Story Poster
Photo by Brett Rojo-USA TODAY Sports
Oklahoma State Football

Kickoff and TV Details for Bedlam Announced

November 12, 2022
11,061

STILLWATER – Kickoff and TV details for Oklahoma State’s Bedlam matchup against OU have been announced.

Kickoff is officially scheduled for 6:30 p.m. CT and will be televised on ABC.

The Cowboys are fresh off a 20-14 win over Iowa State in Stillwater on Saturday, moving them to 7-3 overall and 4-3 in Big 12 play.

As for the Sooners, they’re 5-5 on the season and 2-3 in Big 12 play following a 23-20 loss to West Virginia in Morgantown, the first win for the Mountaineers at home against the Sooners.

Redshirt freshman Gunnar Gundy got the start at quarterback for the Pokes and finished the game going 5-of-12 passing for 103 yards and one touchdown with two interceptions. Redshirt senior Spencer Sanders came into the game following Gundy’s second interception and helped lead the Pokes to the six-point win.

Sanders finished the game going 9-of-13 for 84 yards and one touchdown.

As for the defense, the Cowboys forced five turnovers, three interceptions and two forced fumbles, with redshirt freshman Kendal Daniels recording one of each. The Pokes also finished with 11.5 tackles for loss, four sacks in the fourth quarter and four quarterback hurries.

Discussion from...

Kickoff and TV Details for Bedlam Announced

10,666 Views | 27 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by CaliforniaCowboy
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
well.... despite the crappy time slot, it appears that Sanders will be starting.

I'm thinking we should be favored on the road in this game
Joe Khatib
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He is about 85% to 90% health wise but still has a little pain in the arm shoulder area, which is why they are being very careful with him during the week! This comes from a couple of his team mates! I am more concerned about Preston Wilson and Hunter Woodard. I really hope Prseton is back for Bedlam at center!!!
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ON IF HE (Sanders) WILL PLAY IN BEDLAM:

"Oh yeah, I'm playing next week. There ain't no question. You can count me in. So ya'll are not scrambling all week, yeah, I'm playing next week. I'm playing. There ain't no question about it."

GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

well.... despite the crappy time slot, it appears that Sanders will be starting.

I'm thinking we should be favored on the road in this game


There was never a chance we'd be favored.
Joe Khatib
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

well.... despite the crappy time slot, it appears that Sanders will be starting.

I'm thinking we should be favored on the road in this game


There was never a chance we'd be favored.
This is vey true but I am not sure it really matters! The little QB from West Virginia who is a run first throw second QB gave them LOTS OF PROBLEMS WHEN BROWN MADE THAT CHANGE! We complain about our defense but they are not much better than us in that department!!! I wonder what happened to Mr. Ed the crazy horse, he has been silent the last week or so! LOLOLOL!
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
Uh, no. For 3 reasons.

1. The opening line (-5.5) is big enough that "logo" wouldn't make a difference.
2. The "analytics" favor OU by ~ 7 pts.
3. We've been underdogs in every B12 game this year except TT. That's how bad our "analytics" are.

CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
Uh, no. For 3 reasons.

1. The opening line (-5.5) is big enough that "logo" wouldn't make a difference.
2. The "analytics" favor OU by ~ 6 pts.
3. We've been underdogs in every B12 game this year except TT.


what part of "it was a joke" did you miss?

Do you want me to say it again? Quit trying to start fights. I could have looked it up if I had wanted.

stop with the BS already
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
Uh, no. For 3 reasons.

1. The opening line (-5.5) is big enough that "logo" wouldn't make a difference.
2. The "analytics" favor OU by ~ 6 pts.
3. We've been underdogs in every B12 game this year except TT.


what part of "it was a joke" did you miss?

Do you want me to say it again? Quit trying to start fights. I could have looked it up if I had wanted.

stop with the BS already
A joke which you then follow-up with "If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected.".

Your "thinking" was wrong. We were always going to be an underdog, logo or no logo.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
Uh, no. For 3 reasons.

1. The opening line (-5.5) is big enough that "logo" wouldn't make a difference.
2. The "analytics" favor OU by ~ 6 pts.
3. We've been underdogs in every B12 game this year except TT.


what part of "it was a joke" did you miss?

Do you want me to say it again? Quit trying to start fights. I could have looked it up if I had wanted.

stop with the BS already
A joke which you then follow-up with "If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected.".

