(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?

If the AZ bowl continues to get very little to no TV coverage what makes you think any other conference will be impressed with them to the point that they won't also think that bowl is Sh*t?

(12-20-2016 03:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

---

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.

First off, you don't know at this point what revenue any team generated as it hasn't been made known. If you think anyone was going to make money to give back to the conference with any of the bowls in any team configuration you're mistaken. Let me repeat, there has been NO SHARING for any bowl games EVER for any games until the Cajuns made a profit. I am personally looking forward to share in some of the bowl windfall.

I get it, your town doesn't want you. I'd be pissed as well. That being said I'm looking forward to your 30000 in ticket sales when you go the New Orleans, as well as our share of the large revenue distribution.

(12-20-2016 03:27 PM)chiefsfan 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?

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.

So the AAC has tiers. CUSA has a conference champion picks rule. The MAC has a 'de facto' rotating bowl arrangement (no team has bowled twice in the same bowl in 7 years). Why is the Belt putting up with constraints that ESPN doesn't expect from any other conference....

If a bowl won't take one of our top 3 teams, then simply decertify them and we can press our luck in the at large pool. Trade NO for St Petersburg.

Maybe one reason everyone thinks were the chumps of the G5 is that we let others treat us like we're chumps.

----

Bidding won't solve any problem. The NO Bowl wouldn't have to bid to pick a fifth place team.

----

While not ideal, telling a bowl that they cannot pick any team more than twice in a 5 year period would be better. That way, at least three teams would be required to participate in any one bowl every 5 year period.

---

But that still doesn't guarantee that a team finishing at the top gets a top bowl. It should be based upon results on the field.

(12-20-2016 03:48 PM)StAteRedWolf 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?

If the AZ bowl continues to get very little to no TV coverage what makes you think any other conference will be impressed with them to the point that they won't also think that bowl is Sh*t?

A bowl in its first year that hasn't even happened yet and Tom already designated it as sht. The New Orleans bowl was considered sht for a long time too. Would you rather us try to grow with them or designate them sht in year 1, lose the relationship and regret it? Make the bowl better and people will want to cover it, make it sht and it goes away.

(12-20-2016 03:56 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:27 PM)chiefsfan 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?

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.

So the AAC has tiers. CUSA has a conference champion picks rule. The MAC has a 'de facto' rotating bowl arrangement (no team has bowled twice in the same bowl in 7 years). Why is the Belt putting up with constraints that ESPN doesn't expect from any other conference....

If a bowl won't take one of our top 3 teams, then simply decertify them and we can press our luck in the at large pool. Trade NO for St Petersburg.

Maybe one reason everyone thinks were the chumps of the G5 is that we let others treat us like we're chumps.

----

While not ideal, telling a bowl that they cannot pick any team more than twice in a 5 year period would be better. That way, at least three teams would be required to participate in any one bowl every 5 year period.

---

But that still doesn't guarantee that a team finishing at the top gets a top bowl. It should be based upon results on the field.

All of those deals were established under different leadership, different teams, different tv contracts. Watch what happens when those deals expire. Do you just assume others don't envy our setup? Just because others do something doesn't make it right...half the world cuts off your extremities for crimes...should we do that?

(12-20-2016 03:49 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

---

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.

First off, you don't know at this point what revenue any team generated as it hasn't been made known. If you think anyone was going to make money to give back to the conference with any of the bowls in any team configuration you're mistaken. Let me repeat, there has been NO SHARING for any bowl games EVER for any games until the Cajuns made a profit. I am personally looking forward to share in some of the bowl windfall.

I get it, your town doesn't want you. I'd be pissed as well. That being said I'm looking forward to your 30000 in ticket sales when you go the New Orleans, as well as our share of the large revenue distribution.

Well it would require ULL not getting to 6 wins for it to even be possible. Next year looks like that's possible. 7 road games.. @Tulsa, @USA (never won there), @ TAMU, @Ole Miss, @ Ark State, @ App, @ Idaho.

Our town wants us. We have the two highest attended games in the last three years in the conference. We were picked by another bowl (initially - someone interevened - and I really don't argue with that this year - and we deserve the bowl we have this year). We just have a bowl that wants to sell hotel rooms or has a Bamer mentality towards USA (at least no one is trying to shut our program down in the legislature). If we finish in the top 3, we expect to be playing in a high format bowl.

The Bowl system in the Belt is busted. Its not just about USA.

---

Again, there should be a path to all of the bowls for all of our teams. One that is transparent, equitable, and with easy to understand rules. And one that rewards winning.

(12-20-2016 03:57 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:48 PM)StAteRedWolf 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?

If the AZ bowl continues to get very little to no TV coverage what makes you think any other conference will be impressed with them to the point that they won't also think that bowl is Sh*t?

A bowl in its first year that hasn't even happened yet and Tom already designated it as sht. The New Orleans bowl was considered sht for a long time too. Would you rather us try to grow with them or designate them sht in year 1, lose the relationship and regret it? Make the bowl better and people will want to cover it, make it sht and it goes away.

The Arizona Bowl is substandard. It has low visibility. We belong in it this year. But what bothers me more is that even the teams that WON the conference are getting pushed into repeat bowls or low visibility bowls simply because our other bowls aren't picking our champions.

