Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Does ULM belong in FBS football?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
trojanbrutha Offline
Beltbbs Troy Football INsider
*

Posts: 4,622
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 82
I Root For: TROY
Location: Greenville, AL
Post: #21
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
I support ULM being in the Belt...at least, until we have to go there to play...
04-27-2011 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #22
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 09:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 09:36 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  asf', I think you can say that football is sucking the wind out of every other program at every university (I think WKU can attest to this).
We are trying to climb this BCS ladder and everybody knows that football drives the bus...everyone else is just along for the ride.
Really? Women's basketball two bids each of the last two years. Baseball at least two bids for 22 years. ASU bowling finished 5th in the nation. MTSU scored national director's cup points in WBB and men's track.
There is a distinction between emphasizing a sport and gutting others at the expense of another.

You're kidding right? Baseball and Softball we do naturally, so it doesn't count. Women's basketball, Men's Track; bowling? 03-lmfao
04-27-2011 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
Here is a break down of Sun Belt schools and the reasonably mentioned names for expansion and their state finance risk.
http://www.arkst.com/?p=1024
04-27-2011 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SpaceRaider Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,720
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 157
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: God's Country
Post: #24
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
ULM does well enough and always seems to be a tough competitor, regardless of how their other sports are funded. And besides, if it weren't for ULM, latech might want to join and I'm not sure this board wouldn't explode if that happened.
04-27-2011 10:21 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:00 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 09:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 09:36 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  asf', I think you can say that football is sucking the wind out of every other program at every university (I think WKU can attest to this).
We are trying to climb this BCS ladder and everybody knows that football drives the bus...everyone else is just along for the ride.
Really? Women's basketball two bids each of the last two years. Baseball at least two bids for 22 years. ASU bowling finished 5th in the nation. MTSU scored national director's cup points in WBB and men's track.
There is a distinction between emphasizing a sport and gutting others at the expense of another.

You're kidding right? Baseball and Softball we do naturally, so it doesn't count. Women's basketball, Men's Track; bowling? 03-lmfao

Not kidding but then I'm serious about intercollegiate athletics not just football.
04-27-2011 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:21 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  ULM does well enough and always seems to be a tough competitor, regardless of how their other sports are funded. And besides, if it weren't for ULM, latech might want to join and I'm not sure this board wouldn't explode if that happened.

Maybe a "tough competitor" but 10 of 16 sports finished in the bottom third of the Sun Belt last year. Already five of seven sports completed have finished last or next to last.

To me, sans ULM, La.Tech is even less attractive. Tech works nicely in the travel picture with ULM and not so much without. Tech's primary selling point is to save most of us some money.
04-27-2011 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FloridaJag Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,390
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 46
I Root For: USA, FSU, and UWF
Location: Florida
Post: #27
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here is a break down of Sun Belt schools and the reasonably mentioned names for expansion and their state finance risk.
http://www.arkst.com/?p=1024

Wow. "ULM 39.81% 3.37%"

ULM receives only 3.37% of its funding through student fees and 39.81% directly from the state.

Thanks for the information.

In light of the recent vote by the ULM students, I stand by my original statement that ULM's administration is going to have to make a decision by this summer on whether FBS football is a for them.
04-27-2011 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluephi1914 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,206
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 33
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
This is an absurd topic for this forum. How dare any fan question whether or not ULM should be in the SBC.

ULM has announced facilities upgrades. We are adding state of the art scoreboards to our football, basketball and baseball playing fields. We are in the process of funding and building a fieldhouse at the football stadium. Plus, our President and AD have publicly annunced a push to amp up our athletic fundraising efforts. We are making an effort to raise funds.

See, many have watched us from the outside and formulated an opinion of the university, which is completely false. There is no wide spread apathy with respect to not wanting to support ULM athletics. We have been the recipients of poor circumstances. Our President of the 90's almost bankrupt us with poor decision making and a lack of fundraising effort. Our President after that did not place any emphasis on athletics. In fact, that President withheld some of the state funds that we could have used for athletics...so, we were underfunded from that aspect. With that, we were not able to terminate certain coaches and went through a losing phase. As for men's basketball, we hired a hot shot SEC assistant that was rated as being the next best thing. He sucked. He could not recruit, and caused us to suffer APR penalties (including the loss of scholarships).

I say all of that to say, do not judge us simply based upon your view of things. You do not know the whole story. Even further, with our limited funding at the time, our football team finished in the top half of the league. So, to pose a silly question like this is absolutely absurd and very shameful for the league as a whole.
04-27-2011 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluephi1914 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,206
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 33
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:31 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here is a break down of Sun Belt schools and the reasonably mentioned names for expansion and their state finance risk.
http://www.arkst.com/?p=1024

Wow. "ULM 39.81% 3.37%"

ULM receives only 3.37% of its funding through student fees and 39.81% directly from the state.

