PusherT Wrote:I agree SU has been in the Big East since the beggining looking at it from our perspective this is a downgrade, When SU destroyed Toledo we got nothing. Pitt well they need to get it together too, but SU/WVU look at MAC/CUSA teams as downgrade. This is also a reason why many SU fans were pissed at not getting invited to ACC as being in the BE ment MWC,Mac,CUSA fan thinking there were just as good as the NBE when they weren't before the raid and after the raid.

But let SU play Toledo/ohio/ UB it will just be another slap in the face to the SU program in my eyes

I totally understand your perspective and I know the Big East is much better than the MAC from top to bottom. There's no question. But that also doesn't mean that the Top 3 or 4 teams in the MAC cannot compete with the #4 or #5 teams in the Big East. Toledo for some reason seems to have a very hard time in OOC road games. We have lost badly to Syracuse, Minnesota, Kansas, UCONN, and Fresno State in the last three years. At the same time we are able to beat just about anybody at home and we usually fair pretty well on the road against top MAC teams.

Other MAC teams haven't played as bad against good OOC competition on the road. Bowling Green only lost to Oklahoma by 16 points in 2004 and only trailed by 7 at one point in the 4th quarter. In case you forgot, Oklahoma was still one of the top teams in the country in 2004. They also won at Purdue that year. Then last year they played Wisconsin very tough. Miami didn't just beat Cincinnati last year, they dominated them. Northern Illinois only lost by 1 point at Northwestern and by 15 at Michigan. Just a couple of years ago Bowling Green lost by 7 at Ohio State and Northern Illinois beat Maryland, Iowa State, and Alabama in the same season with Maryland and Alabama both being ranked teams when they played.


Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the MAC is anywhere near the Big East. However, the top 3 or 4 MAC teams would be very competitive with the #4 or #5 Big East teams. If you don't believe that then you are no different in your arrogance than the posters from the MAC and C-USA that come on here and say that their conference is just as good as the Big East.........and you're just as wrong as them too.

CatsClaw Wrote:

OUBOBCATJOHN Wrote:I think UConn hasn't been around long enough in D-A to earn the respect of being a BCS team. Same for USF. Until you beat a major power OOC and win a BCS bowl your nothing. UC and UL were mid majors themselves two years ago. Half of BE wasn't in a BCS conf 3 years ago. Its hard to claim BE is so above MAC, MWC, WAC, or CUSA that they shouldn't be playing bowl games against those non-bcs teams. BE will have a tough game in International Bowl. MAC 2 or 3 is a solid football team and 5th place BE isn't that strong. Pitt lost to the 9th place MAC team last year. UC was drilled by the 4th place MAC team.

UC also drilled a MAC school, Marshall, when they were still in the conference. They also drilled Miami that year (2004). Different coach and different players. Rick Minter isn't coaching UC. Minter was the ultimate play not to lose coach. Mark Dantonio is actually 3-1 vs the MAC since taking over as coach.

Don't forget that Marshall team in 2004 wasn't that good. They barely beat a bad Ohio team 16-13, only beat a very bad Kent State team 27-17, lost to Akron and got bitchslapped by Bowling Green. Neither Akron nor BG were good enough to get into the MACC Game and it could easily be argued that Marshall would have lost to Toledo and Northern Illinois pretty bad if they would have played them in 2004.

cuseroc Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:Summary of this post:

Big East fan pisses on CUSA by saying the Big East must get a bowl with the SEC, since it's a "better bowl"

Big East fan does not realize that this scenario has already been pursued by Big East, and was turned down in favor of CUSA.

Big East fans piss on CUSA again.

-In case you missed it-

Make no qualms about it my friend. It was public knowledge that the liberty Bowl really, really wanted a BE vs. SEC matchup. You only have a bunch of whinning cusa fans to thank for it not happening. They whinned and cried and complained in the political masses to keep the BE from replacing cusa in the Liberty. So dont act as though cusa was the preferred conference of the Liberty. And dont act as though the BE was doing all of the pursuing. The Liberty Bowl folks did alot of pursuing of the BE as well.

