(12-03-2013 07:30 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

You'd scream bloody murder.

I'm sure you say that with the same conviction and certainty that you guys said stAte was going to snubbed by the GoDaddy bowl in favor of WKU.

But I find it hard to believe a #2 Cajun fan base would be perfectly happy to be snubbed for a #4 team not even remaining in the conference. You say you would be sweet and kind, I say you'd scream bloody murder. Hope we never have to find out who's right.

Add to my above post. I don't expect help from the Conference at all, it's just par for the course, but i grant you the Sun Belt will take any money that WKU earns until we depart

(12-03-2013 07:32 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:04 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  If for some miracle WKU makes a bowl this year, does the Sun Belt expect money from it?

If thats part of the legal contract, yes.

So that means WKU should be promoted until the date we leave if we are in this conference as a legal contract. Things can't just go one way. If the Sun Belt dont feel the need to promote WKU the Sun Belt does not deserve the return revenue

It becomes completely different if you finish #1 or co-champs. Then it is an obligation to give you the promotion of a conference-affiliated stage (unless you think they are just "guidelines" in which case there is no obligation to anyone in the conference, not even the champs). But that's the only real obligation there is for bowl placement.

If you do get placed and there are rules for revenue sharing, then those are obligations on your part.

If you are placed in Hawaii or Timbuctu then we would most likely end up owing you $250,000 in travel subsidy to take with you to CUSA (pretty much paid for by ULL). That also would be an obligation on us.

(12-03-2013 07:37 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I don't expect help from the Conference at all

If you are placed at some distant location, then you should expect help in the form of the full travel subsidy from the conference. That is one of the obligations the conference has.

(12-03-2013 07:30 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:39 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:22 PM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  I simply do not understand the love affair with CUSA.

Right now it is purely over bowl alliances. Other then that, the SBC is a much stronger conference on the field. Over the next two years, everything else will become even, but we will still be better on the field, and getting stronger.

and still wayyyyy behind in basketball. so it's not just bowl alliances.

and justified or not 'perception' is better for coosa.

CUSA has more bowl tie-ins for now, but with ECU and Tulsa leaving, they will need all those "TV market" teams to step up and deliver in bowl games moving forward. A couple of years of F_U buying less than 1000 tickets to a game may make bowl selection committees reconsider.

No doubt CUSA has advantage in Basketball. A lot of that was tied to Memphis and the old CUSA that had Louisville, Cincy, Marquette, St. Louis and the likes. It will be up to WKU and MT to help restore that reputation. Baseball is slight edge to CUSA, mainly because of Rice.

The perception question is interesting. If you ask a marginal college football fan that follows an SEC or Big Ten team, they probably can't even name the teams in the two conferences. Their may be some perception advantage but the only people who really assert this is CUSA members. Imagine that.

(12-03-2013 08:56 AM)freshtop Wrote:  I think it is the old "circle the wagons" rhetoric. C-USA fans didn't want anyone, until they were announced, and then they defend you because you are one of their own. The same guys talking smack again ULL now would defend you tomorrow if you were in the conference. It is just the way these things go.

Nothing wrong with that. It's about the same that we in the SBC roll too.

(12-03-2013 07:41 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:37 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I don't expect help from the Conference at all

If you are placed at some distant location, then you should expect help in the form of the full travel subsidy from the conference. That is one of the obligations the conference has.

I think WKU would have better luck with this

(12-03-2013 07:45 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:41 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:37 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I don't expect help from the Conference at all

If you are placed at some distant location, then you should expect help in the form of the full travel subsidy from the conference. That is one of the obligations the conference has.

I think WKU would have better luck with this

I had a razorback fan tell me once that ASU would go to a bowl when Hell froze over, so you guys should be good.

(12-03-2013 07:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:30 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

You'd scream bloody murder.

I'm sure you say that with the same conviction and certainty that you guys said stAte was going to snubbed by the GoDaddy bowl in favor of WKU.

But I find it hard to believe a #2 Cajun fan base would be perfectly happy to be snubbed for a #4 team not even remaining in the conference. You say you would be sweet and kind, I say you'd scream bloody murder. Hope we never have to find out who's right.