Thanks for the information.

In light of the recent vote by the ULM students, I stand by my original statement that ULM's administration is going to have to make a decision by this summer on whether FBS football is a for them.

I will go ahead and answer your question. The decision has been made and we are staying FBS. The decision was made some while ago, and is not going to be revisited. As for the student fee thing, that fight is not over. The administration realized after the fact that it was brought prematurely. Heck, everyone noticed that...but, they wanted to at least try that route first before announcing the funsraising effort that was recently announced.
04-27-2011 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
I'm all for ULM staying, but the school has to figure out its path because the one of late isn't it.
04-27-2011 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluephi1914 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,206
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 33
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm all for ULM staying, but the school has to figure out its path because the one of late isn't it.

That I will agree with, and I will add that such is being done as we speak.
04-27-2011 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
zeebart21 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,641
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 182
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
Im gonna refrain....

This topic will cause board meltdown without my help.

Y'all punkins stay cool, ya hear!!


Z
04-27-2011 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,930
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 264
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #33
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
this thread is classic unT fan......the only surprising thing is that the OP decided to post it outside the sheltered confines of GMG.com where factually supporting an opinion other than pie in the sky BS is not tolerated

this thread takes me back to the end of the 2003 season and the start of the 2004 season

unT had just come off their best season in several decades.....they had beaten (on the road) a powerhouse Baylor program in 2003 (3-9 with wins over a horrible SMU, D1-AA Sam Houston, and a Colorado)

the big discussion on GMG was what position unT was in The State of Texas football pecking order......some had unT as the second best program in Texas just behind UT and some of the more "realistic" members had unT third behind UT and Texas Tech......they were chomping at the bit to take on TAMU anytime anywhere and to get a "declining" TCU team back on the schedule to make up for the three losses in a row TCU had handed them (but of course TCU was scared because of the past near losses unT had laid on them)

they were looking forward to putting a bigger beat down on Baylor at home and their first ever top 25 ranking and wondering how the BCS would screw them if they were able to go undefeated or if their only loss was a close one against UT with UT's homer refs giving UT another win late in the game.....good things were happening......a new stadium was probably only 2 or 3 years off or so once the student fee passed and then it would be "ON" as unT started to dominate the metromess as "the largest school in the region with a bazillion alumni in the area and fertile recruiting grounds combined with new facilities and a probably move up to a better conference just around the corner"

unT promptly got thrashed by UT 65-0 and then came home and laid an egg against FAU and then went on the road for a beating from Colorado.....then in front of a "huge" home crowd of 29K and change they lost their 4th in a row to Baylor 37-14

woe was filling mean green weenie land......TCU was winning big time again....Baylor just avenged unTs "biggest" win in decades at Fouts and did it convincingly and now fan support was going to drop off because 4 losses in a row to open the season with 2 bad ones at home

the mean green did end up "salvaging" the season going 7-5 overall with a NO Bowl loss......but that was OK because "the belt" was getting tougher

well 6 straight losing seasons later and with (about 6 years later than initially wished for) an 80 million dollar "investment" in one of the smallest and least expensive recent new stadiums in D1-A (with a big mortgage and a lot of debt to pay off) and after hiring a guy with a losing overall head coaching record unT is clearly once again feeling their oats and ready to "crush the WAC" to prevent "lesser" teams from moving up and competing and now apparently they are even too big for some of the competition in the belt as well

I look for yet another crash and burn...
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2011 01:29 PM by TodgeRodge.)
04-27-2011 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #34
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not kidding but then I'm serious about intercollegiate athletics not just football.

Me too, however, strategic conference decisions don't come down to Men's Track, Women's Basketball or anything else. The only thing that really matters (since we started Sun Belt football) is the continued health of our football programs; hence the 'there's no wind for any other program' comment.

Also, I appreciate your link to the USA Today article and institutional athletic budget index. What I gathered from that in a cursory look at FIU's is that the Student Fee has contributed about a million dollars more per year since 2005 (from $10.7 million to $15.6 million last year). This looks like healthy appreciation in the student body and their ability to absorb additional fee increases (we're not talking about what's fair here' that's a different topic all together).

Secondly, I noticed that the NCAA/Conference distribution has steadily increased by about $100k/year from $444k in '05 to $930K in '10 (membership dues, which I assume are to the Sun Belt were $130k last year).

