EL didn't schedule this year because Big Red wanted to change the week so they could get a game with Brooke and that was not an option for EL.

Hey did anyone else happen to check ESPN or CNN to see if they released the schedule as it was indicated by the intial post. lol now thats classic.

The_end_of_overlook wrote: EL didn't schedule this year because Big Red wanted to change the week so they could get a game with Brooke and that was not an option for EL.

Brooke will bring more people and give us a better game. I don't think the Big Red fans will miss EL.

The 3 Ohio schools we do have are better than 90% of the teams in the state, so what is the problem?? It's not like we are playing Podunk Ohio teams..like the ones that the people that complain support.

Who does YOUR team play that is so good that you can be critical of Big Red's schedule??

ManO'War wrote: The 3 Ohio schools we do have are better than 90% of the teams in the state, so what is the problem?? It's not like we are playing Podunk Ohio teams..like the ones that the people that complain support.

I don't recall anyone putting down the Ohio teams you were playing? Where do you see me as 'complaining'? :huh: If in fact..your post was directed towards me.

ManO'War wrote: Who does YOUR team play that is so good that you can be critical of Big Red's schedule??

So..do you ALWAYS get defensive whenever someone is trying to have a discussion? I've said many times..I'm not a Big Red hater like some. Just trying to have a logical conversation. IT'S THE OFFSEASON MAN! Gotta talk about SOMETHING! As for MY team...our 2010 schedule is:

8/27 VS Lancaster
9/03 AT Pickerington North
9/10 VS Reynoldsburg
9/17 AT Jackson *
9/24 AT Marietta *
10/1 VS Gallia Academy *
10/8 VS Warren *
10/15 AT Zanesville
10/22 AT Portsmouth *
10/29 VS Chillicothe *

* indicates league games.

GoChiefs wrote:

ManO'War wrote: The 3 Ohio schools we do have are better than 90% of the teams in the state, so what is the problem?? It's not like we are playing Podunk Ohio teams..like the ones that the people that complain support.

I don't recall anyone putting down the Ohio teams you were playing? Where do you see me as 'complaining'? :huh: If in fact..your post was directed towards me.

ManO'War wrote: Who does YOUR team play that is so good that you can be critical of Big Red's schedule??

So..do you ALWAYS get defensive whenever someone is trying to have a discussion? I've said many times..I'm not a Big Red hater like some. Just trying to have a logical conversation. IT'S THE OFFSEASON MAN! Gotta talk about SOMETHING! As for MY team...our 2010 schedule is:

8/27 VS Lancaster
9/03 AT Pickerington North
9/10 VS Reynoldsburg
9/17 AT Jackson *
9/24 AT Marietta *
10/1 VS Gallia Academy *
10/8 VS Warren *
10/15 AT Zanesville
10/22 AT Portsmouth *
10/29 VS Chillicothe *

* indicates league games.

Who is your team?

FairwoodKing wrote: Who is your team?

Logan Chieftains

ManO'War wrote: Not you Captn...i was talking about these misinformed ones.

you do know the 90s happened befored the 2000s don't you?

MANAZE wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Not you Captn...i was talking about these misinformed ones.

you do know the 90s happened befored the 2000s don't you?

You do a lot of talking without saying anything.

I find it so interesting that so many supporters of other schools are so interested in Big Red's schedule. I couldn't care less about another school's schedule or worry about how many home games they have. I think most teams would love to have 8 home games, and feel fortunate that we do. I couldn't tell you who is on Indian Creek's schedule or how many home games they have, personally I really don't care.

I think the topic has been pretty much hashed out.

Sure, some of the Ohio schools need to grow a pair and play Big Red... but at the same time, Big Red has to step up to the plate and actually sign a one and one deal with some teams and stop insisting everyone come to them every year; give the local schools a compelling reason to want to pursue a contract with you.

Nothing will change though, so screw it.

very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

Most fans on here respect the Big Red program, it tradition, its win/loss record,ect. But, some of their fans need to be just a little more modest when bragging about their team. Sometimes it gets a little much..........

