Page 4 of 4
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:23 pm
by Dooby
SoCal_Pony wrote:EVERYONE at SMU will be happy with going to a Bowl game, regardless of the location.
Congratulations JJ and SMU
But take SMU out of the equation and ask yourself this.
Of the literally thousands of bowl games that have been played over the past several decades, can you even name 10 times that a team has refused to go to a bowl that the Champion is entitled to and instead taken a lesser bowl?
It is quite unusual and therefore worthy of debate on this board.
It wasn't the Champion's invite, but do you not remember TCU ducking Miami (Ohio) at the GMAC Bowl in Rothlesberger's Senior Year?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1672511They had to study!Edit: Stallion beat me to it by 5 seconds. I blame the fact that I had to log in.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:30 pm
by SoCal_Pony
Dooby,
Yes I remember that one.
Key word here is CHAMPIONS...and if we win...that is exactly what we will be.
If we had the choice between Ft Worth and Hawaii, I agree that Hawaii makes a great reward for our players.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:33 pm
by Insane_Pony_Posse
Stallion wrote:If you want to pay for it here is a story from November 1984 which I believe is refering to SMU players quoted as happy to be going to Hawaii rather than Cotton Bowl..I know I read and heard multiple stories on this so I'm not paying.
Ok Stallion thanks...I guess I mis-understood what you meant. I thought you may be saying that some current players on the 2009 team would have preferred Houston not lose so that Houston would play in the Conference Championship and thus be more likely to have to play in Memphis in Jan.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:39 pm
by Dooby
If this was the difference between Memphis and New Orleans, noone would give a damn. I don't think anyone would be bringing this argument up if it were not for the fact that Hawaii is too far for many of us to go to and at an inconvenient time.
We are not talking about the difference between a Nat'l Championship and some other bowl or a BCS bowl and some middle tier bowl. We are talking about two middle of the road bowls and one happens to be half an ocean away and on Christmas. Accordingly, we are all trying to think of every argument in the world to force SMU stateside.
Fact is that if the conference champ went to Hawaii and the Armed Forces Bowl was an option, there would be plenty of people wanting SMU to go to FW.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:45 pm
by tristatecoog
All this talk about Hawaii makes me think that SMU will be okay with losing at Marshall. The Herd meanwhile is going for six wins and bowl eligibility. I don't like rooting against SMU, but y'all are crazy to want Hawaii over the Liberty Bowl. The LB is big time and you play a SEC opponent. It's not like C-USA does particularly well against the SEC so it's a great chance to lay it on the line in a big game. Also, the LB doesn't expect C-USA to bring more fans than the SEC, but the more the better. They're probably hoping for ECU (or Houston) to win the conference. However, I think SMU's first bowl in 25 years will draw a lot of national attention and will get every alum possible to make the trip.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:49 pm
by George S. Patton
tristatecoog wrote:All this talk about Hawaii makes me think that SMU will be okay with losing at Marshall. The Herd meanwhile is going for six wins and bowl eligibility. I don't like rooting against SMU, but y'all are crazy to want Hawaii over the Liberty Bowl. The LB is big time and you play a SEC opponent. It's not like C-USA does particularly well against the SEC so it's a great chance to lay it on the line in a big game. Also, the LB doesn't expect C-USA to bring more fans than the SEC, but the more the better. They're probably hoping for ECU (or Houston) to win the conference. However, I think SMU's first bowl in 25 years will draw a lot of national attention and will get every alum possible to make the trip.
Please don't generalize those comments.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:54 pm
by SoCal_Pony
tristatecoog wrote:They're probably hoping for ECU (or Houston) to win the conference.
Houston travels well??? I don't think so.
And for the record...SMU losing to Marshall is NOT ok
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:17 pm
by tristatecoog
We travelled well to the LB a couple years ago vs. USC (around 15K) and have done well at the Armed Forces Bowl.
JJ is the one saying Hawaii Bowl or bust. Sounds like he needs to change his tune now that the championship is within reach.
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:24 pm
by Insane_Pony_Posse
tristatecoog wrote:Sounds like he needs to change his tune now that the championship is within reach.
I just called June Jones' office and told him TriStateCoog says he better "change his tune"!
June started stuttering, stammering for something to say and
all I could hear was him shaking in his boots!
Re: My take on the Hawaii Bowl controversy here
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:46 pm
by tristatecoog
Next time, tell him that I'm proud of him too. No one's perfect. Not even me.
PS: I also hope that SMU goes to the Hawaii Bowl.