ABSURD. You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. I live in Memphis. I know people on the Liberty Bowl board.

The Liberty Bowl ALWAYS wanted SEC vs. C-USA. The ONLY reason that the Big East ever got a sniff was because the SEC played hardball for a while and refused to play a C-USA opponent. The Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC in order to get the SEC to relent and finally agree to play a C-USA opponent. The Big East was the Liberty Bowl's backup plan in the event that the SEC wouldn't come to an agreement with a C-USA opponent.

rocketfootball Wrote:Miami didn't just beat Cincinnati last year, they dominated them.

The Miami - UC series is cyclical. Miami did dominate UC last year, but UC destroyed Miami 2 seasons ago and on paper should have the upper hand this season.

UC has had good games with many MAC teams over the years and I would say is upper echelon MAC quality (except for last season), which is a compliment to UC and the MAC. UC is trying to be upper echelon Big East quality, but they have some work to do to get there.

The MAC and CUSA all have good progams and I would not put UC above many of them at this point.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:Summary of this post:

Big East fan pisses on CUSA by saying the Big East must get a bowl with the SEC, since it's a "better bowl"

Big East fan does not realize that this scenario has already been pursued by Big East, and was turned down in favor of CUSA.

Big East fans piss on CUSA again.

-In case you missed it-

Make no qualms about it my friend. It was public knowledge that the liberty Bowl really, really wanted a BE vs. SEC matchup. You only have a bunch of whinning cusa fans to thank for it not happening. They whinned and cried and complained in the political masses to keep the BE from replacing cusa in the Liberty. So dont act as though cusa was the preferred conference of the Liberty. And dont act as though the BE was doing all of the pursuing. The Liberty Bowl folks did alot of pursuing of the BE as well.

ABSURD. You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. I live in Memphis. I know people on the Liberty Bowl board.

The Liberty Bowl ALWAYS wanted SEC vs. C-USA. The ONLY reason that the Big East ever got a sniff was because the SEC played hardball for a while and refused to play a C-USA opponent. The Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC in order to get the SEC to relent and finally agree to play a C-USA opponent. The Big East was the Liberty Bowl's backup plan in the event that the SEC wouldn't come to an agreement with a C-USA opponent.

One thing I can say about internet posters is that they can be anybody that they say they are. They can know anybody that they want to know.

Which part of my post do you dispute, that liberty Bowl folks were pursuing the BE? You yourself said that they were in negotiations with the BE. So obviously, the BE was not doing all of the pursuing.
Do you deny that cusa fans were upset about the propect of losing the Libery Bowl, and that they wrote letters to the Liberty Bowl officials? There were many threads on cusa boards with the addresses of the Liberty bowl officials encouraging fans to write and send emails.
Do you deny that local politicians commented on the possiblity of cusa (Memphis ) not being apart of the Libery Bowl?

cuseroc Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:Summary of this post:

Big East fan pisses on CUSA by saying the Big East must get a bowl with the SEC, since it's a "better bowl"

Big East fan does not realize that this scenario has already been pursued by Big East, and was turned down in favor of CUSA.

Big East fans piss on CUSA again.

-In case you missed it-

Make no qualms about it my friend. It was public knowledge that the liberty Bowl really, really wanted a BE vs. SEC matchup. You only have a bunch of whinning cusa fans to thank for it not happening. They whinned and cried and complained in the political masses to keep the BE from replacing cusa in the Liberty. So dont act as though cusa was the preferred conference of the Liberty. And dont act as though the BE was doing all of the pursuing. The Liberty Bowl folks did alot of pursuing of the BE as well.

ABSURD. You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. I live in Memphis. I know people on the Liberty Bowl board.

The Liberty Bowl ALWAYS wanted SEC vs. C-USA. The ONLY reason that the Big East ever got a sniff was because the SEC played hardball for a while and refused to play a C-USA opponent. The Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC in order to get the SEC to relent and finally agree to play a C-USA opponent. The Big East was the Liberty Bowl's backup plan in the event that the SEC wouldn't come to an agreement with a C-USA opponent.

