(12-19-2016 06:39 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 06:36 PM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 06:33 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 06:05 PM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  Only thing I might suggest is the bowls take the #1 pick every year on a rotating basis. That way each bowl gets a turn taking the Champions. If there is a tie between two teams the #1 pick still goes to one of those two teams and the bowl with the second pick must take the other league champion. If a bowl is afraid to pick a certain team for fear of low attendance I say tough cookies. That is just a part of being a bowl game tied to the Sunbelt.

Now at the same time.....the bowl can not just blame the Sunbelt for the low attendance. The conference the opposing school comes from has to accept a equal part of the blame. The Cure Bowl was a HOME game for UCF as it was right in their freaking backyard. They had no excuse not to bring in 30-40,000 fans for their team alone.

The Cajuns played San Diego State (brought about 2000 maybe), East Carolina (brought 2000-3000 maybe), Nevada (brought about 1000 maybe) and Tulane (I'd guess about between 10000 and 15000). You can blame them or not, but the date of the N.O. Bowl is not typically conducive to traveling halfway across the country. A Louisiana and Arkansas team played last year as well and had the now sixth highest attendance.

I'm not opposed to playing somewhere else. In fact, if you had asked the Cajun faithful two years ago about 90% wanted to go somewhere else. I guess you could blame our administration for taking the best option for our balance sheet, but frankly with the economics I can see their point. We're trying to grow an athletic department, and it makes sense to them.

If you're looking at visibility, I can understand ESPN bowls have the attraction. You also take the chance of seeing largely empty stadiums in those games as well. Do you think they put us every year since the first on the visitors side even though we're the home team.

I don't see your point since I never mentioned ULL in my post.

Is the New Orleans bowl one of your top two or three? Have there been two threads about this already? Fear of low attendance, tough cookies?

I didn't assign any bowl a number status of 1-2-3 etc in my post. Trying to read more into it I believe you are.

(12-19-2016 06:05 PM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  Only thing I might suggest is the bowls take the #1 pick every year on a rotating basis. That way each bowl gets a turn taking the Champions. If there is a tie between two teams the #1 pick still goes to one of those two teams and the bowl with the second pick must take the other league champion. If a bowl is afraid to pick a certain team for fear of low attendance I say tough cookies. That is just a part of being a bowl game tied to the Sunbelt.

Now at the same time.....the bowl can not just blame the Sunbelt for the low attendance. The conference the opposing school comes from has to accept a equal part of the blame. The Cure Bowl was a HOME game for UCF as it was right in their freaking backyard. They had no excuse not to bring in 30-40,000 fans for their team alone.

I'm not a fan of the notion of any hard and fast rules with bowls, because you can end up with some really crappy situations because of it.

(Hypothetical) Coastal Carolina wins conference the same year the Tuscon bowl has the number 1 pick... Same year, Texas State is bowl eligible (so... this is WAY in the future... ). Does it really make sense to send Coastal to Tuscon, when there are closer bowls for their fans? Or by the same token, sending Texas State to... Orlando (for example)? You have two teams traveling cross country and both teams having lesser attendance than could be achieved by being reasonable.

To me, the selection process should be "we're definitely sending you a team, but will give preference based on seniority". And the conference can collectively decide what is best for the conference representation at the bowls. Make it the AD's of the teams get together on a conference call and hash it out over championship weekend... Or make a Sunday visit to NOLA to decide.

Something where common sense and practicality comes into play.

With the current bowl tie-ins I have no problem with how the bowls are currently selected. However my opinion could be changed depending on the bowl tie-ins each year.

What bowls will have SBC tie-ins in 2019 and what are the other conferences for those bowls?

Also, we have to decide what's best for the conference. Is it packing our bowls with fans to make the host city/organization happy? Or is it about improving the image of the conference's strength?


I think the champion should have the chance to play a team that'll help our champ get a boost in the final year rankings.

