Student Section for BG/WISC?

froggyvk · Post by **froggyvk** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:56 pm

As a freshman next year I couldn't take advantage of the student ticket price for the Wisconsin game (because they were not avaliable online), but I'm looking to get my ticket to the game now. What section is the student section, because I'd like to get as close to there as possible. Or, would you recommend just waiting till I get on campus to get my ticket? Would that assure me of a seat in the student section?

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu May 04, 2006 11:02 pm

You might ask these questions when you come to campus this summer for orientation. I am sure somebody can get you set up with tix in the student section.

falconfan1 · Post by **falconfan1** » Thu May 04, 2006 11:42 pm

froggy, love your attitude as an incoming student- everybody needs to be at that game and I hope the campus is empty that Saturday.

Students have a $10 (yes, just $10) fine seat in the Clevalnd Browns Stadium Dawg Pound section. There will be a bunch of students in that area. When you are on campus for O-Reg in June or July, check on this purchase- and get any other students you know to do the same. I know many parents of freshmen from the Cleveland area are also planning on buying tickets in other sections for the game.

You will arrive on campus for move in August 17 and have time to get ready for school- and for the big Labor Day weekend game.

Keep up the great Falcon attitude.

Go Falcons!

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:16 am

I would urge you to wait. It would seem that when the NEW AD is hired he may fire Coach Brandon and his whole Staff for thier in ability to lead, and for not being sound in thier decision making abilities. This will lead to BGSU with drawing for the season, and maybe droping to AAA. or scraping the whole program.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:19 am

MACMAN wrote: This will lead to BGSU with drawing for the season, and maybe droping to AAA. or scraping the whole program.

I assume that was farce. In any case, dropping to I-AAA would mean dropping the program. Schools like Cleveland State, Detroit and Xavier are Division I-AAA, which means no football.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Fri May 05, 2006 11:29 am

a farce indeed, just makes me crazy the perveyors of doom and gloom, who feel that with out knowing all the facts can proclaim and then some develop an argument that Bradon is a bad coacha nd leader and that turner and whats his name should have bother recieve equal treatment and more over suspensions.

Personaly I am believe in that off field actions untill they impact a players ability to contribute to the team are seperate free from team rules.
if a player crosses that line then its a problem. its the same to me as any employee, what they do at home i have no controll over, unless it impacts thier job preformance.

oh well the good news is the team is making ready for the upcoming season, a season in which we will do very well.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:27 pm

MACMAN wrote:a farce indeed, just makes me crazy the perveyors of doom and gloom, who feel that with out knowing all the facts can proclaim and then some develop an argument that Bradon is a bad coacha nd leader and that turner and whats his name should have bother recieve equal treatment and more over suspensions.

I do not think of myself as a "purveyor of doom & gloom" but I'll take the label if you wish. I arrived at my hypothesis that Brandon is a mediocre coach and worse leader through watching his football teams continually get further and further away from the things that made us successful under Urban.

Most of last season was just further testing that helped support that hypothesis. Allowing AT to play with no public punishment, IMO, would be more evidence to support the hypothesis. I have yet to see enough testing to vault that up to a theory, but right now the hypothesis is standing up pretty good in my mind.

If that opinion makes me a purveyor of doom & gloom so be it. But I know when I got to this campus the football program was a joke. Urban fixed that problem, and my observations see a lot of things getting a lot closer to Blackney-esque than Urban-esque.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:48 pm

There is only one Urban and he's gone...Lets get over it. It's not discipline you guys want it's winning. Dakich enforces the same discipline as Urban but does not win and he gets s**t for it.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Fri May 05, 2006 1:38 pm

hammb wrote:I do not think of myself as a "purveyor of doom & gloom" but I'll take the label if you wish. I arrived at my hypothesis that Brandon is a mediocre coach and worse leader through watching his football teams continually get further and further away from the things that made us successful under Urban.

Most of last season was just further testing that helped support that hypothesis. Allowing AT to play with no public punishment, IMO, would be more evidence to support the hypothesis. I have yet to see enough testing to vault that up to a theory, but right now the hypothesis is standing up pretty good in my mind.

If that opinion makes me a purveyor of doom & gloom so be it. But I know when I got to this campus the football program was a joke. Urban fixed that problem, and my observations see a lot of things getting a lot closer to Blackney-esque than Urban-esque.

2 bowl game victories = a team on the decline? I know it was Urban's players, but you have to at least have half a brain to beat a team with DeAngelo Williams on it.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Fri May 05, 2006 1:52 pm

Tricky_Falcon wrote:There is only one Urban and he's gone...Lets get over it. It's not discipline you guys want it's winning. Dakich enforces the same discipline as Urban but does not win and he gets s**t for it.

I don't wish to bring Urban back, that obviously will never happen. I'm over it. What I'm not over is playing undisiciplined, poor fundamental football. That has nothing to do with punishing a player for off the field stuff, I'm talking about on the field. We are filled with guys who don't tackle well, don't block well, and generally are not where they are supposed to be at too many times. The reason why we got back to winning was because our players learned what it takes to win football games. In Brandon's first two years those things were on the decline, but the mentality was still embedded enough in the remaining players to still be successful.