One thing I can say about internet posters is that they can be anybody that they say they are. They can know anybody that they want to know. T

I know people who were actually INVOLVED in the negotiations. You know nothing. You made the above quote that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." Nothing could be further from the truth. On what did you base that quote? You are talking out of your arse.

This statement was more absurd than the statement about Memphis getting a #3 seed even if they won out. Well, Memphis didn't win out and still got a #1 seed. And the Liberty Bowl NEVER wanted a Big East vs. SEC matchup. NEVER. The Big East was nothing more than a backup plan. The Liberty Bowl got exactly what it wanted all along and you have shown your ignorance yet once again.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

The Knight Time Wrote:Summary of this post:

Big East fan pisses on CUSA by saying the Big East must get a bowl with the SEC, since it's a "better bowl"

Big East fan does not realize that this scenario has already been pursued by Big East, and was turned down in favor of CUSA.

Big East fans piss on CUSA again.

-In case you missed it-

Make no qualms about it my friend. It was public knowledge that the liberty Bowl really, really wanted a BE vs. SEC matchup. You only have a bunch of whinning cusa fans to thank for it not happening. They whinned and cried and complained in the political masses to keep the BE from replacing cusa in the Liberty. So dont act as though cusa was the preferred conference of the Liberty. And dont act as though the BE was doing all of the pursuing. The Liberty Bowl folks did alot of pursuing of the BE as well.

ABSURD. You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. I live in Memphis. I know people on the Liberty Bowl board.

The Liberty Bowl ALWAYS wanted SEC vs. C-USA. The ONLY reason that the Big East ever got a sniff was because the SEC played hardball for a while and refused to play a C-USA opponent. The Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC in order to get the SEC to relent and finally agree to play a C-USA opponent. The Big East was the Liberty Bowl's backup plan in the event that the SEC wouldn't come to an agreement with a C-USA opponent.

One thing I can say about internet posters is that they can be anybody that they say they are. They can know anybody that they want to know. T

I know people who were actually INVOLVED in the negotiations. You know nothing. You made the above quote that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." Nothing could be further from the truth. On what did you base that quote? You are talking out of your arse.

This statement was more absurd than the statement about Memphis getting a #3 seed even if they won out. Well, Memphis didn't win out and still got a #1 seed. And the Liberty Bowl NEVER wanted a Big East vs. SEC matchup. NEVER. The Big East was nothing more than a backup plan. The Liberty Bowl got exactly what it wanted all along and you have shown your ignorance yet once again.

Its obvious that I touched a nerve concerning your coveted Liberty Bowl. You have no proof that they were not pursuing the BE. I can only go by what was reported in the media. You can go by what your
"connections" say.

One thing for sure is that cusa fans were in an uproar over the possibility of losing the Liberty, especially Memphis fans. They did write and email tthe Liberty Bowl officials. Local mephis politicians commented about the possibility of Memphis not being aligned with the Liberty Bowl.The Liberty Bowl really did want the BE, otherwise, why negotiate? The Liberty Bowl folks wanted a higher pecking order from the BE, which the BE was not willing to give, because of other bowl arrangements.

cuseroc Wrote:The Liberty Bowl really did want the BE, otherwise, why negotiate?

I've explained this to you twice. Let me spell it out for you again...

1. The Liberty Bowl always wanted C-USA vs. SEC
2. The SEC played hardball and said it would not play C-USA
3. The Liberty Bowl still wanted C-USA vs. SEC, but contacted the Big East as a backup plan
4. The Liberty Bowl negotiated hard with the SEC and finally came to an agreement whereby the SEC would play C-USA, but there could be no regular season rematch nor any intrastate matchups.
5. The Big East was plan B.
6. You made the statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That is simply not true. The Liberty Bowl really, really wanted C-USA vs. SEC matchup. That's what they got.