(12-19-2016 07:38 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I think the champion should have the chance to play a team that'll help our champ get a boost in the final year rankings.

Not the champion, the most likely to be ranked. The champion should be guaranteed a bowl, but the most likely to be ranked should get the opponent most likely to provide a boost. Not necessarily always the same.

(12-19-2016 07:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 07:38 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I think the champion should have the chance to play a team that'll help our champ get a boost in the final year rankings.

Not the champion, the most likely to be ranked. The champion should be guaranteed a bowl, but the most likely to be ranked should get the opponent most likely to provide a boost. Not necessarily always the same.

True, but more often than not the champ would be that case. Last year was an example of what you said. So, I agree with it.

(12-19-2016 08:00 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 07:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-19-2016 07:38 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I think the champion should have the chance to play a team that'll help our champ get a boost in the final year rankings.

Not the champion, the most likely to be ranked. The champion should be guaranteed a bowl, but the most likely to be ranked should get the opponent most likely to provide a boost. Not necessarily always the same.

True, but more often than not the champ would be that case. Last year was an example of what you said. So, I agree with it.

This year too. In the sense that we don't have a sole champ.

(12-19-2016 07:38 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  With the current bowl tie-ins I have no problem with how the bowls are currently selected. However my opinion could be changed depending on the bowl tie-ins each year.

What bowls will have SBC tie-ins in 2019 and what are the other conferences for those bowls?

Also, we have to decide what's best for the conference. Is it packing our bowls with fans to make the host city/organization happy? Or is it about improving the image of the conference's strength?


I think the champion should have the chance to play a team that'll help our champ get a boost in the final year rankings.

And that's exactly why you keep all flexibility possible and you look at what's best every year, the only thing you do by setting your own guidelines is backing yourself into a corner by your own rules. You end up in a situation where a matchup make perfect sense but one of your rules keeps it from happening, and before anyone says it...if you are just going to make exceptions then why have the rules in the first place? No matter how many times Tom screams it we are not locked into the New Orleans bowl, as soon as it make sense to send us else where, we will go. That plan was already in place if we were eligible last year and nobody can convince anybody made better sense than us to play USM this year given our history with each other.

So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Nobody cares if Tom sees this as a problem, it's not about you Tom for the thousandth f'n time. I know the world not bowing to your opinion and not revolving
Around you is a difficult idea for you to accept but it doesn't. Not everybody thinks a certain bowl is a top bowl for different reasons. This is all about you and your sour grapes and some creepy obsession with us and the Nola bowl. Why don't you go do something productive with your special mind reading powers since you know what every fan, player, administration and bowl comittee wants...you don't though because this is only about what you want and since you don't get your way you want to change the rules to make sure you get your way...like a child.

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Just to be clear... your proposal is to set a rule up... but make sure that there are mechanisms in place that... the rule doesn't have to be enforced?

You been taking pages from the Benson rulebook or what?

We just can't have nice things around here.

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

It would have been nice if Ark St could've been seen winning a bowl game by more people. I tried to tune in but don't have CBSSN on my Directv package.

(12-20-2016 01:41 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Just to be clear... your proposal is to set a rule up... but make sure that there are mechanisms in place that... the rule doesn't have to be enforced?

You been taking pages from the Benson rulebook or what?

The critical piece you're neglecting here is that in my proposal.... for a non-top 3 team to be placed in a top 3 bowl, then a top 3 team (not the conference, not the bowls) would have to ELECT, unilaterally, to go to another bowl. The team that earned it would have the power. That's a huge difference.

So for Texas State or USA or ULM or Georgia State or Coastal....if they finished top 3, then they'd be the team making the election. Not the GNOSF, not the DG Bowl, not the Camellia Bowl, not Karl Benson.

Fan bases would crucify an AD that said "we're going to pass on being on ESPN and we'll go to the not on TV bowl or go play UCF in Orlando".

