I don't know that those 3 conferences are "on par" with each other, much less how you compare the SBC to them. Bowl tie-ins are the sole reason for the bowling numbers. How good you do or do not play football takes a back seat to the marketability of the conference, as bowls see it.
Besides Waters not being a very good commissioner, there are other reasons for the lack of bowls for the SBC. One, the conference is a new football conference made up of a bunch of former D1AAs (aside from UL), they reside in the south alongside the biggest football conference in the country, CUSA football membership - largely southern - was established ahead of the SBC, the south is not the largest market, the SBC schools themselves have moderate marketing potential, UL - the best program for leading the SBC football marketing bowl arrangement can't find its way to New Orleans, and Troy - the third to fourth best football program in the state of Alabama - dominates the hell out of the SBC.
UL is UL's problem. not the SBC. When UL does the right things with private funding for football, we can question the rest of the affiliations. And if the AD or president say, "we were disappointed at the intitial membership and funding of RCAF". that is exactly like the chef saying, "I think the food in this place tastes like c r a p".
I believe that UL should not sit idly by while other schools actively pursue new options for conference affiliation. If Troy or MTSU (or both), find their way into a conference other than the SBC, what will we have left to build on? Both Troy and MTSU would bolt in a heart beat. I'm just saying that I'd rather be the first one off of a sinking ship.
There are currently 22 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 22 guests)