(01-25-2011 10:12 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  No, there's no bad blood. There are diminishing resources in this state which causes an increase in competition for those resources.
Truth is academically speaking there are only marginal differences between UL and Tech and both are on a different tier than ULM.
Athletically, Tech's budget would put it squarely in the middle third of the conference (if the sugar daddies don't close their wallets with the SBC invite) and bottom third (if they do).
They add a football program that has as many wins (give or take) than UL or ULM over the last 5 years, a worse baseball program than both, a worse basketball program historically than UL, a worse softball program than UL and only provide a historically better women's basketball program than both.
They have no connection with the I-bowl other than geography and Ruston is a smaller town than Monroe.
Objectively, they have been living off of a perception that doesn't match their reality. If it was only perception, they'd be a good fit. However, it's been their historically bad manners as a conference mate, and worse treatment to their sister schools in LA since they've been in the WAC that suggest that we don't want them.
Personally, I don't really feel like giving Lucy another chance to pull the football away.

The argument of 'diminishing resources in the State' doesn't work; if you look at if from the State's point of view La Tech to the Belt would save money. Now if your ultimate goal is to send LTU to FCS that might be a valid argument, but there are way too many moving parts for this to be a workable plan. Everything else you write is just filler (equal academically, won/loss record, better/worse women's programs, etc.).

As a Louisianan, can you tell me the Independent Bowl tie-in's and if they would be more accepting to a LA school in the SB, should they qualify, (just thinking the SBC may be able to swing another back-up bowl with all the LA schools in the conference).

p.s. you can save the winged-eagles, I get the animosity.

(01-25-2011 11:31 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 10:12 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  No, there's no bad blood. There are diminishing resources in this state which causes an increase in competition for those resources.
Truth is academically speaking there are only marginal differences between UL and Tech and both are on a different tier than ULM.
Athletically, Tech's budget would put it squarely in the middle third of the conference (if the sugar daddies don't close their wallets with the SBC invite) and bottom third (if they do).
They add a football program that has as many wins (give or take) than UL or ULM over the last 5 years, a worse baseball program than both, a worse basketball program historically than UL, a worse softball program than UL and only provide a historically better women's basketball program than both.
They have no connection with the I-bowl other than geography and Ruston is a smaller town than Monroe.
Objectively, they have been living off of a perception that doesn't match their reality. If it was only perception, they'd be a good fit. However, it's been their historically bad manners as a conference mate, and worse treatment to their sister schools in LA since they've been in the WAC that suggest that we don't want them.
Personally, I don't really feel like giving Lucy another chance to pull the football away.

The argument of 'diminishing resources in the State' doesn't work; if you look at if from the State's point of view La Tech to the Belt would save money. Now if your ultimate goal is to send LTU to FCS that might be a valid argument, but there are way too many moving parts for this to be a workable plan. Everything else you write is just filler (equal academically, won/loss record, better/worse women's programs, etc.).

As a Louisianan, can you tell me the Independent Bowl tie-in's and if they would be more accepting to a LA school in the SB, should they qualify, (just thinking the SBC may be able to swing another back-up bowl with all the LA schools in the conference).

p.s. you can save the winged-eagles, I get the animosity.

From 1998 to 2009 tie ins were SEC and Big 12

Beginning in 2010, MWC (3) v. ACC (7)

I have no idea whether we can get a sign-on-the-line secondary bid with Ibowl with or without Tech.

(01-25-2011 12:08 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 11:31 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 10:12 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  No, there's no bad blood. There are diminishing resources in this state which causes an increase in competition for those resources.
Truth is academically speaking there are only marginal differences between UL and Tech and both are on a different tier than ULM.
Athletically, Tech's budget would put it squarely in the middle third of the conference (if the sugar daddies don't close their wallets with the SBC invite) and bottom third (if they do).
They add a football program that has as many wins (give or take) than UL or ULM over the last 5 years, a worse baseball program than both, a worse basketball program historically than UL, a worse softball program than UL and only provide a historically better women's basketball program than both.
They have no connection with the I-bowl other than geography and Ruston is a smaller town than Monroe.
Objectively, they have been living off of a perception that doesn't match their reality. If it was only perception, they'd be a good fit. However, it's been their historically bad manners as a conference mate, and worse treatment to their sister schools in LA since they've been in the WAC that suggest that we don't want them.
Personally, I don't really feel like giving Lucy another chance to pull the football away.

