(12-06-2013 11:38 PM)TeKERaider Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:30 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:07 PM)TeKERaider Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:45 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  MUTS were offered a bowl and turned it down.

WKU has not turned down a bowl to my knowledge....

Simply not true. Bowl director is on record saying we were not offered. Most know the deal and you are getting a small taste. You were to busy celebrating your ADs magically negotiating skills and "bowl hungriness" to see the truth. At least you got passed by a team with a better SBC record.

I am genuinely interested in what happened then. What I posted above is what was said at the time, but that doesn't make it true.

The only places it was reported that we turned a bowl was here by one poster and on that poster's twitter account. Here was the jist.
Poster claimed we turned down the bowl which was false on two fronts.
1. Just like this year, schools couldn't negotiate individually. It had to go through the conference. Bowl director said he was dealing with Benson not Massaro in DC paper. In other words only person who could turn it down was Benson not MT.
2. Bowl director said we were not offered because the deal offered by SBC was not as good as the MAC. So clearly we didn't turn down an offer that didn't exist.

Here is where the finger pointing starts. Our side says that we weren't out bid by the MAC but rather the funding that the conference was supposed to provide was no longer made available. Which is why if you go back and read Massaro's comments you will see him talk about "still being full members but not being treated as one" . You can believe what you want but the MAC deal was signed the day after our move to CUSA was announced. Basically the same deal for pizza bowl. No funding for that as well. Look I know we were enemy number one so nobody wanted to hear it, but if you take off the red glasses for minute and look at the numbers there is no way we don't go if league support were equal. We had more wins in and out of conference and a head to head win against the team that went, a win over a bowl bound aq team, better average attendance and a bigger tv market than the team that went. Now that you guys are on the flip side maybe you can see what a crap excuse "bowl hungry" was. Kinda of like hearing Mobile really wanted ASU all along they just thought they were going to I-Bowl. You guys are flat out getting screwed. You would be heading to Mobile if you weren't leaving. Just be happy that you are going to be in a much better place this time last year.

Oh yeah, the poster that said we turned down the bowl was former SBC employee.

Thanks for the post. Hopefully bowl season in C-USA will be more pleasant that in the SBC. And for the SBC's sake I hope things get better here too. I don't like seeing deserving teams sit home while 6-6 teams from "power" conferences get bids to bowls they don't send anyone to.

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

I always loved the teams, but i don't miss the bush league crap that is the SBC postseason. Have your laugh today, but some of you will get the shaft each year.

Right, the "MTSU turned a bowl down" was arkstfan and arkstfan alone... And just this year he talked about how WKU was going to GoDaddy. Those of us here at Middle that have the relationships with the insiders know exactly what happen, and aren't "butt hurt" about a damn thing. Getting snubbed last year was the best thing that ever happened to us, because that was the catalyst that had us pony up the cash to leave a year early. No regrets.

In hindsight, with NIU loss domino effect it kinda makes it more likely that if ArkSt had waited they would have had a shot at the Independence Bowl. Wouldn't that have been better for everyone in the conference included stAte? Feel free to shoot down that logic but I tend to think the I-bowl may rather have had the Wolves than 6-6 PAC 12's Oregon State or Washington State that don't travel well.

What was the rush in the godaddy inviting and Arkansas State accepting so early in the week?

(12-07-2013 12:44 AM)bigbelly Wrote:  In hindsight, with NIU loss domino effect it kinda makes it more likely that if ArkSt had waited they would have had a shot at the Independence Bowl. Wouldn't that have been better for everyone in the conference included stAte? Feel free to shoot down that logic but I tend to think the I-bowl may rather have had the Wolves than 6-6 PAC 12's Oregon State or Washington State that don't travel well.

What was the rush in the godaddy inviting and Arkansas State accepting so early in the week?

As of Monday, the I Bowl was very interested in ASU, but did not have enough votes to extend us an invite. We did not want to pull a Tech, so Go Daddy became official.

At the time, I bowl's sponsors were really pushing for the PAC 12, and Notre Dame was still looking around.

ASU should have waited, Hous, Indy, Dallas bowl are all open right now

(12-07-2013 02:46 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ASU should have waited, Hous, Indy, Dallas bowl are all open right now

We aren't La Tech. We would've been idiots to ask Go Daddy to hold on while sitting back to see if Indy or one of the non-affiliated bowls would offer. We would've still been sweating it out right now if we had not gone with Go Daddy. I wanted Shreveport because of it being so close to our fan base, but the truth is that Mobile is actually the better bowl game.

