(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.

agreement is not the intent

TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-09-2016 02:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

Good ole Tom just wanted to go to Nola and thought that his team had a realistic shot at New Orleans. Even though he says they deserve Tucson because they suck in conference. He is trying to champion the Nola Bowl for the Sun Belt Champ, but his real issue is that South Al has 3 bowls within 2.5 hours of campus and they got shipped to the desert. Not all 6-6 teams are the same.

(12-09-2016 08:01 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-09-2016 02:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  to
TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

Good ole Tom just wanted to go to Nola and thought that his team had a realistic shot at New Orleans. Even though he says they deserve Tucson because they suck in conference. He is trying to champion the Nola Bowl for the Sun Belt Champ, but his real issue is that South Al has 3 bowls within 2.5 hours of campus and they got shipped to the desert. Not all 6-6 teams are the same.

Maybe I missed the memo somewhere but I have family involved with USA athletics at the moment and when he and I were recently discussing about a campus stadium he said that it had not officially been set in stone and that it would only host around 20-25k unless they changed their minds since then

So I'm not sure why DG Bowl would move to their stadium if Ladd Peebles still exist, unless that happened already and I missed it. Even though placement isn't great it's a bigger stadium and I see them wanting to have more than 25k people there trying to get closer to 35k, with the right matchup. I mean I don't see South building a bigger stadium with Ladd.

Also Ive never seen anywhere where they are "banned" from going. They have just not been good enough when they were eligible.

And lastly, I thought NO Bowl was no longer our #1 bowl as the order is gone and it's based off other factors.

(12-09-2016 02:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

If we're doing ESPN some favors...they certainly don't appear to be reciprocating. Just saying.

Are the bowl tie ins open to all the members, or not? Is there a way for App to get to New Orleans in a year when ULL cobbles together 1 FCS win and 5 conference wins? I don't see it. Even if you win the conference championship.

Again, I'm not upset we're in Tucson this year, but rather concerned about the way the league handles its bowl allotments going forward. Next year if you tie for the conference championship (likely given your amazing schedule - I'm not really sweating that either), do you want to play on CBSSN or the Internet? It could happen to you guys too. This year, it almost did.

But thanks for actually taking the time to read my proposal. You're free to disagree with it. My proposal allows for some flexibility among the top three teams. But doesn't allow for a team not in the top three to take one of the top bowls unless a top three team WANTS to go outside of the ESPN Bowls.

Here's another link to my wrap up post. I stand by it. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Nobody wants your proposal tom

You keep on saying some bowl is only available on the internet...

What bowl are you claiming is only available on the internet?

(12-09-2016 12:50 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 08:01 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-09-2016 02:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  to
TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

Good ole Tom just wanted to go to Nola and thought that his team had a realistic shot at New Orleans. Even though he says they deserve Tucson because they suck in conference. He is trying to champion the Nola Bowl for the Sun Belt Champ, but his real issue is that South Al has 3 bowls within 2.5 hours of campus and they got shipped to the desert. Not all 6-6 teams are the same.

Maybe I missed the memo somewhere but I have family involved with USA athletics at the moment and when he and I were recently discussing about a campus stadium he said that it had not officially been set in stone and that it would only host around 20-25k unless they changed their minds since then

So I'm not sure why DG Bowl would move to their stadium if Ladd Peebles still exist, unless that happened already and I missed it. Even though placement isn't great it's a bigger stadium and I see them wanting to have more than 25k people there trying to get closer to 35k, with the right matchup. I mean I don't see South building a bigger stadium with Ladd.

Also Ive never seen anywhere where they are "banned" from going. They have just not been good enough when they were eligible.

And lastly, I thought NO Bowl was no longer our #1 bowl as the order is gone and it's based off other factors.

The DG would probably do everything possible to stay at Ladd. They've made it pretty clear they want to sell hotel rooms. And they'd probably be able to strong arm the city for a while. They don't want to be beholden to USA. And USA probably wouldn't apply extreme pressure (that's not our style) either, but some implied pressure would be obvious. But at some point, the upkeep costs on Ladd with the DG as the only tenant will be a problem. The stadium is 70 years old. Its not in good shape now. And without USA as a tenant, what is the payoff? The city could just say to the DG...there's an option here. Why not we give you some money to pay rent at USA? BTW, the Senior Bowl reportedly loathes Ladd. At least that's what they've told the city council when they threaten to leave Mobile every 5 years or so when they demand the city pay for improvements at Ladd.

