Here's Tom talking till his head explodes.

So the guy who is less than 3 hours drive time from 3 of the 5 Bowls pucks the Cajuns to spew all his hate because South Al got shipped to Tucson. Got it.

Gee maybe we wouldn't be having this problem if South Al had won more than 2 Sun Belt games.

(12-08-2016 05:20 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Here's Tom talking till his head explodes.

Obvious troll is obvious. Wrap up is here. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Attention: Each fan who is fortunate enough to have his or her team play in a bowl game has just one more game to watch until next September.

At some point it is appropriate to cease the bickering and just enjoy the game of football big your alma mater or university.

(12-08-2016 05:19 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:08 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

Oh...kinda like if you want to go to a better bowl you need to do better? Hypocrite.

Yes..exactly what I'm proposing...FOR EVERYONE. Including ULL. Its never been about USA in Tucson this year. We're where we belong. We will go there and try and win, for the third time this year, an OOC game we will be an 2 TD underdog in.

Wrap up post here http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

(12-08-2016 04:29 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

For football fans that love in the south, a win over USM means a lot more than a win over a MAC team, whether or not the reality is the MAC team is better. It's the old perception versus reality thing. SDSU is a better team than Mississippi State, but it's the USA over MSU win that most people remember.

Except when conferences are ranked at the end of the season and you get money based on where the conference finishes. There is no perception about the payout we receive as a conference the higher we finish. If we make smart financial decisions now then maybe one day soon we won't have to worry about the financial consequence of making bad decisions like other conferences can that have been around forever and have money coming in from everywhere...we don't.

Of course the three top finishers would placed in the most advantageous way for the conference in the three bowls.

(12-08-2016 05:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:19 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:08 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm going to wrap this up. Almost over my cold.

Here's the recap

1) The conference co-champions were originally picked FIFTH and either third or fourth
2) The ESPN Bowls are clearly superior to the CBSSN bowl and the Internet Bowl
3) The last qualifying (and theoretically weakest) bowl team drew the highest rated (per Real Time RPI) team
4) The team in one of the three prominent bowls won fewer games than 4 of the teams placed after them
5) The highest attended conference game was not hosted by the team picked first
6) The team picked first has won one FBS OOC game since December 2013.
7) There appears to be a problem where teams cannot earn their way into certain bowls, regardless of record
8) The bowl in contention DOES accept restrictions as to who gets picked by the other bowl partner. And if they left the Belt, they'd end up with an almost certain guarantee of a lower attending team than any Sun Belt team.
9) This situation could get a lot worse for many of our members, if USA builds an OCS and becomes the landlord for the DG Bowl
10) This situation could cause teams, who would otherwise be happy, to look for the exits.

---

Im simply proposing we fix the system. Reward the teams that play the best by putting them in our best bowls. And by best, I'm arguing that since the games are about exposure, then exposure should be the criteria upon which we judge the bowls.

I have proposed that the top 3 bowls go into a tier. Finish in the top 3, and you're allowed to be guaranteed a bowl game on a top ESPN Platform. If a team chooses to pick a bowl outside that top 3, that's their choice, but not the bowls. Rotate who picks first. That mitigates blocking by certain bowls. If a bowl won't take our top 3 teams, then what are they doing as a tie in the first place.

And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

Oh...kinda like if you want to go to a better bowl you need to do better? Hypocrite.

Yes..exactly what I'm proposing...FOR EVERYONE.

Wrap up post here http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

How will they ever get a chance to improve their viewership if they keep
Getting stuck with you? Seems kinda unfair...I mean why should ESPN get the benefit of the doubt just because they have more TV sets?(asses in the seats) seems kinda unfair to to simply go with the outlet that will make you the most money and give you exposure... notbreally faur to go with the safe bet, I think it would be more fair if we take a risk with the Internet bowl..I mean it's only fair that everything is equal...see Tom, you are FOS.

(12-08-2016 05:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:19 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:08 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  And the other bowls will agree to be labeled as the shittier bowls why exactly?

They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

Oh...kinda like if you want to go to a better bowl you need to do better? Hypocrite.

Yes..exactly what I'm proposing...FOR EVERYONE.

Wrap up post here http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

How will they ever get a chance to improve their viewership if they keep
Getting stuck with you? Seems kinda unfair...I mean why should ESPN get the benefit of the doubt just because they have more TV sets?(asses in the seats) seems kinda unfair to to simply go with the outlet that will make you the most money and give you exposure... notbreally faur to go with the safe bet, I think it would be more fair if we take a risk with the Internet bowl..I mean it's only fair that everything is equal...see Tom, you are FOS.

ESPN could have picked you for more than 3 games this year. They didn't. The other SBC bowl teams (save Idaho) were on ESPN as much, or more than you were. If it were about matchups, people would be demanding the Tucson bowl, which features the highest rated opposing team. None did, for obvious reasons.

Wrap up here. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

(12-08-2016 05:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:37 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:19 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 05:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  They are sh*ttier bowls and they know it. Tell them we will assign tier status based upon TV coverage. Potential households and average rating of the platform used to broadcast. If they'd like a higher pick, they can up their TV deal. The Cure accepts tiers from the AAC. They'll take one from us. The Arizona will be picked last...every year. And they're not going anywhere either.

