FYI, Notre Dame accepted an invite to the Pinstripe Bowl today.

(12-05-2013 05:51 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:44 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

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

(12-05-2013 03:03 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 02:02 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  To use a phrase from MTSU and most recently WKU.....talk about butt-hurt! Wow.

All pales in comparison to the enormous butt hurt from Arkansas State fans here and on the Den when they were all in a hissy fit about WKU "possibly" getting the GoDaddy Bowl. It was epic.

A school leaving for a direct competitor jumping over us to get a conference affiliated bowl slot? You're damm straight. No apologies here.

No apology necessary, but at least be honest enough to admit it would make you mad if you were jumped by 2-3 teams that you beat on the field.

Everyone wants to be the team picked for bowl games...so of course. But not as much as if we'd been jumped by a team leaving and lower in the conf. standings

Well if ULM get the bid, then for the second time in three years WKU was bumped by a team lower in the standings. ULM jumping us is worse than WKU jumping Ark St because at least WKU won the head-to-head with Ark St.
And I admire how you would calmly accept the situation if you were in WKU's shoes (of course it is easy to be calm when you haven't and never will be in WKU's shoes) but as long as WKU is in the SBC they should be treated equally. As people have stated. the SBC will have a clear conscience in keeping any basketball moneys generated by WKU in their last season, yet everyone seems to think it is okay for the SBC to not exert their best efforts in taking care of WKU's football program in their last year.

(12-05-2013 06:12 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:42 PM)Jacque Wrote:  If being butt-hurt means being upset because you got the shaft (see what I did there?) then so be it. It is very easy to sit back with a smug grin on your face when it is not your team, but I would wager that if the roles were reversed (especially since this is the second time this has happened to WKU) you would not be such a smart aleck about. You would be upset as well.
The SBC helps place teams based on locale, not talent.

You didn't get the shaft concerning the GoDaddy bowl. You got what you deserved. You had 3 conference losses, we had 2. Fewer conference losses, results in going to the conference bowl. End of story.

Not discussing GoDaddy but the efforts of the SBC to place anyone other than WKU in other open bowl slots. Did we get what we deserved when finished second in 2011 and sat at home while 3rd and 4th went to bowls?
No, so do not give me any crap about what we deserve. The rules change every year and whatever the rule of the year is, it hurts WKU.

(12-05-2013 10:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 09:46 PM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 08:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 07:17 PM)TeKERaider Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 07:12 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  Then we would have gotten the shaft.

No the league had set a precedence of taking the teams with better overall record so it would not have been the shaft.

The combination of better record, Petrino, and stAte already having gone twice might very well have led GoDaddy to take WKU. It would have sucked for us but you can see where the bowl might have taken a shot to see how they did.

Yep and they were very well on their way of doing that until ASU raised a hissy fit like a 3 year old girl....ANd any reasonable person with common sense would have understand why GoDaddy would have picked WKU to be in Mobile...But common sense and Sun Belt do not belong together...

You guys not tired yet of Mobile or are you gunning for a 4th straight visit next season?

Characterize it how you wish. Our conference now does not have to listen to a 4-hour infomercial for CUSA on an SBC Bowl broadcast. Common sense.

It's pretty difficult to get tired of Mobile. We will definitely try to get another SBC tie-in bowl next year and Mobile is one of those. But it will be more difficult next year unless we end up in sole 1st place.

It should be an infomercial for an SBC 8-4 team with one of the best RBs in the country. It would be even better infomercial for the SBC if that team wins against another conferences representative to show the strength of the SBC.
As you have stated before, the SBC doesn't use common sense.
Well your conference needs to get all of the exposure it can get in its two bowl games.

(12-06-2013 06:14 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 06:12 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:42 PM)Jacque Wrote:  If being butt-hurt means being upset because you got the shaft (see what I did there?) then so be it. It is very easy to sit back with a smug grin on your face when it is not your team, but I would wager that if the roles were reversed (especially since this is the second time this has happened to WKU) you would not be such a smart aleck about. You would be upset as well.
The SBC helps place teams based on locale, not talent.

