South Alabama hasn't even began play & they've signed a 4 year home-home with Navy.
South Alabama AD Joe Gottfried just spoke for a few minutes about the state of the South Alabama football program. Something of note, USA has already signed a four-year home-and-home deal with Navy.
They expect to be a full-time member of the Sun Belt by 2012 with bowl-eligibility.
UNT has signed a 6 year deal with Army commencing in '09 with them coming to Denton plus a multi year deal with nearby SMU.
Last edited by MG61; 07-22-2008 at 04:25 PM.
The Belt will likely have multiple winning (7+) teams each year with the emergence of FAU and Troy. This will be bad if it happens. No reason Benson couldn't have done something like this.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
I hope our surge is not too late. We could have used DD four years ago. That way it would have been us in the Suger Bowl last year not UH.
uhm... We, TECH, sat at home at 7-4 in 2005. Now the WAC has added a bowl since then but WE have not been fortunate with the team placements in bowls.
I think Benson (and Tech) would be better off making deals with the Dallas , Houston, and NO bowls for TECH. The Indy Bowl, like nlulm, is part of our past. And the Indy bowl, like TECH, wants to move forward.
And I still think that there are just way too many Tech grads on the Indy Bowl commitee to ever allow nlulm in their bowl. I think they would shut the whole thing down before they allow nlulm in there. I know too many of them personally to think otherwise.
But how is this "bad" for TECH? It's not like we lost a tie-in! Tech hasn't been an option for the Indy Bowl in years. And the WAC will NEVER be a conference the Indy Bowl can tie itself to. Wanting a bowl to tie it's self to ONE school NOT in the orignal contract would not be smart move.
And, if the I-Bowl would have put a 8-4 Troy team in the game last year I would have gone and possibly paid money to go. A 7-5 UL-L or nlulm....(7-5 nlulm? like that wil ever happen) ...not so much.
When the nearest bowl-tie in is 1000 miles from Ruston, any opportunities taken away for a closer game (even if it requires conference not qualifying enough teams) is not good for Tech. Although I do agree that the Texas Bowls would make for a good showing from Tech, they are going to set on the Mountain West and TCU considering TCU has shown the ability to get Bowl Eligible every year instead of every third year or so.
Worse, is what happens when 3 conferences fail to fill their bowl spots and two of those have secondary tie in with the Sunbelt. Then you’re fighting with the Mountain West and MAC for the third spot in a bowl that probably is not close to Ruston. When Tech was 7-4 they were not passed over by teams from the sunbelt or MAC, unfortunately I can see were a 6-6 (or 7-4 if the rule is changed) Tech is passed over for a sunbelt or MAC school because of secondary bowl contracts.
As for the Independence Bowl, would the Independence Bowl have taken Louisiana Tech instead of Miami of Ohio? It is certainly not something Tech needs to count on in terms of bowls, but I would prefer to know that if a spot was open they would not have to try and negotiate around a secondary contract to invite Tech. It is going to suck to see Tech playing in Hawaii or setting at home with a Sun Belt team playing in Shreveport (even if it is only once every 5 or 10 years). We have seen Tech’s pull with the I-Bowl before, I doubt Tech would have any shot at keeping any qualified team from the Sunbelt out of that bowl if a slot were open, even ULL or ULM.
Actually we did still have the GMAC Bowl tie in that year. Just Toledo at 8-3 and UTEP at 8-3 were available. So we got skipped. Had one of them slipped up maybe we would have not been PASSED OVER.
What we are forgetting are these contracts are like hedging your bets. In 2004 the I-Bowl had little choice. They got a 8-4 Miami (OH) team over a 6-6 Tech team (that I don't think was bowl eligable in 2004). To make sure the I-Bowl never has to do that again they chose to make a secondary bowl tie in with a conference that fits their footprint. Sounds to me like someone is starting to use their heads. (kinda!)As for the Independence Bowl, would the Independence Bowl have taken Louisiana Tech instead of Miami of Ohio? It is certainly not something Tech needs to count on in terms of bowls, but I would prefer to know that if a spot was open they would not have to try and negotiate around a secondary contract to invite Tech. It is going to suck to see Tech playing in Hawaii or setting at home with a Sun Belt team playing in Shreveport (even if it is only once every 5 or 10 years). We have seen Tech’s pull with the I-Bowl before, I doubt Tech would have any shot at keeping any qualified team from the Sunbelt out of that bowl if a slot were open, even ULL or ULM.
As a business, which is what the I-Bowl is, the I-Bowl should look at upgrading their pick in the conferences they are tied to. Right now they keep getting dumped to last or second to last if lucky. If they would sign a deal with the Big 12 OR the SEC and then sign a deal with the #1 or #2 CUSA or Sunbelt school (they are both regional conferences that could pull fans) then the Indy Bowl would get a better choice of teams coming. (That would mean no more ninth best SEC team with 6-6 records.) Because the BcS conferences are not going to allow their schools to be matched against a GOOD non-BcS school that could beat them more than not. Notice how TECH and the WAC are NOT included in this scenario. The WAC should never be. And TECH should only be if we are in a regional conference that would benefit the Indy Bowl.
Screw the Independence Bowl, their board of directors and anybody who tries to defend them. After having Tech save their bowl, they treat us like the drunken cousin that nobody wants at the family reunion. There is no question that the Independence bowl would no longer be in existence if they hadn't invited Tech to play Maryland. We saved them when they needed us. So, once again, I say screw them and anybody who defends them.
I would LOVE to see Arkansas State take their 6K fans to the Independence Bowl. That will drive the I-Bowl back to Tech immediately or put them out of business completely. Either route is fine.
If Tech taking 1,000 to Boise didn't kill that game (or UTEP's sub 1,000 in Boise) 6,000 in Shreveport ain't killing the game.
As for Army, ASU will be announcing an 8 year 4 game home/home deal with the Cadets soon.
No offense ARKSTFAN, but Army sucks. Thats not a great series. I am shocked so many on our board were so excited when we scheduled them. It's a long way to travel for a home and home that doesn't generate much $$$$.
As for this thread in general, I think this is good news for the Sunbelt but not really bad news for Tech. Congrats to the Belt for pulling it off, I hope it pays off for you.
Hey arkstfan ... always good to see you here.
I remember this one time that an I-Bowl committee member (who, interestingly enough, was also an avowed Arkansas State fan) got his wittle feelings hurt on Bulldogs Barks and Bytes, and then used his position of influence to nix a deal that would have put Tech in the Indy Bowl and Ole Miss in a WAC bowl. I remember how EVERYONE was for the idea: the WAC, the SEC, the Big 12, Ole Miss, and even the city of Shreveport supported the proposal. But that one particular committee member convinced the rest I-Bowl board that Tech fans were surly little prats and shouldnt get the invite.
Of course, we all know that's exactly what happened because that same I-Bowl official came back to this board and bragged about how he had black-balled Tech. (Regrettably, that post disappeared within a couple of hours.)
Ahhhhh -- those were days. I wonder if Tech's next bowl-eligible season will feature that much ... drama. I, for one, would be disappointed with anything less than another soap opera.