(12-31-2012 10:49 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Let the spin continue. "waiting for better opportunity" or "time to vet the situation which actually took 4-5day when all games were concluded" means the same to me. Throw out the spin, boil it down to just a few simple words-Tech was called with an invite, they wanted to wait (whatever reason they want to give)l, I Bowl called them again few days later, Tech still wanted to wait so I Bowl voted to move on.

I'm not spinning. It matters a great deal why Tech wanted more time (for all the games to end and the BCS selections to be announced on Sunday afternoon). In fact, that's the heart of the matter. ULM, Ohio, Central Michigan, and Middle Tennesse would have all been available to invite on Sunday. The Indy Bowl decided to make premature invitations for whatever reason. They can do that, but they didn't have to.

(12-31-2012 11:00 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2012 10:49 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Let the spin continue. "waiting for better opportunity" or "time to vet the situation which actually took 4-5day when all games were concluded" means the same to me. Throw out the spin, boil it down to just a few simple words-Tech was called with an invite, they wanted to wait (whatever reason they want to give)l, I Bowl called them again few days later, Tech still wanted to wait so I Bowl voted to move on.

I'm not spinning. It matters a great deal why Tech wanted more time (for all the games to end and the BCS selections to be announced on Sunday afternoon). In fact, that's the heart of the matter. ULM, Ohio, Central Michigan, and Middle Tennesse would have all been available to invite on Sunday. The Indy Bowl decided to make premature invitations for whatever reason. They can do that, but they didn't have to.

ULM had already been invited and accepted. What difference did it make to Tech if Cen Mich, Ohio, and Mdl Tn or whoever else was in the pool if Tech already had an invite. Why wait until Sun afternoon just to see who was available? What difference did it make?

(12-31-2012 12:09 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(12-31-2012 11:00 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2012 10:49 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Let the spin continue. "waiting for better opportunity" or "time to vet the situation which actually took 4-5day when all games were concluded" means the same to me. Throw out the spin, boil it down to just a few simple words-Tech was called with an invite, they wanted to wait (whatever reason they want to give)l, I Bowl called them again few days later, Tech still wanted to wait so I Bowl voted to move on.

I'm not spinning. It matters a great deal why Tech wanted more time (for all the games to end and the BCS selections to be announced on Sunday afternoon). In fact, that's the heart of the matter. ULM, Ohio, Central Michigan, and Middle Tennesse would have all been available to invite on Sunday. The Indy Bowl decided to make premature invitations for whatever reason. They can do that, but they didn't have to.

ULM had already been invited and accepted. What difference did it make to Tech if Cen Mich, Ohio, and Mdl Tn or whoever else was in the pool if Tech already had an invite. Why wait until Sun afternoon just to see who was available? What difference did it make?

Tech didn't care who was in the pool because they were being told the Liberty Bowl was going to invite them (and possibly trade them to the Heart of Dallas Bowl for Iowa St). The Independence Bowl could have waited until Sunday if they wanted a Tech/ULM matchup... like they claim. If Tech got the Liberty Bowl invite, they could have still selected Ohio or CMU on Sunday afternoon.

This is how I see what went down:

Bowls: Tech, you can have "A" or "B." Which one do you want?
Tech: We'll take "A."
Bowls: Sorry, you can't have "A."
Tech: OK, then we'll take "B".
Bowls: Sorry, you chose "A."
Tech: Wait, what?

(12-31-2012 09:38 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(12-31-2012 12:52 AM)winston70 Wrote:  

(12-30-2012 11:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  frankly, I don't care how many people were at the game. And I can assure you NOBODY outside of some jealous LA (Tech/La/etc) fans cares either. I root for a MAC team, if I cared about attendance I would have gone mental years ago. I'm more interested in seeing what the TV ratings were.

I don't think anyone who watched the Ohio ULM game and then watched VT and Rutgers afterwards came away more impressed with the second game because the stands were more full. That game was totally unwatchable. The Rutgers QB was 17/40 for 129 yds. good grief talk about an embarrassment, and they're going to the B1G. that shows how screwed up college football.

Still couldn't be more wrong... We don't have a problem with ULM playing in the bowl just a problem with how the bowl adminstration handled the invitation process. They figured inviting ULM would be just like inviting Tech and they were dead wrong. Not too hard to figure out.

Also, our AD is an idiot and should have already been canned and is very much to blame as well.

