Why The Sun Belt Only Got Two Bowl Teams

SUMG · December 9, 2008

It seems that every team in the league was under the impression that being "bowl eligible" ...was good enough to get us a team in our other three bowls...Independence, Papa Johns, and St. Petersburg. And, you are "bowl eligible" at 6-6. But, our teams had to be 7-5 (or better)...not 6-6. This was sent to me by Scottie from the Voy Board:

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20081.../812090322/1006

Edited December 9, 2008 by SUMG

greenminer · December 9, 2008

Dear God.

That avatar.

stebo · December 9, 2008

From what I understand - and this is just from reading on the net - the agreement was put into place specifically to make sure that an 8 win Troy didn't sit at home like last year. Both ASU and UL-L came up short, heck ASU only had 5 wins over Div I teams and that isn't enough. FAU had 6 wins over IA teams so they got the at large from Motor City. The Contingency Agreements should have prevented a 6-6 Northern Illinois from getting selected over a 6-6 UL-L; but when it comes down to it - the agreements were very cheap. I would guess that this is more about money than anything. Those agreements state that if the bowls cannot fill their slots, the Belt pays $100K, doesn't get the payout, and keeps all ticket revenue instead. I would bet that all three bowls used the loophole to work out a better deal. I bet that Northern Illinois guaranteed $100K plus 7500 tickets. Same thing for the other two. The Belt tried to get out on the cheap and when you try to go the cheap route - this is exactly what you get - nothing. If either team had 7 wins they would have been guaranteed a slot anyway because a bowl can't take a 6-6 team over a 7-5 team (see MUTS invite two years ago). Are the agreements a sham? Kind of... I am going to guess that these games went with the easy out.

stAte and UL-L can't blame anyone but themselves, just one more win and we would have 4 bowl teams this year - for the freaking Sun Belt! At least there is a direct definition now - 7 wins and they have to take us. It is in print and has been clarified by all parties for the future. I said this before and I believe it to be true... Waters could have probably pushed this issue. He could have made a stink. But he would have been cruicifed in the media for fighting to put those teams in these bowl games. They didn't get it done on the field and that is the bottom line. Maybe we win some sort of lawsuit and get some sort of retribution but these are two year contracts and they would not be renewed. We would be shunned from future negotiations and we would piss off the conglomerates that run these games getting us shut out of other games as well.

Honestly, as I look at the UL and ASU schedules, I don't see wins that deserve a bowl invite. UL had a win over Kent State and 5 Belt teams (FIU, ULM, NT, ASU, and MUTS) - none of them had a winning record, not one. ASU had a 4 point win over a very mediocre A&M team, Texas Southern (IAA), and 3 Belt teams, again - no wins against teams with a winning record. If I was running a bowl - I probably wouldn't want those teams in my bowl either... Lafayette against La Tech would have been a great game and probably would have saved the Indy Bowl from bankruptcy but there were other factors at play. A La Tech booster is on the Indy Board, the La Tech AD/Head Coach was vocally against accepting a bid to play any Belt team (they threatened to turn down the bid and accept the Texas Bowl instead), and the former AD from NIU just so happened to be an ex member of the 3 person board for the Indy Bowl as well. Again, all of this would have been moot if LaLa had just beat one of the following:

Southern Miss, Illinois, KSU, UTEP, FAU, or Troy

or ASU had beat:

Southern Miss, Memphis, ULL, Bama, FIU, or Troy

UL had UTEP at home, could have beat USM if they deserved a bowl invite, or could have knocked off a sporadic FAU.

ASU had USM at home, Memphis, ULL, and FIU - all beatable teams.

I don't know if the rumours are true but evidently ASU had a shot at the Motor City Bowl and turned it down. They either didn't like the arrangement (cost, number of tickets guaranteed, etc..) or they really want a change at head coach and just figured this would make it easier. I am sure that FAU and their $20 million dollar athletic budget gave the Motor City Bowl everything that they wanted and will take a huge loss. When it comes down to at-large selections, the bowl is going to look at how much money they can get from the school that wants in as well as the TV market that it "should" tap into.

