La. Tech AD on Tim Brando: Quotes

[Sir Cajun]

I keep waiting for Bradshaw to open his mouth and chime in with some ignorant insight of his.

Malone has taken Bradshaws share. His twitter rants last night were epic

[moorecajun]

Watson maintains that the Independence Bowl did not want a Tech vs. ULM matchup (due to sponsors reaction in the past concerning two Louisiana schools playing in the Bowl). This does not fit with Van de Velde's account of events. .

Trying to piece together the timeline .

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech several weeks ago about an invitation. The rumor part of this has Tech replying that they are interested if a Sun Belt opponent is not on the other side (unsubstantiated and probably never will be).

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech after the San Jose State game, once again expressing interest. The rumor part of this has Tech replying that they are interested if ULM is not on the other side (unsubstantiated and probably never will be).

- According to Van de Velde, the Independence Bowl issued Louisiana Tech an invitation late last week. You can take this to mean no later than Friday.

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech Saturday morning (12/1) and informs Van de Velde that the Bowl needs a decision by Tech. Van de Velde replies that he needs to confer with his head coach and the university before making that commitment and that he would be back in touch. Tech officials discuss the situation and arrive at the conclusion that they should vet the HOD and Liberty Bowl possibilities.

- Van de Velde communicates the above to the Independence Bowl (still Saturday morning) . asking them for enough time to determine how the Saturday games play out . such that they would have the information they need to make the best decision for Louisiana Tech. Note that Van de Velde says nothing about waiting into Sunday when the BCS results were available. The Independence Bowl did not announce Ohio until after the Sunday BCS announcements were made.

- The Independence Bowl calls back later that Saturday during the Oklahoma - TCU game (started just after 11am CST) and told Van de Velde that they needed a decision before the end of the Oklahoma - TCU game. Van de Velde tells them once again that he must confer with his Tech associates and will be back in touch. Obviously he does not adhere to the deadline imposed by the Independence Bowl, because .

- Van de Velde then claims that he spoke with the Indy Bowl later that afternoon (does not specify when) and that the Indy Bowl informed him that the Bowl had decided to move on an agreement with the MAC (not an agreement with Ohio yet, but the MAC in general). This discussion obviously took place after ULM was invited. The ULM invite was announced in the press at about 4pm CST . full article was available at that time. Not sure how much earlier the invite was actually extended to ULM.

- According to Van de Velde, he had a discussion Saturday evening (could have been the same discussion above) with the Independence Bowl (again, after ULM was invited) where he told them that any team they wanted to chose from the MAC would be there for them on Sunday. This was Van de Velde attempting to get the Indy Bowl to wait before committing the final Bowl spot to the MAC.

- Thus, into Saturday evening . well after ULM was invited, Van de Velde was still posturing for more time . attempting to convince the Independence Bowl that they could wait until Sunday and still have the same choice of MAC teams. Of course, this is not true and was not in the best interest of the Independence Bowl. This would have put the Independence Bowl at risk of being stuck with a 6-6 Central Michigan, or worse, a Sun Belt vs. Sun Belt matchup. The Independence Bowl was rightly and smartly protecting themselves.

- If the Independence Bowl had no interest in Tech after ULM was invited, then why was Van de Velde still lobbying the Independence Bowl Saturday evening to wait until Sunday on committing to a MAC team (for the spot opposite ULM)? Why would the Independence Bowl waste their time on all of these discussions with Van de Velde post the ULM invite? If Tech's chances of playing in the Independence Bowl had completely evaporated earlier in the day when ULM was extended an invite, the Independence Bowl would have stated just that and there would have been no further discussions/negotiations on whether the Independence Bowl should commit at that time to the MAC for the other spot.

Brian

Nice job on the timeline.

I can see a future note from van helsing that they wanted to cut down on their travel expenses! They did . zero!

[Hammer58]

Breaking news out of Shreveport has the Tech AD being rushed to the hospital. A hospital spokesman reports that his condition is stable after suffering a fall. The fall occurred shortly after appearing on the Tim Brando Show. Doctors speculate that all the spinning caused him to get dizzy and pass out resulting in the fall.