Yeah, the I Bowl invite process really sucks. They issued an invite to Tech who did not accept at the time telling the bowl they were looking into better opportunities and would decide later (in other words I Bowl would get consideration if nothing better developed). Bowl still didnt hear from Tech thus called them for a decision, Tech still wanted more time so the bowl marked them off the list and moved on. Just cant believe the I Bowl would have the nerve or audacity to do that, after all you are talking about La Tech here.

Both the Indy Bowl and Tech were big losers in the decision. ULM just doesn't have very many fans.

(12-31-2012 12:31 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is how I see what went down:

Bowls: Tech, you can have "A" or "B." Which one do you want?
Tech: We'll take "A."
Bowls: Sorry, you can't have "A."
Tech: OK, then we'll take "B".
Bowls: Sorry, you chose "A."
Tech: Wait, what?

No intention of starting a firestorm, but just curious if anything else has developed with the Liberty Bowl promise of an invitation. I didn't expect that topic to just disappear from a Bulldog perspective but that's what seems to have happened.

(12-31-2012 02:05 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-31-2012 12:31 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is how I see what went down:

Bowls: Tech, you can have "A" or "B." Which one do you want?
Tech: We'll take "A."
Bowls: Sorry, you can't have "A."
Tech: OK, then we'll take "B".
Bowls: Sorry, you chose "A."
Tech: Wait, what?

No intention of starting a firestorm, but just curious if anything else has developed with the Liberty Bowl promise of an invitation. I didn't expect that topic to just disappear from a Bulldog perspective but that's what seems to have happened.

They never made a statement either way. Our AD claims they guaranteed the invite verbally and the WAC commissioner confirms his account. They are covered from this because they did send Tech a written agreement the day before the verbal guarantee that stated they would invite Tech if Iowa State wasn't available. So the written agreement would likely override the verbal agreement in court.

Tech's AD is still underground and glad that he still is employed

here's how I think it went down with LaTech's bowl situation-

Average Guy- "Hey LaTech, wanna go to prom?"
LaTech- "ummm maybe, I need some time to think about it."
LaTech- has friend ask Popular Guy if he plans on asking LaTech to prom.
Popular Guy- picks Popular Girl instead of LaTech.
LaTech- "Ok Average Guy, I'll make your dreams come true and let you take me to Prom."
Average Guy- "Sorry, mom said I had to hurry up and reserve a tux so I asked Average Girl instead and she said yes without hesitation."
LaTech- tells everyone on Facebook that she's not going to Prom because proms are 'stupid'.
LaTech- cries self to sleep holding body pillow.

or something like that.

I can understand, considering a 10 win season, Tech being disappointed in playing a MAC or Sunbelt team in the Indy Bowl and wanting to hold out for the Liberty or something else.
But the reality is that in most cases in Non AQ land (and in AQ land, really), the bowl you get isn't really a factor of how good your team was.
Look at Tech last year - they won 8 games, and got a game against a 10 win TCU team. There, they drew better than they deserved. This year, they would have drawn less...well so be it.
The WAC champ Utah state drew a MAC also-ran.

(01-02-2013 12:11 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  Look at Tech last year - they won 8 games, and got a game against a 10 win TCU team. There, they drew better than they deserved. This year, they would have drawn less...well so be it.
The WAC champ Utah state drew a MAC also-ran.

Tech's Bowl game last year was WAC Champ vs. MWC Champ..and it was a good game. I wouldn't say it was "better than they deserved." This year the WAC Champ got the Potato Bowl because every other bowl tie-in left the conference since the WAC won't exist for football next year. That is also why Tech didn't have a bowl to fall back on.

(01-02-2013 12:25 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 12:11 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  Look at Tech last year - they won 8 games, and got a game against a 10 win TCU team. There, they drew better than they deserved. This year, they would have drawn less...well so be it.
The WAC champ Utah state drew a MAC also-ran.

Tech's Bowl game last year was WAC Champ vs. MWC Champ..and it was a good game. I wouldn't say it was "better than they deserved." This year the WAC Champ got the Potato Bowl because every other bowl tie-in left the conference since the WAC won't exist for football next year. That is also why Tech didn't have a bowl to fall back on.

I would, based on rankings. But assuming you're right about that and standings within a conference are relevant, then this year La Tech was 3rd in the WAC, so an INdy Bowl game against a Sun Belt or MAC also ran would be reasonable. Yet, you wanted to hold out for the C-USA champ, as the WAC's 3rd place team. Can't have it both ways.