As long as bowls are free to pick who they want independent from the NCAA and conference standings--and they always will be--we can forget about fairness in the bowl system. Given similar records in the SBC, UL(L) will always get selected over ULM even if the Warhawks have a slightly better record, just like Michigan will always get picked in front of Minnesota in the B1G, Clemson ahead of Duke in the ACC, etc. in the same situations.

In looking at WKU's season it was very disappointing that they couldn't get invited to a bowl after an 8-4 season. If we had beaten Troy or South Alabama we would have been 9-3 and in a three-way tie for SBC champs with UL & stAte. Unfortunately, the end result result would likely have been the same with the Toppers sitting at home because of the lack of a secondary tie-in. But that's just the way it goes. I was at the WKU-Tennessee debacle in September, and reflecting on that game it's hard to make a case that we were any more deserving of a bowl than UT which ended 5-7. We get so caught up in getting that sixth "bowl-eligible" win that we tend to lose sight of how teams compare to others around the country. We've nearly fallen into the every-kid-gets-a-trophy mentality without even realizing it.

Aside from that thought, the worst thing is that this conference is comparable in football to the MAC and even C-USA in talent level, but the bowl tie-ins and backups don't refelct that. Seven eligible teams and only two go bowling? That has a damaging effect on the Sun Belt's already poor image and don't think for a minute that won't be brought up on the recruiting trail.

After the WAC imploded I questioned the Sun Belt's hiring of Karl Benson, but all the universiy presidents seemed to be bamboozled by his "experience and connections." I think now we see that was a farce. He wasn't even able to retain the one Little Ceasar's Bowl backup arrangement that Wright Waters had been able to negotiate. WKU deserved better this year and I look forward to the change in scenery when we move to C-USA. The remaining Sun Belt schools also deserve better going foward; I just don't believe you'll ever see it until there's another change in leadership.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I know the Sun Belt likes to hate on WKU since we are leaving, but I don't think that anyone can deny how bad having 2 of 7 in bowls looks. For WKU in particular, this is the 3rd year in a row we have been 7-5 or better and we have one bid to show for it. Even that bid is a bit tainted because it would have went to MTSU if Benson didn't think he could pull some magic and get them bowling somewhere else (which he can't because he is 100% powerless in these negotiations). I don't know how any Sun Belt program can sit back and say that they would not have left to C-USA when the SBC has consistently shown that it cannot protect it's teams in the post season. I hope it gets better the the Belt because I respect the programs that here, and I know they deserve better.

Take into consideration that the early years of the conference, in football, were not producing bowl-eligible teams on a consistent basis. That is how bowl contracts get issued out. When the average got above 2 teams, we added the GDB...when it went above 3...4...they attempted to get back-up deals to accommodate more teams. As you should be able to see, it's a process and it takes some time. We can't keep blaming the commish for teams under-performing a few years ago...We have the Camellia Bowl coming online for 2014 and the Bahamas Bowl that we'll be affiliated with, as well. I'm sure the conference office can do better as our teams give them more of a product to work with...

I'm not a huge Benson fan. But a few points

1) Next year the bowl access problem goes away. 10 more bowl slots. Room for everyone at the inn. The new Camillia Bowl and the ERP Bowl rotations represent a big step up for the Belt as far as opponent quality
2) This year, due to a bunch of 0-12, 1-11 teams, it became clear that Sun Belt teams were going to have to scramble. Benson wasn't going to be able to fix that in the short time he's been here.
3) If you went 6-6 from CUSA, you stayed at home. If you went 6-6 from the MAC, you stayed at home (plus a 7-5 team). If you went 6-6 in the Sun Belt you stayed at home. If you're leaving a conference, you got last pick. Ask East Carolina about how happy they are with where CUSA put them.

Hear WKU AD's comments after all the bowl proceedings.

WKU AD - Todd Stewart interview from Chad Bishop

I honestly believe things will be better next year for the Belt in a number of ways.

First there will be more bowl tie-ins which should go a long ways towards resolving some of the sore feelings that have emerged this year. Having said that, regardless of who gets bowl eligible, I'll never be thrilled to see a 6-6 team go bowling....just don't feel they deserve it.

Secondly, with the new teams coming in I see some exciting rivalries developing which will help with fan interest and attendance.

While I've heard nothing but negatives about Karl Benson, let me say this. The commissioner certainly needs to do all he can do to get bowl bids for his conference team. But the teams, coaches, and fans need to do their part....a part I believe is much bigger than the commissioner's.

Win your OOC games, period....or at least make the final outcome respectable.

Win your conference games.

Fans, attend the home games in droves to impress the bowl officials and when you are rewarded with a bowl, ATTEND IN MASS.