I didn't say I'd be sweet and kind, I said I'd be consistent.

I'm sure you're right and many Cajun fans would scream bloody murder like some of you guys did even though your hysterical and premature rantings proved groundless.

This Cajun fan realizes that in the Belt, if you want a guaranteed bowl, you need to do one of two things: 1) win the conference championship or apparently 2) bring record crowds to the New Orleans Bowl two years in a row AND be bowl-eligible. Had the Cajuns finished behind stAte and other conference members overall, but still bowl-eligible, I would not have been surprised to see the NO Bowl extend an invitation to us for the same game against Tulane.

I'm not saying the second circumstance is fair, it's just what it is. The bowls are about making money, not making the Belt members feel good about themselves.

(12-03-2013 07:47 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Had the Cajuns finished behind stAte and other conference members overall, but still bowl-eligible, I would not have been surprised to see the NO Bowl extend an invitation to us

That happened two years ago. ULL finished 3rd and were invited to NO over any other.

(12-03-2013 07:45 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:41 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:37 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I don't expect help from the Conference at all

If you are placed at some distant location, then you should expect help in the form of the full travel subsidy from the conference. That is one of the obligations the conference has.

I think WKU would have better luck with this

I don't see how we could avoid it if it is in the bylaws that conference members be given travel subsidies. The bylaws really aren't guidelines. If we owe you a travel subsidy, you should expect it.

As for the topic of departing teams getting 100% touting -slash- sales job from the rest of the SBC including the commish, it's a HORRIBLE scenario to imagine WKU (for example) being on national TV watched by hundreds of thousands if not a million-plus people with the announcers CONTINOUSLY mentioning how the Hilltoppers will be departing the SBC after the game.

And... of COURSE the announcers would beat this into the ground. It's not only news but it's interesting info to the casual fan... as well as HORRIBLE publicity for the SBC. I'd think anyone with an unbiased brain could see how the benefits of doing so are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives for the entire conference.

Just my 2 cents.

(12-03-2013 07:55 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:47 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Had the Cajuns finished behind stAte and other conference members overall, but still bowl-eligible, I would not have been surprised to see the NO Bowl extend an invitation to us

That happened two years ago. ULL finished 3rd and were invited to NO over any other.

And in the end, it was a wise move on the part of the New Orleans Bowl selection committee.

I've not looked up attendance records for any NO bowls prior to the Cajun's first visit, but I'm betting they were okay, but not extraordinary. Two years ago the Cajuns broke the attendance record in a big way from what I recall....and broke it again last year.....and if they can finish the season with a good win against USA, will probably see a crowd that ranks near, or in, the top 10 attendance-wise for all bowls this year.

The NO bowl has put together a great matchup for the fans.

(12-03-2013 08:01 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:55 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:47 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Had the Cajuns finished behind stAte and other conference members overall, but still bowl-eligible, I would not have been surprised to see the NO Bowl extend an invitation to us

That happened two years ago. ULL finished 3rd and were invited to NO over any other.

And in the end, it was a wise move on the part of the New Orleans Bowl selection committee.

I've not looked up attendance records for any NO bowls prior to the Cajun's first visit, but I'm betting they were okay, but not extraordinary. Two years ago the Cajuns broke the attendance record in a big way from what I recall....and broke it again last year.....and if they can finish the season with a good win against USA, will probably see a crowd that ranks near, or in, the top 10 attendance-wise for all bowls this year.

The NO bowl has put together a great matchup for the fans.

It is a great matchup for the New Orleans Bowl and ULL. It's also a great deal for the conference since you have to fork over half your winnings to subsidize travel for the rest of us.

But I'm not sure its really healthy for the conference to do a lot of jumping over #2 for the long-term.

We need more western bowls.

(12-03-2013 08:01 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:55 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:47 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Had the Cajuns finished behind stAte and other conference members overall, but still bowl-eligible, I would not have been surprised to see the NO Bowl extend an invitation to us

That happened two years ago. ULL finished 3rd and were invited to NO over any other.

And in the end, it was a wise move on the part of the New Orleans Bowl selection committee.

