Topic: For future reference > To the idea that the champ chooses its bowl preference...

[_sturt_]

Hamrick quote from Smock's article:

So, assuming the Herd stays out of the major-bowl mix, where does it go later this month?

"What we do, is the [C-USA] commissioner [Britton Banowsky] and the conference office kind of place schools where they think they need to go," said Mike Hamrick, MU's athletic director.


http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20141203/GZ02/141209649/1144#sthash.rzxVm60A.dpuf

[goherd24]

Except it is actually written that the champ chooses their bowl on CUSA's official website.

"Conference USA's champion will select which bowl it would like to attend and the remainder of selections will follow"

http://m.conferenceusa.com/m/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/bowl-synopsis-2014-19.html

[_sturt_]

You're right. That Mike Hamrick isn't very well-informed. Sucks when your AD says things in public that just expose how ignorant he is.

[herdfan09]

Except I wouldn't trust a damn thing the "website" says..I.E. Last years conf championship game, I.E. this years champ game. They obviously don't go by what the website says, ever.

[whf]

Reading between the lines....the league may try very hard to influence the champs choice.

[banker]

I'm sure they would prefer La tech or Rice in the HOD bowl. We need to figure someway to get out of this conference, the Texas centric nature bothers me. 

[_sturt_]

Dang. Is my sarcasm that deceptive?

There is theory and there is practice. There are standards, and then there's real life, ie what actually happens.

At least one poster on this forum has actual first-hand knowledge of what goes down, and he told us that sometime back... we can't really be surprised when Hamrick affirms what dshoe said.

[goherd24]

Dang. Is my sarcasm that deceptive?

There is theory and there is practice. There are standards, and then there's real life, ie what actually happens.

At least one poster on this forum has actual first-hand knowledge of what goes down, and he told us that sometime back... we can't really be surprised when Hamrick affirms what dshoe said.

Such a renegade view for one who values written information from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and facts.Doesn't say in theory thats how it works, it says thats exactly how it works. A man who bases all of his arguments on facts, suddenly places that belief in conspiracy theories and "good ole boy" politics?

If we can't get the bowl to play a p5 in this conference, then yes, we need to do whatever it takes to leave. What reward is that? Hey! You are 12-1 and champion? Go play central michigan! Its a damn shame.

[_sturt_]

Mike Hamrick said it. Not me. But I'm a "renegade" for believing what he tells us about how it actually goes down. What "conspiracy theory"... is that like your "circular argument" thing for which you evidently just grabbed a convenient phrase with no mind for the actual definition of the term?

Look. It happens every day when I'm behind the wheel. The "written standard" says 70 mph. In the real world, me and the troopers have an understanding that they let me get away with 5-7 mph more than that. Is this really so hard to figure? Maybe if you're feeling a little argumentative, I guess.

[IM4DHERD]

Hamrick was at dinner with about 10 CUSA reps tonight at Club 21 in the Frederick Bldg.  Sure he was working his magic.

[goherd24]

Mike Hamrick said it. Not me. But I'm a "renegade" for believing what he tells us about how it actually goes down. What "conspiracy theory"... is that like your "circular argument" thing for which you evidently just grabbed a convenient phrase with no mind for the actual definition of the term?

Look. It happens every day when I'm behind the wheel. The "written standard" says 70 mph. In the real world, me and the troopers have an understanding that they let me get away with 5-7 mph more than that. Is this really so hard to figure? Maybe if you're feeling a little argumentative, I guess.

You started a thread titled with the inference that we don't choose, backing it up with an interview where our AD says the commish "kind of" decides.... yet the official conference position is in black and white that the champion chooses. You are a renegade because you always talk about facts etc and not conjecture, yet your view in this debacle is the opposite of factual. Hence, your renegade view compared to your normal stance.

I pointed this out to you. And yet, you try to spin things and never want to admit you are simply wrong. You try to blame it on Hamrick being wrong haha. Being vague and generalizing your arguments, doesn't allow you to have an out in every discussion sturt. It just makes you look silly.

[_sturt_]

*laughing*

24, you're one desperate little man. I've got nothing for you if you can't actually fathom the situation here. I give you credit... I think you can fathom it, but just have to argue... Hamrick told you how it is, and if you don't choose to believe him, that's your call... I don't have any reason to doubt him, though, and it's not like dshoe didn't say this to all of us from the first time this topic was brought up this season. If it makes me "wrong" in your eyes to believe Hamrick and dshoe, it's like, well... hehe... like that's any surprise. Oh well. How can I live with myself knowing Mr. Infallible finds fault... who by the way has yet, at least to my knowledge, to even acknowledge his Boise State "foregone conclusion," let alone walk the statement back and... *gulp*... admit his fallibility. I know the game though... you'll eventually reluctantly say something half-heartedly slightly acknowledging the error, but however you write it, it will come off as some criticism of yours truly simultaneously... Mr. Infallibility is also Mr. Predictable. "Twisting"... hehe... yeah, I twisted Hamrick's words to say something he didn't mean to say. Quite ironic accusation under the circumstances there, Stretch Armstrong.

