Printable View
Yep, and CUSA has had "buyers remorse" over that decision that has lasted until today. We have CUSA teams in the east that don't even want to travel to El Paso to play games. They hate it. Looking back, it really was a genuinely stupid decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Moscow, Boise, San Jose, Fresno………and HONOLULU made no sense for us either. But the WAC is who would have us. So…….
At least Dr. Wood has recent experience with many of those administrators who will have input. Can't hurt.
ummmm ... I question that.
You don't believe random anonymous sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
From the Memphis Commercial Appeal:
https://www.commercialappeal.com/sto...co/5778621001/
Quote:
The AAC will now pursue its own expansion in response, Aresco confirmed, with 10 or 12 schools the most likely configuration for the league. Without Cincinnati, UCF and Houston, the AAC would only have eight members in football and basketball.
Quote:
"Our remaining schools have competed extremely well with these schools that are leaving. These schools aren’t dynasties," AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco said. "And any schools that we add – and there are schools interested in us who play football and basketball at a very high level – they’ll compete at the highest level in this league. The DNA of this league is not going to change."
Quote:
“We would want institutions that would enhance our brand and had the resources to be as competitive at the top level,” Aresco said. “That’s where we want it to be. That’s been the DNA of this league. You have to have schools that are willing to do that. …
“We’re going to be fine. I want the fans to be patient. We will continue to have top-quality football and basketball.
That's LA Tech.
I hope like hell you are right.
I've watched a movie from the field at the JoeQuote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Wasn’t our Kansas game in Man of Steel?Quote:
Originally Posted by sportdawg
Joe Valachi and Champ. WowQuote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Unless the AAC takes 4 teams, I don’t see us getting picked. UAB is a lock I believe, and I honestly see them picking FAU to stay in that UCF footprint. If they add 4, we have a shot, but I think our budget keeps us out. Hopefully news breaks soon.
USF isn't going to want to surrender turf to FAU. Also, despite having good football teams, FAU has no fan base.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
Here's who'll get picked:
1) UAB (Has quality football & men's basketball)
2) Rice (to stay in the Houston market. Also has quality academics)
3) Marshall (if the Herd doesn't panic and move to the ScumBelt first)
4) LA Tech (if the AAC is serious about quality football & men's basketball) or
4B) USM (strong past relationships with most AAC schools, but USM has terrible men's basketball and mostly terrible football)
Tech’s new top 25 baseball team should get some consideration too. They could be our best sports asset of all right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
All of those schools have good baseball. So, I just don't think baseball is a differentiator right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
I've learned long ago (and we Tech fans are seasoned veterans of the realignment wars) that no version of my logic fits the whims of school presidents when it comes to athletic conference membership.
If I had to guess FAU and UAB are probably the most likely schools to leave CUSA for the AAC. Frankly, as much as I like being in a conference with Marshall and would regret losing any of the better programs from the conference, I'm not going to be too upset to lose anyone in the East. UAB leaving is unfortunate only in that they've been good since the reboot and the fact that there is no love lost between us and them. But if they left, and we still had USM, Rice, UNT, UTSA we wouldn't be all that much worse off.
FAU will not be picked. You gotta have a fan base to be picked, UNLESS your name is Rice.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
I certainly agree that on-field success has traditionally (if regrettably) seemed to be pretty far down the priority list for this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
We are screwed!Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
So I just talked to all the college presidents. None of them cared about attendance-ball. (Most of them were disinterested in athletics generally). They all said they would probably go with whatever their ADs recommended.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
So I called all of the ADs. They said they will recommend whatever ESPN wants.
So I called ESPN and they said they have a secret algorithm to predict what matchups are most likely to maximize viewers, sell ads, and thereby maximize revenue. And that home attendance comprised a very small, bordering on negligible, component of the formula.
Being a tier 1 national university again this year can’t hurt.
Our athletic budget hurts us. The lowest AAC school budget is still more than double what ours is.
Does our new athletic director know that we need to focus on getting support from more than just the richest among us?Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
OMG...what are some of you on? Has anyone considered that the likes of some of the "Belch" schools...i.e. ULLa, Coastal Carolina, App State may be under consideration as well?