I've not looked up attendance records for any NO bowls prior to the Cajun's first visit, but I'm betting they were okay, but not extraordinary. Two years ago the Cajuns broke the attendance record in a big way from what I recall....and broke it again last year.....and if they can finish the season with a good win against USA, will probably see a crowd that ranks near, or in, the top 10 attendance-wise for all bowls this year.

The NO bowl has put together a great matchup for the fans.

There's no doubt it was the best thing for the Bowl and that's really all it's about. If one of the two SBC Bowls were in Nashville or Louisville, there's no doubt it'd be a hugely attended Bowl if WKU were invited. Heck, when the WKU Women's Basketball team went to the Final Four at Rupp Arena in Lexington, back in the day, 10,000 Topper fans were in attendance. That's 3 hours from Bowling Green and was just a women's basketball game. I can only imagine what a Bowl game would be like for WKU fans if it were only 1-2 hours away.

(12-03-2013 08:00 PM)airtroop Wrote:  As for the topic of departing teams getting 100% touting -slash- sales job from the rest of the SBC including the commish, it's a HORRIBLE scenario to imagine WKU (for example) being on national TV watched by hundreds of thousands if not a million-plus people with the announcers CONTINOUSLY mentioning how the Hilltoppers will be departing the SBC after the game.

And... of COURSE the announcers would beat this into the ground. It's not only news but it's interesting info to the casual fan... as well as HORRIBLE publicity for the SBC. I'd think anyone with an unbiased brain could see how the benefits of doing so are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives for the entire conference.

Just my 2 cents.

You make some very valid points airtroop. Perhaps we could nip this all in the bud by setting up some Belt guidelines that would control such bad news.......maybe even appoint a Bad News Czar to stay on top of things.

For instance, any Belt team even rumored to be considering leaving the Belt would be immediately stripped of its ability to compete in post season play by the Bad News Czar.

An excellent means of proving the school's infideltiy would be for the AD of the suspect school to be dunked in water until he either confesses or drowns. Drowning would be defacto proof that the school was guilty of wishing to leave the conference. This would also make for great banter during Belt bowl games.

Am sure that App State will seldom get the nod over UL for the NO bowl. If there is no mechanism in place to
guarantee it then any NO area bowl would almost always take UL. Only a much better record would help, and
proof that App would travel well to NO. Kind of expect that. Bowls should be looking at their bottom line.

(12-03-2013 08:14 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:00 PM)airtroop Wrote:  As for the topic of departing teams getting 100% touting -slash- sales job from the rest of the SBC including the commish, it's a HORRIBLE scenario to imagine WKU (for example) being on national TV watched by hundreds of thousands if not a million-plus people with the announcers CONTINOUSLY mentioning how the Hilltoppers will be departing the SBC after the game.

And... of COURSE the announcers would beat this into the ground. It's not only news but it's interesting info to the casual fan... as well as HORRIBLE publicity for the SBC. I'd think anyone with an unbiased brain could see how the benefits of doing so are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives for the entire conference.

Just my 2 cents.

You make some very valid points airtroop. Perhaps we could nip this all in the bud by setting up some Belt guidelines that would control such bad news.......maybe even appoint a Bad News Czar to stay on top of things.

For instance, any Belt team even rumored to be considering leaving the Belt would be immediately stripped of its ability to compete in post season play by the Bad News Czar.

An excellent means of proving the school's infideltiy would be for the AD of the suspect school to be dunked in water until he either confesses or drowns. Drowning would be defacto proof that the school was guilty of wishing to leave the conference. This would also make for great banter during Belt bowl games.

That is some kind of reasoning there.

If Wal-Mart has a supplier, and that supplier gets a special deal with Target and tells Wal-Mart that they will be exclusive to Target after January 1st. You can bet that Wal-Mart won't be putting that product on their end-caps over Christmas or featuring it in commercials unless the contract specifically requires them to do so....and chances are the contract is such that it won't.

They are moving to a direct competitor. They get exactly what the contract requires. That's it.

(12-03-2013 08:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:14 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:00 PM)airtroop Wrote:  As for the topic of departing teams getting 100% touting -slash- sales job from the rest of the SBC including the commish, it's a HORRIBLE scenario to imagine WKU (for example) being on national TV watched by hundreds of thousands if not a million-plus people with the announcers CONTINOUSLY mentioning how the Hilltoppers will be departing the SBC after the game.