Your "thinking" was wrong. We were always going to be an underdog, logo or no logo.
there you go again.... always feeling like you have to "prove somebody wrong", even when they're trying to make a joke.

please, do all comedians in the world a favor and do not attend comedy clubs, the humor doesn't work if you have to keep stopping to explain it.
Ostateman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wouldn't we all prefer to go into this game as an underdog?!

We seem to do much better when we're not expected to win.

Plus, this is Bedlam. The goons can be a ****ty as they can be, but this game will be their finest effort for the season - guaranteed!

Our team needs to know they're the underdog. Gundy needs to know we're the underdog.
He coaches a different game when we're not expected to win.

I'm just glad we have Sanders back in playable condition. His wheels give us a 50% better chance to win.

GO POKES!! BEAT ou!!
I know there are rules, but do we really want to follow them now?
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)


Whether we do or not, it has nothing to do with it.
you're wrong, you're always wrong. just deal with it.

If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected. I was making a freaking joke about Gundy's statement.... lighten up and quit trying to start fights.
Uh, no. For 3 reasons.

1. The opening line (-5.5) is big enough that "logo" wouldn't make a difference.
2. The "analytics" favor OU by ~ 6 pts.
3. We've been underdogs in every B12 game this year except TT.


what part of "it was a joke" did you miss?

Do you want me to say it again? Quit trying to start fights. I could have looked it up if I had wanted.

stop with the BS already
A joke which you then follow-up with "If it were OU / LSU or OU / UT, or any other "logo" schools the impact would be reflected.".

Your "thinking" was wrong. We were always going to be an underdog, logo or no logo.
there you go again.... always feeling like you have to "prove somebody wrong", even when they're trying to make a joke.

please, do all comedians in the world a favor and do not attend comedy clubs, the humor doesn't work if you have to keep stopping to explain it.


I must admit I'm never right and you're never wrong in the world where YOU choose to equivocate, justify, backpeddle and/or make "jokes".
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ostateman said:

Wouldn't we all prefer to go into this game as an underdog?!

We seem to do much better when we're not expected to win.

Plus, this is Bedlam. The goons can be a ****ty as they can be, but this game will be their finest effort for the season - guaranteed!

Our team needs to know they're the underdog. Gundy needs to know we're the underdog.
He coaches a different game when we're not expected to win.

I'm just glad we have Sanders back in playable condition. His wheels give us a 50% better chance to win.

GO POKES!! BEAT ou!!
Yep, its always ou's super bowl. Always has been.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)








I must admit I'm never right and you're never wrong in the world where YOU choose to equivocate, justify, backpeddle and/or make "jokes".
glad you're finally going to admit to something, even if it is just something else that you've made up about me.

good gawd
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet another bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....

GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....




Garbage.

This tells you ESPN believes its viewers (read advertisers) would rather watch a middle of the pack B12 game (albeit Bedlam) than one of the top 2 or 3 regular season P12 games of the year. Any PAC tv deal from ESPN is gonna suck compared to the B12.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....




Garbage.

This tells you ESPN believes its viewers (read advertisers) would rather watch a middle of the pack B12 game (albeit Bedlam) than one of the top 2 or 3 regular season P12 games of the year. Any PAC tv deal from ESPN is gonna suck compared to the B12.
no it doesn't. I gave you FIVE freaking scenarios, and you choose a conspiracy theory.

ESPN wants to make money... they like money.... they can show the B12 Bedlam game and make big bucks, and also show the Pac12 game and make big bucks... which is exactly what they are doing... it has likely has nothing to do with your conspiracy nonsense.

ESPN broadcasts games to make money, not to play silly games.

They will make money this weekend, and then they will make more money when they sign future contracts.
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....




Garbage.

This tells you ESPN believes its viewers (read advertisers) would rather watch a middle of the pack B12 game (albeit Bedlam) than one of the top 2 or 3 regular season P12 games of the year. Any PAC tv deal from ESPN is gonna suck compared to the B12.
no it doesn't. I gave you FIVE freaking scenarios, and you choose a conspiracy theory.

ESPN wants to make money... they like money.... they can show the B12 Bedlam game and make big bucks, and also show the Pac12 game and make big bucks... which is exactly what they are doing... it has likely has nothing to do with your conspiracy nonsense.

