Non-conference schedule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Thanks for the info.. Yes, we understood how things work before the idiots at USA Today, and the Dept of Education did the studies. Many of us know what the numbers are because we read those numbers each year. Don't spout numbers that you are not familiar with.

Yes at this point, Football carries the load for the entire athletic budget,

---

Do you trust our own athletic dept or University accountants? If so I will try to find the link to THEIR financial statement which confirms exactly what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

Do you trust our own athletic dept or University accountants? If so I will try to find the link to THEIR financial statement which confirms exactly what I said.

---

$18.94 per year gets you access to that report here on BBB.

Our budget is $18M. The number you are looking for is $7M. That's not half. Even if it were, only people like Eager Eagle use it incorrectly to support the same argument you are tying to make. If you were right, you'd still be wrong about your original argument vs. me when I said football pays the bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

Maddog, in a post above, states that football pays the bills. There have been a lot of links leading to sites like USA Today, Dept of Education, and even our own financial reports that show the Tech athletic programs are not generating even HALF of the money need to cover its annual operating expenses. The balance needed to balance income with expenses is transferred to athletics from school funds thus football is not carrying even their own load.

I did not put much though into basketball scheduling prior to submitting my post and agree the guarantees are a wash. The question though would be whether or not Tech would make more off TWO home games against the whomevers after paying a nominal fee for no return or more from the ONE game against Wichita State, etc.

---

"Athletic departments don't generate enough revenue to cover their expenses so the universities have to subsidize their losses." That's the narrative that USA Today wants you to believe, and it's a load of crock. Our institutional support is not transferred to cover losses or balance expenses. It's transferred to supplement our athletic budget to the fullest because the university deems athletics worthy of the 3% general fund transfer that the state allows. Even if our athletic department did generate $18 million in revenues, our university would still transfer the $8 million or whatever it is to the athletics department. You can count the number of schools that don't have so-called athletics "subsidies" on one hand. Tech is really no different from the vast majority of DI schools that do this except that Tech is one of the very few schools that doesn't tax their students with fees to supplement our athletics budget. Of course football doesn't cover our whole budget, but football does bring in significantly more money than all other sports combined.

As for the second part, Tech doesn't make much money on home basketball games. In White's first two seasons (all we have data for), Tech averaged less than $8K in ticket sales per home game. I still think you don't understand what I'm saying about scheduling. It's not a 2 nobodies vs. 1 somebody replacement situation. To take our basketball program to the next level, we have to stop scheduling home-and-homes with these Southland/SWAC schools and other nobodies. There are numerous other respectable schools/programs to replace them with. I'm not taking five hours out of my day, paying for ten gallons of gas, and buying tickets to watch us play a bunch of jucos in basketball. And playing all those jucos essentially eliminates our at-large chances before the season even starts. It's a lose-lose situation even though White is notching a bunch of meaningless wins in the W column. We can't afford to play all those jucos like teams from P5 or Top 10 conferences can because we don't have the opportunity for a bunch of resume wins in C-USA play.

You come if you choose or not...these wins will make mike white a rich man...i do agree it could be better but these cats want wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogbacker2

You come if you choose or not...these wins will make mike white a rich man...i do agree it could be better but these cats want wins

---

No, racking up Ws against Southland/SWAC/non-DI schools will not make him a rich man. Winning championships, beating top tier programs, and making noise in the postseason are what get coaches paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg06

No, racking up Ws against Southland/SWAC/non-DI schools will not make him a rich man. Winning championships, beating top tier programs, and making noise in the postseason are what get coaches paid.

---

And winning games against FCS schools only gives you a false sense of accomplishment that is crushed come conference play.

At least we aren't playing Tougaloo!

Back to the subject of this thread.

Basketball scheduling. Not game guarantees, college athletics financing, but basketball scheduling.

Several things must happen, but here are the basics: 2 college basketball coaches have to agree to play a game of basketball at home or away or at a neutral site on a mutually agreeable date. Notice I did not say athletics directors. Basketball coaches.

The main exception would be if a promoter put together a matchup at a neutral site for a sizable guarantee before paying the teams.

After the season, ask Coach Michael White to show you the rejection emails he gets from all levels of Division 1 peers who THIS YEAR have refused via phone call or email to host the Bulldogs or travel to Ruston.

Yes, '06, please do that before you express your comments of disgust. Your imagination and assumptions at times can go south at times.

Hey, if ADs were directly involved in scheduling, we could get a sniff at scheduling Duke, don't you think? Our coach is close to the AD, who respects our AD. Now, Coach K? That must be the rub. Dang coaches.

We must play with the hand dealt in the process and we must begin now, as Boxer, said so well: We need to finish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg06

No, racking up Ws against Southland/SWAC/non-DI schools will not make him a rich man. Winning championships, beating top tier programs, and making noise in the postseason are what get coaches paid.

---

Those are the expected, tangible results of being a good coach. So, yeah, I agree with you. It is true White has already been courted by bigger schools, Mizzou and Tennessee were interested in him. And the interest remains and will increase when he gets over the hump. The hump? Making noise in the Dance and/or cracking the Top 25.