[goherd24]

*laughing*

24, you're one desperate little man. I've got nothing for you if you can't actually fathom the situation here. I give you credit... I think you can fathom it, but just have to argue... Hamrick told you how it is, and if you don't choose to believe him, that's your call... I  don't have any reason to doubt him, though, and it's not like dshoe didn't say this to all of us from the first time this topic was brought up this season. If it makes me "wrong" in your eyes to believe Hamrick and dshoe, it's like, well... hehe... like that's any surprise. Oh well. How can I live with myself knowing Mr. Infallible finds fault... who by the way has yet, at least to my knowledge, to even acknowledge his Boise State "foregone conclusion," let alone walk the statement back and... *gulp*... admit his fallibility. I know the game though... you'll eventually reluctantly say something half-heartedly slightly acknowledging the error, but however you write it, it will come off as some criticism of yours truly simultaneously... Mr. Infallibility is also Mr. Predictable. "Twisting"... hehe... yeah, I twisted Hamrick's words to say something he didn't mean to say. Quite ironic accusation under the circumstances there, Stretch Armstrong.

*smiling in disbelief of your infallibility... and laughing* You are such a turd it hilarous. Can not admit you are wrong to me eh? Even when the answer is "kind of" in black and white. See what i did there?

You are such a nerd, its become too easy. I'm done with you sturt. Its right there on the website. Not a "kind of" vague quote. You. Are. Wrong. I hope you don't get any of your melting ego on your sweater vest and pocket protector.

Ps. Sorry if this brought back too many bad high school memories.

[_sturt_]

Oh geez. Here we go... hehe...

So, I'm wrong about... what Hamrick said?

Maybe so, but I'm just quoting what Smock said he said.

Or, I'm wrong about... interpreting Hamrick's statement to mean what he said?

Really? So, in 24's alternative universe, how do you think he meant it?

This should be fun. Tell us all how we should have interpreted those words instead of verbatim.

Oh, and be assured... I'm not saying "you're wrong" about what the site says. You're correct. That is what it says. (I didn't go look, but I saw the press release earlier when the topic first came up.)

But if I'm wrong about what Mike Hamrick said, then Doug Smock is wrong. He was there, though, and I take it that that's what Mike said. You can choose whether you believe it. Maybe he was lying. Maybe he said some other things that Smock should have included in the quote that might have given it a different context. But since it affirms what someone who's actually been part of those discussions... dshoe... told us all is what is real-life... I think you're desperately seeking an excuse to hold on to your vision of how you want it to be.

Just my opinion, Stretch.

[beau42m]

You started a thread titled with the inference that we don't choose, backing it up with an interview where our AD says the commish "kind of" decides.... yet the official conference position is in black and white that the champion chooses. You are a renegade because you always talk about facts etc and not conjecture, yet your view in this debacle is the opposite of factual. Hence, your renegade view compared to your normal stance.

I pointed this out to you. And yet, you try to spin things and never want to admit you are simply wrong. You try to blame it on Hamrick being wrong haha. Being vague and generalizing your arguments, doesn't allow you to have an out in every discussion sturt. It just makes you look silly.

Advantage GoHerd, good points, I have noticed this tendency in your counterpoint's view in the past.

[beau42m]

You are such a nerd, its become too easy. I'm done with you sturt. Its right there on the website. Not a "kind of" vague quote. You. Are. Wrong. I hope you don't get any of your melting ego on your sweater vest and pocket protector.

Ps. Sorry if this brought back too many bad high school memories.

I am done with you also,  _sturt_.

[_sturt_]

Someone check the IP address on beau42m, would ya? That sure did come out of nowhere.

Still waiting for someone to tell me how I, or anyone else for that matter, is somehow misinterpreting the AD.

beau/24? Whatever your name is. Anxious to hear it.

[_sturt_]

I am done with you also,  _sturt_.

Can't answer the questions?

hehe... as if THAT wasn't a foregone conclusion, Stretch.

[beau42m]

Someone check the IP address on beau42m, would ya? That sure did come out of nowhere.

Still waiting for someone to tell me how I, or anyone else for that matter, is somehow misinterpreting the AD.

beau/24? Whatever your name is. Anxious to hear it.

I use a VPN since you are so interested. You probably do not know what that is. Have fun trying to find out, _sturt_.

[_sturt_]

My contributions to the thread appear to be done. Getting no answers to the questions presented, so there's a logical conclusion when that happens. And yeah... dare I say it again... a foregone conclusion, at that.

G'nite.

[herdgadfly]

Thanks to beau42m for mentioning a VPN connection to the internet. I just enrolled in a freebee to shut down all of the Google tracking and its ads that blast my computer constantly. I will soon see if this solution works. I am amazed that so many service providers exist.

FWIW:  https://twitter.com/Beau42m

 

[MarshallGrad]

I'll admit I don't have the energy in looking further into the article. I will assume the quote is pretty much the limit of what Hamrick said on the subject. If that is the case, and I could be way off on my premise, but the question didn't ask where we go if we are champs, it asked where do we go if we stay out of major bowl contention.

If I am reading correctly and there is not more detail to it, Hamrick quote could be correct. Since there was no mention of being a champ in the question from Smock, then the text on the conference site is also correct. Am I not seeing something I should be seeing. The question does not qualify if we are "champs", only if we stay out of the major bowl mix.

We could win the conference championship and either be in or not be in the major bowl mix. Based on the question, I don't see a conflict between Hamrick's response and the rules as noted on the conference web site.

[_sturt_]

I dunno... I've never been in the middle of those conversations, so I kinda defer to people who have. Hamrick seems to me to affirm what dshoe... someone who has been in the middle of those conversations... told us awhile back. So I don't know what the problem is. Besides the conference and Hamrick are likely to agree anyhow, you'd think.