(10-28-2014 10:48 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  This does bring up the question of why does the SBC not have tiebreakers?

I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that the intent was to allow multiple Presidents/AD's to be able to claim conference championships and please alumni/fans/donors and establish some history. The criteria was obviously voted on and passed at some point or was put in the original by-laws.

It isn't unusual. ULL has co-championships from Gulf South and Southland. A-State has co-championships from Southland. Troy has them from Mid-South and Southland. Georgia Southern has them from the SoCon. App has them from the North State and the SoCon. Texas State has them from the Lone Star and Southland. NMSU has them from the Border Intercollegiate and the MVC. ULM has one from the Southland. Idaho has them from Pacific Coast and Big Sky.

Arkansas has them from the rinky-dink Southwest Conference and co-Division Champs from the rinky-dink SEC. Alabama also has co-championships from the rinky-dink SEC. Nebraska has co-championships from the rinky-dink Big 8. Michigan has co-championships in the rinky-dink Big 10, one as late as 2004. The last co-championship for the rinky-dink Big 10 was in 2010.

Because there was a 3 way tie between ohio state, Wisconsin and Michigan state so head to head could not be determined. Had ohio state lost another game michigan state would have been outright champions because they beat Wisconsin. We had a 2 way tie last year, not 3. All of ohio states wins are actually vacated from that season. In 2005, there was a 3 way tie between UL, stAte and Ulm all at 5-2. UL and state at 6-5 overall,ulm at 5-6. StAte was awarded the bowl because ulm was not bowl eligible and owned the head to head. Had ulm not blown a 21 point lead to northwestern state, Cajuns host southern miss at home for New Orleans bowl. If you have a system to determine bowl representatives, you should have one to determine champions. That of course was when we only had the New Orleans bowl. I for one never was one to claim the 2005 title, plenty of bustle supporters did.

The problem will be solved when there are 12 and a championship game. Then they'll have both Division Champ and Conference Champ to hang on the walls to make up for it.

Until there is a 12th worthy of adding, it is what it is.

In the past, we all knew what we had to do to be sole champions. We either did it, or we didn't. Its a little different this year since it is possible that a team could end up co-champs no matter what they do.

(10-28-2014 10:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:48 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  This does bring up the question of why does the SBC not have tiebreakers?

I don't know for sure. But I'm guessing that the intent was to allow multiple Presidents/AD's to be able to claim conference championships and please alumni/fans/donors and establish some history. The criteria was obviously voted on and passed at some point or was put in the original by-laws.

It isn't unusual. ULL has co-championships from Gulf South and Southland. A-State has co-championships from Southland. Troy has them from Mid-South and Southland. Georgia Southern has them from the SoCon. App has them from the North State and the SoCon. Texas State has them from the Lone Star and Southland. NMSU has them from the Border Intercollegiate and the MVC. ULM has one from the Southland. Idaho has them from Pacific Coast and Big Sky.

Arkansas has them from the rinky-dink Southwest Conference and co-Division Champs from the rinky-dink SEC. Alabama also has co-championships from the rinky-dink SEC. Nebraska has co-championships from the rinky-dink Big 8. Michigan has co-championships in the rinky-dink Big 10, one as late as 2004. The last co-championship for the rinky-dink Big 10 was in 2010.

Because there was a 3 way tie between ohio state, Wisconsin and Michigan state so head to head could not be determined. Had ohio state lost another game michigan state would have been outright champions because they beat Wisconsin. We had a 2 way tie last year, not 3. All of ohio states wins are actually vacated from that season. In 2005, there was a 3 way tie between UL, stAte and Ulm all at 5-2. UL and state at 6-5 overall,ulm at 5-6. StAte was awarded the bowl because ulm was not bowl eligible and owned the head to head. Had ulm not blown a 21 point lead to northwestern state, Cajuns host southern miss at home for New Orleans bowl. If you have a system to determine bowl representatives, you should have one to determine champions. That of course was when we only had the New Orleans bowl. I for one never was one to claim the 2005 title, plenty of bustle supporters did.

The problem will be solved when there are 12 and a championship game. Then they'll have both Division Champ and Conference Champ to hang on the walls to make up for it.

Until there is a 12th worthy of adding, it is what it is.

In the past, we all knew what we had to do to be sole champions. We either did it, or we didn't. Its a little different this year since it is possible that a team could end up co-champs no matter what they do.