All I want is good, strong teams. We have the talent on this squad to be successful. In the past three years we have had far more talent than what we've played to, IMO. Our second bowl appearance was a fluke to even happen, and last year was a colossal failure in my eyes. We went into the year all expecting a MAC title game appearance at the very LEAST. Many here on record as saying that any less was a disappointment. Then even with the East far worse than we could've imagined, we fell short. I, for one, will not back down from my preseason expectations...thus last year was a failure.

I'm tired of being happy with mediocrity. I want MAC championships. I want a team that shows up to play it's big games. I want a team that doesn't fold in the second half on a regular basis. I want a team that knows how to block & tackle, the most fundamental parts of the game. I want a team that puts forth 100% effort into dominating on special teams, as all great college teams do. I just want a team that wins. In the past 3 years this coaching staff has absolutely NOT shown the ability to produce that sort of team. Until they prove that they can build that sort of team, I don't believe the staff to be anything more than mediocre. As I recall Blackney looked pretty good 3 years into his tenure as well...I don't want to see us follow that road again.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Fri May 05, 2006 2:16 pm

BGDrew wrote: 2 bowl game victories = a team on the decline? I know it was Urban's players, but you have to at least have half a brain to beat a team with DeAngelo Williams on it.

I seriously doubt we win that game if Williams didn't get hurt. We beat a team in the second half that did not have DeAngelo Williams. That's like saying WMU was awesome last year because they beat a team with Omar Jacobs on it.

San Diego Falcon · Post by **San Diego Falcon** » Fri May 05, 2006 2:49 pm

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BGDrew:

2 bowl game victories = a team on the decline? I know it was Urban's players, but you have to at least have half a brain to beat a team with DeAngelo Williams on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I seriously doubt we win that game if Williams didn't get hurt. We beat a team in the second half that did not have DeAngelo Williams. That's like saying WMU was awesome last year because they beat a team with Omar Jacobs on it.

They might still be playing and trading TD's in 10,000 overtimes if Williams hadn't been hurt.

BGSUfalcons · Post by **BGSUfalcons** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:15 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
BGDrew wrote: 2 bowl game victories = a team on the decline? I know it was Urban's players, but you have to at least have half a brain to beat a team with DeAngelo Williams on it.
I seriously doubt we win that game if Williams didn't get hurt. We beat a team in the second half that did not have DeAngelo Williams. That's like saying WMU was awesome last year because they beat a team with Omar Jacobs on it.

BGSU had the lead at the half and, I'm pretty sure, when Williams first hurt his ankle during the first half. BGSU also had the lead when Williams left the game for good in the third quarter. I see no reason to "seriously doubt" that BGSU would have won if Williams had played the entire game.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:25 pm

BGSUfalcons wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:
BGDrew wrote: 2 bowl game victories = a team on the decline? I know it was Urban's players, but you have to at least have half a brain to beat a team with DeAngelo Williams on it.
I seriously doubt we win that game if Williams didn't get hurt. We beat a team in the second half that did not have DeAngelo Williams. That's like saying WMU was awesome last year because they beat a team with Omar Jacobs on it.
BGSU had the lead at the half and, I'm pretty sure, when Williams first hurt his ankle during the first half. BGSU also had the lead when Williams left the game for good in the third quarter. I see no reason to "seriously doubt" that BGSU would have won if Williams had played the entire game.

Except for he was shredding us when he was given the ball and our defense was worn down. If Calhoun would've gotten hurt in the early third quarter I think we could have beaten Wisconsin. We might have beaten Memphis, and we might not have, but it's inaccurate to use the idea we beat a team with Deangelo Williams on it to prove a point when he was unavailable for half the game but put up 150? yards on us in a half. Our offense was on fire that night, so we very well may have outscored them, I just think the game would have played out much like the Wisconsin one.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:41 pm

Forget about the GMAC win. We won. It's history.

Key points here for the future, IMO...

hammb wrote:What I'm not over is playing undisiciplined, poor fundamental football. That has nothing to do with punishing a player for off the field stuff, I'm talking about on the field. We are filled with guys who don't tackle well, don't block well, and generally are not where they are supposed to be at too many times.

This is where the rubber meets the road, I believe. Losing is one thing if you are just overwhelmed by the talent, speed and/or size of the opposition. It's another thing entirely to lose because you play undisciplined football or are out-coached. I love Brandon and I think he's going to be a good coach for a long time. But he is a work in progress.

Remember that this is his first HC job and, IIRC, his stint here as OC was his first coordinator job. He's still green when it comes to running the show. That is not an excuse, merely an observation. The difference between him becoming a legendary coach at BG and an also-ran may hinge on how he develops in this one particular area. I'm optimistic that he will develop positive traits here. But that's by no means a guarantee.