The Knight Time Wrote:Ah, but the poster aluded that they took the best CUSA teams. That, of course would have been USM.

Ha ha! USM the best CUSA team? They WERE the CUSA team of the 1990's. That is for sure. They were not even in the same ballpark for CUSA team of this decade. Really, it's not even a discussion. UofL left the league winning 60% of the titles for the decade. USM lost to UofL every time they played them this decade as well in head to head. The Eagles had 1 good team this decade, and that's it.

They're still a respected mid-major, but reality is that they either have 1) Fallen from their '90's perch OR 2) Everyone else caught up and they are no better than many other non-BCS teams now. It's a little bit of both in my opinion, but calling them the best CUSA school when others left is nothing short of hilarious.

Interesting Fact of the Day: Due to a tie for the title in 2002, 7 CUSA championship trophies have been given out this decade. 4 sit in the football complexes of current Big East schools. 1 sits in the football complex of a MWC club. Only 2 of the 7 reside in current CUSA football complexes. That's not too impressive since a CUSA team was guaranteed to win it this past fall and no one left the league.

That doesn't mean we can't play a CUSA team in a bowl. It does mean that your post was clueless.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:The Liberty Bowl really did want the BE, otherwise, why negotiate?

I've explained this to you twice. Let me spell it out for you again...

1. The Liberty Bowl always wanted C-USA vs. SEC
2. The SEC played hardball and said it would not play C-USA
3. The Liberty Bowl still wanted C-USA vs. SEC, but contacted the Big East as a backup plan
4. The Liberty Bowl negotiated hard with the SEC and finally came to an agreement whereby the SEC would play C-USA, but there could be no regular season rematch nor any intrastate matchups.
5. The Big East was plan B.
6. You made the statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That is simply not true. The Liberty Bowl really, really wanted C-USA vs. SEC matchup. That's what they got.

You have not explained anything. The media was reporting at one time that the Liberty Bowl was close to signing an agreement with the SEC and and the BE. Everybody in memphis was in an uproar including the politicians. The only place that I have ever heard that the SEC did not want to play cusa was on the cusa boards. I have never read such claims anywhere else. Nonetheless, the media were reporting that the talks between the Liberty and the BE broke down because the Liberty wanted ( and I am going off of memory here) either the 2nd place BE team and or ND or the third place team and or ND. The BE was either not willing or not able to make such accomodations because of existing contracts that had just been renegotiated with the Gator/Sun and the Charlotte Bowls. I am sure there are others who rember the details better than I. You can believe what you want regarding the backup plan. Even the Liberty Bowl president at one time thought that it was going to be a done deal.
If the liberty was using the BE as a negotiating ploy, why did they not at least tell the local politicians in secret that that was what they were doing? The local memphis politicians were in an uproar as well.

There are no legitimate media sources that I recall that said that the Liberty folks were using the BE as a backup or negotiating tool. Just you and your "connections" are saying this.

Given the choice to believe you and your "connections" , or the numerous media reports, I will choose the numerous media reports.

Yes the liberty bowl is a purely localized bowl for memphis.

Which is funny because Memphis never goes.

cuseroc Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:The Liberty Bowl really did want the BE, otherwise, why negotiate?

I've explained this to you twice. Let me spell it out for you again...

1. The Liberty Bowl always wanted C-USA vs. SEC
2. The SEC played hardball and said it would not play C-USA
3. The Liberty Bowl still wanted C-USA vs. SEC, but contacted the Big East as a backup plan
4. The Liberty Bowl negotiated hard with the SEC and finally came to an agreement whereby the SEC would play C-USA, but there could be no regular season rematch nor any intrastate matchups.
5. The Big East was plan B.
6. You made the statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That is simply not true. The Liberty Bowl really, really wanted C-USA vs. SEC matchup. That's what they got.