Obviously the NO Bowl selection is based off of 'other' factors. Such as did ULL cobble together 6 wins?

Here's my proposal to fix it. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Everyone would know what they need to do to get an ESPN Bowl. There would remain limited flexibility within that pool. Finish in the top three....get a top three bowl.

I don't have cable, I watch everything on the internet

(12-09-2016 01:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 12:50 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 08:01 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:31 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I can summarize this entire thread in one sentence:

Tom: I'm mad that my team is going to Arizona for a bowl while the Cajuns get a closer bowl! WE MUST FIX THIS SO I DON'T HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO SEE MY TEAM BOWL!

It's absurd.

(12-09-2016 02:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  to
TominCrazybrook:

Your scenario is exactly how the AAC (P6!) Champion Temple ended up with a 6-6 Wake Forest in the Military Bowl, a Maryland/Boston College in Detroit, Indiana/Utah in Frisco and NC State/Vanderbilt in the Indy Bowl. Four dreadful matchups.

I would dare say more conferences (and particularly ESPN) wishes their slots were more flexible like ours. Don't you just know ESPN would have loved to have been able to get a Pitt/West Virginia matchup in the Blockbuster/MicronPC/CARQUEST/Russell Athletic bowl? Instead, we get Pitt/Northwestern (yuck) and WV/Miami (decent enough, I imagine).

50 pages or bust!

Good ole Tom just wanted to go to Nola and thought that his team had a realistic shot at New Orleans. Even though he says they deserve Tucson because they suck in conference. He is trying to champion the Nola Bowl for the Sun Belt Champ, but his real issue is that South Al has 3 bowls within 2.5 hours of campus and they got shipped to the desert. Not all 6-6 teams are the same.

Maybe I missed the memo somewhere but I have family involved with USA athletics at the moment and when he and I were recently discussing about a campus stadium he said that it had not officially been set in stone and that it would only host around 20-25k unless they changed their minds since then

So I'm not sure why DG Bowl would move to their stadium if Ladd Peebles still exist, unless that happened already and I missed it. Even though placement isn't great it's a bigger stadium and I see them wanting to have more than 25k people there trying to get closer to 35k, with the right matchup. I mean I don't see South building a bigger stadium with Ladd.

Also Ive never seen anywhere where they are "banned" from going. They have just not been good enough when they were eligible.

And lastly, I thought NO Bowl was no longer our #1 bowl as the order is gone and it's based off other factors.

The DG would probably do everything possible to stay at Ladd. They've made it pretty clear they want to sell hotel rooms. And they'd probably be able to strong arm the city for a while. They don't want to be beholden to USA. And USA probably wouldn't apply extreme pressure (that's not our style) either, but some implied pressure would be obvious. But at some point, the upkeep costs on Ladd with the DG as the only tenant will be a problem. The stadium is 70 years old. Its not in good shape now. And without USA as a tenant, what is the payoff? The city could just say to the DG...there's an option here. Why not we give you some money to pay rent at USA? BTW, the Senior Bowl reportedly loathes Ladd. At least that's what they've told the city council when they threaten to leave Mobile every 5 years or so when they demand the city pay for improvements at Ladd.

Obviously the NO Bowl selection is based off of 'other' factors. Such as did ULL cobble together 6 wins?

Here's my proposal to fix it. http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728

Everyone would know what they need to do to get an ESPN Bowl. There would remain limited flexibility within that pool. Finish in the top three....get a top three bowl.

Restrictions, control, discrimination, fair, equal, regulated...boy the words you use sound awfully familiar tom

(12-09-2016 01:09 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Nobody wants your proposal tom

Ok, then lets just rename the NO Bowl "The Participation Bowl" and change the bowl tie-ins to read...

New Orleans Bowl....contingent bowl slot if ULL doesn't get 6 wins. Lets just be honest about it.

(12-09-2016 01:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:09 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Nobody wants your proposal tom

Ok, then lets just rename the NO Bowl "The Participation Bowl" and change the bowl tie-ins to read...

New Orleans Bowl....contingent bowl slot if ULL doesn't get 6 wins. Lets just be honest about it.

