(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:01 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I would not be surprised to have some bad blood between ASU and WKU admins from now on. Things didn't get handled very well from what I hear. It might be a long time until any sports plays each other again.

ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:50 PM)Jacque Wrote:  Not saying it is the SBC's fault as in they made the decision, it is the SBC's fault in that the administration has been unable to better market their programs and obtain more bowl tie-ins. And the joke of sitting at home two years ago while FIU went bowling was on the SBC.

You guys act like the SBC from the past two years has been the norm. The SBC was by far the worst conference top to bottom from its inception until a few years ago.

2001 - 1 Bowl eligible team out of 7 (North Texas received a waiver to play as the conference champion)
2002 - 2 BE teams our of 7
2003 - 1 BE team out of 8
2004 - 2 out of 9
2005 - 2 out of 8
2006 - 3 out of 8
2007 - 3 out of 8
2008 - 4 out of 8
2009 - 4 out of 9
2010 - 3 out of 9
2011 - 4 out of 9
2012 - 5 out of 10

Now most of those years, from 2001-2009, many of the bowl eligible teams had exactly six wins. That is not attractive to bowl officials. The first year WKU was excluded at 7-5, they were 7-1 in SBC play and winless against everyone else. Again, not attractive to a bowl. As SBC teams win games outside of conference, then they become attractive. WKU became such by beating Kentucky last year, an SEC team regardless of finish. The same applies this year.

Also consider that prior to this offseason, the most tie-ins the SBC could have was three. It took until 2006 before the SBC could have more than one. After last year, the SBC was eligible to find four tie-ins for the first time.

If the SBC gets six bowl eligible teams again next year, or USA wins Saturday and five next year, then they would be eligible for five tie-ins.

As it stands now, the SBC has one less bowl tie-in than they are eligible for per the NCAA rules.

First you disparage WKU two years ago because we had a poor OOC record, thus we did not deserve a bowl. This year, WKU had the best OOC record and an 8-4 record and we still do not get a bowl. Which is it? OOC record or conference record.
Like the selection criteria for March Madness, it changes based upon what the power-that-be want the final result to be.
I understand that we have two tie-ins, then a couple of back-up agreements. If we are eligible for four than we are two under, not one.

We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

(12-02-2013 03:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:50 PM)Jacque Wrote:  Not saying it is the SBC's fault as in they made the decision, it is the SBC's fault in that the administration has been unable to better market their programs and obtain more bowl tie-ins. And the joke of sitting at home two years ago while FIU went bowling was on the SBC.

You guys act like the SBC from the past two years has been the norm. The SBC was by far the worst conference top to bottom from its inception until a few years ago.

2001 - 1 Bowl eligible team out of 7 (North Texas received a waiver to play as the conference champion)
2002 - 2 BE teams our of 7
2003 - 1 BE team out of 8
2004 - 2 out of 9
2005 - 2 out of 8
2006 - 3 out of 8
2007 - 3 out of 8
2008 - 4 out of 8
2009 - 4 out of 9
2010 - 3 out of 9
2011 - 4 out of 9
2012 - 5 out of 10

Now most of those years, from 2001-2009, many of the bowl eligible teams had exactly six wins. That is not attractive to bowl officials. The first year WKU was excluded at 7-5, they were 7-1 in SBC play and winless against everyone else. Again, not attractive to a bowl. As SBC teams win games outside of conference, then they become attractive. WKU became such by beating Kentucky last year, an SEC team regardless of finish. The same applies this year.

Also consider that prior to this offseason, the most tie-ins the SBC could have was three. It took until 2006 before the SBC could have more than one. After last year, the SBC was eligible to find four tie-ins for the first time.

If the SBC gets six bowl eligible teams again next year, or USA wins Saturday and five next year, then they would be eligible for five tie-ins.

As it stands now, the SBC has one less bowl tie-in than they are eligible for per the NCAA rules.

First you disparage WKU two years ago because we had a poor OOC record, thus we did not deserve a bowl. This year, WKU had the best OOC record and an 8-4 record and we still do not get a bowl. Which is it? OOC record or conference record.
Like the selection criteria for March Madness, it changes based upon what the power-that-be want the final result to be.
I understand that we have two tie-ins, then a couple of back-up agreements. If we are eligible for four than we are two under, not one.

We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:01 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I would not be surprised to have some bad blood between ASU and WKU admins from now on. Things didn't get handled very well from what I hear. It might be a long time until any sports plays each other again.

ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

We didn't threaten legal action. From what our AD said today, once the league released its statement giving Go daddy Autonomy to make a selection, the by laws were null.