If it was just about matching up with the best team....that would be Tucson, where Air Force has the highest RPI of any SBC bowl opponent. Anyone really want that bowl over any other bowl? Didn't think so.

Lets not pretend its about matchup....its about exposure.

Oh...kinda like if you want to go to a better bowl you need to do better? Hypocrite.

Yes..exactly what I'm proposing...FOR EVERYONE.

Wrap up post here http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

How will they ever get a chance to improve their viewership if they keep
Getting stuck with you? Seems kinda unfair...I mean why should ESPN get the benefit of the doubt just because they have more TV sets?(asses in the seats) seems kinda unfair to to simply go with the outlet that will make you the most money and give you exposure... notbreally faur to go with the safe bet, I think it would be more fair if we take a risk with the Internet bowl..I mean it's only fair that everything is equal...see Tom, you are FOS.

ESPN could have picked you for more than 3 games this year. They didn't. The other SBC bowl teams (save Idaho) were on ESPN as much, or more than you were.

Wrap up here. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Oh moved the post but I still made the kick, the same thing you are suggesting we do to the other bowls is exactly what's happening to you..supposedly...but that's right Tom, everything is good with you people, unless it happens to you then the world needs to stop and fix it. Then when it still doesn't work out for you , you gonba want to fix it again. Never earn it, just have it guaranteed for you and keep changing the rules until you get it.

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

Not me.

I've only been to two of the Sun Belt bowls, so far.

Out of those two, it comes in second, in my opinion.

(12-08-2016 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look its clear that the ESPN bowls are better games. Lets stop pretending they aren't. The top 3 teams should go to them.

What metric are you using in your determination of top bowls?

What about bowl payouts?

Do they play a role in your determination?

(12-08-2016 05:53 PM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:28 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:13 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:49 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  I'm not sure why Tom's proposal is being shouted down so vociferously. It would put the conference's best teams in the most visible bowls every year and that should benefit the conference as a whole (if those teams pull their weight). Non-SBC college football fans/viewers are much more likely to form their impressions from the on-the-field performances of the teams and not if there are a couple of thousand extra spectators in the stands

Yep, I agree. It's in the conferences best interest to have their top finished team play the #6 team in CUSA (who was rated lower than the SBC) instead of the #2 team from the MAC (rated higher than the SBC). Makes perfect sense to me. I agree, and I'm ready to head to Orlando.

Is it great to have our conference champion play a full on ROAD game, in a barely televised game...

By they way, had you headed to Orlando, few would be complaining. The top three teams would have their top bowl berths....and representing the conference in the highest profile (most televised) games. As it should be.

And I, who understands why we are in Tucson THIS year, would not complain at all.

Problem solved!

Who determined that the New Orleans Bowl was the top bowl?

Not me.

I've only been to two of the Sun Belt bowls, so far.

Out of those two, it comes in second, in my opinion.

And yet Tom is claiming Arizona as the worst..and nobody has ever been yet...it might be the best damn bowl we have and against a 9-3 Air Force.

(12-08-2016 05:55 PM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look its clear that the ESPN bowls are better games. Lets stop pretending they aren't. The top 3 teams should go to them.

What metric are you using in your determination of top bowls?

What about bowl payouts?

Do they play a role in your determination?

Not sure if yiu read all the way through but he uses the i want my way so I'll type any dumb thought that pops in my mind to get it and when I get blasted with truth..change the discussion...rinse and repeat

(12-08-2016 05:55 PM)asuwon Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look its clear that the ESPN bowls are better games. Lets stop pretending they aren't. The top 3 teams should go to them.

What metric are you using in your determination of top bowls?

What about bowl payouts?

Do they play a role in your determination?

What do payouts even mean anymore? Look at it this way....everyone wanted to avoid Orlando and Tucson. For a reason. Few will see you play. No one is upset because the Arizona bowl picked USA and they got to play the highest profile team. Heck, stAte was going there originally until they or someone else kicked a fuss up. I don't blame them for doing so either, if they did. They're the conference champion.

No one is playing Sun Belt football to make money.

And next year, everyone will want to avoid Arizona and Orlando again

Here's my wrap up post so I don't have to repeat myself. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728 Pretty much sums up the situation and rebuts a lot of the arguments made in favor of UL's incumbency.

It's not bothering me but after 48 pages, I don't think y'all are going to agree.

(12-08-2016 06:22 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  It's not bothering me but after 48 pages, I don't think y'all are going to agree.

Why I've just started putting a link to a wrap up post. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Easier that way. No repeating.

(12-08-2016 06:22 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  It's not bothering me but after 48 pages, I don't think y'all are going to agree.

True, but sometimes it's tough to find the door.

Sometimes 48 pages are entertaining, in this case I just feel like I should include a mental health hotline's number.

(12-08-2016 06:44 PM)troutbummike Wrote:  Sometimes 48 pages are entertaining, in this case I just feel like I should include a mental health hotline's number.

Just for the main two combatants (99 and Tom) or should it also be for anyone dumb enough to read all the way through the entire thread?

(12-08-2016 08:15 PM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 06:44 PM)troutbummike Wrote:  Sometimes 48 pages are entertaining, in this case I just feel like I should include a mental health hotline's number.

Just for the main two combatants (99 and Tom) or should it also be for anyone dumb enough to read all the way through the entire thread?