Though I didn't look annually at each school, it looks as if FIU's balance sheet has been getting stronger and stronger over the last 5 years and I would assume it's pretty much the same for each school [though to beat everyone to the punch; yes, I'd like to see a larger percentage of the athletic dept. revenue come from sources other than student fees but the athletic budget does seem to be a strong, growing number].
04-27-2011 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 01:54 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not kidding but then I'm serious about intercollegiate athletics not just football.

Me too, however, strategic conference decisions don't come down to Men's Track, Women's Basketball or anything else. The only thing that really matters (since we started Sun Belt football) is the continued health of our football programs; hence the 'there's no wind for any other program' comment.

Totally disagree, with the caveat that at one time I would have agreed with you.

Colleges (other than Vandy) have an ATHLETICS department, not a FOOTBALL or MEN'S BASKETBALL department for a reason. The NCAA requires 16 sports to be FBS, 14 to be Division I, and 10 to participate in Divisions II or III. There are schools out there in Division II right now that could assemble really good Division I basketball programs, FCS and maybe even FBS football, if they didn't have to comply with the sport and aid requirements of Division I.

If you run at the minimums you place your entire program at risk. Off the top of my head, I recall that Tulsa right around the time they went to the WAC could have been reclassified I-AA because they were running at the minimums and screwed up their women's track or cross country program failing to send enough participants to count some contests. If the NCAA had so desired, Tulsa could have been reclassified for failing to meet sport sponsorship requirements. Tulsa revamped its athletic department and has mostly had a positive result.

The other sports are the canary in the coal mine because they will generally falter before the primary sports. If you are grossly under-funding 12 of your 16 sports and need to slice 3% from the budget, where is it coming from? Chances are the 12 have nothing left to cut because they are replacing uniforms and equipment on a "as must" basis, traveling as cheaply as possible and paying very low salaries. At most places that means now football, men's and women's basketball and either volleyball or baseball (whichever you are funding decently) have to take all of the hit.

If you are scraping by in multiple sports, you don't want DOJ looking at your Title IX practices nor do you want to have a volleyball player file suit about a 14 hour bus ride when the football team flew rather than bus 6 hours. Those sorts of things can put you out of business.

Beyond all of that, there is an honesty factor. Do you sponsor 16 sports because you have to and treat them as a burden or do you bring all 300 student-athletes to campus and give them roughly equal opportunities for success?

As a conference what does it say for us if we have relatively nice football stadiums that are surprisingly up-to-date but a visitor sees a softball field that the local high school would turn its nose up at?

Are we Division I FBS in name alone or do we actually try to live up to the intent of Division I FBS?
04-27-2011 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #36
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 02:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 01:54 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not kidding but then I'm serious about intercollegiate athletics not just football.
Me too, however, strategic conference decisions don't come down to Men's Track, Women's Basketball or anything else. The only thing that really matters (since we started Sun Belt football) is the continued health of our football programs; hence the 'there's no wind for any other program' comment.
Totally disagree, with the caveat that at one time I would have agreed with you.
Colleges (other than Vandy) have an ATHLETICS department, not a FOOTBALL or MEN'S BASKETBALL department for a reason. The NCAA requires 16 sports to be FBS, 14 to be Division I, and 10 to participate in Divisions II or III. There are schools out there in Division II right now that could assemble really good Division I basketball programs, FCS and maybe even FBS football, if they didn't have to comply with the sport and aid requirements of Division I.
If you run at the minimums you place your entire program at risk. Off the top of my head, I recall that Tulsa right around the time they went to the WAC could have been reclassified I-AA because they were running at the minimums and screwed up their women's track or cross country program failing to send enough participants to count some contests. If the NCAA had so desired, Tulsa could have been reclassified for failing to meet sport sponsorship requirements. Tulsa revamped its athletic department and has mostly had a positive result.
The other sports are the canary in the coal mine because they will generally falter before the primary sports. If you are grossly under-funding 12 of your 16 sports and need to slice 3% from the budget, where is it coming from? Chances are the 12 have nothing left to cut because they are replacing uniforms and equipment on a "as must" basis, traveling as cheaply as possible and paying very low salaries. At most places that means now football, men's and women's basketball and either volleyball or baseball (whichever you are funding decently) have to take all of the hit.
If you are scraping by in multiple sports, you don't want DOJ looking at your Title IX practices nor do you want to have a volleyball player file suit about a 14 hour bus ride when the football team flew rather than bus 6 hours. Those sorts of things can put you out of business.
Beyond all of that, there is an honesty factor. Do you sponsor 16 sports because you have to and treat them as a burden or do you bring all 300 student-athletes to campus and give them roughly equal opportunities for success?
As a conference what does it say for us if we have relatively nice football stadiums that are surprisingly up-to-date but a visitor sees a softball field that the local high school would turn its nose up at?
Are we Division I FBS in name alone or do we actually try to live up to the intent of Division I FBS?