You have not explained anything. The media was reporting at one time that the Liberty Bowl was close to signing an agreement with the SEC and and the BE. Everybody in memphis was in an uproar including the politicians. The only place that I have ever heard that the SEC did not want to play cusa was on the cusa boards. I have never read such claims anywhere else. Nonetheless, the media were reporting that the talks between the Liberty and the BE broke down because the Liberty wanted ( and I am going off of memory here) either the 2nd place BE team and or ND or the third place team and or ND. The BE was either not willing or not able to make such accomodations because of existing contracts that had just been renegotiated with the Gator/Sun and the Charlotte Bowls. I am sure there are others who rember the details better than I. You can believe what you want regarding the backup plan. Even the Liberty Bowl president at one time thought that it was going to be a done deal.
If the liberty was using the BE as a negotiating ploy, why did they not at least tell the local politicians in secret that that was what they were doing? The local memphis politicians were in an uproar as well.

There are no legitimate media sources that I recall that said that the Liberty folks were using the BE as a backup or negotiating tool. Just you and your "connections" are saying this.

Given the choice to believe you and your "connections" , or the numerous media reports, I will choose the numerous media reports.

What I have posted is fact. The Liberty Bowl never used the Big East as a negotiating ploy. The Liberty Bowl was willing to settle for a Big East vs. SEC matchup as plan B if the deal couldn't be worked out with the SEC to agree to play a C-USA team.

Priority 1 for the Liberty Bowl was always the SEC. They wanted the SEC vs. C-USA, but they weren't going to risk losing the SEC if the SEC flat out refused to play C-USA. That is why the Big East was approached. However, the Liberty Bowl stuck to its guns and spent a lot of time negotiating with the SEC and finally came to an agreement with the SEC on the conditions of playing against C-USA.

You can't accept the fact that the Liberty Bowl wanted C-USA vs. SEC. That was always what they wanted.

It's fact. I'm not why you are so upset. I'm not saying that the Big East doesn't deserve a BCS bid or that C-USA is better than the Big East. I'm just telling you the facts about what happened with the Liberty Bowl. If believing your made up story makes you sleep better at night then so be it. Keep believing that the Liberty Bowl was pining over a SEC-Big East matchup. That simply wasn't the case.

tigersharktwo Wrote:Yes the liberty bowl is a purely localized bowl for memphis.

What does that mean?

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:The Liberty Bowl really did want the BE, otherwise, why negotiate?

I've explained this to you twice. Let me spell it out for you again...

1. The Liberty Bowl always wanted C-USA vs. SEC
2. The SEC played hardball and said it would not play C-USA
3. The Liberty Bowl still wanted C-USA vs. SEC, but contacted the Big East as a backup plan
4. The Liberty Bowl negotiated hard with the SEC and finally came to an agreement whereby the SEC would play C-USA, but there could be no regular season rematch nor any intrastate matchups.
5. The Big East was plan B.
6. You made the statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That is simply not true. The Liberty Bowl really, really wanted C-USA vs. SEC matchup. That's what they got.

You have not explained anything. The media was reporting at one time that the Liberty Bowl was close to signing an agreement with the SEC and and the BE. Everybody in memphis was in an uproar including the politicians. The only place that I have ever heard that the SEC did not want to play cusa was on the cusa boards. I have never read such claims anywhere else. Nonetheless, the media were reporting that the talks between the Liberty and the BE broke down because the Liberty wanted ( and I am going off of memory here) either the 2nd place BE team and or ND or the third place team and or ND. The BE was either not willing or not able to make such accomodations because of existing contracts that had just been renegotiated with the Gator/Sun and the Charlotte Bowls. I am sure there are others who rember the details better than I. You can believe what you want regarding the backup plan. Even the Liberty Bowl president at one time thought that it was going to be a done deal.
If the liberty was using the BE as a negotiating ploy, why did they not at least tell the local politicians in secret that that was what they were doing? The local memphis politicians were in an uproar as well.

There are no legitimate media sources that I recall that said that the Liberty folks were using the BE as a backup or negotiating tool. Just you and your "connections" are saying this.

