Sure, Rick Neuheisel and UCLA wanted to return to the postseason this year, but backing into a second-year bowl in the Northeast against a perennial doormat program isn't going to get the fan base too excited....Temple 10, UCLA 9 - ESPN's Will Harris
I know of a few (hundred) UCLA fans that are pretty excited about an east coast bowl game...
about 2 years ago
bucknellbruin
16 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
beat me to it
This tool thinks the deepest conference in college football is going 1-5 with USC barely eeking out the only victory? WHAT A JOKE
The "backing in" line is total misinformation
As I noted here we had the options to pursue to either go to Humanitarian or the GMAC bowl. We chose not to pursue those opportunities for financial reasons. We held out for the bowl in DC which was contingent on Army-Navy game.
However, it is really stretching it to say we "backed" into a bowl game. It’s a total cheap shot and frankly kind of baseless given the above referenced options.
I don't think that's quite true...
Any bowl scenario required Army to lose. The EagleBank Bowl just made it easiest, since it was an Army or UCLA deal (and it almost certainly would have been an Army or Notre Dame deal if that had gone differently). If we were at another bowl, there would have been more contingencies, because all of the teams in the GMAC and Humanitarian Bowls are 7-5 or better and hence must have been picked before us. So if we had accepted the Humanitarian, then Bowling Green must have gotten a spot somewhere before we did, and would have taken that spot in the EagleBank Bowl.
In short, had Army won, there would not have been any space for us in any bowl, no matter whom we accepted a contingent bid from.
The point is
We didn’t have a season in which we “backed” into a bowl game. We might have backed into the Eagle Bowl, however for a 6-6 team we were strongly pursued by at least 3 bowls.
The way this phrase is being thrown around it implies we didn’t have any options and barely made to the bowl season. It’s just not true.
Backed in is hardly what happened
Don’t compromise Nes! :)
It was the day of the Kansas game that negotiations were finalized. According to Sondheimer, there were representatives "lining up" behind the EagleBank Bowl reps. We had multiple options and we chose the highest bidder… not exactly being forced into it
Back in business
I've had enough of you guys bringing facts into these arguments
Since when do journalism and facts have anything to do with each other?
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 17, 2009 6:44 PM PST up reply actions
Pretty Excited
I am a fan. And I am pretty excited about it. Very excited about it !
HAHA
This guy is rediculous. He must be one of those "I only care about the Big 10 and anyone that plays the Big 10 is terrible and I disregard any scores other wise" Wake up chump
Back in business
Dude
it’s “ridiculous”. Only letting you know because you do it every time :)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Gotta get in on the Firefox
It does the same thing as word documents with the red underline for questionable spelling.
I think what he was referring to
was the fact that we had to hope/wait on another team to lose for us to get the bowl we wanted. Sure, we were wanted by bowls (UCLA is still a better name than Army when it comes to football these days) but fact of the matter is that we were all breathlessly waiting to see if Notre Dame was going to take a bowl and waiting to see Army lose.
Still, we’re in so let’s win this!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
