God rest Coach Carmody.
]]>Don’t know if we ever had the invite but that’s all in the past. “If” we did get one I couldn’t help but think our time in the AAC might have been on par with that of ECU. Just because we got in doesn’t translate into reaping the rewards outside of more cash. If you think about it the leadership at USM during the past several years prior to Jeremy was poor and the results would still have reflected it. We would have losing records in football against Temple, UCONN and USF instead of WKU, MTSU and FAU……
I’ve spent time on Boneyard Banter and make no mistake, if the money was the same ECU fans prefer SBC for football and baseball. They know where the G5 landscape is heading regardless of market size…..
On a side note, Prayers up for Big Nasty and his family. Another great Southern Miss legend has left us…..
]]>skyvoyager wrote:We won the conference one year but somehow didn't go the the Liberty bowl that supposedly had a bowl tie-in with CUSA.
I am trying to remember the details of that. I remember calling it a "no USM clause" and recall that it was something like the SEC having veto power over any Liberty Bowl opponent from a state with an SEC school or something. At least, that's what was said on Germy's board. Googling it now the only thing I see is something about how the SEC could exercise a veto every other year.
Don't believe any of it. I doubt Banowsky had much from the Liberty Bowl other than hollow promises. CUSA was and is an absolute clown show.
While I thought it was good to have the CUSA champ have a tie-in to the Liberty bowl, having the CUSA champ play a 7-5 or 6-6 SEC team was a bad deal. And the SEC veto thingy was just yet another weak leadership by CUSA.
I worked with a guy that was in the Athletic Dept at a CUSA school 2-3 years ago. He said the Monday morning CUSA conference calls were a joke. Either Judy or whoever the Assistant commissioner of the day on the calls were clueless. I can only imagine.
]]>We won the conference one year but somehow didn't go the the Liberty bowl that supposedly had a bowl tie-in with CUSA.
I am trying to remember the details of that. I remember calling it a "no USM clause" and recall that it was something like the SEC having veto power over any Liberty Bowl opponent from a state with an SEC school or something. At least, that's what was said on Germy's board. Googling it now the only thing I see is something about how the SEC could exercise a veto every other year.
Don't believe any of it. I doubt Banowsky had much from the Liberty Bowl other than hollow promises. CUSA was and is an absolute clown show.
]]>There are definitely people who claim an invitation was turned down during the Gen. Hammond era. The conventional wisdom seems to be what was posted already about Aresco (who's still commissioner of the AAC, for whatever that's worth). I tend to think there's truth on both ends- there was probably never a formal invitation, but there were conversations that quickly revealed a mutual lack of interest.
Whatever the case may be, I feel like moving to the SBC has given USM athletics more energy and attention. USM needed to get out of CUSA at any cost and I am glad those with some control over the matter finally admitted this. I was ambivalent about CUSA in 1995, then warmed up to it over the years, but once other teams started leaving it became downright insulting to USM fans to remain.
I agree we needed to get out of CUSA at any cost which is why I find it hard to believe we would turn down an AAC offer.
CUSA was a disaster at every level. We won the conference one year but somehow didn't go the the Liberty bowl that supposedly had a bowl tie-in with CUSA. When they split into east as west divisions, we stopped playing Tulane. We had played them for something like 30 years in a row at the time. One of our CUSA 'co-championships' was with Houston. Houston went to the Liberty bowl, we went home for the holidays. Judy claimed CUSA was a 'regional' conference with teams in El Paso and Miami FL...smh
Whatever the case may be, I feel like moving to the SBC has given USM athletics more energy and attention. USM needed to get out of CUSA at any cost and I am glad those with some control over the matter finally admitted this. I was ambivalent about CUSA in 1995, then warmed up to it over the years, but once other teams started leaving it became downright insulting to USM fans to remain.
]]>Either way we went to the Lending tree bowl and played a 5-7 Rice on Dec 17th. Tulane went to the Cotton Bowl and played USC on Jan 2nd.
]]>