We Need to Support Bruce Van De Velde

[RougeDawg]

We should bring back Bicknell to compliment BVDV.

"That Liberty Bowl is a really good bowl. We are just frustrated that it didn't work out."

[Reckless Abandon]

Now that I have thought about it more, I blame Bruce more than I did at first. We just had too much to lose by not accepting Indy. Regardless of what sonny and alumni wanted, bvdv should have separated his and alumni's emotions from the situation and made the right call. Especially when he KNEW that liberty wanted Iowa state if available. At the time of i bowl invite, If one of 3 things happened, we were most likely screwed:
1. K State losing
2. Nebraska losing
3. Voters with an agenda pushing NIU into bcs

I understand that we have the benefit of hindsight, but the risk was higher than he thought it was and 2 out of those 3 happened. I was even nervous on Saturday when I learned that we declined the I bowl, and if it was enough to be nervous about then it was too close for comfort. It was a tough call and I sympathize with that, but it's his job to be objective and not allow pressure from emotional alumni to affect his decision. We had too much to lose with no plan B.

It's also his job to protect the program from "worst case scenario" and he did not. This is worst case imaginable.

[CARTEK]

I agree that we need to support BVDV...we need to support his earliest departure from Lincoln Parish!

[TXDAWG81]

I agree that we need to support BVDV...we need to support his earliest departure from Lincoln Parish!

+1

[Iowa Dawgs Fan]

This is NOT difficult to figure out. The question to be asked is:

Dr. Reneau and Bruce,
Was the Saturday Liberty Bowl "commitment" referenced in the letter to Tech fans received in writing? If not, why not?

[shrevedawg]

I work in the medical field and as the saying goes, "if it's not in writing.......it NEVER happened." Bruce has yet to provide ANY evidence that would stand up in court. Bringing another person in as a witness who has a conflict of interest is no way of proving anything. IF he has ANY documentation from the LIberty Bowl side that proves his case, it should be released. A letter of explanation is at this point to me a bunch of excuses from someone trying to save face and save a job. The burden of proof is on Bruce. I say he delivers the evidence or goes to the Spirit station to catch the next Greyhound back to Iowa.

If he delivers, THEN support him.

[CARTEK]

I love drugstore lawyers...they are a notch below jailhouse lawyers...both are amusing!

[Tech77]

I doubt that ANY of the discussions between any bowls, conferences and schools leading up to the official bowl invitation involve a written agreement, except for those which are contracted well in advance.

[dawg80]

I doubt that ANY of the discussions between any bowls, conferences and schools leading up to the official bowl invitation involve a written agreement, except for those which are contracted well in advance.

So, does anyone know what constitutes a true bowl invitation? Is it something in writing? Can be a text message or a faxed document. Or, is it just a verbal agreement, pending something in writing? I don't know. Does anybody know?

But, at some point, BVDs knew the I Bowl was pressing him for an answer. This is my only real beef with him. At some point, be it on Saturday or Sunday, BVDs knew he was pressed against a deadline. He needed to call the Liberty Bowl and, politely, but firmly, demand a definitive answer. Simply say, listen guys I need to know something by.....4PM...or whenever. If I don't get a formal invitation from you by then, I am calling the I Bowl folks and we're going there. Period. End of story. Apparently, ne never did something like that. He left it open-ended until it was too late.

Oh well! fortunately we didn't bungle the loss of a good bowl game. It was only the lousy I Bowl, for pete's sake. Not a big loss in the big scheme of things. (and yes, as I posted elsewhere, save for the obvious loss to our seniors and some practice time).

[Tech77]

So, does anyone know what constitutes a true bowl invitation? Is it something in writing? Can be a text message or a faxed document. Or, is it just a verbal agreement, pending something in writing? I don't know. Does anybody know?

But, at some point, BVDs knew the I Bowl was pressing him for an answer. This is my only real beef with him. At some point, be it on Saturday or Sunday, BVDs knew he was pressed against a deadline. He needed to call the Liberty Bowl and, politely, but firmly, demand a definitive answer. Simply say, listen guys I need to know something by.....4PM...or whenever. If I don't get a formal invitation from you by then, I am calling the I Bowl folks and we're going there. Period. End of story. Apparently, ne never did something like that. He left it open-ended until it was too late.

Oh well! fortunately we didn't bungle the loss of a good bowl game. It was only the lousy I Bowl, for pete's sake. Not a big loss in the big scheme of things. (and yes, as I posted elsewhere, save for the obvious loss to our seniors and some practice time).

His claim is that he did make that call Saturday afternon and the Liberty Bowl told him Tech would be their choice "regardless of what happened."

[RougeDawg]

I doubt that ANY of the discussions between any bowls, conferences and schools leading up to the official bowl invitation involve a written agreement, except for those which are contracted well in advance.

He had a written agreement earlier in the week that they would be taken unless a Big XII team was eligible. I've got to believe form letters for this are pretty standard. Same thing every year with different teams and dates.

[wce1980]

His claim is that he did make that call Saturday afternon and the Liberty Bowl told him Tech would be their choice "regardless of what happened."

Thats what he told me over the phone. And if what he is saying is true, then we should see some solid evidence if we just be patient. There are obvious legal reasons he can't release that evidence now.

[johnnylightnin]

Thats what he told me over the phone. And if what he is saying is true, then we should see some solid evidence if we just be patient. There are obvious legal reasons he can't release that evidence now.

But the evidence will be released? I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing that we'll see anything that will be satisfying. What we've got right now is he said she said and in the end, all we're doing is spinning our wheels. I'm ready to move on...

[DCdog]

Everyone has looked at the situation and are asking themselves did Tech receive an offer from Liberty, did Bruce just screw the pooch, or was it some combination of the two. I have to think that like most things in life, its not as black and white as we all would like it to be and was probably some combination of Bruce sucking and liberty lying.

However, I dont think any of the is important. I wrote a thread (that was cast to the pit because some on this board feel it needs to be run in an authoritarian manner) titled "are we burning bridges." In the thread I talked about a few instances that I heard of Bruce and the administration pi$$ing some people off at Advocare, the Indy Bowl, and to some extent HOD Bowl.

This is where I have a problem with Bruce. He is throwing people and institutions ( now the liberty bowl) under the bus. In business you have to make friends. Truely, above all, this the most important part of cooperating in a business society. Bruce has not done this. He has been all over the airwaves blasting any and everyone he can to saved his hide. It is not only making us look incompetent but now petty. And beyond that, we (hopefully, man I pray) will have to deal with some of these bowls again in the future. It is not smart business to burn bridges that you might want to cross in the future. I know some will say "now that we are in the C-USA we wont have to deal with this crap." Thats big pile of crap. We dont know how any futre bowl picture will be in the future and should want to have as many options as possible to avoid this fiasco again.

I am all for forgive and forget. But when someone doesnt own up to the problems he has caused, it becomes harder to forgive and he wont let anyone forget. So, even if this is not all Bruce's fault (which as i stated earlier, I doubt he is soley to blame) Bruce should own up to the fact that he is the AD and ultimately this is his job to get right, and he didnt.

[CARTEK]

Thats what he told me over the phone. And if what he is saying is true, then we should see some solid evidence if we just be patient. There are obvious legal reasons he can't release that evidence now.

There are no "obvious legal reasons" for withholding evidence. Evidence is evidence...it doesn't change form or function...it either exists or doesn't...if it exists, show it and be done with it!