[I_Bleed_RED]

They have almost no chance of getting an at-large bid in any bowl in the next 10 years, unless the bowl has no other options.

Wait, what? What's your reasoning behind this.

[Boomer]

Malone has taken Bradshaws share. His twitter rants last night were epic

Well if Malone's son had any thoughts about reconsidering to play for Tech --I think they have vanished!!!

[GoneGolfin]

Watson maintains that the Independence Bowl did not want a Tech vs. ULM matchup (due to sponsors reaction in the past concerning two Louisiana schools playing in the Bowl). This does not fit with Van de Velde's account of events. .

Trying to piece together the timeline .

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech several weeks ago about an invitation. The rumor part of this has Tech replying that they are interested if a Sun Belt opponent is not on the other side (unsubstantiated and probably never will be).

Well, surprisingly this was confirmed this morning by the Independence Bowl Chairman. Van de Velde communicated to the Independence Bowl that Tech would be interested in the Independence Bowl on the condition that they are not matched again a Sun Belt opponent.

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech after the San Jose State game, once again expressing interest. The rumor part of this has Tech replying that they are interested if ULM is not on the other side (unsubstantiated and probably never will be).

- According to Van de Velde, the Independence Bowl issued Louisiana Tech an invitation late last week. You can take this to mean no later than Friday.

- The Independence Bowl contacts Tech Saturday morning (12/1) and informs Van de Velde that the Bowl needs a decision by Tech. Van de Velde replies that he needs to confer with his head coach and the university before making that commitment and that he would be back in touch. Tech officials discuss the situation and arrive at the conclusion that they should vet the HOD and Liberty Bowl possibilities.

- Van de Velde communicates the above to the Independence Bowl (still Saturday morning) . asking them for enough time to determine how the Saturday games play out . such that they would have the information they need to make the best decision for Louisiana Tech. Note that Van de Velde says nothing about waiting into Sunday when the BCS results were available. The Independence Bowl did not announce Ohio until after the Sunday BCS announcements were made.

- The Independence Bowl calls back later that Saturday during the Oklahoma - TCU game (started just after 11am CST) and told Van de Velde that they needed a decision before the end of the Oklahoma - TCU game. Van de Velde tells them once again that he must confer with his Tech associates and will be back in touch. Obviously he does not adhere to the deadline imposed by the Independence Bowl, because .

- Van de Velde then claims that he spoke with the Indy Bowl later that afternoon (does not specify when) and that the Indy Bowl informed him that the Bowl had decided to move on an agreement with the MAC (not an agreement with Ohio yet, but the MAC in general). This discussion obviously took place after ULM was invited. The ULM invite was announced in the press at about 4pm CST . full article was available at that time. Not sure how much earlier the invite was actually extended to ULM.

- According to Van de Velde, he had a discussion Saturday evening (could have been the same discussion above) with the Independence Bowl (again, after ULM was invited) where he told them that any team they wanted to chose from the MAC would be there for them on Sunday. This was Van de Velde attempting to get the Indy Bowl to wait before committing the final Bowl spot to the MAC.

It is now confirmed via the interview this morning that the Independence Bowl, did in fact, call Van de Velde one more time before finalizing the deal with the MAC (Saturday afternoon/evening). He made it clear to Van de Velde that the spot is still open to play ULM, but that an immediate decision was required. Van de Velde opted to wait on other perceived options. The Independence Bowl then made their deal with the MAC.

Thus, we now have confirmed that .

The Independence Bowl bent over backwards with respect to giving Louisiana Tech multiple opportunities to accept an invitation from the Independence Bowl . both before ULM accepted their invitation and after ULM accepted their invitation. This also means that the Independence Bowl did want a Louisiana Tech vs. ULM match-up, despite the claims from some Tech fans and northern Louisiana media (Watson) to the contrary.