The argument of 'diminishing resources in the State' doesn't work; if you look at if from the State's point of view La Tech to the Belt would save money. Now if your ultimate goal is to send LTU to FCS that might be a valid argument, but there are way too many moving parts for this to be a workable plan. Everything else you write is just filler (equal academically, won/loss record, better/worse women's programs, etc.).

As a Louisianan, can you tell me the Independent Bowl tie-in's and if they would be more accepting to a LA school in the SB, should they qualify, (just thinking the SBC may be able to swing another back-up bowl with all the LA schools in the conference).

p.s. you can save the winged-eagles, I get the animosity.

From 1998 to 2009 tie ins were SEC and Big 12

Beginning in 2010, MWC (3) v. ACC (7)

I have no idea whether we can get a sign-on-the-line secondary bid with Ibowl with or without Tech.

Tech probably wouldn't be able to deliver the I-Bowl to the SBC. However, we seem to be the team of choice when we are eligible and they need a filler.... which would give the SBC an extra bowl when that happened.

(01-25-2011 12:08 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  From 1998 to 2009 tie ins were SEC and Big 12
Beginning in 2010, MWC (3) v. ACC (7)
I have no idea whether we can get a sign-on-the-line secondary bid with Ibowl with or without Tech.

Thanks. And as T1 says, if we have a conflict between some schools and the Indy Bowl is willing to take La Tech (or affiliate member), that might open up a bowl for another school. Building bridges people.

(01-25-2011 12:32 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 12:08 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  From 1998 to 2009 tie ins were SEC and Big 12
Beginning in 2010, MWC (3) v. ACC (7)
I have no idea whether we can get a sign-on-the-line secondary bid with Ibowl with or without Tech.

Thanks. And as T1 says, if we have a conflict between some schools and the Indy Bowl is willing to take La Tech (or affiliate member), that might open up a bowl for another school. Building bridges people.

We wouldn't have to build them if they weren't burned in the first place.

(01-25-2011 12:34 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 12:32 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-25-2011 12:08 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  From 1998 to 2009 tie ins were SEC and Big 12
Beginning in 2010, MWC (3) v. ACC (7)
I have no idea whether we can get a sign-on-the-line secondary bid with Ibowl with or without Tech.

Thanks. And as T1 says, if we have a conflict between some schools and the Indy Bowl is willing to take La Tech (or affiliate member), that might open up a bowl for another school. Building bridges people.

We wouldn't have to build them if they weren't burned in the first place.

(01-24-2011 05:34 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 05:28 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 05:21 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I guess CUSA addition would depend upon who they lose. If Houston and UCF leave, I can see CUSA going with UNT/UTSA and FIU/FAU to replace the markets.

No offense, but why are we still talking about UTSA. They are sitting there with 23 red-shirt freshman and a rented facility. USA is 2 years ahead of them. If you're going with 2 from that region, it would be UNT/La Tech as move-ups. I know you Louisiana guys have trouble seeing the 'forrest for the trees' when it comes to La Tech....but seriously.

You can't just look a program and judge its future by the way it appears in its present. If that was the case USF would not be a Big East member and UCONN would not have progressed as fast as it did. What both of them had in common, were motivated administrations, cash, and for USF a recruiting base and for UCONN the Big East affiliation...for UTSA, they have the motivated administration, cash, a huge recruiting base, and its sits in a large metrpolitan city. That, sir, does not set things up for failure. UTSA will be a hot commodity for any league that has vision and is not stuck on what programs look like today. If that was the case, La Tech would today be more attractive than UTSA. However, I guarantee you an assessment of the two programs 5 years from now will not bring about the same result.

"...for UTSA, they have the motivated administration, cash, a huge recruiting base, and it sits in a large metropolitan city. That, sir, does not set things up for failure. UTSA will be a hot commidity for any league that has vision and is not stuck on what programs look like today be more attractive than USTA. However, I guarantee you an assessment of the two programs 5 years from now will not bring about the same result."

Remember the University of Texas-Arlington, a state-supported school located smack-dab between Dallas and Fort Worth in the metroplex area? Well, the Mavericks, who were members of the Southland Conference dropped their football program after the 1985 season because they were losing around $1million (+/-) a year. The average home game attendance for the Mavs was 5,600 with a student body of over 23,000. Today's enrollment is 32,956. UT-Arlington failed and failed bigtime, so it can happen to any school.
Nothing is guaranteed. I wish UTSA the best, but only time will tell if UTSA, USA, Lamar, or any of the new start-up programs make it of fall on their faces.