I had to congratulate her on the photos of the "actual attendance" and asked if not waiting another day was worth it. #WEARELATECH



We invited La Tech despite being told on Monday, Nov 26 by the AD that they wouldn't play a Sun Belt Team. Then that Wed, the AD said they would be willing to play anyone. We were asked by the WAC commissioner that Thursday if we would invite La Tech that day. When a conference commissioner asks a bowl to invite a team it is always because he has an understanding with that school that they will accept. Unfortunately for all involved, especially 31 seniors, that didn't turn out to be the case. We did invite the Bulldogs to participate, and waited quite a while for a response. No response came and when we called again, late that Saturday we were told they would wait it out on other options. There were 71 qualifiers at that time. Our committee of 25, of which I do not have a vote, felt that after being asked to invite Tech and then turned down that they needed to go in a different direction. Our committee voted unanimously on Friday, Nov 30 to invite both La Tech and ULM. Bowls typically lock in their choices/plans by Saturday night based on the outcomes of championship games and what other games plan on doing.


I would also like to add that back in the spring we were asked by Tech's AD if we would be willing to write a letter of recommendation to Conference USA on Tech's behalf and our executive committee voted unanimously to do it.


I would also add that I have close friends whose son was a senior player this year at Tech. The disappointment hit close to home.


I hope this gives you some insight into the series of events. I would also add that if two other bowls had agreements with La Tech, then why is our game taking the brunt of the frustration when we are in fact the only bowl that did invite them.

Sent from my iPhone