games are usually arranged when the home team pays the visiting team. The exact amounts are always negotiable, as well as whether it's a home-and-home or just a one-time thing. That's how you get "bodybag" games, like San Jose State vs USC (or pretty much every SEC nonconference game); they make money for the visiting team.

So K-State will take the money from a trip to the Rose Bowl, and will gladly allow ESPN to take UCLA off their hands the next season.

The only downside for UCLA is the possibility that we will play a much tougher opponent--but since there's no way of knowing who will be a powerhouse 2 years down the road, it's almost pointless to worry about this. And the upside, if ESPN is indeed behind this, is that we'll have a nationally-televised intersectional game for probably more money than K-State would have paid.

For all of you diptards who think K-State is afraid and worthless:

1. Snyder beat Chow's offense when Chow was with USC. Snyder's not afraid of Chow.

2. Snyder 3-2 all time vs Nueheisel. Snyder's not afraid of Nueheisel.

3. If you haven't noticed, UCLA kinda sucks. K-State may not be the powerhouse it was back when it was slapping USC around, but you are counting your chickens before they hatch if you think UCLA is going to walk all over K-State and Bill Snyder. Personally, I think UCLA is going to lose and badly.

Neither team is particularly attractive right now but it looks like UCLA will become more of a priority for ESPN, with them moving some of their offices to the area. UCLA at least has some horses in the stable, even if they haven't performed up to snuff. KSU looks like they are scared to get run out of their place. Who doesn't want a home game against a team traveling a thousand miles? Apparently they have a 70 year old coach so maybe he just wants to get some sun this year and get someone easier next year.

K-State will be lucky to field a team that could compete in Div. 2. There is a complete lack of talent in Manhattan right now. Prince left the program in worse shape than he got it. They are trying to get out of the game because Grandpa Snyder does not believe in playing Div. 1 teams in the nonconference season. K-State will be a laugh stock for quite some time.

Now that i think of it, it always was Coach Snyder's M.O. to schedule "gimmes" in the non-conference so they could steamroll those teams and move up high in the rankings before conference play begins. I just think that in the mind of Coach Snyder even if KSU can beat UCLA it would not be by his usual 66-3 score, so it wouldn't give KSU the notority he is looking for early in the season. Look for them to put a schellacking on Eastern Colorado St. instead.

Why do think you can beat KSU? What has UCLA done to give you that idea? When was the last time you even won your conference? If you played in the Big 12, you would never make it to a bowl game. Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Colorado would all kick your A$$. You have who??? Who other than USC has won a national championship in the last ten years? KSU played USC when Carson Palmer was there and we split 2 games. Don't talk smack unless you've actually done something!!!

Why is it called the big twelve?Isn't the eleven dwarfs conference

a more appropriate name.UCLA can and will beat any team including

Texas.

Serious question...why in the hell would UCLA be up for a marquee espn game? Last time I checked they sucked this year and would've lost to K-State if Grant Gregory had started sooner than he did.

Texas is looking forward to kicking some UCLA ass on national television. Home crowd in Austin will be awesome! Should be 100,000+ in attendance. Pac 10 just cannot compete with BIG XII. Ask Arizona, who got their butts whipped by Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl (33-0).

Go UCLA. Really kicked butt at Manhattan in 2010!! Whaaahooo....Oh wait...Crap. I guess we really are not that good! If KSU can't compete in D2, UCLA really sucks huh.