You didn't get the shaft concerning the GoDaddy bowl. You got what you deserved. You had 3 conference losses, we had 2. Fewer conference losses, results in going to the conference bowl. End of story.

Not discussing GoDaddy but the efforts of the SBC to place anyone other than WKU in other open bowl slots. Did we get what we deserved when finished second in 2011 and sat at home while 3rd and 4th went to bowls?
No, so do not give me any crap about what we deserve. The rules change every year and whatever the rule of the year is, it hurts WKU.

Except last year when it hurt MTSU, but that was more of a Benson fail than anything. WKU already had a foot in the door with Detroit before MTSU knew that Benson had left them in the cold.

I do think that moving forward the Sun Belt needs to make bowl selection more of a hard policy. There should be multiple tie breakers to determine a champion and other conference rankings each year (a clearly defined order). Once that is determined, the champion should have their choice of SBC bowls, followed by #2, etc. The only exception I would make is that a 6-6 team can only bowl after all 7-5 or better teams had been placed (unless 6-6 is the overall champ). Seems pretty straightforward to me. Also, get more bowl tie-ins.

(12-06-2013 06:11 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:51 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-05-2013 05:44 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

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

(12-05-2013 03:03 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  All pales in comparison to the enormous butt hurt from Arkansas State fans here and on the Den when they were all in a hissy fit about WKU "possibly" getting the GoDaddy Bowl. It was epic.

A school leaving for a direct competitor jumping over us to get a conference affiliated bowl slot? You're damm straight. No apologies here.

No apology necessary, but at least be honest enough to admit it would make you mad if you were jumped by 2-3 teams that you beat on the field.

Everyone wants to be the team picked for bowl games...so of course. But not as much as if we'd been jumped by a team leaving and lower in the conf. standings

Well if ULM get the bid, then for the second time in three years WKU was bumped by a team lower in the standings. ULM jumping us is worse than WKU jumping Ark St because at least WKU won the head-to-head with Ark St.
And I admire how you would calmly accept the situation if you were in WKU's shoes (of course it is easy to be calm when you haven't and never will be in WKU's shoes) but as long as WKU is in the SBC they should be treated equally. As people have stated. the SBC will have a clear conscience in keeping any basketball moneys generated by WKU in their last season, yet everyone seems to think it is okay for the SBC to not exert their best efforts in taking care of WKU's football program in their last year.

IF we get YOUR BIG basketball checks it is only because that is what is in your contract. As far as being treated fairly about bowls? There is nothing about bowls that IS fair. Never has been in the HISTORY of bowls. IF you have a contract then that contract is what is fair. Does WKU have said contract with regards to bowls, as they do with regards to NCAA money when you leave on your own recourse?

So much whining so little justification.

The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

(12-06-2013 06:45 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

In what world does "should, and conference play" equal anything other than your perception of fair, and again nothing is fair, only what is legal.

If Middle was hoodwinked, that is sad. It is on their AD not Benson. Frankly I do not believe they were hoodwinked. Bad decisions were made much like LTU @ RustOn.

(12-06-2013 06:45 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

My comment was more frustration with the fact that we are not going to convince each other yet are still going to pick at it.

Everyone has an argument on the subject and they are never going to mesh. We might as well just agree to put them into our school's mythologies and move on.

(12-06-2013 06:50 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:45 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

In what world does "should, and conference play" equal anything other than your perception of fair, and again nothing is fair, only what is legal.

If Middle was hoodwinked, that is sad. It is on their AD not Benson. Frankly I do not believe they were hoodwinked. Bad decisions were made much like LTU @ RustOn.