We did point out that we had a higher average attendance, had sent large crowds to Mobile each of the last two years, that we had a better bowl history, and that WKU was leaving the league anyway.

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:50 PM)Jacque Wrote:  Not saying it is the SBC's fault as in they made the decision, it is the SBC's fault in that the administration has been unable to better market their programs and obtain more bowl tie-ins. And the joke of sitting at home two years ago while FIU went bowling was on the SBC.

You guys act like the SBC from the past two years has been the norm. The SBC was by far the worst conference top to bottom from its inception until a few years ago.

2001 - 1 Bowl eligible team out of 7 (North Texas received a waiver to play as the conference champion)
2002 - 2 BE teams our of 7
2003 - 1 BE team out of 8
2004 - 2 out of 9
2005 - 2 out of 8
2006 - 3 out of 8
2007 - 3 out of 8
2008 - 4 out of 8
2009 - 4 out of 9
2010 - 3 out of 9
2011 - 4 out of 9
2012 - 5 out of 10

Now most of those years, from 2001-2009, many of the bowl eligible teams had exactly six wins. That is not attractive to bowl officials. The first year WKU was excluded at 7-5, they were 7-1 in SBC play and winless against everyone else. Again, not attractive to a bowl. As SBC teams win games outside of conference, then they become attractive. WKU became such by beating Kentucky last year, an SEC team regardless of finish. The same applies this year.

Also consider that prior to this offseason, the most tie-ins the SBC could have was three. It took until 2006 before the SBC could have more than one. After last year, the SBC was eligible to find four tie-ins for the first time.

If the SBC gets six bowl eligible teams again next year, or USA wins Saturday and five next year, then they would be eligible for five tie-ins.

As it stands now, the SBC has one less bowl tie-in than they are eligible for per the NCAA rules.

First you disparage WKU two years ago because we had a poor OOC record, thus we did not deserve a bowl. This year, WKU had the best OOC record and an 8-4 record and we still do not get a bowl. Which is it? OOC record or conference record.
Like the selection criteria for March Madness, it changes based upon what the power-that-be want the final result to be.
I understand that we have two tie-ins, then a couple of back-up agreements. If we are eligible for four than we are two under, not one.

We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

Not really. Keep in mind that these contracts were signed years ago when we didn't have the numbers for more than two tie ins, and the NCAA had a moratorium on bowl creation for a while.

Our backup disappeared with Pizza this year because the bowl is in its final year anyway.

Next year we will have three bowls and one backup (we're allowed 4 bowls) by 2015 we should have enough for more bowls.

(12-02-2013 03:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:16 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You guys act like the SBC from the past two years has been the norm. The SBC was by far the worst conference top to bottom from its inception until a few years ago.

2001 - 1 Bowl eligible team out of 7 (North Texas received a waiver to play as the conference champion)
2002 - 2 BE teams our of 7
2003 - 1 BE team out of 8
2004 - 2 out of 9
2005 - 2 out of 8
2006 - 3 out of 8
2007 - 3 out of 8
2008 - 4 out of 8
2009 - 4 out of 9
2010 - 3 out of 9
2011 - 4 out of 9
2012 - 5 out of 10

Now most of those years, from 2001-2009, many of the bowl eligible teams had exactly six wins. That is not attractive to bowl officials. The first year WKU was excluded at 7-5, they were 7-1 in SBC play and winless against everyone else. Again, not attractive to a bowl. As SBC teams win games outside of conference, then they become attractive. WKU became such by beating Kentucky last year, an SEC team regardless of finish. The same applies this year.

Also consider that prior to this offseason, the most tie-ins the SBC could have was three. It took until 2006 before the SBC could have more than one. After last year, the SBC was eligible to find four tie-ins for the first time.

If the SBC gets six bowl eligible teams again next year, or USA wins Saturday and five next year, then they would be eligible for five tie-ins.

As it stands now, the SBC has one less bowl tie-in than they are eligible for per the NCAA rules.

First you disparage WKU two years ago because we had a poor OOC record, thus we did not deserve a bowl. This year, WKU had the best OOC record and an 8-4 record and we still do not get a bowl. Which is it? OOC record or conference record.
Like the selection criteria for March Madness, it changes based upon what the power-that-be want the final result to be.
I understand that we have two tie-ins, then a couple of back-up agreements. If we are eligible for four than we are two under, not one.

We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

Not really. Keep in mind that these contracts were signed years ago when we didn't have the numbers for more than two tie ins, and the NCAA had a moratorium on bowl creation for a while.