For me, what happened to stAte this year is precisely what I'd like the Belt to prevent in the future.

----

Simply putting the top 3 bowls in a tier would solve that problem. Barring that telling bowls that they can't pick the same team more than twice in a 5 year period would be a possibility too. Rotates the bowls.

(12-20-2016 04:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:49 PM)CajunAmos Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(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.

---

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.

First off, you don't know at this point what revenue any team generated as it hasn't been made known. If you think anyone was going to make money to give back to the conference with any of the bowls in any team configuration you're mistaken. Let me repeat, there has been NO SHARING for any bowl games EVER for any games until the Cajuns made a profit. I am personally looking forward to share in some of the bowl windfall.

I get it, your town doesn't want you. I'd be pissed as well. That being said I'm looking forward to your 30000 in ticket sales when you go the New Orleans, as well as our share of the large revenue distribution.

Well it would require ULL not getting to 6 wins for it to even be possible. Next year looks like that's possible. 7 road games.. @Tulsa, @USA (never won there), @ TAMU, @Ole Miss, @ Ark State, @ App, @ Idaho.

Our town wants us. We have the two highest attended games in the last three years in the conference. We were picked by another bowl (initially - someone interevened - and I really don't argue with that this year - and we deserve the bowl we have this year). We just have a bowl that wants to sell hotel rooms or has a Bamer mentality towards USA (at least no one is trying to shut our program down in the legislature). If we finish in the top 3, we expect to be playing in a high format bowl.

The Bowl system in the Belt is busted. Its not just about USA.

---

Again, there should be a path to all of the bowls for all of our teams. One that is transparent, equitable, and with easy to understand rules. And one that rewards winning.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Your local bowl wants to sell hotel rooms. Interesting.

(12-20-2016 04:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:57 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 03:48 PM)StAteRedWolf Wrote:  

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

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

If the AZ bowl continues to get very little to no TV coverage what makes you think any other conference will be impressed with them to the point that they won't also think that bowl is Sh*t?

A bowl in its first year that hasn't even happened yet and Tom already designated it as sht. The New Orleans bowl was considered sht for a long time too. Would you rather us try to grow with them or designate them sht in year 1, lose the relationship and regret it? Make the bowl better and people will want to cover it, make it sht and it goes away.

The Arizona Bowl is substandard. It has low visibility. We belong in it this year. But what bothers me more is that even the teams that WON the conference are getting pushed into repeat bowls or low visibility bowls simply because our other bowls aren't picking our champions.

For me, what happened to stAte this year is precisely what I'd like the Belt to prevent in the future.

----

Simply putting the top 3 bowls in a tier would solve that problem. Barring that telling bowls that they can't pick the same team more than twice in a 5 year period would be a possibility too. Rotates the bowls.

So when did you finish in the top 3 and get snubbed again? How many times has USA sat at home bowl eligible? How many times has the Cajuns gone bowling at 6-6? How many times have we gone to Nola at 6-6? How many times did we go bowling at 6-6 and a team in our conference was at home with a better record? How many times has the conference or the bowls said certain teams are locked out of certain bowls?

0
0
1
1
0
0

USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Thing is, we only had two bowl tie ins that year, and we had co champs and a third place team with 8 wins.

It's not like you guys really got snubbed then. Especially since you went bowling with 6 wins the very next season over a 7 win team.

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

(12-20-2016 04:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Thing is, we only had two bowl tie ins that year, and we had co champs and a third place team with 8 wins.

It's not like you guys really got snubbed then. Especially since you went bowling with 6 wins the very next season over a 7 win team.

We weren't robbed in 2013. It was just the breaks.

---

In 2014, it was kind of a messy situation. Ark State and Texas State finished 7-5. USA finished 6-6. All of us tied at 5-3 in conference. USA beat Texas State and had the same number of FBS wins. Texas State has a case that they were robbed, but not an overwhelming one.

---

There's a completely different dynamic now. Get to bowl eligibility and you're virtually guaranteed to bowl somewhere. The question now becomes where.

---

I'm in favor of placing some constraints on the selection process, similar to that held by other conferences, that would help people understand why team A is bowling and team B isn't. And what team B didn't do that they can do on the field to change the situation going forward. We don't have that now. We should.

(12-20-2016 04:47 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

You earned that bowl bid that year.

(12-20-2016 04:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:47 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

You earned that bowl bid that year.

And we earned this one

(12-20-2016 05:01 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:47 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

You earned that bowl bid that year.

And we earned this one

We will have to disagree on that one.

(12-20-2016 05:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 05:01 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:47 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

You earned that bowl bid that year.

And we earned this one

We will have to disagree on that one.

No we did, i was there

(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 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.

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 HAVE been taking pages from the Benson rulebook... Which are really just guidelines.

I'm not going to quote anyone since several took my post this way, but I didn't say USA deserved a bowl in 2013. I was correcting misinformation that USA never sat at home while being bowl eligible.

(12-20-2016 05:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 05:01 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:47 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  

(12-20-2016 04:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  USA was bowl eligible in 2013 with a 6-6 record but didn't go to a Bowl.

Fair enough but hardly our fault at 8 wins...and 3 years later we have 6 teams in 2 of which at 6-6.

You earned that bowl bid that year.

And we earned this one

We will have to disagree on that one.

I find your level of disrespect exhausting.