(12-03-2013 04:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 03:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You are leaving. You aren't getting special treatment in the post-season because of that fact. Nor should you.

You do realize not a single WKU fan has said anything about WKU getting special treatment. We've never asked for it. We've never expected it. Some just expect us to be treated like all other SBC members. Personally, I don't expect us to be treated like other SBC members because we're leaving but my personal thoughts are just what I expected not what I think is the right thing to do.

Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

(12-03-2013 10:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Waiting for mine after the night of hell from the prep guy says I'm your anesthesiologist I sai where we you last night when I needed you

I can't help but wonder.....where were you the night before...? Then again.....don't tell me....I really don't want to know...

:)

(12-03-2013 09:25 AM)gsu2583 Wrote:  Nothing to add here other than props for using "ambivalent" in a thread title...

cajunfanatico seems like a good dude on the beed-o-meter even though some of his own questioned him being a feaux cajun because of his loyalties to his pops.

he's generally added substance with his posts and i detect a decent sense of humor.

i am not ambivalent towards him. i approve.

(12-03-2013 04:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 03:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You are leaving. You aren't getting special treatment in the post-season because of that fact. Nor should you.

You do realize not a single WKU fan has said anything about WKU getting special treatment. We've never asked for it. We've never expected it. Some just expect us to be treated like all other SBC members. Personally, I don't expect us to be treated like other SBC members because we're leaving but my personal thoughts are just what I expected not what I think is the right thing to do.

Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

(12-03-2013 04:59 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 03:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You are leaving. You aren't getting special treatment in the post-season because of that fact. Nor should you.

You do realize not a single WKU fan has said anything about WKU getting special treatment. We've never asked for it. We've never expected it. Some just expect us to be treated like all other SBC members. Personally, I don't expect us to be treated like other SBC members because we're leaving but my personal thoughts are just what I expected not what I think is the right thing to do.

Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

If it is stAte leaving, I certainly won't expect a conference affiliated bowl to jump us over a higher placed team that is remaining. I also wouldn't expect the commissioner to be on the phones much for us.

It does no good for remaining and future members to highlight another school's "move up" on our affiliated bowl broadcasts. And a conference is about enhancing the future of those schools.

(12-03-2013 05:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:59 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 03:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  You are leaving. You aren't getting special treatment in the post-season because of that fact. Nor should you.

You do realize not a single WKU fan has said anything about WKU getting special treatment. We've never asked for it. We've never expected it. Some just expect us to be treated like all other SBC members. Personally, I don't expect us to be treated like other SBC members because we're leaving but my personal thoughts are just what I expected not what I think is the right thing to do.

Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

If it is stAte leaving, I certainly won't expect a conference affiliated bowl to jump us over a higher placed team that is remaining. I also wouldn't expect the commissioner to be on the phones much for us.

It does no good for remaining and future members to highlight another school's "move up" on our affiliated bowl broadcasts. And a conference is about enhancing the future of those schools.

I understand what you're saying, it's human nature to feel the way you do. But until those now infamous "guidelines" are updated stating that the main office will work hard on ALL conference member's behalf UNLESS.....x, y, or z, then to me, if your commissioner won't work the phones for you as hard as he would for any other current member, then you belong to a crappy, second-rate conference.

I simply do not understand the love affair with CUSA.

(12-03-2013 06:08 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:59 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:04 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  You do realize not a single WKU fan has said anything about WKU getting special treatment. We've never asked for it. We've never expected it. Some just expect us to be treated like all other SBC members. Personally, I don't expect us to be treated like other SBC members because we're leaving but my personal thoughts are just what I expected not what I think is the right thing to do.

Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

If it is stAte leaving, I certainly won't expect a conference affiliated bowl to jump us over a higher placed team that is remaining. I also wouldn't expect the commissioner to be on the phones much for us.

It does no good for remaining and future members to highlight another school's "move up" on our affiliated bowl broadcasts. And a conference is about enhancing the future of those schools.

I understand what you're saying, it's human nature to feel the way you do. But until those now infamous "guidelines" are updated stating that the main office will work hard on ALL conference member's behalf UNLESS.....x, y, or z, then to me, if your commissioner won't work the phones for you as hard as he would for any other current member, then you belong to a crappy, second-rate conference.

If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:08 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:59 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:09 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Part of the right thing to do for a league is determine what is best for its members current and future. Highlighting a team that isn't part of that future with a bowl tie-in over one who does have a future...isn't the right thing for any league to do unless contractually required to.

A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

If it is stAte leaving, I certainly won't expect a conference affiliated bowl to jump us over a higher placed team that is remaining. I also wouldn't expect the commissioner to be on the phones much for us.

It does no good for remaining and future members to highlight another school's "move up" on our affiliated bowl broadcasts. And a conference is about enhancing the future of those schools.

I understand what you're saying, it's human nature to feel the way you do. But until those now infamous "guidelines" are updated stating that the main office will work hard on ALL conference member's behalf UNLESS.....x, y, or z, then to me, if your commissioner won't work the phones for you as hard as he would for any other current member, then you belong to a crappy, second-rate conference.