Given the choice to believe you and your "connections" , or the numerous media reports, I will choose the numerous media reports.

What I have posted is fact. The Liberty Bowl never used the Big East as a negotiating ploy. The Liberty Bowl was willing to settle for a Big East vs. SEC matchup as plan B if the deal couldn't be worked out with the SEC to agree to play a C-USA team.

Priority 1 for the Liberty Bowl was always the SEC. They wanted the SEC vs. C-USA, but they weren't going to risk losing the SEC if the SEC flat out refused to play C-USA. That is why the Big East was approached. However, the Liberty Bowl stuck to its guns and spent a lot of time negotiating with the SEC and finally came to an agreement with the SEC on the conditions of playing against C-USA.

You can't accept the fact that the Liberty Bowl wanted C-USA vs. SEC. That was always what they wanted.

It's fact. I'm not why you are so upset. I'm not saying that the Big East doesn't deserve a BCS bid or that C-USA is better than the Big East. I'm just telling you the facts about what happened with the Liberty Bowl. If believing your made up story makes you sleep better at night then so be it. Keep believing that the Liberty Bowl was pining over a SEC-Big East matchup. That simply wasn't the case.

First of all, I am not upset over it at all. No reason to be. The BE has a great Bowl lineup. It doesnt matter what the Liberty bowl folks wanted. How is it that you say the Liberty Bowl folks stuck to their guns, if they were negotiating with the BE? If they stuck to their guns, they would not have negotiated with the BE.

I simply responded to one of your fellow trolls trying to make it sound as if the BE was chasing the liberty Bowl, when in fact, It was probably the Liberty Bowl that approached the BE, if what you say is true. But you dont have anything that was written in the media to backup what you are saying. Just your "connection" . Speaking of making stuff up. LOL.

It is you who have the problem admitting that the Liberty Bowl was going to abandon cusa for the BE. That what would have happened had the Liberty Bowl folks been able to get the #3 pick from the BE, which more than likely would have been, either WV, Louisville or ND over the course of the bowl agreement. Those 3 would have provided much more national interest playing any SEC team than anyone from cusa.
At least everything that I have said in this thread can be backed up by media reports. you have no media reports to backup your scenario.

maybe the following links will refresh your memory:


http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7615
[url]

http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7604[/url]


There were other threads as well where even you participated. I tell you, for someone who has "connections" you sure were worried about the liberty bowl leaving cusa. Even you thought that The liberty was going with the BE back then. I will admit that you were correct about the SEC not wanting to play cusa or any other non bcs league. But the Liberty folks had negotiated with the acc as well as the BE. They even came to the BE media day. The problem that they kept running into with the bcs leagues they were negotiating with is that they wanted a higher pecking order, which was not able to happen.

For someone whom you accused of making things up, it sure looks like everything that I said was documented and confirmed by the media.

cuseroc Wrote:maybe the following links will refresh your memory:


http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7615
[url]

http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7604[/url]


There were other threads as well where even you participated. I tell you, for someone who has "connections" you sure were worried about the liberty bowl leaving cusa. Even you thought that The liberty was going with the BE back then. I will admit that you were correct about the SEC not wanting to play cusa or any other non bcs league. But the Liberty folks had negotiated with the acc as well as the BE. They even came to the BE media day. The problem that they kept running into with the bcs leagues they were negotiating with is that they wanted a higher pecking order, which was not able to happen.

For someone whom you accused of making things up, it sure looks like everything that I said was documented and confirmed by the media.

I still stand by EVERYTHING I said...

1. Liberty Bowl's first choice was ALWAYS SEC vs. C-USA
2. Big East was contacted as a BACKUP PLAN

I WAS worried that C-USA was going to lose the Liberty Bowl because I knew that certain factions within the SEC were dead set against playing C-USA. The folks at the Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC to ensure that the Liberty Bowl would get their #1 choice of C-USA vs. SEC. If the SEC had stuck to their guns and refused to play C-USA then it most likely would have been SEC vs. Big East.

