It's not about people who post their names on here. Many of the more vocal detractors of the administration are well known and their views and comments are quite public. Why do you need to meet with people who have made their points very clear? Busy people such as Scott and T-Joe are better served hearing from people whose opinions they do not already have.
You mean whose opinions they share? Let's be real, it's easy to stand in front of like minded people and talk about what your plans are because they will all agree. But dynamic leaders, businessmen, and politicians cn stand in front of detractors and convince them that their positions and plans are justified or well thought out.
T-Joe and Farmer don't want to meet with their detractors. They want to listen to the guys who worship every step they take. Or at least that is what it seems like to fans who are critical of their leadership.
I have expectations for both academics and athletics. If I were to grade T-Joe and Farmer respectively T-Joe would get a C+ and Farmer would get a C- based off of my expectations. Some would give them both A+ others would give D's. I'd give my reasons why I would rate each the way I do, but I'm turning in for the night. Otherwise I'd have a J1M thesis going on.
Since you're so successful at long conversations following a single email, and are a proud sunshine pumper that never has an unkind word for our admin, I volunteer you to send another solitary email that will get you another impressive hour with Scott, explaining his take on the SBC, CUSA, and what mind blowing (yours) effort that's being put into getting T-Joe in front of every member president, and how we've all but sealed the deal?
As for those that think you have to wait for the UAB stuff to resolve before getting in front of the CUSA presidents... that's the kind of plan that makes your enemies defeat you.
Anyhow, you've been selected. Go find out stuff and report back. You are correct. Sending Girl Scouts out to sell cookies is pretty smart. You don't send angry men. Now get in touch with Scott and sell some cookies.
Oklahoma State became another bowl eligible team, Filling another bowl spot for the Big 12 that would have been open to another conference program. The AAC is the bowl tie this year and in 2017, so they chose a mediocre Pitt team with no bowl tie in. Yes, I think there was an outside chance that a 9-3 UL team that has 3 losses to two to TOP 25 RPI teams and a Tech team in the top 45 RPI. A great chance no, but no shot based upon what?
And when the New Orleans Bowl has to take the SBC Champion and that team isn't UL, they won't be in the New Orleans Bowl. That bowl is not assured to UL as well. The best bowl as long as we are in the SBC, of course? Who said otherwise? It's the only bowl game worth attending in the SBC alignment period.
To many people, a better bowl is one that does not involve a Sun Belt tie in. For example playing in either Shreveport, Dallas, or Houston against a team from a Power 5 conference would be enticing. I do agree that New Orleans is better than Mobile, Montgomery, or Orlando. Those are all Sun Belt tie ins. A better bowl is having a good enough season you attract non Sun Belt tie in bowls. I recognize things have to break just right for that to happen.
All this debating....
All things aside, would anyone rather go to the Cure Bowl in Orlando played in the newly renovated Citrus Bowl Stadium next year instead of New Orleans Bowl for a 5th straight trip?
Dre, how many games did we win next year? Did we beat both Tech and Kentucky? Did we smash Tech at Tech? We did, didn't we? Did we drop a conference game? Come on man, did we go 12-0?! We did, didn't we?! Way cool! Then why ask about the Cure and New Orleans? Dude, did we get screwed on the access bowl after going 12-0!? It was Tech and Kentucky not being enough! Dang it! Did I lose more hair in 2015? I did, didn't I? Dang it!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)