So if we win we are in?

[johnnylightnin]

_ I have no idea how he is presenting his case and neither do you. Do I believe Tech is meddling in on the Indy Bowl people wrt to the SBC contractual language... I certainly do. No one is saying that the Indy Bowl might not be wiggling on the contract. That is the SBC's business to work it out with them. It is not Tech's business.

I don't care about arrogant Techsters. Dooley, however, is a tool... and he will make a reputation that Tech will not like and will not be easy to get rid of... wait and see. _

Tech and the Indy have had such a great relationship int he past, I'm sure they are doing whatever Dooley asks.

I'd love to know what Dooley is doing to build a bad reputation for Tech. As it stands right now, our relationship with the local teams that we would like to be affiliated with has never been better.

As long as Reneau is in his corner, his reputation in this state will be just fine.

[Jacob81]

Why would Dooley care who Tech plays in a bowl............. He's about to be a MSU Bulldog?????

[Boomer]

Thought about that today---With their win over the MS dogs, it would bring a good situation of respect from the current MSU players----but he said he would stay a Tech to get things accomplished---right!!!

[KAjunRaider]

Latest word from MT is that your poster was indeed correct, the NCAA OK'd the contracts.

But...... now the WAC, Big East, maybe even ESPN are appealing it, and it'll take a couple of days.

Word on the street is they think ESPN may get what it wants.

There should definitely be some wheeling and dealing going on.

Waters in a tough position.

My opinion-- maybe the NCAA should approved back in July and we would not have this mess.

I wonder if SBC wins the appeal, if contracts will remain that way for the duration of the contract, or the contracts will be re-written (for 7-win SBC teams).

If SBC gets screwed, methinks Waters is in deep doodoo with the Belt AD's, specifically UL, MT, stAte, and FAU (and close relationships with other AD's, such as MT and WKU, whose AD's were roommates in college).

[johnnylightnin]

But...... now the WAC, Big East, maybe even ESPN are appealing it, and it'll take a couple of days.

WAC and the Big East? That makes no sense. This is between Waters, Indy, and ESPN. If anything, this should tell you that nothing is "iron-clad".

Not sure why Waters would be in hot water. The rule about contingency bowls and 6-6 teams is an NCAA rule and would take precedence over anything in the belt/indy contract anyway.

[DestinCajun]

_ I guess I'm sparky. Feel free to show me where I've made a BS post. _

Pick any post you've made that says the Independence Bowl is not contracturally obligated to take an SBC team if circumstances really are as being discussed here. Based on what I've read on your forum, why would you LaTexster fans even care who is in the Independence Bowl?

What's most of your elite Textser internet fans' problem with playing so called "belch teams" - as you refer to UL, MT and Ark St - in a bowl game? If it's that big an issue then play in a WAC bowl somewhere out west and leave the Independence Bowl to southern region football programs.

Wright Waters a LaTex grad..... lmao!!!!

[johnnylightnin]

_ Pick any post you've made that says the Independence Bowl is not contracturally obligated to take an SBC team if circumstances really are as being discussed here. Based on what I've read on your forum, why would you LaTexster fans even care who is in the Independence Bowl?

Those aren't my words, those are the words of the I-Bowl Chairman. Apparently the guy at St. Pete's said the same thing. Sure, WW says the contract is "iron-clad", but that's clearly not true. It's, at best, unclear. At worst, WW is grasping at straws after hoping his position would allow him to push his teams through despite NCAA rules that prohibit contingency agreements from going into affect with 6-6 teams.

We care for the same reason you'd care if you were in this position. Honestly, would you rather play a mid-major in your bowl game (and clearly, this is hypothetical) or a BCS conference team?

[CajunZ1]

_ Those aren't my words, those are the words of the I-Bowl Chairman. Apparently the guy at St. Pete's said the same thing. Sure, WW says the contract is "iron-clad", but that's clearly not true. It's, at best, unclear. At worst, WW is grasping at straws after hoping his position would allow him to push his teams through despite NCAA rules that prohibit contingency agreements from going into affect with 6-6 teams.

We care for the same reason you'd care if you were in this position. Honestly, would you rather play a mid-major in your bowl game (and clearly, this is hypothetical) or a BCS conference team? _

I don't think anything you're saying here is unreasonable.

[CajunT]

_ WAC and the Big East? That makes no sense. This is between Waters, Indy, and ESPN. If anything, this should tell you that nothing is "iron-clad".

Not sure why Waters would be in hot water. The rule about contingency bowls and 6-6 teams is an NCAA rule and would take precedence over anything in the belt/indy contract anyway. _

Actually ESPN should have nothing to do with this either! They are a freakin private corporation trying to manipulate a bowl game to their pleasure. There is a contract in place, honor it or the Indy Bowl shouldn't have signed it. All the Indy Bowl has done is further tarnish what little reputation is has left as a rag tag organization and Bowl. They are broke!

[Arkstfan]

_ Because Wright Waters is who he is I put a lot of weight on what he says. If he said something will happen (a certain way) it probably will.

But, and, however, I do not put a lot of weight on his decision making process, he doesn’t always think things through... In an eerily similar situation to what the Big-12 is going through right now, (Sun Belt 2005) Wright Waters said the #1 criteria for determining the Sun Belt Champion was whether or not they were bowl eligible.

The Sun Belt Champion should be decided separate, apart and completely prior to bowl consideration.

jmo _

Thank North Texas for that. The AD's and presidents changed the football tie-breaking at the first meeting after the 2001 season.

BUT in 2005 if the tie-breakers had been allowed to play out, ASU would have won the tie-breakers. This year if you beat MT and ASU wins, ASU would have won the tie-breakers.

The bowl eligible only rule has never determined a different New Orleans Bowl rep, it has changed when it was determined.