And... of COURSE the announcers would beat this into the ground. It's not only news but it's interesting info to the casual fan... as well as HORRIBLE publicity for the SBC. I'd think anyone with an unbiased brain could see how the benefits of doing so are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives for the entire conference.

Just my 2 cents.

You make some very valid points airtroop. Perhaps we could nip this all in the bud by setting up some Belt guidelines that would control such bad news.......maybe even appoint a Bad News Czar to stay on top of things.

For instance, any Belt team even rumored to be considering leaving the Belt would be immediately stripped of its ability to compete in post season play by the Bad News Czar.

An excellent means of proving the school's infideltiy would be for the AD of the suspect school to be dunked in water until he either confesses or drowns. Drowning would be defacto proof that the school was guilty of wishing to leave the conference. This would also make for great banter during Belt bowl games.

That is some kind of reasoning there.

If Wal-Mart has a supplier, and that supplier gets a special deal with Target and tells Wal-Mart that they will be exclusive to Target after January 1st. You can bet that Wal-Mart won't be putting that product on their end-caps over Christmas or featuring it in commercials unless the contract specifically requires them to do so....and chances are the contract is such that it won't.

They are moving to a direct competitor. They get exactly what the contract requires. That's it.

Thank you for "getting it". I've been in marketing (including some for major university athletic depts. years back) for decades. What Benson (hopefully) is doing is called "Marketing 101", or better yet -- common sense.

(12-03-2013 08:35 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:14 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 08:00 PM)airtroop Wrote:  As for the topic of departing teams getting 100% touting -slash- sales job from the rest of the SBC including the commish, it's a HORRIBLE scenario to imagine WKU (for example) being on national TV watched by hundreds of thousands if not a million-plus people with the announcers CONTINOUSLY mentioning how the Hilltoppers will be departing the SBC after the game.

And... of COURSE the announcers would beat this into the ground. It's not only news but it's interesting info to the casual fan... as well as HORRIBLE publicity for the SBC. I'd think anyone with an unbiased brain could see how the benefits of doing so are HEAVILY outweighed by the negatives for the entire conference.

Just my 2 cents.

You make some very valid points airtroop. Perhaps we could nip this all in the bud by setting up some Belt guidelines that would control such bad news.......maybe even appoint a Bad News Czar to stay on top of things.

For instance, any Belt team even rumored to be considering leaving the Belt would be immediately stripped of its ability to compete in post season play by the Bad News Czar.

An excellent means of proving the school's infideltiy would be for the AD of the suspect school to be dunked in water until he either confesses or drowns. Drowning would be defacto proof that the school was guilty of wishing to leave the conference. This would also make for great banter during Belt bowl games.

That is some kind of reasoning there.

If Wal-Mart has a supplier, and that supplier gets a special deal with Target and tells Wal-Mart that they will be exclusive to Target after January 1st. You can bet that Wal-Mart won't be putting that product on their end-caps over Christmas or featuring it in commercials unless the contract specifically requires them to do so....and chances are the contract is such that it won't.

They are moving to a direct competitor. They get exactly what the contract requires. That's it.

Thank you for "getting it". I've been in marketing (including some for major university athletic depts. years back) for decades. What Benson (hopefully) is doing is called "Marketing 101", or better yet -- common sense.

Based on the dozens of threads and hundreds of posts on the subject, I suspect Benson doesn't know how to spell the word marketing.

Seriously, what many fail to realize or refuse to admit is that the Belt plays some pretty decent ball....and not just football. Okay, basketball isn't that great these days, but that runs in cycles I'd imagine. Baseball? Outstanding. Softball? There again, I'm sure way above average.

Because we play some decent ball, have competitive teams, decent facilities, our members are attractive to other conferences. Which is why I say the Belt is, for the time being, a transitional conference.

The C-USA has basically become nothing more than a larger and more northerly-oriented SunBelt. Our conference needs a leader who can reverse the trend of teams leaving for other conferences. Is Benson that man?