The Cajuns were mentioned in the original post and I believe the poster was correct....all things being equal, the Cajuns would likely get the invite every year to the N.O. Bowl. But look at the history that counts. A bowl that was averaging in the low to mid 20's in attendance suddenly jumped to 42,000+, followed by 48,000+, and likely this year somewhere around 60,000 ticket buyers. Three consecutive years of record attendance.

THAT is what gets a bowl's attention in the end.

(12-08-2013 08:59 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  Take into consideration that the early years of the conference, in football, were not producing bowl-eligible teams on a consistent basis. That is how bowl contracts get issued out. When the average got above 2 teams, we added the GDB...when it went above 3...4...they attempted to get back-up deals to accommodate more teams. As you should be able to see, it's a process and it takes some time. We can't keep blaming the commish for teams under-performing a few years ago...We have the Camellia Bowl coming online for 2014 and the Bahamas Bowl that we'll be affiliated with, as well. I'm sure the conference office can do better as our teams give them more of a product to work with...

I agree with your comments and those of CajunFanatico and realize we can't just bully our way into bowl agreements since it is impacted by past perfromance. But I do blame Benson for losing the LCB backup agreement and not being able to replace it. That's squarely on him since the increase of bowl-eligible teams throughout the last several years does not coincide with the SBC getting less than what we had last year.

And it will be better next year, but is that because of anything our commissioner did or because ESPN decided to sponsor/own four more bowls?

(12-08-2013 09:22 PM)bigbelly Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 08:59 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  Take into consideration that the early years of the conference, in football, were not producing bowl-eligible teams on a consistent basis. That is how bowl contracts get issued out. When the average got above 2 teams, we added the GDB...when it went above 3...4...they attempted to get back-up deals to accommodate more teams. As you should be able to see, it's a process and it takes some time. We can't keep blaming the commish for teams under-performing a few years ago...We have the Camellia Bowl coming online for 2014 and the Bahamas Bowl that we'll be affiliated with, as well. I'm sure the conference office can do better as our teams give them more of a product to work with...

I agree with your comments and those of CajunFanatico and realize we can't just bully our way into bowl agreements since it is impacted by past perfromance. But I do blame Benson for losing the LCB backup agreement and not being able to replace it. That's squarely on him since the increase of bowl-eligible teams throughout the last several years does not coincide with the SBC getting less than what we had last year.

And it will be better next year, but is that because of anything our commissioner did or because ESPN decided to sponsor/own four more bowls?

In the end, it doesn't as long as the number of bids increases for the conference...you shouldn't look a gift-horse in the mouth...

Unprecedented year and we only recently started needing several more bowls than we have eligible members. This will work out as we go forward.

The whole system is screwed in favor of maintaining the status quo for P5 programs and making sure threats from below are minimized. This is how it is. It will not change unless there is a sea-change in a way the media is delivered or ESPN decides that they've created a P5 monster that they can no longer control and need to promote something else.

There are those of us who do not have a tv market. There are those of us who do have tv markets but can't get our own students to attend a game. There are those of us who can't put a winning product on the field. There are those of us who have a P5 school in our states that are trying to squash us.

We have a lot more problems than bowl availability and by "we" I mean all of G5.

Our biggest problem is that we are all too fancy to associate with each other and all insist we are the taller midget and try to cut each other's legs out from under one another to prove it.

It will never change until the G5 cooperate with one another, and they never will.

Here's my thoughts.
1. The league adopted regulations to insure fairness. Those regulations provide that no matter what happens the champ or co-champs in the event of a two-way tie are protected and will get a bowl, though it may not be the bowl they prefer, the regulations are met even if the teams are sent off to bowls they don't want if that's what works best for the league as whole.
2. Those same regulations provide that 6-6 Sun Belt teams don't get placed unless all the others with better records are taken care of (provided the 6-6 isn't the champ)

What we saw was when push came to shove the league office backed away and said those regulations were non-binding guidelines and hidden from the public.

While I've mentioned and received a sneer or two in response before, in 2001 when our champ was 5-6 and only the champ assured a bowl the then commissioner said those rules were binding and we sent UNT over a team with a much nicer record who tied for the title.

The repudiation of those regulations speaks volumes and causes me more concern than anything else. If in 2014 the Cajuns are 6-6 and we have three teams with better records and three bowl bids, I would have told you the Cajuns stay home, I can't say that now knowing that agreed rules of fairness are not rules.

When we entered this bowl cycle we had two contracts to sign under NCAA rules and signed two. Then the NCAA monkeyed with eligibility (which would have allowed us to sign one more) and declared a bowl moratorium (which meant there was no open bowl to sign with and no way to create a bowl to address the extra slot to give that we and MAC gained).