(12-06-2013 11:59 PM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  Right, the "MTSU turned a bowl down" was arkstfan and arkstfan alone... And just this year he talked about how WKU was going to GoDaddy. Those of us here at Middle that have the relationships with the insiders know exactly what happen, and aren't "butt hurt" about a damn thing. Getting snubbed last year was the best thing that ever happened to us, because that was the catalyst that had us pony up the cash to leave a year early. No regrets.

That I can believe.

I am still scratching my head on the folks who are talking about the conference placing bowl teams. The SBC has two bowl tie ins (New Orleans and Go Daddy). The top two teams in the conference (based upon conference standings) are ULL and Ark St. Both of those teams are in the conference's two bowl games. There should be no argument about that. Period. End of Story!!

As far as other bowl games go, whether we get 1, 2, or none, is up to individual bowls who have an opening. That is going to be strictly a business decision on the bowl's part. They are going to look at potential ratings, will it make their sponsor happy, and can they sell tickets. The conference can lobby but dang sure can't tell them to take Team A because they have a better record than Team B.

The top two teams in conference have bowl games, as they should. Any other bowl games are gravy!!

(12-07-2013 09:34 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  I am still scratching my head on the folks who are talking about the conference placing bowl teams. The SBC has two bowl tie ins (New Orleans and Go Daddy). The top two teams in the conference (based upon conference standings) are ULL and Ark St. Both of those teams are in the conference's two bowl games. There should be no argument about that. Period. End of Story!!

As far as other bowl games go, whether we get 1, 2, or none, is up to individual bowls who have an opening. That is going to be strictly a business decision on the bowl's part. They are going to look at potential ratings, will it make their sponsor happy, and can they sell tickets. The conference can lobby but dang sure can't tell them to take Team A because they have a better record than Team B.

The top two teams in conference have bowl games, as they should. Any other bowl games are gravy!!

I think we all agree with that, however, until the SBC makes that a requirement for their Bowls, a year like this will not always occur. The #1 and #2 haven't both gotten Bowls the last couple years.

(12-07-2013 09:34 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  I am still scratching my head on the folks who are talking about the conference placing bowl teams. The SBC has two bowl tie ins (New Orleans and Go Daddy). The top two teams in the conference (based upon conference standings) are ULL and Ark St. Both of those teams are in the conference's two bowl games. There should be no argument about that. Period. End of Story!!

As far as other bowl games go, whether we get 1, 2, or none, is up to individual bowls who have an opening. That is going to be strictly a business decision on the bowl's part. They are going to look at potential ratings, will it make their sponsor happy, and can they sell tickets. The conference can lobby but dang sure can't tell them to take Team A because they have a better record than Team B.

The top two teams in conference have bowl games, as they should. Any other bowl games are gravy!!

The big problem WKU fans have with this, is back in 2011 we finished 2nd in the SBC all by ourselves, yet the 3rd and 4th place teams went to a Bowl Game and we did not. Plus, we beat the 3rd and 4th place teams in the Conference that season (Louisiana-Lafayette and Florida International). Back then, people said our OOC record was not as good as the 3rd and 4th place teams in the SBC. As a result, they had better overall records than we did.

Now this season, we may end up tied for the best overall record in the Conference due to our OOC record, but are being told that may not be good enough to get a Bowl Game either. Hopefully, we will still get a Bowl Invitation, because at 8-4 I think we deserve to go to a Bowl.

I am just tired of hearing people on here saying the teams that finish 1st and 2nd in the SBC standings should go to the 2 SBC Bowl Games. We finished 2nd all by ourselves in 2011 and that did not happen.

Now this season, the GoDaddy.com Bowl decided to take a team that we beat head to head and we have a better overall record than.

Anyway, it was a successful season for us and I am thankful to the SBC for allowing us the opportunity to play major college football. I will be very glad to move into Conference USA starting July 1, 2014. The SBC really needs to address how they place their Bowl eligible teams in the SBC Bowl games. Good luck in the future to all the remaining SBC teams.

Good luck in C USA, should be easy to get bowl eligible, and have multiple bowl platforms.

I think what some people are missing is this, the SBC doesn't have complete say in bowl placements. That is the problem. In order to get the bowl ties we have, we had to agree to the terms the Bowls were willing to sign. It appears the bowls wanted to have some say in who they take. Thus, we are in the situation we are in now. The SBC can petition and try to sell the teams it wants in the bowls, but the Bowls, at the end of the day, can decide who they want to take. So it really is unfair to lay all the blame on the conference for the situations we find ourselves in. You can say the conference should have not agreed to those terms, but that might have meant we didn't get the bowl tie.