Just point out that our conference is in fact rinky dink, without 12 I understand there are years when you have co-champs but I think that should only happen with 3 teams. When it's only 2 teams and everyone plays everyone, that's too easy. The setup now is more controversial I guess but it would have been pretty easy before. We really need to go to 12 or back to 9. Having co-champs without everyone playing could get to be disgusting.

(10-28-2014 10:48 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  I for one never was one to claim the 2005 title, plenty of bustle supporters did.

Which I will never understand because your players achieved what was necessary to earn that title under the rules.

Our guys had not beaten North Texas for 5 years and had not won in Denton for 6 years. We hadn't won a road game all year. They went down there with the chance to earn rings. Nobody though they could possibly do it and they did. We haven't lost to North Texas since.

Those guys were champions. They did what they had to do. They really set the stage for what came later.

(10-28-2014 11:14 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 10:48 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  I for one never was one to claim the 2005 title, plenty of bustle supporters did.

Which I will never understand because your players achieved what was necessary to earn that title under the rules.

Our guys had not beaten North Texas for 5 years and had not won in Denton for 6 years. We hadn't won a road game all year. They went down there with the chance to earn rings. Nobody though they could possibly do it and they did. We haven't lost to North Texas since.

Those guys were champions. They did what they had to do. They really set the stage for what came later.

It probably has more to do with bustle not really doing much for the next 5 years and people kept bringing up the conference championship as a reason to not fire him. So in the end, it really made me resent it more than anything. Sharing a title with 38% of the conference and one of which had a losing record, just didn't feel like a championship...especially with no bowl game. At that point, the bowl game was the reward and ultimate goal.

(10-28-2014 07:24 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:08 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:07 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:02 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  We destroyed you in 2012, 50-27.

RUN IT AGAIN!

And again...and again... And again....

That's great that you can find comfort in a score from a couple of years ago, but are you not at all concerned about the trend?

You call two games a trend? That must be the same criteria for ULL to claim a "trend of winning".

I think we have won 7 out of the last 10. That's a trend buddy.

Getting the thread back on track:

http://espn1420.com/the-sun-belt-sends-a...irds-nest/

(10-29-2014 02:08 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Getting the thread back on track:

http://espn1420.com/the-sun-belt-sends-a...irds-nest/

Sorry Jay...I posted your article on a new thread.

(10-29-2014 10:56 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:24 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:08 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:07 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  RUN IT AGAIN!

And again...and again... And again....

That's great that you can find comfort in a score from a couple of years ago, but are you not at all concerned about the trend?

You call two games a trend? That must be the same criteria for ULL to claim a "trend of winning".

I think we have won 7 out of the last 10. That's a trend buddy.

Because sh!t that happened between Bustle and Roberts is so relevant. Things changed when Freeze and Hudspeth arrived. Like stAte's coach being hired away each year, and ULL's not being hired away.

(10-29-2014 09:09 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:56 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:24 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:08 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  And again...and again... And again....

That's great that you can find comfort in a score from a couple of years ago, but are you not at all concerned about the trend?

You call two games a trend? That must be the same criteria for ULL to claim a "trend of winning".

I think we have won 7 out of the last 10. That's a trend buddy.

Because sh!t that happened between Bustle and Roberts is so relevant. Things changed when Freeze and Hudspeth arrived. Like stAte's coach being hired away each year, and ULL's not being hired away.

You asked for a trend and I gave you one. You didn't like the results that is on you, but they are still valid.

(10-31-2014 11:54 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 09:09 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(10-29-2014 10:56 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:24 PM)RedWolfington Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 07:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  That's great that you can find comfort in a score from a couple of years ago, but are you not at all concerned about the trend?

You call two games a trend? That must be the same criteria for ULL to claim a "trend of winning".

I think we have won 7 out of the last 10. That's a trend buddy.

Because sh!t that happened between Bustle and Roberts is so relevant. Things changed when Freeze and Hudspeth arrived. Like stAte's coach being hired away each year, and ULL's not being hired away.

You asked for a trend and I gave you one. You didn't like the results that is on you, but they are still valid.

No no no... Sorry passive aggressive "buddy". Pulling games from when we had a completely different administration from top to bottom is not supporting your " trend" claim.
Typical ULL grad logic.

Okay, so this is Hud's 4th year. Let's say it's 2-2 (honestly don't know if stAte won in 2011 or not).....I'd still rather be in a position of winning the last 2 than the first 2.

(10-31-2014 10:47 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Let's say it's 2-2 (honestly don't know if stAte won in 2011 or not)

You can go ahead and say it, because stAte did not lose a Sun Belt conference game in 2011...

Ran the table.