You are the only one being dishonest Tom, you have proven to be wrong, dishonest and selfish for 50 pages...goal accomplished...enjoy not being in Tucson Tom

(12-09-2016 01:21 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:17 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:09 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  Nobody wants your proposal tom

Ok, then lets just rename the NO Bowl "The Participation Bowl" and change the bowl tie-ins to read...

New Orleans Bowl....contingent bowl slot if ULL doesn't get 6 wins. Lets just be honest about it.

You are the only one being dishonest Tom, you have proven to be wrong, dishonest and selfish for 50 pages...goal accomplished...enjoy not being in Tucson Tom

Where have I been dishonest...Where have I been selfish (my proposal doesn't help USA this year)...every argument that you've put up regarding ULL's entitlement is pretty much wrong too. Just throwin' insults at the wall doesn't change the facts.

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-801417-post...id13886728 sums up my position. Feel free to respond to that.

(12-09-2016 01:14 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  I don't have cable, I watch everything on the internet

You watch everything on the internet? That must keep you pretty busy!!!

(12-09-2016 01:28 PM)APPrising Wrote:  

(12-09-2016 01:14 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  I don't have cable, I watch everything on the internet

You watch everything on the internet? That must keep you pretty busy!!!

It does, I'm still waaaay behind

(12-08-2016 06:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

Too bad you couldn't link to such a post 2-3 days ago. Instead we had to endure endless drawn out post after drawn out post that essentially said the same thing every god*dam time. That crap is a b*itch to read on my old iPhone 4S.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just glad to see my dream of a 50 page thread (which I called on page 44) come to fruition.

Kudos to Tom for making that happen.

(12-12-2016 04:46 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  I'm just glad to see my dream of a 50 page thread (which I called on page 44) come to fruition.

Kudos to Tom for making that happen.

No worries. Know that it took that many pages for your side to put up every argument under the sun as to why you deserved the NO Bowl in perpetuity.

First it was about attendance. Of course ULL didn't have the highest attended game this year. Or last year. Or the year before that.

Then it was 'USA sucks' and 'no one wants them'. We'll upon further review, it is pretty obvious that someone did want USA over our conference champion (a team that travels well and does so to places outside their footprint).

Then it was about keeping the bowls happy. Of course the very same bowls accept requirements from the other conference partner.

Then it was about some issue with our waiver. Of course, that ended when I asked why the New Orleans Bowl would care if Idaho were playing in Boise or Tucson...Never got an answer there.

Then it was about matchups...In other words ULL should have played USM because USM was the weakest team the Belt will face in a bowl. Oddly enough, it didn't follow that way for any of the other bowls.

---

Any other arguments that you guys put up there to defend your apparent permanent lock hold on one of the three Sun Belt ESPN bowls? I didn't think so. Took 50 pages to establish that there really isn't any reason for ULL to have the NO Bowl in perpetuity.

You're free to move the goal posts some more if you'd like.

(12-12-2016 06:27 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 04:46 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  I'm just glad to see my dream of a 50 page thread (which I called on page 44) come to fruition.

Kudos to Tom for making that happen.

No worries. Know that it took that many pages for your side to put up every argument under the sun as to why you deserved the NO Bowl in perpetuity.

First it was about attendance. Of course ULL didn't have the highest attended game this year. Or last year. Or the year before that.

Then it was 'USA sucks' and 'no one wants them'. We'll upon further review, it is pretty obvious that someone did want USA over our conference champion (a team that travels well and does so to places outside their footprint).

Then it was about keeping the bowls happy. Of course the very same bowls accept requirements from the other conference partner.

Then it was about some issue with our waiver. Of course, that ended when I asked why the New Orleans Bowl would care if Idaho were playing in Boise or Tucson...Never got an answer there.

Then it was about matchups...In other words ULL should have played USM because USM was the weakest team the Belt will face in a bowl. Oddly enough, it didn't follow that way for any of the other bowls.

---

Any other arguments that you guys put up there to defend your apparent permanent lock hold on one of the three Sun Belt ESPN bowls? I didn't think so. Took 50 pages to establish that there really isn't any reason for ULL to have the NO Bowl in perpetuity.

You're free to move the goal posts some more if you'd like.

Still lying and crying huh tom? Want to cry for another 50 pages? What is the bowl our champion is playing in ranked? I forgot...wonder where an app vs USM matchup would have been ranked. Did you buy your tickets to Tucson yet?

Wow, and I thought we had some weird ones on our board. Looking forward to playing the Cajuns Saturday in the Dome.