Edited December 9, 2008 by stebo

SUMG · December 9, 2008

From what I understand - and this is just from reading on the net - the agreement was put into place specifically to make sure that an 8 win Troy didn't sit at home like last year. Both ASU and UL-L came up short, heck ASU only had 5 wins over Div I teams and that isn't enough. FAU had 6 wins over IA teams so they got the at large from Motor City. The Contingency Agreements should have prevented a 6-6 Northern Illinois from getting selected over a 6-6 UL-L; but when it comes down to it - the agreements were very cheap. I would guess that this is more about money than anything. Those agreements state that if the bowls cannot fill their slots, the Belt pays $100K, doesn't get the payout, and keeps all ticket revenue instead. I would bet that all three bowls used the loophole to work out a better deal. I bet that Northern Illinois guaranteed $100K plus 7500 tickets. Same thing for the other two. The Belt tried to get out on the cheap and when you try to go the cheap route - this is exactly what you get - nothing. If either team had 7 wins they would have been guaranteed a slot anyway because a bowl can't take a 6-6 team over a 7-5 team (see MUTS invite two years ago). Are the agreements a sham? Kind of... I am going to guess that these games went with the easy out.
stAte and UL-L can't blame anyone but themselves, just one more win and we would have 4 bowl teams this year - for the freaking Sun Belt! At least there is a direct definition now - 7 wins and they have to take us. It is in print and has been clarified by all parties for the future. I said this before and I believe it to be true... Waters could have probably pushed this issue. He could have made a stink. But he would have been cruicifed in the media for fighting to put those teams in these bowl games. They didn't get it done on the field and that is the bottom line. Maybe we win some sort of lawsuit and get some sort of retribution but these are two year contracts and they would not be renewed. We would be shunned from future negotiations and we would piss off the conglomerates that run these games getting us shut out of other games as well.
Honestly, as I look at the UL and ASU schedules, I don't see wins that deserve a bowl invite. UL had a win over Kent State and 5 Belt teams (FIU, ULM, NT, ASU, and MUTS) - none of them had a winning record, not one. ASU had a 4 point win over a very mediocre A&M team, Texas Southern (IAA), and 3 Belt teams, again - no wins against teams with a winning record. If I was running a bowl - I probably wouldn't want those teams in my bowl either... Lafayette against La Tech would have been a great game and probably would have saved the Indy Bowl from bankruptcy but there were other factors at play. A La Tech booster is on the Indy Board, the La Tech AD/Head Coach was vocally against accepting a bid to play any Belt team (they threatened to turn down the bid and accept the Texas Bowl instead), and the former AD from NIU just so happened to be an ex member of the 3 person board for the Indy Bowl as well. Again, all of this would have been moot if LaLa had just beat one of the following:
Southern Miss, Illinois, KSU, UTEP, FAU, or Troy
or ASU had beat:
Southern Miss, Memphis, ULL, Bama, FIU, or Troy
UL had UTEP at home, could have beat USM if they deserved a bowl invite, or could have knocked off a sporadic FAU.
ASU had USM at home, Memphis, ULL, and FIU - all beatable teams.
I don't know if the rumours are true but evidently ASU had a shot at the Motor City Bowl and turned it down. They either didn't like the arrangement (cost, number of tickets guaranteed, etc..) or they really want a change at head coach and just figured this would make it easier. I am sure that FAU and their $20 million dollar athletic budget gave the Motor City Bowl everything that they wanted and will take a huge loss. When it comes down to at-large selections, the bowl is going to look at how much money they can get from the school that wants in as well as the TV market that it "should" tap into.

I'm missing your point on ULL...how did they come up short? They had 6 wins over 1-A teams.

SUMG · December 9, 2008

Oh and by the way....Northern Illinois had a win over Indiana State---they are 1-AA.

Edited December 9, 2008 by SUMG

untjim1995 · December 9, 2008

Very interesting thread and posts. It sort of reminds me of what I would expect a team from Texas to do if they were going to have to play UNT in a bowl game. The fact that La Tech has that kind of "power" or "prestige" is a little surprising to me, but what do I know. It just shows how little regard anyone has for our conference.

stebo · December 9, 2008

I guess what I am trying to say is that you get what you pay for. We didn't pay a dime for these "contracts" - we paid nothing. Not one penny. They were put into place as a back-up plan. Rather than offering $100K (contingent on an invite) and keeping the "door" - the Belt could have secured an actual invite. There are 34 freaking bowl games, if we were to put up the money - we could underwrite a second invite for this conference. The Belt chose to roll the dice and this is what happens when you gamble. They played the odds and lost. They were put in place so that if the situation were to roll around like Troy's deal last year - a team like that would have somewhere to go without it being in Boise, Idaho - and that we wouldn't get raped in the process.

I think that UL-Lafayette could have worked out a deal on their own - just the way that FAU did. FAU went out and got their invite on their own as a true at large team. They will take a loss but they will play one more game. UL-L relied on the Belt's contingency agreement and tried to work something out with the Texas Bowl. I am sure that they were outbid - these bowls are terrified of these shitty match-ups and if Lafayette had just outbid the other at large for Houston, they would have been in. The Belt tried to do this on the cheap and this is what we get, nothing. But we paid nothing. What do you sue for when no money has exchanged hands?? Do you sue the Indy Bowl for no money just to make a point? The Belt needs to pay the freaking money and buy a second slot. These agreements were not contracts, they were back-ups with no cost at all. When you pay nothing at all, you should expect nothing in return.

TheColonyEagle · December 9, 2008

But from a purely "interesting matchup" standpoint, wouldn't the Independence Bowl itself want Ula-Tech vs. ULaLa? It seems like a solid, rival type matchup that would get a lot better attendance than Northern Illinos.

Don't the bowls decide who the matchup is going to be? If I'm in charge of the bowl in Shreveport, I would think that would be a no-brainer. If you can't get a Texas A&M or Nebraska and you've got to get two mid-tier teams, wouldn't you try to get the matchup possible, a matchup that would put butts in the seats and fill up restaurants and hotels?

Shreveport's far enough from Lafayette to get people to stay overnight at least............

Are more people going to come from Illinois than Lafayette?

I don't know, that decision doesn't make much sense to me.

oldguystudent · December 9, 2008

I actually spent the night in Shreveport last year on the eve of the Independence Bowl and had no trouble getting a room at a discounted rate with about two days notice.

kathy · December 10, 2008

I actually spent the night in Shreveport last year on the eve of the Independence Bowl and had no trouble getting a room at a discounted rate with about two days notice.

State officials not happy.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20081.../812100304/1002