I never denied some of your stuff. What I said was ABSURD and MADE UP was your statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That statement couldnt' be further from the truth. If you had said that the Liberty Bowl really wanted the Big East IF the SEC vs. C-USA deal didn't work out then you might have been accurate. At no point during any of the negotiations did anyone at the Liberty Bowl want Big East over C-USA. Period.

This isn't a statement that C-USA is better than Big East. I'm not sure why your panties are in a wad. Fact is fact. Keep in mind this was C-USA #1 and Big East #3 or #4. If the Liberty Bowl had the chance to take the Big East #2 (which was never an option) then it might have been a much different story.

3601 Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:maybe the following links will refresh your memory:


http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7615
[url]

http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/bigeast/ph...php?t=7604[/url]


There were other threads as well where even you participated. I tell you, for someone who has "connections" you sure were worried about the liberty bowl leaving cusa. Even you thought that The liberty was going with the BE back then. I will admit that you were correct about the SEC not wanting to play cusa or any other non bcs league. But the Liberty folks had negotiated with the acc as well as the BE. They even came to the BE media day. The problem that they kept running into with the bcs leagues they were negotiating with is that they wanted a higher pecking order, which was not able to happen.

For someone whom you accused of making things up, it sure looks like everything that I said was documented and confirmed by the media.

I still stand by EVERYTHING I said...

1. Liberty Bowl's first choice was ALWAYS SEC vs. C-USA
2. Big East was contacted as a BACKUP PLAN

I WAS worried that C-USA was going to lose the Liberty Bowl because I knew that certain factions within the SEC were dead set against playing C-USA. The folks at the Liberty Bowl did a lot of negotiating with the SEC to ensure that the Liberty Bowl would get their #1 choice of C-USA vs. SEC. If the SEC had stuck to their guns and refused to play C-USA then it most likely would have been SEC vs. Big East.

I never denied some of your stuff. What I said was ABSURD and MADE UP was your statement that, "It was public knowledge that the liberty bowl really, really wanted Big East vs. SEC matchup." That statement couldnt' be further from the truth. If you had said that the Liberty Bowl really wanted the Big East IF the SEC vs. C-USA deal didn't work out then you might have been accurate. At no point during any of the negotiations did anyone at the Liberty Bowl want Big East over C-USA. Period.

This isn't a statement that C-USA is better than Big East. I'm not sure why your panties are in a wad. Fact is fact. Keep in mind this was C-USA #1 and Big East #3 or #4. If the Liberty Bowl had the chance to take the Big East #2 (which was never an option) then it might have been a much different story.

The bolded part of your post tells us who has their panties in a wad. LOL. You cant stand the fact that the Leberty bowl was actually trying to land the BE to replace cusa. If they could have gotten the #3 pick, which more than likely would have been either, Louisville, ND, or WV, we would not be having this conversation, and memphis fans like your self may have committed suicide lmfao lmfao . But because the BE stuck to its guns and gave the tire bowl the #3 pick, the Liberty Bowl folks settled for cusa.
The Liberty Bowl president said in one of the articles that he would like for the Liberty Bowl to have reps from bcs conferences. :shhh: . I wish I had time to find that article.

You accuse me of making stuff up. I show you facts that backup what I said, and now its "I never denied some of your stuff."
lmfao

Maybe you do have a connection on the board . Maybe thats what they are telling folks that they were using the BE only as a backup to save face since they were not able to get a good pick from the acc, or the #3 from the BE. According to what I have read, the Liberty was really trying to lland the BE #3. Why would they be at the BE media day, if they were not serious about getting the BE #3. The BE #3 would more than likely be WV, Louisville, or ND in most years. They would provide alot more national interest playing an SEC team than anyone from cusa.

Because Vanderbilt or Mississippi State can't get eligible...they would be the only ones you could compete with...lol... lmfao

Collegecard, how have the mighty Cards fared in their recent bowl games vs "mid majors?" Seems like you got drilled in 2002 and 2003.