If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

So why did we let WKU play football this year. I feel this argument is stupid. All conference teams should be able to compete for bowl slots even if they are leaving. I found nothing in the by laws that said the second place team has to be placed ask MTSU. If the rules are that co-champs have to be place than the GDB should have waited til the end of the game Saturday if they wanted someone other than ASU. I'm not knocking any team just don't agree with the justification. One day we will leave the conference and I can guarantee you that when that day comes and we have the same qualifications WKU has we will get a bowl bid and its nothing Benson will be able to do about it.

(12-03-2013 06:22 PM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  I simply do not understand the love affair with CUSA.

Right now it is purely over bowl alliances. Other then that, the SBC is a much stronger conference on the field. Over the next two years, everything else will become even, but we will still be better on the field, and getting stronger.

(12-03-2013 06:34 PM)CAJUNCOUNTRY Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:08 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 05:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 04:59 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  A member who is current and in good standing, though leaving, still deserves to be treated like every other member IMHO. To do otherwise is a fool's game.

What's next? Well, I'm leaving, and he's leaving too, but he hasn't been here as long as I so he shouldn't be treated as well as I?

The Belt has become a transitional conference. Next year it might be stAte wearing WKU's shoes with a group of 4 year seniors who want to play in a bowl as dearly as the next guy.

And at the end of the day, I do believe we've all learned that when it comes to slots, the bowls have a lot of leeway to name who they believe will earn them the most money.

If it is stAte leaving, I certainly won't expect a conference affiliated bowl to jump us over a higher placed team that is remaining. I also wouldn't expect the commissioner to be on the phones much for us.

It does no good for remaining and future members to highlight another school's "move up" on our affiliated bowl broadcasts. And a conference is about enhancing the future of those schools.

I understand what you're saying, it's human nature to feel the way you do. But until those now infamous "guidelines" are updated stating that the main office will work hard on ALL conference member's behalf UNLESS.....x, y, or z, then to me, if your commissioner won't work the phones for you as hard as he would for any other current member, then you belong to a crappy, second-rate conference.

If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

So why did we let WKU play football this year. I feel this argument is stupid. All conference teams should be able to compete for bowl slots even if they are leaving. I found nothing in the by laws that said the second place team has to be placed ask MTSU. If the rules are that co-champs have to be place than the GDB should have waited til the end of the game Saturday if they wanted someone other than ASU. I'm not knocking any team just don't agree with the justification. One day we will leave the conference and I can guarantee you that when that day comes and we have the same qualifications WKU has we will get a bowl bid and its nothing Benson will be able to do about it.

We let them play football this year and if they finished #1 then they would have rings, a trophy, and the "guidelines" say they would have a right to be placed in a conference affiliated bowl (I'm sure "guidelines" wouldn't have worked with them either). Exactly what they were entitled to. They are NOT entitled to jump over those that finished higher in the SBC rankings.

I'm not even going to address your hypothetical since it could just as easily be USA, Georgia State, or Texas State leaving you behind someday.

If for some miracle WKU makes a bowl this year, does the Sun Belt expect money from it?

(12-03-2013 07:04 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  If for some miracle WKU makes a bowl this year, does the Sun Belt expect money from it?

If thats part of the legal contract, yes.

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

Haha, I'm certain you won't. You'd scream bloody murder.

WKU is a short-timer. They get what they are legally contracted to get. Promoting them above and beyond gains our membership nothing. I have nothing against WKU. It's just business.

(12-03-2013 07:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

Haha, I'm certain you won't. You'd scream bloody murder.

WKU is a short-timer. They get what they are legally contracted to get. Promoting them above and beyond gains our membership nothing. I have nothing against WKU. It's just business.

Once again, no WKU fan expects for the conference to go "above and beyond" for WKU.

(12-03-2013 07:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If you are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State and get to sit home...we'll get come back to the subject.

The conference's job is not to be nice. It is to advance the interests of its membership.

If the Cajuns are ever in 2nd place and get jumped over by a departing Texas State for a bowl slot, rest assured my thoughts on the subject will be consistent.

And I agree fully with your comments about the conference's job being to advance the interests of its membership.....of which WKU is one until the end of June next year.

You'd scream bloody murder.

I'm sure you say that with the same conviction and certainty that you guys said stAte was going to snubbed by the GoDaddy bowl in favor of WKU.

(12-03-2013 06:39 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 06:22 PM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  I simply do not understand the love affair with CUSA.

Right now it is purely over bowl alliances. Other then that, the SBC is a much stronger conference on the field. Over the next two years, everything else will become even, but we will still be better on the field, and getting stronger.

and still wayyyyy behind in basketball. so it's not just bowl alliances.

and justified or not 'perception' is better for coosa.

(12-03-2013 07:20 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Once again, no WKU fan expects for the conference to go "above and beyond" for WKU.

It's just business. Nobody left in this conference is advanced by promoting/marketing you over them in a conference affiliated bowl. If you had come in 1st then we would have been obligated. If you had come in second, you might have been able to sneak one away from/with our weak commissioner...you almost did anyway. If you do get selected by a non-affiliated bowl then we may owe you $250,000 in travel subsidy. That is part of the deal and nobody should complain about having to pay it.

(12-03-2013 07:13 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-03-2013 07:04 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  If for some miracle WKU makes a bowl this year, does the Sun Belt expect money from it?

If thats part of the legal contract, yes.

So that means WKU should be promoted until the date we leave if we are in this conference as a legal contract. Things can't just go one way. If the Sun Belt dont feel the need to promote WKU the Sun Belt does not deserve the return revenue