The exception I provided puts the control in the place where it belongs...with the team that earns it on the field.

Bowls would rotate the order they pick (among the top 3 teams), but would retain, in some cases, some flexibility. But not enough flexibility for four of our bowls to say "we're not picking the conference champion"....which is what happened to Ark State (initially). And if they can do it to Ark State, they can do it to any of us.

(12-20-2016 03:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 01:41 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Just to be clear... your proposal is to set a rule up... but make sure that there are mechanisms in place that... the rule doesn't have to be enforced?

You been taking pages from the Benson rulebook or what?

The critical piece you're neglecting here is that in my proposal.... for a non-top 3 team to be placed in a top 3 bowl, then a top 3 team (not the conference, not the bowls) would have to ELECT, unilaterally, to go to another bowl. The team that earned it would have the power. That's a huge difference.

So for Texas State or USA or ULM or Coastal....if they finished top 3, then they'd be the team making the election. Not the GNOSF, not the DG Bowl, not Karl Benson.

Fan bases would crucify an AD that said "we're going to pass on being on ESPN and we'll go to the not on TV bowl or go play UCF in Orlando".

The exception I provided puts the control in the place where it belongs...with the team that earns it on the field.

The control belongs to the bowl whose invested money and wants an ROI.

It doesn't matter if you earned it when there's no bowl to go to.

Bowls that don't make money can (and do) fold.

It's strikingly naive of you to believe otherwise.

Trust me, as a Cajun fan we've been locked out of bowls more times than we've been eligible.

We've even been locked out of a bowl after a 9 win season because we were tied with Utah State and (surprise surprise) the Las Vegas bowl figured the closer team geographically would make them more money.

Even though we "earned it on the field."

So we know what its like to be on the wrong end of the equation. More than you'll ever know.

(12-20-2016 02:53 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

It would have been nice if Ark St could've been seen winning a bowl game by more people. I tried to tune in but don't have CBSSN on my Directv package.

How do you think they ever get on ESPN if we designate it as one of our shtty bowls? We need to find a way to get all of our bowls exposure, not volunteer to the world that even our conference thinks they are crap. How long before they tell us to shove it and work a better deal with someone else because we decided their bowl was sht?

(12-20-2016 03:10 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 01:41 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Just to be clear... your proposal is to set a rule up... but make sure that there are mechanisms in place that... the rule doesn't have to be enforced?

You been taking pages from the Benson rulebook or what?

The critical piece you're neglecting here is that in my proposal.... for a non-top 3 team to be placed in a top 3 bowl, then a top 3 team (not the conference, not the bowls) would have to ELECT, unilaterally, to go to another bowl. The team that earned it would have the power. That's a huge difference.

So for Texas State or USA or ULM or Coastal....if they finished top 3, then they'd be the team making the election. Not the GNOSF, not the DG Bowl, not Karl Benson.

Fan bases would crucify an AD that said "we're going to pass on being on ESPN and we'll go to the not on TV bowl or go play UCF in Orlando".

The exception I provided puts the control in the place where it belongs...with the team that earns it on the field.

The control belongs to the bowl whose invested money and wants an ROI.

It doesn't matter if you earned it when there's no bowl to go to.

Bowls that don't make money can (and do) fold.

It's strikingly naive of you to believe otherwise.

Trust me, as a Cajun fan we've been locked out of bowls more times than we've been eligible.

We've even been locked out of a bowl after a 9 win season because we were tied with Utah State and (surprise surprise) the Las Vegas bowl figured the closer team geographically would make them more money.

Even though we "earned it on the field."

So we know what its like to be on the wrong end of the equation. More than you'll ever know.

Not in Tom's world see he thinks he should get what he wants and the people paying for it will do what he says and like it. Like the SBC has all this power over ESPN and the bowls. He is dillusional, hey tom ESPN sold our games to a broadcast out of someone's basement and we can't do sht about it. We are flat out broke compared to other conferences.

