(05-18-2011 05:51 PM)panama Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 02:23 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Question: Just curious, is there any other FBS school or schools with a name issue ?

Dont know about strictly FBS but I know that UNC-Charlotte wears basketball jerseys and brands themselves as Charlotte. UT-Chattanooga is Chattanooga. So there is definitely a precedent for branding yourself by a name other than your legal entity name.

To be fair, those are city names as opposed to state names...

(05-18-2011 05:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 05:51 PM)panama Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 02:23 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Question: Just curious, is there any other FBS school or schools with a name issue ?

Dont know about strictly FBS but I know that UNC-Charlotte wears basketball jerseys and brands themselves as Charlotte. UT-Chattanooga is Chattanooga. So there is definitely a precedent for branding yourself by a name other than your legal entity name.

To be fair, those are city names as opposed to state names...

True. I think almost every other state has a flagship university that owns the state name.

(05-18-2011 06:06 PM)panama Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 05:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 05:51 PM)panama Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 02:23 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Question: Just curious, is there any other FBS school or schools with a name issue ?

Dont know about strictly FBS but I know that UNC-Charlotte wears basketball jerseys and brands themselves as Charlotte. UT-Chattanooga is Chattanooga. So there is definitely a precedent for branding yourself by a name other than your legal entity name.

To be fair, those are city names as opposed to state names...

True. I think almost every other state has a flagship university that owns the state name.

Ohio probably provides the nearest analog - Ohio State as big dog and Ohio as a (gulp) mid major.

Yeah but Ohio is still Ohio. It is not Ohio University-Athens.

(05-18-2011 04:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 12:50 PM)CajunT Wrote:  Survival mode or act of desperation, in either case UL’s vote was facilitated by Dr. Authement’s lack of vision for athletics and incompetence. Had he allowed an external athletic fund to exist after UL’s exit from the Big West and not cut funding to athletics or stop building facilities, other options might have been available. Instead, we joined the SBC that did not play football and led by one of his former disgruntled employees. In a last act of desperation, he cut a deal with the wicked little sister in Monroe and thought he could cultivate some good will within the UL-System by supporting ULM’s full athletic membership to the SBC against the wishes of many of his own programs supporters. So yes, from a UL fans point of view Dr. Authement’s worst crime was voting for ULM’s full membership in exchange for their support of the name change.

For it to have been "his fault" there had to have been two "No" and seven "YES" votes making Authement the determining eigth "Yes".

I have never even heard the suggestion that there were not 10 "Yes" votes. I know there was a distinct lack of enthusiasim for ULM as a full member but a strong determination to not be placed in the position the WAC currently occupies. All along all I heard was that UALR, UNO, and USA were determined to insure the survival of the league as a football home for the other members because they believed it to be in their best interest.

You did not join the Sun Belt in the wake of the Big West kick-out. Membership in the Sun Belt came as part of the merger of the Sun Belt and American South at the conclusion of the 90-91 academic year. The Big West experiment in football only was 93-95.

As I've discussed elsewhere, what has happened is simply the outcome one could expect when the deal was made to transition names with ULM rather than hold out to get what was wanted. To that degree I agree that it was mistake, but ULM's membership football only and later for all sports had nothing to do with Louisiana politics instead was simply a function of the survival needs of the Sun Belt membership as a whole.

I have no way of knowing if ULM had enough votes for full membership without Authement's vote, we've all heard different stories. Having said that, it was no secret that Authement traded support for the name change with ULM for a vote for full conference membership. If his vote wasn't needed, then why would NELA support a name change that a majority of alumni rejected, in support of USL a program they forced out of the SLC? Authement still thought he could cultivate some good will within the UL-System with the vote of support for ULM. Keep in mind, Northeast Louisiana was amongst the SLC members that forced USL out of the conference in all other sports because the Cajuns didn't want to move to the lower level in football. His mistake was making a deal with a program that helped push USL out of the SLC in all other sports for the name change period.

I don't blame any other program for voting for survival. The blame begins with Dr. Authement for making a deal with a political and former conferenece rival. I also blame ULM for their actions since becoming a SBC member and Wright Waters, a disgruntled former USL employee. Both are well documented.

(05-18-2011 05:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  To be fair, those are city names as opposed to state names...

Nevada faced something similar a while back. Not quite an apples to apples comparison, but the theme is certainly the same...

http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2007/09/...the-comma/

(05-18-2011 07:42 PM)LFTCajun Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 05:59 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  To be fair, those are city names as opposed to state names...

Nevada faced something similar a while back. Not quite an apples to apples comparison, but the theme is certainly the same...

http://nevadasagebrush.com/blog/2007/09/...the-comma/

What happened to Nevada (who had been the only school nearly 100 years) was dirty but it was payback for trying screw over the state's population center.

That is probably the best comparison. Nevada-Reno is Nevada and Nevada-Las Vegas is UNLV.

(05-18-2011 06:06 PM)panama Wrote:  True. I think almost every other state has a flagship university that owns the state name.