Our backup disappeared with Pizza this year because the bowl is in its final year anyway.

Next year we will have three bowls and one backup (we're allowed 4 bowls) by 2015 we should have enough for more bowls.

But that's not totally correct "signed a long time ago"...

neither did the MAC and they added a number of tie ins and a few in the SBC foot print with in the last few years

(12-02-2013 03:36 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)Jacque Wrote:  First you disparage WKU two years ago because we had a poor OOC record, thus we did not deserve a bowl. This year, WKU had the best OOC record and an 8-4 record and we still do not get a bowl. Which is it? OOC record or conference record.
Like the selection criteria for March Madness, it changes based upon what the power-that-be want the final result to be.
I understand that we have two tie-ins, then a couple of back-up agreements. If we are eligible for four than we are two under, not one.

We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

Not really. Keep in mind that these contracts were signed years ago when we didn't have the numbers for more than two tie ins, and the NCAA had a moratorium on bowl creation for a while.

Our backup disappeared with Pizza this year because the bowl is in its final year anyway.

Next year we will have three bowls and one backup (we're allowed 4 bowls) by 2015 we should have enough for more bowls.

But that's not totally correct "signed a long time ago"...

neither did the MAC and they added a number of tie ins and a few in the SBC foot print with in the last few years

Arguing that Wright Waters was a moron will not get you anyone who disagrees.

The MAC chose to go for a lot of bowls well outside the league footprint. I am guessing we had a shot with Idaho and a couple other places had we really wanted it.

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:01 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I would not be surprised to have some bad blood between ASU and WKU admins from now on. Things didn't get handled very well from what I hear. It might be a long time until any sports plays each other again.

ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

We didn't threaten legal action. From what our AD said today, once the league released its statement giving Go daddy Autonomy to make a selection, the by laws were null.

We did point out that we had a higher average attendance, had sent large crowds to Mobile each of the last two years, that we had a better bowl history, and that WKU was leaving the league anyway.

1) I can not argue with that.
2) Great point. It is easy to negotiate your advantage over your competition when said competition has never had the opportunity to come to Mobile.
3) Great point. I would hope that a program that has been FBS for many years would have a better bowl history than a team in its 5 year of FBS status.
4) Great point. It doesn't matter who is better or more deserving, but those guys are leaving and we will be here in the future so just screw them.

You guys are negotiating wizards!

Not saying you are undeserving but I feel your competition was Troy or possibly USA, not WKU.
I have no problem with you getting the bid as you finished in 2nd place in the league. That is as it should be. My problem with the process is that being second doesn't guarantee you a spot if you are a SBC team, so the fact that you finished second should be meaningless.
Saying you out negotiated WKU when WKU had no chance even if you had sent the three stooges to the negotiating table is aggravating.

I also question the rules that say SBC teams can not negotiate on their own. If the SBC will not help a team, why should that team not be allowed to help themselves?
So the SBC says teams have to allow the SBC to handle negotiations, then tells the GoDaddy bowl, we are not going to handle negotiations, just do what you want. Sounds about right.

(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:01 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I would not be surprised to have some bad blood between ASU and WKU admins from now on. Things didn't get handled very well from what I hear. It might be a long time until any sports plays each other again.

ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

We didn't threaten legal action. From what our AD said today, once the league released its statement giving Go daddy Autonomy to make a selection, the by laws were null.

We did point out that we had a higher average attendance, had sent large crowds to Mobile each of the last two years, that we had a better bowl history, and that WKU was leaving the league anyway.

1) I can not argue with that.
2) Great point. It is easy to negotiate your advantage over your competition when said competition has never had the opportunity to come to Mobile.
3) Great point. I would hope that a program that has been FBS for many years would have a better bowl history than a team in its 5 year of FBS status.
4) Great point. It doesn't matter who is better or more deserving, but those guys are leaving and we will be here in the future so just screw them.

You guys are negotiating wizards!

Not saying you are undeserving but I feel your competition was Troy or possibly USA, not WKU.
I have no problem with you getting the bid as you finished in 2nd place in the league. That is as it should be. My problem with the process is that being second doesn't guarantee you a spot if you are a SBC team, so the fact that you finished second should be meaningless.
Saying you out negotiated WKU when WKU had no chance even if you had sent the three stooges to the negotiating table is aggravating.

I also question the rules that say SBC teams can not negotiate on their own. If the SBC will not help a team, why should that team not be allowed to help themselves?