Sicem...this has always been a problem and it comes down to, "What have you done lately?" Our football program's performance on the field the last few years has done nothing to help our cause especially against the so called "P5" programs. The loss against Moo State did not help! Not to mention this past weekends "almost" disaster against an average FCS program. It's time for a change in leadership with a vision that will move our program and not just play "good enough" to make it to another mediocre bowl game. Until then, Tech will be left behind again.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
That’s not how you raise the budget. Way easier to get more out of current “rich guys” and get them to put you in front of other rich guys than to have grassroots fundraising. Galas and golf tournaments are fine, but they aren’t what substantial fundraising is built on.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Serious question. How many fans and alumni do we have with a $2-3billion net worth who have friends who might also be interested in Tech Athletics? Feels like we are bleeding the 2-3 wells I know of completely dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Conference realignment has never really made me nervous until now. It kind of feels like the AAC is the last lifeboat on the Titanic, and there’s just a few seats left.
You have to carry the analogy a little further to fit the Louisiana Tech story. It’s like the last lifeboat and it has a pin hole in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
There is a way or two it could go badly for us, but mostly I think we're more or less in the same spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
The AAC was never really a "P6" conference. The whole idea of P5 kind of changes if they expand the playoff.
Maybe in another 10 or 20 years there is another split with some kind of true super conference and they boot the Vanderbilts and Oregon States of the world, too.
But I think (and hope) that the AAC grabs a couple of CUSA teams and maybe some Sunbelt teams, and then CUSA maybe grab or rearrange some teams aa needed and we're more or less all where we already were.
If we don't get an invite to the AAC, than yeah this is how I see it. We'll be playing a lot of the same opponents after the movements are made.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
IMO, our best asset now is facilities compared to some others who may be under consideration. Our second best asset is name recognition.
I don't believe our budget is actually as high as we advertise.
So the conspiracy theorist in me would say that Dr. Wood was hired more for his connections within the AAC than his AD abilities.
Maybe our administration was actually thinking proactively.
Nah -- they aint that smartQuote:
Originally Posted by revf
Not many, but we likely have quite a few who are over the current $24,000,000/couple who need to figure out how not to give more of their money to the government. That's where fundraisers spend their time....at least that's where they should spend their time.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Yes charitable giving has always been neglected by the church AND universities. I know of more than one well off Tech fan who gave TONS of money while alive, but didn't leave a penny towards an endowment or ongoing athletics. Short sightedness from our people at Tech probably costed us MILLIONS.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Latest rumor...AAC is going after three MWC schools, including Boazy, and UAB, as the lone mentioned candidate from CUSA. Unless the MWC thingy falls flat than joining UAB will be FAU and UTSA from CUSA. Reported by CBS Sports. And, maybe the rumor is true, insomuch that that is AAC's top priority wish list. But it is doubtful the MWC trio will be very interested.
If true, then wow! if the AAC places UAB, followed by FAU and UTSA at the top of their list from CUSA. Spats all over the malcontents at Marshall who, in their arrogant way, assumed they were AAC's #1 choice. It also puts the Belch in its place, not even a whisper about any Belcher being on the list. Of course...if the rumor is true, and IF the AAC can actually bring it to fruition.
This should also be the eye-opener Tech needs...we are NOT on the AAC's radar, so just be happy to stay in good ole CUSA and make the best of it.
I just cant see how UTSA is being considered.
UTSA is seen as the next UCF...huge market, growing school, and enrollment, in one of the top 5 states for high school football, and recruits. What's not to like?Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
And keep in mind that today's AAC is just yesterday's CUSA...the one who selected UTEP over Tech.
What have they done in CUSA? We added them for the same reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That's my point. It's the same schools from old CUSA driving the selection process and they are applying the same formula. In this case UTSA = UTEP.Quote:
Originally Posted by qng001
Of course I think their criteria is flawed, but they're not asking me for input.
Their main criteria has always seemed to be…..
Any FBS > Tech.