(12-20-2016 03:16 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 02:53 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

It would have been nice if Ark St could've been seen winning a bowl game by more people. I tried to tune in but don't have CBSSN on my Directv package.

How do you think they ever get on ESPN if we designate it as one of our shtty bowls? We need to find a way to get all of our bowls exposure, not volunteer to the world that even our conference thinks they are crap. How long before they tell us to shove it and work a better deal with someone else because we decided their bowl was sht?

Tier's won't work anyway because ESPN owns the Camelia Bowl, so they are going to almost certainly request the matchup they want.

I think the simplest solution to the bowl issue we have now is to have the bowls bid for pecking order. If Dollar General/Camelia wants to pay more than New Orleans to take the #1 pick, give it to them. I think the 2nd thing we should do is make a rule that no team can travel to the same bowl for more than 2 consecutive years, at least allowing the opportunity for schools to get to go to all of the different bowls.

I'd love to make radical changes, but the bowl's won't agree to those.

(12-20-2016 03:16 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 02:53 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

It would have been nice if Ark St could've been seen winning a bowl game by more people. I tried to tune in but don't have CBSSN on my Directv package.

How do you think they ever get on ESPN if we designate it as one of our shtty bowls? We need to find a way to get all of our bowls exposure, not volunteer to the world that even our conference thinks they are crap. How long before they tell us to shove it and work a better deal with someone else because we decided their bowl was sht?

I didn't say the Cure Bowl should get on ESPN. It would be easier and make more sense for the Ark St to have been in a different bowl with better coverage since they were a conference champion. Bowls are always going to be shifting from conference to conference, no matter how the SBC places it's teams. The proliferation of bowl games and the NCAA formula for how many tie-ins a conference is allowed to have will keep the SBC tied to an adequate number of bowl games for the forseeable future.

(12-20-2016 01:14 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

Nobody cares if Tom sees this as a problem, it's not about you Tom for the thousandth f'n time. I know the world not bowing to your opinion and not revolving
Around you is a difficult idea for you to accept but it doesn't. Not everybody thinks a certain bowl is a top bowl for different reasons. This is all about you and your sour grapes and some creepy obsession with us and the Nola bowl. Why don't you go do something productive with your special mind reading powers since you know what every fan, player, administration and bowl comittee wants...you don't though because this is only about what you want and since you don't get your way you want to change the rules to make sure you get your way...like a child.

If people think that sending a 6-6 team that has lost 7 straight FBS OOC games (and 10 of their last 11) to the same top 2 exposure bowl (ESPN with no competing bowl) for the FOURTH straight time they've been bowl eligible is somehow a 'good' thing for the conference...mmmkay. But I don't see it. It didn't help the conference. You didn't sell that many tickets through your ticket office either. You lost the game. And you had the easiest matchup of all of our teams too. What did the conference get from ULL's participation in the NO Bowl this year? I got nothin. For the other 9 ongoing teams in the conference...what did we get from your participation in the NO Bowl this year? I got nothin'. And it wouldn't be so much of an issue if our champions were being taken care of (they weren't) or if ULL hadn't been treated to first pick for the last 4 times thay've managed to win 6 games.

And I'd drop it if there was any indication whatsoever that this was ending on a go forward basis. I see none. And I'm only harping on the NO Bowl because they are an example of a Bowl that doesn't seem to be operating in the interest of the Conference. 2004 was then. What they're doing now appears to be something entirely different. Where is the path for Georgia State or USA or Texas State or App or Coastal or Georgia Southern to the NO Bowl? I don't see one. And you, in all honesty, can't tell me there is one either (so long as ULL gets 6 wins). Please tell me the path for a 10-2 Georgia State team to get a NO Bowl bid over a 6-6 ULL team....You can't because there are no rules. And that's another problem. Teams don't know what they're supposed to do to get to one of those ESPN bowls? Winning? Nope.

