(08-27-2010 12:02 PM)theboro Wrote:  No one's saying that the WAC with Boise, Nevada and Fresno the WAC isn't better.

The problem Sun Belt teams have is that Tech thinks they are better merely by playing these teams.

Nevermind the fact that in regards to budget, facilities and fan support Tech is just average by Sun Belt standards.

Your fans say your better simply because of your conference. They say you're the best CUSA candidate based solely on geography.

What's funny is that Tech was in a better position than SBC schools to advance itself. What's funnier is that there are Sun Belt schools that have done more with less.

The first poster in this thread seemed to imply that Tech's AD was insulting the Sun Belt. I'm just saying that he must have read the article wrong. Tech's AD is only talking about what is best for Tech. If he (the first poster) wants to argue that a move to the Sun Belt is a lateral move from the what Tech has had in the WAC then I'm all ears.

(08-27-2010 12:09 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.

My source is not a fan bubba! Reneau has told several SBC presidents that any discussion of possible SBC membership for Tech would begin with the prerequisite of expulsion of ULM from the conference. He was told that the SBC would not entertain any such prerequiste from Tech for a possible invite to the SBC.

The cost for possible SBC membership for Tech in the future just became a little more expensive.

if that is true than that is funny as shite. Actually I would love to see ULM drop down. We would be so belt in a heartbeat. I have said it many times, I don't think we have a problem with the belt. We have a problem with ULM. I do see Davidson saying that but I really can't see Reneau saying that at all. The man has class.

(08-27-2010 11:34 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:29 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.

All because La-Tech WANTS in the Belt doesn't mean they would get in. I'd be interested to see how the presidents voted. La-Tech would only be a poison to our conference.

whatever. everyone of your schools would jump ship if they got an invite from CUSA. So get off Techs back. why move to the Belt, when their may be better options. And no I don't think INDY is a better option.

USU and Idaho had accepted full membership to the Sun Belt when they were invited to the WAC. They paid no penalty and only waited until WAC could accomodate them. Despite joining the Sun Belt they never played one volleyball or basketball game in the Sun Belt.

Tech can join or not, doesn't make a difference to me, but the argument about waiting to see what happens is bogus and reflects irresponsible leadership in Ruston. Tech can pursue other options if it so chooses but the required departure period for Tech coupled with the time needed to re-arrange things for entry means Tech should be positioning for a home now whether its the wet dream option or not. Failure to do so means a risk that the Sun Belt says no to an application leaving Tech athletics in its worse position ever needing at least four I-A's that will travel to Ruston in order to retain FBS status with no assurance of finding them.

if i'm La Tech...i would be VERY worried about UNT.

in the college "arms race" they are one-upping tech with a brand new football stadium...and 2 recent NCAA tourneys...

i don't see why UNT wouldn't get a spot in CUSA before La Tech...

lets not forget, Tech plays here:



UNT will be playing here:

(08-27-2010 12:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:34 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:29 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.

All because La-Tech WANTS in the Belt doesn't mean they would get in. I'd be interested to see how the presidents voted. La-Tech would only be a poison to our conference.

whatever. everyone of your schools would jump ship if they got an invite from CUSA. So get off Techs back. why move to the Belt, when their may be better options. And no I don't think INDY is a better option.

USU and Idaho had accepted full membership to the Sun Belt when they were invited to the WAC. They paid no penalty and only waited until WAC could accomodate them. Despite joining the Sun Belt they never played one volleyball or basketball game in the Sun Belt.

Tech can join or not, doesn't make a difference to me, but the argument about waiting to see what happens is bogus and reflects irresponsible leadership in Ruston. Tech can pursue other options if it so chooses but the required departure period for Tech coupled with the time needed to re-arrange things for entry means Tech should be positioning for a home now whether its the wet dream option or not. Failure to do so means a risk that the Sun Belt says no to an application leaving Tech athletics in its worse position ever needing at least four I-A's that will travel to Ruston in order to retain FBS status with no assurance of finding them.

It's ultimately the most responsible thing we can do. Not only might Houston be leaving but three more teams might be leaving for the big East in the next two years. Why make a jump to the belt at this point when just about anything is possible. You know the problem you guys have is that you would like to lock us into the belt because you don't want to see us get into CUSA. I can understand that animosity but from ours or any schools standpoint, not making any move until you have to or see where things are going is the smartest thing. UNT waited and didnt jump and it was more to wait for CUSA then to stay in the belt. It turned out to be a good move. If TSU and UTSA thrive in a new WAC, especially one where Tech stays, You will see UNT taking a better look at the Wac again. Its every schools best interest to do whats best for itself and when the belt becomes our best option, I am almost positive we will take it.

Funny, Tech doesn't want the SBC, but thinks we will stand at the alter waiting for them to show up.

I really don't know that the SBC would give Tech an invite, now or in two years.

I hope not.

(08-27-2010 12:59 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  if i'm La Tech...i would be VERY worried about UNT.

in the college "arms race" they are one-upping tech with a brand new football stadium...and 2 recent NCAA tourneys...

i don't see why UNT wouldn't get a spot in CUSA before La Tech...

lets not forget, Tech plays here:

and let me also add that the pic of the UNT stadium has trees in it. Trees in Denton are rare and there you can see tumbleweed going through their whole so called village. Not pretty.