Those changes had they happened a year earlier would have probably resulted in the Little Rock bowl being created. Either AState would be in LR and WKU in Mobile or LR would have taken WKU to get the buzz of Petrino and AState would be in Mobile.

(12-08-2013 09:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's my thoughts.
1. The league adopted regulations to insure fairness. Those regulations provide that no matter what happens the champ or co-champs in the event of a two-way tie are protected and will get a bowl, though it may not be the bowl they prefer, the regulations are met even if the teams are sent off to bowls they don't want if that's what works best for the league as whole.
2. Those same regulations provide that 6-6 Sun Belt teams don't get placed unless all the others with better records are taken care of (provided the 6-6 isn't the champ)

What we saw was when push came to shove the league office backed away and said those regulations were non-binding guidelines and hidden from the public.

These are the things that destroy conferences. This is going to HAVE to be fixed or this conference will break apart and some of the programs will reform as something else.

We are sort of shrugging off the MTSU and WKU situations because they were leaving (And I am in agreement that they should not have been favored over those remaining). But what happened to them can and will happen to other SBC programs that are not leaving.

Get it fixed.

(12-08-2013 09:41 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 09:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here's my thoughts.
1. The league adopted regulations to insure fairness. Those regulations provide that no matter what happens the champ or co-champs in the event of a two-way tie are protected and will get a bowl, though it may not be the bowl they prefer, the regulations are met even if the teams are sent off to bowls they don't want if that's what works best for the league as whole.
2. Those same regulations provide that 6-6 Sun Belt teams don't get placed unless all the others with better records are taken care of (provided the 6-6 isn't the champ)

What we saw was when push came to shove the league office backed away and said those regulations were non-binding guidelines and hidden from the public.

These are the things that destroy conferences. This is going to HAVE to be fixed or this conference will break apart and some of the programs will reform as something else.

We are sort of shrugging off the MTSU and WKU situations because they were leaving (And I am in agreement that they should not have been favored over those remaining). But what happened to them can and will happen to other SBC programs that are not leaving.

Get it fixed.

In 2012 we promised only the champ a bowl and that was dealt with. After that it was wheel and deal and MTSU came out on the outside because of the BCS (Troy had the same happen to them once but no one seems to remember that) and because Liberty didn't honor their semi-agreement.

This year we adopted "regulations" that allow the conference to fine schools that break them yet they aren't binding. As luck had it GoDaddy picked AState and by accident (or choice of GD) the guidelines got followed.

But what if GoDaddy had said last week they wanted WKU and had extended an invite?

The rules the ADs and presidents thought they were playing under would have been worthless.

As bad as it was for the commissioner's deal to fall apart last year and as bad as it is for WKU to have such a season and get left out, it would have been far worse for a team to live up to what it was told was needed to make a bowl and then be told "Oh, we didn't REALLY mean all that."

Merely by repudiating those rules as non-binding anyone with their eyes open cannot have a feeling of trust going forward.

The damage has been done.

Talk about head to head
talk about TV numbers
talk about the improving SBC


talk about anything you want but in the end 71% of SBC schools with 6 or more wins were left out of bowls

next year the sbc will have 1 more bowl and that's it....

so that would mean only 4 out 7 of the sbc teams with at least 6 wins would have been left without a bowl game

Tom in Lazybrook where do you get 10 more spots next year? I'm sure you are thinking the playoffs leaves more bowl spots and this is about the 3rd time you said that....everytime someone will tell you NO IT DOESN'T that the playoffs will be at the home of BCS bowls. I guess if you repeat it enough you think it is fact....doesn't work that way

This time next year the SBC will again be on the outside looking in....no matter if you have three 10-2 schools and two 9-3 and a 8-4 the two 9-3 schools and 8-4 will be left out over a 7-5 and maybe even a 6-6 CUSA or MAC school

So the tv or head to head doesn't mean jack

(12-08-2013 10:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Talk about head to head
talk about TV numbers
talk about the improving SBC


talk about anything you want but in the end 71% of SBC schools with 6 or more wins were left out of bowls

next year the sbc will have 1 more bowl and that's it....

so that would mean only 4 out 7 of the sbc teams with at least 6 wins would have been left without a bowl game

Tom in Lazybrook where do you get 10 more spots next year? I'm sure you are thinking the playoffs leaves more bowl spots and this is about the 3rd time you said that....everytime someone will tell you NO IT DOESN'T that the playoffs will be at the home of BCS bowls. I guess if you repeat it enough you think it is fact....doesn't work that way

This time next year the SBC will again be on the outside looking in....no matter if you have three 10-2 schools and two 9-3 and a 8-4 the two 9-3 schools and 8-4 will be left out over a 7-5 and maybe even a 6-6 CUSA or MAC school

So the tv or head to head doesn't mean jack

Appreciate your concern about the SBC but what does it possibly matter to you?