---

Every team in the conference should be eligible for every bowl tie in. And winning should be rewarded. This year one conference champion was picked third and the other was originally picked FIFTH. This is a problem IMHO.

---

You say that I want to change the rules so that I get my way. That is BS. I propose that the rules be changed so that EVERY team in the conference can EARN a ESPN Bowl bid through winning on the field, rather than incumbency. Using rules applied evenly.

(12-20-2016 03:32 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:16 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 02:53 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So why does EVERY other conference have rules in place? The MAC doesn't officially have a set of rules but no MAC team has bowled in the same bowl in almost a decade. The AAC uses tiers. The MWC and CUSA have carve outs for their champions.

The reason is obvious. ALL of our teams are locked into our bowl lineup. We largely have to use our bowls. Having certain teams have extremely favorable terms creates a cost to the other teams. Those ESPN Bowls are a Zero Sum game. One team gets it at the expense of another.

Telling teams, you can only go to the Camellia, Cure, or Arizona Bowl even if you win the conference, while other teams don't have the same requirements. There are two substandard bowls. And both those bowls know it (the Cure Bowl is tiered into the lowest tier from the AAC).

By the way, the NO Bowl and DG bowls are the highest profile bowls the league has. These are the only bowls where you're on ESPN and you're not competing with another bowl. This year, neither of our champions went to either of them. I see this as a problem.

The ESPN Bowls provide better exposure for our teams and for the conference. If you aren't top 3, you shouldn't be in a top 3 exposure bowl. If our bowls wont take one of our top three teams, we should and could find other options. Especially if those bowl accept tiers from other conferences in the same bowl.

Winning matters. More than anything else. It should be rewarded. I don't have any faith that it is currently, or will be in the future.

---

Simple proposal, use tiers like the AAC does. Top three go to the top three bowls. The bowls can pick (in rotating order by year) but must pick from the top three teams. If a top 3 team wishes to ELECT to go outside the SBC top three tier, then of course that's an option (but, no one in their right mind would ever think that any team in the conference would choose Tucson - and I doubt many would argue that Orlando on CBSSN would be a real choice of one of those teams in any given year).

It would have been nice if Ark St could've been seen winning a bowl game by more people. I tried to tune in but don't have CBSSN on my Directv package.

How do you think they ever get on ESPN if we designate it as one of our shtty bowls? We need to find a way to get all of our bowls exposure, not volunteer to the world that even our conference thinks they are crap. How long before they tell us to shove it and work a better deal with someone else because we decided their bowl was sht?

I didn't say the Cure Bowl should get on ESPN. It would be easier and make more sense for the Ark St to have been in a different bowl with better coverage since they were a conference champion. Bowls are always going to be shifting from conference to conference, no matter how the SBC places it's teams. The proliferation of bowl games and the NCAA formula for how many tie-ins a conference is allowed to have will keep the SBC tied to an adequate number of bowl games for the forseeable future.

No I said that, we should be trying to figure out what we need to do to help the bowls get better exposure, not tell them their exposure is crap and at the same time giving credence to the perception by doing so. None of us know what happens in those negotiations. It's not as simple as people try to make it and we don't have absolute power. There is compromise from everywhere and after it was all said and done we had 6 teams bowling and nobody left at home. If ESPN wanted app in cammelia and your administration rather not go back to mobile or Nola..it was then Tucson or Orlando and they chose Orlando. So now the 2 champs were slotted..ok troy let's place you...well we rather not play USM again, a team they beat already and Nola isn't looking for rematch either. Ok troy to mobile to play Ohio. Idaho...pretty self explanatory. Cajuns have history with USM and Nola...and Nola still has first pick but good relationship with the conference so they work with us. It's not a conspiracy and it's not simple when you have that many sides involved all trying to get what they want. I promise you it wasn't "Nola wants the Cajuns and everybody else go to hell" that's why negotiations are done behind closed doors and not in public.