Louisiana Tech rocketed into the Top 25(or Top 20, I think it was back then) and all the way to 7th in the polls during the '84-'85 season, and our schedule looked a lot like it does now, maybe weaker! It is true the SLC was a decent conference back then. Lamar, USL, McNeese all joined Tech in the Top 40. On a couple of occasions Lamar cracked the Top 20 during that time. But, our OOC was fairly non-descript. We did beat a then 5th ranked Louisville (under Denny Crum) but other than that Weber State and Rice were about it. The rest were mere cannon fodder. So, why did we get such a lofty ranking? Because we were that LEGIT good and everyone knew it. Schedule didn't matter, the Dawgs were one of the ten best teams in the nation. And Russo was hired away by Washington. A BIG mistake for him, he shoulda stayed here.

White will leave for more money and new challenges and opportunities in his career. So far, he has been very smart how he is handling it. He NEEDS a signature win and a run thru the Dance, and getting Tech ranked. Then....money $$$$.

Then you have coaches communicating like this:

http://www.smokingmusket.com/2014/12...apital-classic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

$18.94 per year gets you access to that report here on BBB.

Our budget is $18M. The number you are looking for is $7M. That's not half. Even if it were, only people like Eager Eagle use it incorrectly to support the same argument you are tying to make. If you were right, you'd still be wrong about your original argument vs. me when I said football pays the bills.

---

Excuse me. I am NOT trying to make an argument. Everyone can read and interpret the info as they like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

How do we stay in business like that? Take in a dollar from one team and hand it to another leaves zero balance in the kitty. How do we pay the bills?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Football pays the bills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

Maddog, in a post above, states that football pays the bills. There have been a lot of links leading to sites like USA Today, Dept of Education, and even our own financial reports that show the Tech athletic programs are not generating even HALF of the money need to cover its annual operating expenses. The balance needed to balance income with expenses is transferred to athletics from school funds thus football is not carrying even their own load.

I did not put much though into basketball scheduling prior to submitting my post and agree the guarantees are a wash. The question though would be whether or not Tech would make more off TWO home games against the whomevers after paying a nominal fee for no return or more from the ONE game against Wichita State, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

Thanks for the info.. Yes, we understood how things work before the idiots at USA Today, and the Dept of Education did the studies. Many of us know what the numbers are because we read those numbers each year. Don't spout numbers that you are not familiar with.

Yes at this point, Football carries the load for the entire athletic budget,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

Do you trust our own athletic dept or University accountants? If so I will try to find the link to THEIR financial statement which confirms exactly what I said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

$18.94 per year gets you access to that report here on BBB.

Our budget is $18M. The number you are looking for is $7M. That's not half. Even if it were, only people like Eager Eagle use it incorrectly to support the same argument you are tying to make. If you were right, you'd still be wrong about your original argument vs. me when I said football pays the bills.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exes&Ohs

Excuse me. I am NOT trying to make an argument. Everyone can read and interpret the info as they like.

---

How do you think everyone interprets the SEZ project? You think football is the bellcow of that one or state subsidies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddawg

How do you think everyone interprets the SEZ project? You think football is the bellcow of that one or state subsidies?

---

I thought you were referring to annual operating expenses when you said football paid the bills. The SEZ project is not an operating expense but a permanent structure that is being built with about half the funds donated by fans and the other half by student fees. Football was the driving force in getting it authorized but football is not paying for it. That was explained in a post on this board back around Dec or so if I remember correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgpix

Then you have coaches communicating like this:

http://www.smokingmusket.com/2014/12...apital-classic

---

Huggs! speaking his mind. Makes some valid points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Those are the expected, tangible results of being a good coach. So, yeah, I agree with you. It is true White has already been courted by bigger schools, Mizzou and Tennessee were interested in him. And the interest remains and will increase when he gets over the hump. The hump? Making noise in the Dance and/or cracking the Top 25.

Louisiana Tech rocketed into the Top 25(or Top 20, I think it was back then) and all the way to 7th in the polls during the '84-'85 season, and our schedule looked a lot like it does now, maybe weaker! It is true the SLC was a decent conference back then. Lamar, USL, McNeese all joined Tech in the Top 40. On a couple of occasions Lamar cracked the Top 20 during that time. But, our OOC was fairly non-descript. We did beat a then 5th ranked Louisville (under Denny Crum) but other than that Weber State and Rice were about it. The rest were mere cannon fodder. So, why did we get such a lofty ranking? Because we were that LEGIT good and everyone knew it. Schedule didn't matter, the Dawgs were one of the ten best teams in the nation. And Russo was hired away by Washington. A BIG mistake for him, he shoulda stayed here.

White will leave for more money and new challenges and opportunities in his career. So far, he has been very smart how he is handling it. He NEEDS a signature win and a run thru the Dance, and getting Tech ranked. Then....money $$$$.

---

So, play the hand you are dealt. Win games against Southern, NWSt, LaLaff, and such by 20 or more and then dominate your conference. If we are top 25 material that should not be a huge ask, I guess.