Stinking Genius Loophole

[Turbine]

I won't have time to go into detail but it has to do with getting an official winning record of 6-5




Posted via Mobile Device

[CajunZ1]

Schedule 2 FCS schools. One won't count, (hopefully) for sure we wouldn't lose. Therefore, if you win 6 games, you will finish 6-5.

The language in the contract mentions having "a winning record," not "7 wins"

I don't think that would work. Plus, I think it would be pretty pathetic. Interesting thinking though.

[Turbine]

_ Schedule 2 FCS schools. One won't count, (hopefully) for sure we wouldn't lose. Therefore, if you win 6 games, you will finish 6-5.

The language in the contract mentions having "a winning record," not "7 wins"

I don't think that would work. Plus, I think it would be pretty pathetic. Interesting thinking though. _

I think he was talking about next year only for two reasons

1: UL has an opening and wants a home game.

2: I think he was talking about doing it for the final year of the Wright Waters alternate conract extravaganza.

[Arkstfan]

Humm. There is some merit to that idea. Win your two FCS games and finish 5-5 vs. FBS, you are 7-5 for the sake of the fans and 6-5 for the bowls and have to be placed ahead of 6-6.

Hat's off, wish I had thought of that.

[Arkstfan]

If you finish 6-6 you are knocked out of the conference tie-breaker but that was the deal anyway.

[ATXCajun]

_ Humm. There is some merit to that idea. Win your two FCS games and finish 5-5 vs. FBS, you are 7-5 for the sake of the fans and 6-5 for the bowls and have to be placed ahead of 6-6.

Hat's off, wish I had thought of that. _

For what it is worth, I am legitimately dissapointed that you guys got hosed as well. I guess both schools need to hire a 100 year old fossil searching for a comeback at any price. I thought maybe the I-Bowl would have picked you guys to avoid an all-Louisiana match-up. I would have been dissappointed with that, but at least the logic would have been more palatible than the fraud we are trying to swallow today.

[Arkstfan]

I-Bowl wanted to do a favor for an old friend. They tried to do a favor for him 2004 and NIU got knocked out because it was a rematch.

You question why would they do what they did. I think the established history is clear that both I-Bowl and Texas have demonstrated that they have management issues that have made it difficult for them to stay afloat, why do you expect them to veer off course and make a good decision?

[RaginFan2]

_ I-Bowl wanted to do a favor for an old friend. They tried to do a favor for him 2004 and NIU got knocked out because it was a rematch.

You question why would they do what they did. I think the established history is clear that both I-Bowl and Texas have demonstrated that they have management issues that have made it difficult for them to stay afloat, why do you expect them to veer off course and make a good decision? _

Yeah, what were we all thinking? I echo the previous poster, that if we couldn't get, y'all should've. I find it absurd that NONE of the 3 bowls we had "secondary tie-ins" with went with a Sunbelt team, even though they went with 6-6 teams. That is unbelievable, given what we were told by the league that we had in our "agreement".

[J-Town Cajun]

_ Schedule 2 FCS schools. One won't count, (hopefully) for sure we wouldn't lose. Therefore, if you win 6 games, you will finish 6-5.

The language in the contract mentions having "a winning record," not "7 wins"

I don't think that would work. Plus, I think it would be pretty pathetic. Interesting thinking though. _

Clemson played 2 D1AA schools this year and became bowl eligible. Now they won 7 games so they just needed to use one of them to be bowl eligible.

[jllanclos]

_ Yeah, what were we all thinking? I echo the previous poster, that if we couldn't get, y'all should've. I find it absurd that NONE of the 3 bowls we had "secondary tie-ins" with went with a Sunbelt team, even though they went with 6-6 teams. That is unbelievable, given what we were told by the league that we had in our "agreement". _

our "ironclad' agreement