From what I can tell, in most every other conference the conference bowl bids go in order of finish. Just last night I was watching UofL vs Cincy. The commentators were talking about how Cincy could potentially get a BCS bid if they beat UofL and SMU beat UCF. They also mentioned that even if that didn't happen, the winner of this game would be number 2 at worst and they would get their pick of the other AAC games besides the BCS berth. This is how it is supposed to work. A Bowl with a conference tie in should not be able to pick and choose who they want, the team should pick them.

Again with the should? No! This is not a norm, only the way some work. The last time I checked both WKU, and Middle Tennessee were a part of the conference when the "should" issues should have been handled. Who were the evil doers who said no, no we want to be sure to punish Middle and WKU on their way out.

There is no right, no wrong no shoulda, coulda, or woulda only what conference rules call for. AND we all know WKU and Middle were part of the group making the rules. Crying over spilled milk is so unbecoming, but amusing for sure.

MUTS were offered a bowl and turned it down.

WKU has not turned down a bowl to my knowledge....

(12-06-2013 07:05 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  Again with the should? No! This is not a norm, only the way some work. The last time I checked both WKU, and Middle Tennessee were a part of the conference when the "should" issues should have been handled. Who were the evil doers who said no, no we want to be sure to punish Middle and WKU on their way out.

There is no right, no wrong no shoulda, coulda, or woulda only what conference rules call for. AND we all know WKU and Middle were part of the group making the rules. Crying over spilled milk is so unbecoming, but amusing for sure.

The first line of your response needs some clarification. Are you saying that Conferences placing their teams in order of finish in bowls is not the norm? Or the way the Sun Belt places teams is not the norm?

(12-06-2013 06:45 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

.
Middle also lost their last conference game to Arkansas State 45-0.

(12-06-2013 07:45 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  MUTS were offered a bowl and turned it down.

WKU has not turned down a bowl to my knowledge....

Simply not true. Bowl director is on record saying we were not offered. Most know the deal and you are getting a small taste. You were to busy celebrating your ADs magically negotiating skills and "bowl hungriness" to see the truth. At least you got passed by a team with a better SBC record.

(12-06-2013 08:07 PM)TeKERaider Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:45 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  MUTS were offered a bowl and turned it down.

WKU has not turned down a bowl to my knowledge....

Simply not true. Bowl director is on record saying we were not offered. Most know the deal and you are getting a small taste. You were to busy celebrating your ADs magically negotiating skills and "bowl hungriness" to see the truth. At least you got passed by a team with a better SBC record.

I am genuinely interested in what happened then. What I posted above is what was said at the time, but that doesn't make it true.

(12-06-2013 06:58 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:50 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:45 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 06:34 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The story is that WKU was jumped over in 2011 because of the SBC (because the SBC sucks)
The story is that WKU jumped over MTSU last year because of their efforts and not anything to do with the SBC (because the SBC and MTSU sucks)
The story is that WKU did not jump over ASU this year because of the SBC (because the SBC and ASU suck)

Wonderful. That's all settled. Story is straight. Next topic.

IIRC the story in 2011 was "Everyone gets left out the first time" and "You shouldn't have lost to an FCS team".

They story with MTSU was that they shouldn't have trusted Benson (who that that he could get stAte into the Liberty Bowl), so MTSU passed on the Military Bowl and got left out. There were also rumblings about MTSU intentionally getting left out because they were leaving. I think they also lost to an FCS school that season, and I think we tossed that in their face since it was tossed in ours the year prior.

I really don't have an issue with stAte and ULL bowling this year. You guys were 1 and 2. That is the way it should be. There haven't been too many Topper fans saying otherwise. The only argument you will get from me is when other fans suggest that SBC bowls should be able to do whatever they want. They shouldn't. The #1 team should decide, and then the rest as follows in the conference ranking. That would have WKU out this year, and I am perfectly fine with that. Letting bowls pick whoever they want year in and year makes conference play next to meaningless.

In what world does "should, and conference play" equal anything other than your perception of fair, and again nothing is fair, only what is legal.