I agree with everything that you've written there. Your perspective appears to be about keeping all the constituent parts happy on a micro level, where my point of view is clearly more focused on a macro view. Each compliments the other; you can't be FBS if you're rotting from the inside (which I hope is not the case for any member institution but must be monitored).
04-27-2011 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
Almost agree. I'm not worried if WKU finishes last in a sport or two. If USA finishes in the bottom third in five sports that doesn't worry me if five other sports are in the top third, and another five are in the middle third. I am concerned when being in the top third is unusual for a program.

Unless it is ASU, I'm not interested in who wins the women's tennis title and couldn't tell you even though I think I saw the release the other day. I don't care who wins the Bubas Cup but I do look at who the bottom schools are in the standings because not winning across a large number of sports is a concern about the health of the overall program.
04-27-2011 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #38
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 02:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 01:54 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(04-27-2011 10:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Not kidding but then I'm serious about intercollegiate athletics not just football.

Me too, however, strategic conference decisions don't come down to Men's Track, Women's Basketball or anything else. The only thing that really matters (since we started Sun Belt football) is the continued health of our football programs; hence the 'there's no wind for any other program' comment.

Totally disagree, with the caveat that at one time I would have agreed with you.

Colleges (other than Vandy) have an ATHLETICS department, not a FOOTBALL or MEN'S BASKETBALL department for a reason. The NCAA requires 16 sports to be FBS, 14 to be Division I, and 10 to participate in Divisions II or III. There are schools out there in Division II right now that could assemble really good Division I basketball programs, FCS and maybe even FBS football, if they didn't have to comply with the sport and aid requirements of Division I.

If you run at the minimums you place your entire program at risk. Off the top of my head, I recall that Tulsa right around the time they went to the WAC could have been reclassified I-AA because they were running at the minimums and screwed up their women's track or cross country program failing to send enough participants to count some contests. If the NCAA had so desired, Tulsa could have been reclassified for failing to meet sport sponsorship requirements. Tulsa revamped its athletic department and has mostly had a positive result.

The other sports are the canary in the coal mine because they will generally falter before the primary sports. If you are grossly under-funding 12 of your 16 sports and need to slice 3% from the budget, where is it coming from? Chances are the 12 have nothing left to cut because they are replacing uniforms and equipment on a "as must" basis, traveling as cheaply as possible and paying very low salaries. At most places that means now football, men's and women's basketball and either volleyball or baseball (whichever you are funding decently) have to take all of the hit.

If you are scraping by in multiple sports, you don't want DOJ looking at your Title IX practices nor do you want to have a volleyball player file suit about a 14 hour bus ride when the football team flew rather than bus 6 hours. Those sorts of things can put you out of business.

Beyond all of that, there is an honesty factor. Do you sponsor 16 sports because you have to and treat them as a burden or do you bring all 300 student-athletes to campus and give them roughly equal opportunities for success?

As a conference what does it say for us if we have relatively nice football stadiums that are surprisingly up-to-date but a visitor sees a softball field that the local high school would turn its nose up at?

Are we Division I FBS in name alone or do we actually try to live up to the intent of Division I FBS?

So what you're saying is...

Buba's cups really do matter! 02-13-banana

But seriously, that was an interesting read.
04-27-2011 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #39
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 03:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Almost agree. I'm not worried if WKU finishes last in a sport or two. If USA finishes in the bottom third in five sports that doesn't worry me if five other sports are in the top third, and another five are in the middle third. I am concerned when being in the top third is unusual for a program.
Unless it is ASU, I'm not interested in who wins the women's tennis title and couldn't tell you even though I think I saw the release the other day. I don't care who wins the Bubas Cup but I do look at who the bottom schools are in the standings because not winning across a large number of sports is a concern about the health of the overall program.

Here we differ a bit. If you're not a drag on the conference in Football + Basketball (M's and W's) + Baseball; then I could care less how you do in the other 10-12 (esp. since 1/2 of those are some type of track and field sport; which I really don't see the point of...but apparently somebody does).
04-27-2011 03:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thetastygreek Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 855
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 45
I Root For: North Texas
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Does ULM belong in FBS football?
(04-27-2011 03:08 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  So what you're saying is...

Buba's cups really do matter! 02-13-banana

But seriously, that was an interesting read.

Careful with your apostrophes... People will think you went to college in the state of Louisiana's.
04-27-2011 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.