Don't think for a minute that we don't want to change the by laws in the future. Its been discussed multiple times on our board. There is not a single ASU fan who doesn't want to change the rules...we're just glad that we were able to figure out a way to get a spot this year.

(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:36 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  We don't have a backup agreement this year. Its just the two bowls. Obviously this all changes next year.

So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

Not really. Keep in mind that these contracts were signed years ago when we didn't have the numbers for more than two tie ins, and the NCAA had a moratorium on bowl creation for a while.

Our backup disappeared with Pizza this year because the bowl is in its final year anyway.

Next year we will have three bowls and one backup (we're allowed 4 bowls) by 2015 we should have enough for more bowls.

But that's not totally correct "signed a long time ago"...

neither did the MAC and they added a number of tie ins and a few in the SBC foot print with in the last few years

Arguing that Wright Waters was a moron will not get you anyone who disagrees.

The MAC chose to go for a lot of bowls well outside the league footprint. I am guessing we had a shot with Idaho and a couple other places had we really wanted it.

I think that is what most WKU fans and fans of SB are pissed off about...Waters let the MAC come in and make several agreements right in our backyard which makes no sense whatsoever...I refused to believe their is nothing the SB could have done to prevent the MAC from going in our backyard and gobble up all of these agreements right in front of us...

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 02:01 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  I would not be surprised to have some bad blood between ASU and WKU admins from now on. Things didn't get handled very well from what I hear. It might be a long time until any sports plays each other again.

ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

I doubt we threatened any legal action. Our guys have cool heads.

(12-02-2013 03:41 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

We didn't threaten legal action. From what our AD said today, once the league released its statement giving Go daddy Autonomy to make a selection, the by laws were null.

We did point out that we had a higher average attendance, had sent large crowds to Mobile each of the last two years, that we had a better bowl history, and that WKU was leaving the league anyway.

1) I can not argue with that.
2) Great point. It is easy to negotiate your advantage over your competition when said competition has never had the opportunity to come to Mobile.
3) Great point. I would hope that a program that has been FBS for many years would have a better bowl history than a team in its 5 year of FBS status.
4) Great point. It doesn't matter who is better or more deserving, but those guys are leaving and we will be here in the future so just screw them.

You guys are negotiating wizards!

Not saying you are undeserving but I feel your competition was Troy or possibly USA, not WKU.
I have no problem with you getting the bid as you finished in 2nd place in the league. That is as it should be. My problem with the process is that being second doesn't guarantee you a spot if you are a SBC team, so the fact that you finished second should be meaningless.
Saying you out negotiated WKU when WKU had no chance even if you had sent the three stooges to the negotiating table is aggravating.

I also question the rules that say SBC teams can not negotiate on their own. If the SBC will not help a team, why should that team not be allowed to help themselves?

Don't think for a minute that we don't want to change the by laws in the future. Its been discussed multiple times on our board. There is not a single ASU fan who doesn't want to change the rules...we're just glad that we were able to figure out a way to get a spot this year.

I don't think there are any rules, at least not rules that are enforced.
The CUSA administration could be a total train wreck, however, I have a hard time believing that league can be as poorly run as the SBC.

(12-02-2013 03:45 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I doubt we threatened any legal action. Our guys have cool heads.

Unlike some of your fans? Just kidding...couldn't help myself.

(12-02-2013 03:43 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:36 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)Jacque Wrote:  So we are locked in to two less bowls than we are entitled to?
That stinks.

Not really. Keep in mind that these contracts were signed years ago when we didn't have the numbers for more than two tie ins, and the NCAA had a moratorium on bowl creation for a while.

Our backup disappeared with Pizza this year because the bowl is in its final year anyway.

Next year we will have three bowls and one backup (we're allowed 4 bowls) by 2015 we should have enough for more bowls.

But that's not totally correct "signed a long time ago"...

neither did the MAC and they added a number of tie ins and a few in the SBC foot print with in the last few years

Arguing that Wright Waters was a moron will not get you anyone who disagrees.

The MAC chose to go for a lot of bowls well outside the league footprint. I am guessing we had a shot with Idaho and a couple other places had we really wanted it.

I think that is what most WKU fans and fans of SB are pissed off about...Waters let the MAC come in and make several agreements right in our backyard which makes no sense whatsoever...I refused to believe their is nothing the SB could have done to prevent the MAC from going in our backyard and gobble up all of these agreements right in front of us...

Waters was a fossil. He hated the idea of conference realignment and refused to participate. We could have ended CUSA at one point.