If Middle was hoodwinked, that is sad. It is on their AD not Benson. Frankly I do not believe they were hoodwinked. Bad decisions were made much like LTU @ RustOn.

From what I can tell, in most every other conference the conference bowl bids go in order of finish. Just last night I was watching UofL vs Cincy. The commentators were talking about how Cincy could potentially get a BCS bid if they beat UofL and SMU beat UCF. They also mentioned that even if that didn't happen, the winner of this game would be number 2 at worst and they would get their pick of the other AAC games besides the BCS berth. This is how it is supposed to work. A Bowl with a conference tie in should not be able to pick and choose who they want, the team should pick them.

As far as BCS bowls go, the deal the BCS made with the power conferences was that conference champions got in the bowls, with two at-larges. Then the national championship game was added and there became four at-large teams but conference champions of the BCS conferences were still guaranteed entry based on their own rules.

After that, individual conferences determine how their teams are selected. The traditional norm was order of finish. But more and more common is bowls get order of pick. In the Big 12, for example. The conference champion gets the BCS bid. After that, the Cotton Bowl would get its pick, not necessarily the second place team. Next year, when the Cotton Bowl becomes a playoff bowl, it will be the Alamo Bowl that gets the second Big 12 pick. Don't ever expect an Iowa State or West Virginia to ever play in that bowl.

Bowls like having that type of flexibility because it gives them some say in picking an intriguing match-up.

In essence, that is what is going on with the SBC. The difference is, with two tie-ins, we really see problems. I'd have no problems with a pecking order if their were two more bowls or several secondary tie-ins. Since there isn't, I am slightly upset that the conference isn't doing more to ensure a team like WKU isn't in. I don't care if they are on the way out. They are members now and need to be treated that way. At 8-4, if the SBC isn't making sure they are in a bowl, shame on them.

Notre Dame is likely going to the Pinstripe Bowl.

(12-06-2013 08:30 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 08:07 PM)TeKERaider Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:45 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  MUTS were offered a bowl and turned it down.

WKU has not turned down a bowl to my knowledge....

Simply not true. Bowl director is on record saying we were not offered. Most know the deal and you are getting a small taste. You were to busy celebrating your ADs magically negotiating skills and "bowl hungriness" to see the truth. At least you got passed by a team with a better SBC record.

I am genuinely interested in what happened then. What I posted above is what was said at the time, but that doesn't make it true.

The only places it was reported that we turned a bowl was here by one poster and on that poster's twitter account. Here was the jist.
Poster claimed we turned down the bowl which was false on two fronts.
1. Just like this year, schools couldn't negotiate individually. It had to go through the conference. Bowl director said he was dealing with Benson not Massaro in DC paper. In other words only person who could turn it down was Benson not MT.
2. Bowl director said we were not offered because the deal offered by SBC was not as good as the MAC. So clearly we didn't turn down an offer that didn't exist.

Here is where the finger pointing starts. Our side says that we weren't out bid by the MAC but rather the funding that the conference was supposed to provide was no longer made available. Which is why if you go back and read Massaro's comments you will see him talk about "still being full members but not being treated as one" . You can believe what you want but the MAC deal was signed the day after our move to CUSA was announced. Basically the same deal for pizza bowl. No funding for that as well. Look I know we were enemy number one so nobody wanted to hear it, but if you take off the red glasses for minute and look at the numbers there is no way we don't go if league support were equal. We had more wins in and out of conference and a head to head win against the team that went, a win over a bowl bound aq team, better average attendance and a bigger tv market than the team that went. Now that you guys are on the flip side maybe you can see what a crap excuse "bowl hungry" was. Kinda of like hearing Mobile really wanted ASU all along they just thought they were going to I-Bowl. You guys are flat out getting screwed. You would be heading to Mobile if you weren't leaving. Just be happy that you are going to be in a much better place this time next year.

Oh yeah, the poster that said we turned down the bowl was former SBC employee.