OU's 2006 schedule...

[PDXsooner]

this link was on soonersports.com -- http://www.soonersports.com/attachments1/905.pdf

does anyone know if they're still juggling the dates of the non-conference games? i hope there isn't any intention of pulling out of the oregon game.

[stoopified]

Link doesn't work for me.0% chance of dropping Oregon.Schedule juggling still possible as OU is still looking to fill the 12th game spot as far as I know.

[PDXsooner]

here's what it says

"soonersports.com
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE OKLAHOMA SOONERS
Re: 2006 OU Football Schedule
Thank you for your interest in the 2006 Oklahoma football schedule. Currently, only OU's Big 12 conference
opponents and dates have been officially released.

We have received many requests for information on OU's non-conference opponents and dates. Contrary to what
may appear on other websites or in the media, the non-conference opponents and dates for the 2006 football
season have not been officially released by the OU Athletics Department.

Many fans plan life events around our schedules. For that reason, we are very deliberate and only announce
schedules on SoonerSports.com when they are approved by the OU athletics administration.

Thank you for your patience. Please continue to monitor SoonerSports.com for the latest official information from
the OU Athletics Department.

Boomer Sooner!
DEPARTMENT OF INTERNET SERVICES - UNIV. OF OKLAHOMA ATHLETICS - OKLAHOMA MEMORIAL STADIUM - 180 W BROOKS ST, NORMAN, OK 73019"

[SoonerStats]

I find it odd that they make a statement like that, yet all three of the "rumored" non-conf opponents (i.e. Oregon, Washington, and UAB) already have made it official on their web sites (UAB made an announcement 5 months ago). Only the fourth is still up in the air at this point.

I understand wanting to wait until the schedule is complete before they make their own official announcement -- especially given the last-minute musical chairs that can happen -- but they make it sound like the "other websites" (mine included) are completely wrong. :rolleyes:

[mOUse]

According to this article:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/30/Sports/Big_East_moves_to_bol.shtml (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/30/Sports/Big_East_moves_to_bol.shtml)
in the last paragraph it looks like
USF is a possibility.

Maybe Castiglione is looking to beef up their schedule a little. We could sure use a Big East team to boost our power rankings. I suppose two Pac10's and a Big East will do!

[SoonerStats]

USF is already scheduled to play McNeese State on 9/2...

http://gobulls.usf.edu/Sports/News.asp?i=2045&s=Football

[Sooner in Tampa]

USF is already scheduled to play McNeese State on 9/2...

http://gobulls.usf.edu/Sports/News.asp?i=2045&s=Football
Damn...I want USF and OU to hook up with a home and home...watching the Sooners at Ray Jay would be pretty ****in awesome.

[KingDavid]

I find it odd that they make a statement like that, yet all three of the "rumored" non-conf opponents (i.e. Oregon, Washington, and UAB) already have made it official on their web sites (UAB made an announcement 5 months ago). Only the fourth is still up in the air at this point.

I understand wanting to wait until the schedule is complete before they make their own official announcement -- especially given the last-minute musical chairs that can happen -- but they make it sound like the "other websites" (mine included) are completely wrong. :rolleyes:

At the very least they should have a document that summarizes the prospective/tentative schedule for each year - even if they don't have it finalized. it's very frustrating to go to that sight and when you click on the upcoming year's schedules, they don't give you jack crap; even though they've already sent out press releases for agreements with Notre Dame, LSU, and the like. It's silly and a missed opportunity to energize the fan-base and lend additional credibility to the program for its commitment to playing a legitimate non-conference schedule.

My point is that they don't have to be so damn rigid about it. The sooner fan base is mature enough to manage our own schedules and take our own risks with regard to planning trips around tentative date.

In fact, come to think of it, that statement is pretty doggone patronizing.

I say we submit a load of feedback through the website and see if we can get them to address this. Kind of a grass roots lobby? Maybe we can be a bit more diplomatic, though?

Thoughts?

[PDXsooner]

if they made it official, and then changed, some people would probably be livid and flood them with emails, so they are probably trying to avoid committing.

stats, i always go to your site, by the way. it is amazing, you do a great job. i wish i would have had a site like that as a kid, i was obsessed with stats. (i still am)

[KingDavid]

if they made it official, and then changed, some people would probably be livid and flood them with emails, so they are probably trying to avoid committing.

stats, i always go to your site, by the way. it is amazing, you do a great job. i wish i would have had a site like that as a kid, i was obsessed with stats. (i still am)

If you put "tentative" in front of the word "schedule" it denotes the distinct possibility that things can change (i.e. "plan your vacation at your own risk, because we reserve the right to screw it up at a moment's notice.). If you follow "tentative schedule" with a phrase like "subject to change," it reinforces the same theme.

We are left with a few alternatives, here:

1) JC does not believe that Oklahoma fans can read.
2) He does not believe they have the maturity to pay attention to what they read; or most likely . . .
3) There's some other less politically correct reason in addition to what they've stated in this letter.

Maybe it gives them more negotiating leverage the visiting NC teams (or more likely with TV/Radio) if they don't publicly publish a schedule?
:cool:

[BOOMERBRADLEY]

They are playing my SE Savage Storm on 9/2

I just announced it today :D