UNT will be playing here:

http://www.latechsports.com/questforexcellence/
no Tech plays in this and our campus looks like this. http://enterprise.latech.edu/

you're talking about an endzone building...they're building a BRAND NEW STADIUM...their investing 70 million dollars into their football program...while tech is redoing an old facility.

(08-27-2010 01:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're talking about an endzone building...they're building a BRAND NEW STADIUM...their investing 70 million dollars into their football program...while tech is redoing an old facility.

we didnt need a whole new stadium. UNT had no choice. good for them. but you putting up old pics of our stadium is not accurate. I still don't think that our renovated stadium will be as nice as theirs but I don't think the difference will be all that great either. And when the research campus is complete, our campus, which already is nicer than theirs will blow them and you i might add away. And our Endzone building will be followed by a new press box. This Endzone building will accomodate suites and training facilities and club rooms. That is all the same stuff that UNT will have in their new stadium. Other than that its just bleachers. We already have a kick arse jumbotron. and I might also add that your stadium which you don't even own is a rat hole. Bigger yes but still a rat hole. I went to the Liberty bowl and couldn't believe what a dump the place is. UNT's new stadium will be a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, does this mean they should go to the Big East instead of you. Hell FAU's new stadium is a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, maybe they should be considered before you. After all they are actually in the East. I don't think its vital that we be the best, just important that we keep up, and Tech has upgraded every last one of it's facilities. You guys havent had to do anything to facilities because you rent everything from the city. You own nothing. And when you go to a football game in Ruston you don't have to worry about getting shot.

(08-27-2010 01:03 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  It's ultimately the most responsible thing we can do. Not only might Houston be leaving but three more teams might be leaving for the big East in the next two years. Why make a jump to the belt at this point when just about anything is possible. You know the problem you guys have is that you would like to lock us into the belt because you don't want to see us get into CUSA. I can understand that animosity but from ours or any schools standpoint, not making any move until you have to or see where things are going is the smartest thing. UNT waited and didnt jump and it was more to wait for CUSA then to stay in the belt. It turned out to be a good move. If TSU and UTSA thrive in a new WAC, especially one where Tech stays, You will see UNT taking a better look at the Wac again. Its every schools best interest to do whats best for itself and when the belt becomes our best option, I am almost positive we will take it.

Dude, the only animosity I have is when you lose touch with reality as above.

You apparently failed first grade where they introduce you to reading. While you are peeing down your leg in terror of being locked in, if you possessed the capability to read and understand, you would have read and understood that there is no lock-in. Sun Belt rules are simple. Notify us by June 30, and you are out the next year. No conference in America can accomodate a team to join much quicker than that. I cited the USU and Idaho situations where they were released without ever playing in the Belt.

There is no lock in and your failure to comprehend that is your failing.

(08-27-2010 01:21 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 01:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're talking about an endzone building...they're building a BRAND NEW STADIUM...their investing 70 million dollars into their football program...while tech is redoing an old facility.

we didnt need a whole new stadium. UNT had no choice. good for them. but you putting up old pics of our stadium is not accurate. I still don't think that our renovated stadium will be as nice as theirs but I don't think the difference will be all that great either. And when the research campus is complete, our campus, which already is nicer than theirs will blow them and you i might add away. And our Endzone building will be followed by a new press box. This Endzone building will accomodate suites and training facilities and club rooms. That is all the same stuff that UNT will have in their new stadium. Other than that its just bleachers. We already have a kick arse jumbotron. and I might also add that your stadium which you don't even own is a rat hole. Bigger yes but still a rat hole. I went to the Liberty bowl and couldn't believe what a dump the place is. UNT's new stadium will be a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, does this mean they should go to the Big East instead of you. Hell FAU's new stadium is a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, maybe they should be considered before you. After all they are actually in the East. I don't think its vital that we be the best, just important that we keep up, and Tech has upgraded every last one of it's facilities. You guys havent had to do anything to facilities because you rent everything from the city. You own nothing. And when you go to a football game in Ruston you don't have to worry about getting shot.

Your stadium will not be anywhere near what UNT's new stadium will be. UNT has all new facilites that frankly, blow anything LT has out of the water. UNT is a huge metro area and Denton is 6 times the size of Rusting, I mean Ruston.

If you want to look at our facilties below is a link...


http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArtic...CLID=67236

(08-27-2010 01:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 01:03 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  It's ultimately the most responsible thing we can do. Not only might Houston be leaving but three more teams might be leaving for the big East in the next two years. Why make a jump to the belt at this point when just about anything is possible. You know the problem you guys have is that you would like to lock us into the belt because you don't want to see us get into CUSA. I can understand that animosity but from ours or any schools standpoint, not making any move until you have to or see where things are going is the smartest thing. UNT waited and didnt jump and it was more to wait for CUSA then to stay in the belt. It turned out to be a good move. If TSU and UTSA thrive in a new WAC, especially one where Tech stays, You will see UNT taking a better look at the Wac again. Its every schools best interest to do whats best for itself and when the belt becomes our best option, I am almost positive we will take it.

