We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-07-2012, 09:35 PM
hookdown

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS

Hum...how did I miss this one. This shows the real perspective outside of Louisiana IMHO. And I love how NLU/ULM wasn't mentioned at all just as it should be.

Louisiana Tech Football: Bowl System, Not AD, to Blame for La. Tech Bowl Snub

BY K BECKS
(CONTRIBUTOR) ON DECEMBER 3, 2012

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1431123-louisiana-tech-football-bowl-system-not-ad-to-blame-for-la-tech-bowl-snub

Interesting in that BR was one of the first ones to blast BVDV and Tech for screwing the bowl bid up and blaming it all on us.
12-07-2012, 10:54 PM
LookingForResults

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

A lie told 1000 times is worth no more than that same lie told only once....absolutely NOTHING.

Calling a man a liar and I think elsewhere calling for him to be fired with NO evidence? Sure you don't want to rethink that one? When there's evidence, lynch him then.
12-07-2012, 10:56 PM
RougeDawg

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

We all should band together and file a complaint! That should do it.

http://memphis.bbb.org/
12-07-2012, 11:19 PM
johnnylightnin

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by LookingForResults

Calling a man a liar and I think elsewhere calling for him to be fired with NO evidence? Sure you don't want to rethink that one? When there's evidence, lynch him then.

It doesn't have to be a lie to be poor administration. Whatever Bruce and the interim WAC commish heard was not binding. Bruce treated it as binding...he failed. He should've demanded the invite on the spot and in leiu of that, he should've accepted the iBowl invite.

A lion's share of quality ADs would've handled it differently.
12-08-2012, 12:03 AM
theprofessor

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woof!

Is anyone on this forum experienced with using the Freedom of Information Act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CARTEK

FOIA doesn't apply...not a government entity!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woof!

The FOIA was used somehow to get emails released that led to the downfall of Jim Tressel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuBru

OSU has to abide by Ohio's open record laws.

Louisiana has a very strong public records law, one of the strongest in the country. If a document from the Liberty Bowl to BVDV existed, under the state's public records law, Tech would have to release it to anyone requesting it. Any email exchanges between BVDV (or other Tech officials) and bowl officials (be they Liberty, Independence and others) also would fall under the state's public records law. All of this, if it actually exists, is public information.
12-08-2012, 02:26 AM
CARTEK

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

...the Liberty Bowl isn't in Louisiana and it isn't a public entity.
12-08-2012, 04:38 AM
stodgdog

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by LThoo

It's hard to believe that so many of you are ok with Tech sitting at home during bowl season. It doesn't matter the reason, it falls onto Bruce's shoulders. Is he paid to excel in incompetence? Thus far all he's done is blame everybody else. NIU, Liberty Bowl, Heart of Dallas Bowl. He's yet to accept responsibility for his failures and issue an apology to the Tech faithful. Yet so many on this board are so eager to believe that the world is out to get Tech, that now we need to rally behind poor wittle Brucey. Hell no. He proved himself incompetent in his job and the university and fans need to hold him responsible.

BVDV didn't unilaterally make whatever decisions and choices were made.
12-08-2012, 04:52 AM
stodgdog

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXDAWG81

BVDV who else? The buck stops on his desk! Why is that so hard to understand?

It stops on Reneau's desk.
12-08-2012, 04:54 AM
stodgdog

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunwayDawg55

If it is in fact true that we were promised a spot by the Liberty Bowl officials, EVEN OVER A BIG XII TEAM, and we have such a strong case with "witnesses" (WAC Commish), then we would be pursuing litigation at this point. Nothing has indicated we are though. Bruce's charade here is nothing more than to cover his ass and hopefully save face before the new Tech President comes in and really puts him under the microscope. He won't be working at Tech long enough to see next football season, PERIOD.

You don't know any of that, PERIOD
12-08-2012, 04:59 AM
stodgdog

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdawg

There are plenty of IFs and BUTs to go around. The truth is we probably won't do better than Bruce. But we must replace him if we desire to move forward with our athletic program. That is the reality of college athletics that we live in.

Attracting new talent to the coaching staff will be quite a challenge either way, but almost imposible if we continue with the status quo.

My problem with his staying is that if Bruce hadn't begged the IBowl for an invite, they might have been more willing to work with him when we were their best option. He begged, they offered, he waffled, they set a deadline, and he walked. Not the way we should do business.

You know this how?
12-08-2012, 05:24 AM
stodgdog

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

It doesn't have to be a lie to be poor administration. Whatever Bruce and the interim WAC commish heard was not binding. Bruce treated it as binding...he failed. He should've demanded the invite on the spot and in leiu of that, he should've accepted the iBowl invite.

A lion's share of quality ADs would've handled it differently.

You don't know that.

The Indy Bowl could have waited another hour or two, as they were requested, for Tech to make a decision. Northeast or Ohio weren't going anywhere else. They would have had a better game and better attendance with Tech playing in the game. Seems the I Bowl was trying to one up Tech for some reason. I'm not taking a position on what the right decision was, but the I Bowl could have waited a bit. I think Tech told them a couple weeks ago they wanted to wait until the regular season played out before deciding whether to accept the invitation.
12-08-2012, 06:36 AM
JuBru

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by CARTEK

...the Liberty Bowl isn't in Louisiana and it isn't a public entity.

No, but Tech is. And as professor said, their communications with Tech can be requested. You won't get it from the LB, just Tech. Heck if you worded it right, you might find some more gems, like Q4E communications.

But it shouldn't matter. If wce is so sure in BVDV releasing everything when it's time, he shouldn't need to find anyone experienced in Louisiana's open record laws.
12-08-2012, 08:12 AM
johnnylightnin

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by stodgdog

You don't know that.

Sure I do. Make me a list of 9 win teams in the last 10 years that didn't go to a bowl...then compare that to the number of 9 win teams that went to a bowl.

Stodg, Bruce tool a gamble he shouldn't have and he was in a position to take it because of his unprofessional demeanor.
12-08-2012, 08:16 AM
Geaux Dawgs

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckdawg

HE NEEDS TO GO and he DOES NOT need to be on search committee to find new coach. If he can't get us in a bowl what in the heck can he do about hiring a new coach?

He is not apart of the "actual" search committee
12-08-2012, 11:11 AM
JAB

Re: We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

Quote:

Originally Posted by stodgdog

You don't know that.

The Indy Bowl could have waited another hour or two, as they were requested, for Tech to make a decision. Northeast or Ohio weren't going anywhere else. They would have had a better game and better attendance with Tech playing in the game. Seems the I Bowl was trying to one up Tech for some reason. I'm not taking a position on what the right decision was, but the I Bowl could have waited a bit. I think Tech told them a couple weeks ago they wanted to wait until the regular season played out before deciding whether to accept the invitation.

Tech was offered the spot on Friday night and didn't return the call.
Saturday morning Tech asked for time to discuss it.
Saturday night Tech asked for a little more time and Indy told Bruce time was up. Ohio was offered.
Tech didn't want a couple hours, they wanted a couple days. In the day it took for the IBowl to move on, Bruce was unable to secure a contract from the Liberty Bowl. That is where he failed.
Now, is there some fault for the IBowl? Of course. Could they have waited? Yes, but they were afraid they'd end up with the last pick in the country and didn't want to take that gamble.
This whole thing reminds me of the TV show Shark Tank. Bruce stood there infront of multiple bowls trying to sell Louisiana Tech. Some bowls were interested more than others. Some bowls made offers but we kept trying to get a little more. And when it came down to the end no one was interested in buying in at all.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page