- Thus, into Saturday evening . well after ULM was invited, Van de Velde was still posturing for more time . attempting to convince the Independence Bowl that they could wait until Sunday and still have the same choice of MAC teams. Of course, this is not true and was not in the best interest of the Independence Bowl. This would have put the Independence Bowl at risk of being stuck with a 6-6 Central Michigan, or worse, a Sun Belt vs. Sun Belt matchup. The Independence Bowl was rightly and smartly protecting themselves.

The above thinking was also confirmed by the Independence Bowl Chairman, despite the spin from Van de Velde in the media.

Brian

- If the Independence Bowl had no interest in Tech after ULM was invited, then why was Van de Velde still lobbying the Independence Bowl Saturday evening to wait until Sunday on committing to a MAC team (for the spot opposite ULM)? Why would the Independence Bowl waste their time on all of these discussions with Van de Velde post the ULM invite? If Tech's chances of playing in the Independence Bowl had completely evaporated earlier in the day when ULM was extended an invite, the Independence Bowl would have stated just that and there would have been no further discussions/negotiations on whether the Independence Bowl should commit at that time to the MAC for the other spot.

Brian

[Just1More]

The actions of the Tech admin are not only laughable in this instance. but they validate our claims of the 2008 Indy Bowl. How would the Indy be interested in a 2012 ULM versus Tech game, but not be interested in a 2008 UL versus Tech game?

The UL versus Tech game would have had many more UL hotel and meal takers in the Shreveport area, than they are going to get out of the Monroe people. ESPN couldn't possibly be saying "an all north Louisiana matchup is better than a north versus south Louisiana matchup". The entire 2008 story was BS. And there is solid proof, despite the Tech people's claims, that the Indy bends over backwards for Tech. They did it again in 2012. They just didn't pull their pants all the way down this time.

To me, Tech fans need to just chalk this one up to "arrogance doesn't work every time". and just plan for their next big arrogant effort and see if that pays off. I think they've done pretty well being arrogant so far. I wouldn't change course just because of this latest failure. They certainly shouldn't be giving Van de Velde a real hard time. He did what the Tech athletic department does. act arrogant and see where the chips fall.

[HOUCajun]

A war of words between LTU and the I Bowl via the media will not end well for either party. But it seems inevitable, and the tech AD has no one to blame but himself by starting it. Unlike the decision to hold out for a better bowl, which he likely shares with the prez, davidson, dikes and possibly his fortune teller.

[barisaxman]

Well, surprisingly this was confirmed this morning by the Independence Bowl Chairman. Van de Velde communicated to the Independence Bowl that Tech would be interested in the Independence Bowl on the condition that they are not matched again a Sun Belt opponent.


It is now confirmed via the interview this morning that the Independence Bowl, did in fact, call Van de Velde one more time before finalizing the deal with the MAC (Saturday afternoon/evening). He made it clear to Van de Velde that the spot is still open to play ULM, but that an immediate decision was required. Van de Velde opted to wait on other perceived options. The Independence Bowl then made their deal with the MAC.

Thus, we now have confirmed that .

The Independence Bowl bent over backwards with respect to giving Louisiana Tech multiple opportunities to accept an invitation from the Independence Bowl . both before ULM accepted their invitation and after ULM accepted their invitation. This also means that the Independence Bowl did want a Louisiana Tech vs. ULM match-up, despite the claims from some Tech fans and northern Louisiana media (Watson) to the contrary.



The above thinking was also confirmed by the Independence Bowl Chairman, despite the spin from Van de Velde in the media.

Brian

Then came the BIG shocker.The Indy Bowl chairmanlet it be known that they (at Tech's request) wrote a letter to CUSA on Tech's behalf to help them gain admission! Arrogant AND UNGRATEFUL!! Karma IS a bee-otch, ain't it??

[GoneGolfin]

Then came the BIG shocker.The Indy Bowl chairmanlet it be known that they (at Tech's request) wrote a letter to CUSA on Tech's behalf to help them gain admission! Arrogant AND UNGRATEFUL!! Karma IS a bee-otch, ain't it??

This was reported in an article yesterday by Lang of the Shreveport Times.

Brian

[Bankruptcyman]

We need to have the New Orleans Bowl write a letter for us to CUSA.