Kickoff and TV Details for Bedlam Announced

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

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!!!

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."

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.

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!

we have a Logo too

(or so I've been told)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!

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".

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.

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

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?

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

do you have a reference for that? I did a search and came up with nothing

NY Times being cited by multiple sources.

I'm doing a search on

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

and getting nothing