ESPN broadcasts games to make money, not to play silly games.

They will make money this weekend, and then they will make more money when they sign future contracts.


Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Except maybe that load of nonsense you trotted out above.

ESPN is showing the game that will get the most viewers and the the game their advertisers want. If an unimportant B12 game trumps a highly important PAC and national game, that just tells you what ESPN thinks of the value of the P12. DUH.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....




Garbage.

This tells you ESPN believes its viewers (read advertisers) would rather watch a middle of the pack B12 game (albeit Bedlam) than one of the top 2 or 3 regular season P12 games of the year. Any PAC tv deal from ESPN is gonna suck compared to the B12.
no it doesn't. I gave you FIVE freaking scenarios, and you choose a conspiracy theory.

ESPN wants to make money... they like money.... they can show the B12 Bedlam game and make big bucks, and also show the Pac12 game and make big bucks... which is exactly what they are doing... it has likely has nothing to do with your conspiracy nonsense.

ESPN broadcasts games to make money, not to play silly games.

They will make money this weekend, and then they will make more money when they sign future contracts.


Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Except maybe that load of nonsense you trotted out above.

ESPN is showing the game that will get the most viewers and the the game their advertisers want. If an unimportant B12 game trumps a highly important PAC and national game, that just tells you what ESPN thinks of the value of the P12. DUH.
no it doesn't. DUH. How lame.

the get to show BOTH GAMES... and make money on BOTH GAMES.

what is shows is that ESPN thinks they can make more money by showing the B12 game first and the Pac game second, they way they get most views and alienate fewest viewers. DUH

what the hell, man... jeezus
GumbyFromPokeyLand
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

CaliforniaCowboy said:

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

This is an interesting development.

Why would ESPN put Bedlam (#22 v unranked) in a better tv slot than Utah v Ore (12 v 10) at 10:30 ET? Is this yet bother bad signal for upcoming the P12 media deal?
is it a bad signal, or just a signal?

B12 already took a low bid from us, so they get the time-slot. Sign with us and you'll get better time-slot consideration.

or... more people in the south and midwest like southern football, and don't care for west coast style (because they've never stayed up late enough to see it)

Or, "we" (they) already saw Oregon lose badly to Georgia, and don't need to see them again.

or, most likely, if we show Ut/Or at an earlier time, then we won't have a decent game to show in the later timeslot that folks might stay up to watch.....




Garbage.

This tells you ESPN believes its viewers (read advertisers) would rather watch a middle of the pack B12 game (albeit Bedlam) than one of the top 2 or 3 regular season P12 games of the year. Any PAC tv deal from ESPN is gonna suck compared to the B12.
no it doesn't. I gave you FIVE freaking scenarios, and you choose a conspiracy theory.

ESPN wants to make money... they like money.... they can show the B12 Bedlam game and make big bucks, and also show the Pac12 game and make big bucks... which is exactly what they are doing... it has likely has nothing to do with your conspiracy nonsense.

ESPN broadcasts games to make money, not to play silly games.

They will make money this weekend, and then they will make more money when they sign future contracts.


Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Except maybe that load of nonsense you trotted out above.

ESPN is showing the game that will get the most viewers and the the game their advertisers want. If an unimportant B12 game trumps a highly important PAC and national game, that just tells you what ESPN thinks of the value of the P12. DUH.
no it doesn't. DUH. How lame.

the get to show BOTH GAMES... and make money on BOTH GAMES.

what is shows is that ESPN thinks they can make more money by showing the B12 game first and the Pac game second, they way they get most views and alienate fewest viewers. DUH

what the hell, man... jeezus


The east and central time zones aren't watching a 10:30 ET game. They will however watch a 7:30 pm ET game. Clearly ESPN/ABC is targeting the game for 7:30 ET to be the game that's going to attract most viewers. You know all of this, but that arguing thingy just keeps getting in the way.
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well those PAC negotiations are going so well Kliavkoff has offered to pay UCLA's B1G exit fee of $15M to stay. All negotiations on hold for that. That says the money is so bad no one wants to sign.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
do you have a reference for that? I did a search and came up with nothing
NJAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NY Times being cited by multiple sources.
CaliforniaCowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm doing a search on

"Kliavkoff has offered to pay UCLA's B1G exit fee NY Times"

and getting nothing
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.