That is because the same old lies are repeated over and over, and have to be corrected over and over.

THAT is what gets to be a little much.

ManO'War wrote: That is because the same old lies are repeated over and over, and have to be corrected over and over.

THAT is what gets to be a little much.

Which 'lies' would you be referring to? And correcting people has nothing to do with bragging and being modest.

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

None, because they refused to play at Creek.

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

There were 10,000 people at the game in 2007. That's about double of what Kettlewell will hold. I am aware that Big Red charged Creek rent for the stadium, but I still have to assume that Creek came out ahead.

The bloom came off the rose real fast when Creek proved they could not be competitive. I am willing to bet that there will be as many people in the stands when we play Inkster as there would have been had we played Creek. People from the valley will want to see a competitive game. It won't be a sellout, but the crowd will be substantial.

sonofsam wrote:

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

None, because they refused to play at Creek.

It was Creek's idea to play all four games in Harding Stadium. I think Creek screwed themselves when they created this contract. If they had requested to play their home games in Kettlewell, we might still be playing.

FairwoodKing wrote:

sonofsam wrote:

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

None, because they refused to play at Creek.

It was Creek's idea to play all four games in Harding Stadium. I think Creek screwed themselves when they created this contract. If they had requested to play their home games in Kettlewell, we might still be playing.

No,, the reason why Creek elected to play at Harding for the duration of the contract was because Reno said 'For safety reasons I will not have my kids walk across a parking lot before a game and at half time.'

FairwoodKing wrote: The bloom came off the rose real fast when Creek proved they could not be competitive. I am willing to bet that there will be as many people in the stands when we play Inkster as there would have been had we played Creek. People from the valley will want to see a competitive game. It won't be a sellout, but the crowd will be substantial.

People will show up to this game because this is the team that beat Big Red. Has nothing to do with competitiveness. People in the Valley want a second chance to be there if Big Red gets beat.

bduq37 wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: The bloom came off the rose real fast when Creek proved they could not be competitive. I am willing to bet that there will be as many people in the stands when we play Inkster as there would have been had we played Creek. People from the valley will want to see a competitive game. It won't be a sellout, but the crowd will be substantial.

People will show up to this game because this is the team that beat Big Red. Has nothing to do with competitiveness. People in the Valley want a second chance to be there if Big Red gets beat.

Well, "people in the valley" will be disappointed because Big Red is going to take Inkster this time.

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

sonofsam wrote:

Camoman wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote:

MANAZE wrote: very true. its not all about the money. teams want to play at home to. big red took the ball and went home on many teams in the valley wich is fine because just like anything else this will run the course they will suck again and come pleading to the valley for a game.

Since when has Big Red ever "come pleading to the valley for a game?" We encourage local teams to play us, but that is as far as it goes.

As far as other teams wanting to play at home, let me remind you that in recent years we have scheduled Wheeling Park, Buckeye Local, East Liverpool, and Brooke home and home. Let me also remind you that it was Creek's idea to play their home games against us in Harding Stadium for a bigger payout. We were also scheduled to play at Edison until that woeful series was cancelled by mutual consent.

Except for the 2007 game against Creek, playing local teams has not drawn sell-outs in Harding Stadium. We got a bigger crowd against Poland last year than we did against Creek. Channel 9 didn't even show the Creek game on Game of the Week, but they did show our game against Massillon.

Big Red proves every year that we can get a good schedule without involving many local teams. I foresee that when we get into the ECOL, we will not play any OVAC teams. We will want to reserve our home and home series with conference opponents and with teams like Massillon that mean something.

How much more money would Creek have gained by being Home team?

None, because they refused to play at Creek.

It was Creek's idea to play all four games in Harding Stadium. I think Creek screwed themselves when they created this contract. If they had requested to play their home games in Kettlewell, we might still be playing.

No,, the reason why Creek elected to play at Harding for the duration of the contract was because Reno said 'For safety reasons I will not have my kids walk across a parking lot before a game and at half time.'

I don't believe a word of that. If Big Red was willing to play at Hagely against Watterson, we would be willing to play at Kettlewell.