ASU has shot at Dallas & Shiereport, I'd wait

(12-02-2013 03:56 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  ASU has shot at Dallas & Shiereport, I'd wait

As our AD said in his press conference "We did not want to be another Louisiana Tech" I bowl could not invite until Sunday, and it was not guaranteed. That's a risk you can't take.

(12-02-2013 03:41 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:39 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:29 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:26 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 03:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  ASU has sort of cast our dye with the Sun Belt over the last couple years. We've used a team leaving the conference as motivation to our players each of the last few years.

We also out negotiated WKU for the Go Daddy Bowl.

I could see where we wouldn't get along. I also don't really see future scheduling as a big deal. We don't play a single former SBC school in any sport this year. I would not be surprised if this continued for a while.

How did you out negotiate? If you threatened legal action, that is not exactly out negotiating. If you were able to promise more revenue, etc. for the city of Mobile and the bowl committee that would be out negotiating.

We didn't threaten legal action. From what our AD said today, once the league released its statement giving Go daddy Autonomy to make a selection, the by laws were null.

We did point out that we had a higher average attendance, had sent large crowds to Mobile each of the last two years, that we had a better bowl history, and that WKU was leaving the league anyway.

1) I can not argue with that.
2) Great point. It is easy to negotiate your advantage over your competition when said competition has never had the opportunity to come to Mobile.
3) Great point. I would hope that a program that has been FBS for many years would have a better bowl history than a team in its 5 year of FBS status.
4) Great point. It doesn't matter who is better or more deserving, but those guys are leaving and we will be here in the future so just screw them.

You guys are negotiating wizards!

Not saying you are undeserving but I feel your competition was Troy or possibly USA, not WKU.
I have no problem with you getting the bid as you finished in 2nd place in the league. That is as it should be. My problem with the process is that being second doesn't guarantee you a spot if you are a SBC team, so the fact that you finished second should be meaningless.
Saying you out negotiated WKU when WKU had no chance even if you had sent the three stooges to the negotiating table is aggravating.

I also question the rules that say SBC teams can not negotiate on their own. If the SBC will not help a team, why should that team not be allowed to help themselves?

Don't think for a minute that we don't want to change the by laws in the future. Its been discussed multiple times on our board. There is not a single ASU fan who doesn't want to change the rules...we're just glad that we were able to figure out a way to get a spot this year.

Wait a second up till yesterday or the day before your "board" didn't know the bylaws. Or at least the owner of the board didn't...he said so on here.

But if you did then I'm sure you also knew about the following. But what was our disagreement again a couple weeks ago about WKU getting the same expenses paid as other SBC schools? You remember when a lot of posters said WKU would not get reimburse for the same expenses as other bowl team. I believe I said Western would have a legal action against the conference if it happened.

3.3.3 Bowl - Game Revenue and Expense Distribution:
3.3.3.1 All teams participating in a bowl game – regardless of the bowl – will receive $250,000 for expenses, along with actual cost of transportation to and from the site of the game.

3.3.3.2 If a particular bowl requires an “out of pocket” purchase of tickets, that cost will be absorbed by the SBC. Teams will not have any ticket obligation.

3.3.3.3 Teams will receive the 50% of their ticket sales for the respective bowl from which they play. The other 50% of revenue generated from the sale of game tickets will be returned to the SBC.

3.3.3.4 All revenue generated from all bowls will be put towards all bowl expenses. Any “out of pocket” ticket purchase requirement absorbed by the conference is included in the “bowl expenses”. Should there be any “net” revenue generated from all the bowls, SBC Board of Directors may elect to provide an additional expense allowance to the teams participating in the bowls.

3.3.3.5 Bowl - Game Revenue and Expense Distribution for 2014-15 and beyond will be determined based on new conference bowl agreements in the next bowl cycle and the conference College Football Playoff revenue distribution policy.

story i was told....

invitation was basically extended after the game saturday. work was already being done on hotels.

lawsuit threatened....mobile decided it wasn't worth that. western is definitely not worth fighting over.

but they wanted western.

now the asu fans can get on here and say they 'presented' the benefits but it certainly came with a stick in the other hand.

doesn't make asu bad people. again.....arkstfan has swallowed his whistle on this subject. and if anyone knows.....he'd know.

(12-02-2013 03:45 PM)Jacque Wrote:  The CUSA administration could be a total train wreck, however, I have a hard time believing that league can be as poorly run as the SBC.

That would be impossible.

(12-02-2013 04:05 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  lawsuit threatened....mobile decided it wasn't worth that. western is definitely not worth fighting over.

Link?