NY doesn't because of state politics. It's the only state that gave its full land-grant status to a private school in 1868 (Cornell) because no private schools wanted a powerfull state system. When a system was formed they didn't want to piss off any region so they created 4 equal 'centers' at Buffalo, Stony Brook, Albany, and Binghamton. Buffalo and Stony Brook, as the largest and AAU members, have tried to set themselves apart but the other 2 cry 'We're flagships too!' to state leaders each time. They won't ever have a "New York" or 'NY State' name among the flagships anyway, since all the names are taken:

*New York University is, of course, the large private NYU.
*New York Tech is a tiny private school on Long Island.
*State University of New York is the state system.
*University of the State of New York is the entity overseeing all education within the state.

(05-19-2011 01:09 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 06:06 PM)panama Wrote:  True. I think almost every other state has a flagship university that owns the state name.

NY doesn't because of state politics. It's the only state that gave its full land-grant status to a private school in 1868 (Cornell) because no private schools wanted a powerfull state system. When a system was formed they didn't want to piss off any region so they created 4 equal 'centers' at Buffalo, Stony Brook, Albany, and Binghamton. Buffalo and Stony Brook, as the largest and AAU members, have tried to set themselves apart but the other 2 cry 'We're flagships too!' to state leaders each time. They won't ever have a "New York" or 'NY State' name among the flagships anyway, since all the names are taken:

*New York University is, of course, the large private NYU.
*New York Tech is a tiny private school on Long Island.
*State University of New York is the state system.
*University of the State of New York is the entity overseeing all education within the state.

To the best of my knowledge, only 3 states have single legislatively designated 'Flagship' schools: Connecticut, Arkansas and Louisiana. UConn is essentially the only public U in the state, so they don't really count. Both AR and LA have bloated, inefficient, greedy and academically deficient flagships, whose primary functions appear to be to field athletic teams and to keep every other U in their respective states from achieving anything substantive in either academics or athletics.

Some might argue that Tennessee falls in that same category, but I don't think there is a state law there so stating.

(05-19-2011 07:03 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, only 3 states have single legislatively designated 'Flagship' schools: Connecticut, Arkansas and Louisiana. UConn is essentially the only public U in the state, so they don't really count. Both AR and LA have bloated, inefficient, greedy and academically deficient flagships, whose primary functions appear to be to field athletic teams and to keep every other U in their respective states from achieving anything substantive in either academics or athletics.

Some might argue that Tennessee falls in that same category, but I don't think there is a state law there so stating.

That's interesting, thanks. I guess there is a big difference between legislatively designated flagships and those flagships designated by state systems. CT does have something similarly sinister with AR and LA because there are seperate U of CT and CT State U. systems. Central Connecticut St of the the later system could have renamed itself Connecticut St, but legislation blocks that, just as Arkansas St and the University of Louisianna system schools face having formal flagship status blocked.

what about ulala????

that's what toppah fans been callin' ya'll for years.

i don't know what our radio guys call ya but if i'm posting on hilltoppah haven (hardly a mass media outlet) you is gettin' called ulala. :ban2:

(05-19-2011 02:15 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-19-2011 07:03 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  To the best of my knowledge, only 3 states have single legislatively designated 'Flagship' schools: Connecticut, Arkansas and Louisiana. UConn is essentially the only public U in the state, so they don't really count. Both AR and LA have bloated, inefficient, greedy and academically deficient flagships, whose primary functions appear to be to field athletic teams and to keep every other U in their respective states from achieving anything substantive in either academics or athletics.

Some might argue that Tennessee falls in that same category, but I don't think there is a state law there so stating.

That's interesting, thanks. I guess there is a big difference between legislatively designated flagships and those flagships designated by state systems. CT does have something similarly sinister with AR and LA because there are seperate U of CT and CT State U. systems. Central Connecticut St of the the later system could have renamed itself Connecticut St, but legislation blocks that, just as Arkansas St and the University of Louisianna system schools face having formal flagship status blocked.

I can't speak for ASU, but UL is not even seeking flagship status, even though by comparison to all the other schools in the system, it could justify the request. All we are asking for is the ability to brand our athletics as 'Louisiana', and half the state is jumping down our throats.

(05-18-2011 06:31 PM)CajunT Wrote:  Keep in mind, Northeast Louisiana was amongst the SLC members that forced USL out of the conference in all other sports because the Cajuns didn't want to move to the lower level in football. His mistake was making a deal with a program that helped push USL out of the SLC in all other sports for the name change period.

Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.

(05-19-2011 05:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 06:31 PM)CajunT Wrote:  Keep in mind, Northeast Louisiana was amongst the SLC members that forced USL out of the conference in all other sports because the Cajuns didn't want to move to the lower level in football. His mistake was making a deal with a program that helped push USL out of the SLC in all other sports for the name change period.

Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.

My friend, while that is the written history it is a well known fact that once McNeese State made the decision not to stay 1A, their President Jack Doland and AD lead a coalition against allowing USL to remain in the SLC in all other sports. While ULM was not a member, McNeese worked with them behind the scenes within the UL system to pressure other state schools to support ULM's membership. My timeline may be off, but ULM participated behind the scenes to gain entrance.

Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.
[/quote]

My friend, while that is the written history it is a well known fact that once McNeese State made the decision not to stay 1A, their President Jack Doland and AD lead a coalition against allowing USL to remain in the SLC in all other sports. While ULM was not a member, McNeese worked with them behind the scenes within the UL system to pressure other state schools to support ULM's membership. My timeline may be off, but ULM participated behind the scenes to gain entrance.
[/quote]--------------------------------------

This is all getting interesting. Similar to some of the conspiracy theorists appearing as guests on late night talk shows like Art Bell, saw any crop circles lately?

(05-20-2011 09:34 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.

My friend, while that is the written history it is a well known fact that once McNeese State made the decision not to stay 1A, their President Jack Doland and AD lead a coalition against allowing USL to remain in the SLC in all other sports. While ULM was not a member, McNeese worked with them behind the scenes within the UL system to pressure other state schools to support ULM's membership. My timeline may be off, but ULM participated behind the scenes to gain entrance.
[/quote]--------------------------------------

This is all getting interesting. Similar to some of the conspiracy theorists appearing as guests on late night talk shows like Art Bell, saw any crop circles lately?
[/quote]

Interesting ? It's the same old rehash that's been going on for years.

http://www.life.com/gallery/22924/creepi...s#index/10

You guys got it all wrong, it is the:

Louisisana-Lafayette Ragin' Cajuns

Yep, they spelled it L-O-U-I-S-I-S-A-N-A

(05-20-2011 09:34 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.

My friend, while that is the written history it is a well known fact that once McNeese State made the decision not to stay 1A, their President Jack Doland and AD lead a coalition against allowing USL to remain in the SLC in all other sports. While ULM was not a member, McNeese worked with them behind the scenes within the UL system to pressure other state schools to support ULM's membership. My timeline may be off, but ULM participated behind the scenes to gain entrance.
[/quote]--------------------------------------

This is all getting interesting. Similar to some of the conspiracy theorists appearing as guests on late night talk shows like Art Bell, saw any crop circles lately?
[/quote]

No consiracy here Barney, everyone knows Jack Doland's antics at McNeese State and the Senate in Baton Rouge. You want to guess who opposed the name change in 1982?

(05-20-2011 10:21 AM)CajunT Wrote:  

(05-20-2011 09:34 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Your history is off.

In 1981 at the NCAA Convention, stadium size and attendance which had previously been an exception to I-A rules to permit schools to remain I-A became the controlling criteria for I-A. UL and McNeese out of the SLC met the criteria. Arkansas State just missed and applied for a waiver which was denied on a narrow vote. A number of other schools also sought a one year waiver and were denied but none of those votes were close (Tech and UNT were among them).

McNeese upon seeing the waivers denied and an alternate plan to form a new league with Tulsa, Wichita, Southern Miss, UL, McNeese, ASU, and La.Tech (the latter two indicated that they could meet criteria quickly) fall apart, opted to reclassify.

Southland bylaws at the time required all members to play football in the conference. While ASU and La.Tech tried to do some wheeling and dealing in the end no deal ever emerged that the then USL or McNeese, UTA, and Lamar would agree to. At one point there was even the idea floated that Louisiana would continue as a football playing school and be a hybrid league (back then you had to play seven I-A and could play four I-AA, so McNeese staying I-A would allow both to be I-A and use their allotment of I-AA games vs. league members) with La.Tech and ASU working toward I-A reclassification. The rub being that Louisiana didn't want to keep playing the others in football, McNeese not totally sold on staying I-A, and Lamar and UTA understandably concerned about the idea because neither thought going back to I-A was viable for them.

Once that fell apart ULM and UNT were invited and the other applicant (NW State) was rejected.

The Cajuns fate was sealed before NLU was admitted and while ASU and Tech lacked the votes to carry the day, the decision to not attempt to hold things together while they tried to reclassify I-A assured they were lost as votes for a waiver.

My friend, while that is the written history it is a well known fact that once McNeese State made the decision not to stay 1A, their President Jack Doland and AD lead a coalition against allowing USL to remain in the SLC in all other sports. While ULM was not a member, McNeese worked with them behind the scenes within the UL system to pressure other state schools to support ULM's membership. My timeline may be off, but ULM participated behind the scenes to gain entrance.

--------------------------------------

This is all getting interesting. Similar to some of the conspiracy theorists appearing as guests on late night talk shows like Art Bell, saw any crop circles lately?
[/quote]

No consiracy here Barney, everyone knows Jack Doland's antics at McNeese State and the Senate in Baton Rouge. You want to guess who opposed the name change in 1982?
[/quote]
Our problem was with the stupid way that our president--DR. A--screwed up the vote to getting the Metro/CUSA------Everybody thought we were in and Tulane put the vote against us---Tulane would have benefited with a huge donation for their vote---Bad move that put this university back about 20 years---but it will come!!!!