(12-08-2013 10:15 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Talk about head to head
talk about TV numbers
talk about the improving SBC


talk about anything you want but in the end 71% of SBC schools with 6 or more wins were left out of bowls

next year the sbc will have 1 more bowl and that's it....

so that would mean only 4 out 7 of the sbc teams with at least 6 wins would have been left without a bowl game

Tom in Lazybrook where do you get 10 more spots next year? I'm sure you are thinking the playoffs leaves more bowl spots and this is about the 3rd time you said that....everytime someone will tell you NO IT DOESN'T that the playoffs will be at the home of BCS bowls. I guess if you repeat it enough you think it is fact....doesn't work that way

This time next year the SBC will again be on the outside looking in....no matter if you have three 10-2 schools and two 9-3 and a 8-4 the two 9-3 schools and 8-4 will be left out over a 7-5 and maybe even a 6-6 CUSA or MAC school

So the tv or head to head doesn't mean jack

Appreciate your concern about the SBC but what does it possibly matter to you?

Where did I say it mattered to me?

I think I made a statement that what some see as being "better" in fact means....NOTHING

sO WHY DOES IT MATTER TO YOU?

(12-08-2013 10:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Talk about head to head
talk about TV numbers
talk about the improving SBC


talk about anything you want but in the end 71% of SBC schools with 6 or more wins were left out of bowls

next year the sbc will have 1 more bowl and that's it....

so that would mean only 4 out 7 of the sbc teams with at least 6 wins would have been left without a bowl game

Tom in Lazybrook where do you get 10 more spots next year? I'm sure you are thinking the playoffs leaves more bowl spots and this is about the 3rd time you said that....everytime someone will tell you NO IT DOESN'T that the playoffs will be at the home of BCS bowls. I guess if you repeat it enough you think it is fact....doesn't work that way

This time next year the SBC will again be on the outside looking in....no matter if you have three 10-2 schools and two 9-3 and a 8-4 the two 9-3 schools and 8-4 will be left out over a 7-5 and maybe even a 6-6 CUSA or MAC school

So the tv or head to head doesn't mean jack

35 bowls this year.
Subtract the BCS title game.
That's 34
Add Camellia, Boca, Miami, Bahamas
That's 38
My Arkie math says that's 76 spots vs. 70 this year.

It seems to me WKU fans (or at least most who post here) understood that they very probably were not going to a bowl this year. They have a reason for bitterness but I haven't seen much evidence of it here. From my perspective there observations are aimed at pointing out what the SBC needs to do going forward.

I know WKU will be gone next year but it seems they don't wish the SBC any harm as they move on.

(12-08-2013 10:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Talk about head to head
talk about TV numbers
talk about the improving SBC


talk about anything you want but in the end 71% of SBC schools with 6 or more wins were left out of bowls

next year the sbc will have 1 more bowl and that's it....

so that would mean only 4 out 7 of the sbc teams with at least 6 wins would have been left without a bowl game

Tom in Lazybrook where do you get 10 more spots next year? I'm sure you are thinking the playoffs leaves more bowl spots and this is about the 3rd time you said that....everytime someone will tell you NO IT DOESN'T that the playoffs will be at the home of BCS bowls. I guess if you repeat it enough you think it is fact....doesn't work that way

This time next year the SBC will again be on the outside looking in....no matter if you have three 10-2 schools and two 9-3 and a 8-4 the two 9-3 schools and 8-4 will be left out over a 7-5 and maybe even a 6-6 CUSA or MAC school

So the tv or head to head doesn't mean jack

35 bowls this year.
Subtract the BCS title game.
That's 34
Add Camellia, Boca, Miami, Bahamas
That's 38
My Arkie math says that's 76 spots vs. 70 this year.

SIX spots not the 10 as Tom in Lazybrook keeps repeating and repeating and repeating. Like if he keeps saying it it's coming true

(12-08-2013 10:29 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  It seems to me WKU fans (or at least most who post here) understood that they very probably were not going to a bowl this year. They have a reason for bitterness but I haven't seen much evidence of it here. From my perspective there observations are aimed at pointing out what the SBC needs to do going forward.

I know WKU will be gone next year but it seems they don't wish the SBC any harm as they move on.

I truly beleive that WKU and its fans have been good for the Sun Belt for many years, but the ceiling of the Sun Belt had WKU capped and was getting old. I think the Sun Belt has the chance to be a great conference, but only if each school takes all sports serious and not just football. MVC is known for great basketball at a Mid level and the Sun Belt is getting known for its football at the mid level. Each the Sun Belt and MVC will never catch up to higher level programs unless they push all aspects of its sports programs. I just think a conference should aspire for more.