Dude, the only animosity I have is when you lose touch with reality as above.

You apparently failed first grade where they introduce you to reading. While you are peeing down your leg in terror of being locked in, if you possessed the capability to read and understand, you would have read and understood that there is no lock-in. Sun Belt rules are simple. Notify us by June 30, and you are out the next year. No conference in America can accomodate a team to join much quicker than that. I cited the USU and Idaho situations where they were released without ever playing in the Belt.

There is no lock in and your failure to comprehend that is your failing.

yes but what you don't understand is why move to one conference now when in two years you have to move all over again. I could understand if we didn't have a schedule already made but we are locked in for the next two years anyway. Why say yes to the belt now. No reason. It would actually be stupid. I would be like you guys saying yes to the WAC NOW when you know their is a distinct possibility that CUSA might want you. Would you do it? of course not.

(08-27-2010 01:44 PM)MeanGreen1980 Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 01:21 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 01:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  you're talking about an endzone building...they're building a BRAND NEW STADIUM...their investing 70 million dollars into their football program...while tech is redoing an old facility.

we didnt need a whole new stadium. UNT had no choice. good for them. but you putting up old pics of our stadium is not accurate. I still don't think that our renovated stadium will be as nice as theirs but I don't think the difference will be all that great either. And when the research campus is complete, our campus, which already is nicer than theirs will blow them and you i might add away. And our Endzone building will be followed by a new press box. This Endzone building will accomodate suites and training facilities and club rooms. That is all the same stuff that UNT will have in their new stadium. Other than that its just bleachers. We already have a kick arse jumbotron. and I might also add that your stadium which you don't even own is a rat hole. Bigger yes but still a rat hole. I went to the Liberty bowl and couldn't believe what a dump the place is. UNT's new stadium will be a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, does this mean they should go to the Big East instead of you. Hell FAU's new stadium is a hell of alot nicer than what you play in, maybe they should be considered before you. After all they are actually in the East. I don't think its vital that we be the best, just important that we keep up, and Tech has upgraded every last one of it's facilities. You guys havent had to do anything to facilities because you rent everything from the city. You own nothing. And when you go to a football game in Ruston you don't have to worry about getting shot.

Your stadium will not be anywhere near what UNT's new stadium will be. UNT has all new facilites that frankly, blow anything LT has out of the water. UNT is a huge metro area and Denton is 6 times the size of Rusting, I mean Ruston.

If you want to look at our facilties below is a link...


http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArtic...CLID=67236

Please I was just at your campus this weekend. While our sports facilities sit in rolling hills and lush pines, your so called village sits on a dry plain, that frankly looks a little depressing. When all the final touches are put on the new soccer field, softball field, new tennis courts and new track, not to mention our finished product football stadium. Our Athletic village will make yours look like sad. Other than the beautiful football field, which lets face it, you guys really didn't have a choice but to invest in it because Fouts had to go, the rest of your facilities all sit on an interstate and built in the middle of a white trash neighborhood in the back and dry barren land. It's down right depressing. It's the same with this so called beautiful campus you guys keep talking about. NOOOOO. It is surrounded by strip malls and run down shops. There is barely a tree to be found and other than the clock tower, most of your buildings need to be remodeled. and it all sits in the beautiful confines of I35 plowing right through it. TWU actually sits in a better location than UNT. Like someone said earlier, everybody is investing in facility upgrades these days. Conferences don't come calling on facilities alone. You have to have branding recognition, and I think that is something we have succeeded at much better than you. And do you really think that being the number 7 product in a major metroplex means any more than being the number two product in all of N. Louisiana. We brought 41k out to the Indy bowl. Did you guys ever bring that to any of the bowls you went to. 2k of those people were there for N. Illinois. No denying that your new stadium is going to be impressive and I am more than happy for you.

TheAOLDawg wrote:
"If TSU and UTSA thrive in a new WAC, especially one where Tech stays, You will see UNT taking a better look at the Wac again."

Don't hold your breath. UNT wants no part of the WAC.

BTW, can someone tell me why Louisiana Tech hates ULM so much, and vice versa? Other than recruiting.

(08-27-2010 01:54 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  While our sports facilities sit in rolling hills and lush pines,

That photo does not have the new upgrade = beautiful tarps covering huge sections. Looks real purdy.

(08-27-2010 01:56 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(08-27-2010 01:54 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  While our sports facilities sit in rolling hills and lush pines,

You're damn right I don't want Tech back in the Sun Belch. I'll tear the facilities down before I ever see them in this conference

It's missing more than the tarps...like the new tennis courts, track, two sets of field turf, ect.

This photo is over a decade old. This is like pulling out photos of Fouts and calling it UNT's horrid facility.

(08-27-2010 02:08 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  You're damn right I don't want Tech back in the Sun Belch. I'll tear the facilities down before I ever see them in this conference

Sounds like a 'weekend warrior' project.