I think the "budget" thing is vastly overblown. It just doesn't cost as much to run an athletic program in Ruston, LA as it does in most places. Plus, a lot of schools --perhaps even most-- rely on student fees for the majority of support (UNT, for example). To my knowledge, LA Tech isn't doing that, or if we are, it's not typically as much per student. Besides, LA Tech just proved that it can totally remodel, renovate and rebuild its' entire athletic hardscape plant as needed in as little as 6 yrs. In only 6 yrs, Tech added the South End Zone (SEZ) project, the new Press box facility, and other renovations to Joe Aillet Stadium. Tech also built a new baseball stadium, a new girls softball stadium, a new soccer stadium and replaced the basketball floor with a brand new one. And these are only the projects I know about.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
UAB…funny. Weren’t they shut down just a few years ago?
I won’t be sad to see them go.
The issue will be if any schools like USM court the Belt. Not sure the Belt is a pill our money men are willing to swallow.
Yeah, lots of interest from USM folks in joining the Belt.
I think if we were to move to AAC, we would immediately be competitive in many of our main sports. Schools like UTSA joined our conference because of the "potential" due
to being located in a big market, but they havent done much and are not even the face of CUSA.
Their basketball arena and baseball field are pretty sad too
If the AAC took UAB and 3 MWC schools, that's not a bad situation for Tech. Ideally the MWC would take UTEP (along with a couple of those NW FCS powerhouses) and CUSA could just bump WKU over to the west division (may have to let them have a standing rivalry with MTSU) and roll with 12 teams.
After that, if the long predicted CUSA/Belt shuffle-up took place, well, whatever (so long as we end up with schools in that bunch we'd prefer, which I think would mostly happen since the main point would be to split geographically). Or (more likely) if nothing happened, we'd be roughly in the same boat we're in now just minus UAB and UTEP.
I would hope that school presidents and AD's would understand how to dig through the mythical reported budgets of college sports (since they're the ones doing all the silliness to begin with) to see what really matters. I don't know what the thresholds are on this kind of thing, but I do think they're looking for "commitment" in the AAC. You'd hope our on-field success and recent facility upgrades would speak to that more than a bottom line fake number.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I’m not doing any studying of this and don’t think it matters much where Tech goes. We’ll do the same things we always do regardless of who we play. In the end I wouldn’t be surprised one bit to find that ULM and ULL are better off. If we didn’t suck so bad at taking advantage of our opportunities we would’ve left them miles behind already.
Looks like the AAC wants Boise, Air Force, Colorado State, San Diego State, and UAB. Other than here I have not seen Tech mentioned on any list of possible AAC replacements. So, it looks like if we want to get in a stronger football conference it is the Sun Belt. In our movement to either the AAC or the Sun Belt, Skip would have to go. The level of coaching in either conference would spell doom for our football program.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...n-realignment/
We definitely want to shoot for Sunbelt membership. Watching ULL tonight. Nothing like the awesome environment in Cajun Field playing in front of 2,000 for a nationally televised contest. That’s big time.
I truly don't understand any school's infatuation with the Belt. They had a good year last year and are playing decent in football these days, but it is extremely short sighted to think they are doing anything that will result in a permanently better conference. I can say that if some CUSA teams move to the Belt, that will make them stronger. Overall, though, I think CUSA has power in the long run right now. I hope we have some chance at the AAC, but if we don't, I would say we stay put and try to keep our current schools from leaving to the Belt. It would be a mistake for us all to move to a conference that had about a year and a half of being decent in football for a G5 conference.
My opinion is try for AAC and, if that fails, stay where we are. I think most CUSA programs should do the same. Now, if Southern Miss moves (which would be a huge mistake for them), we need to look at it again. I don't see Southern Miss moving to the belt, though - no matter what some fans want. Just extremely short sighted.
CUSA has the worst leadership of any FBS conference, and worse than most FCS leagues. Judy "fiddling while Rome burns" Macleod is a frickin' sick joke. Get us a real commish and I think we'd see some positive change...for a change. In the meantime, schools like Marshall and USM simply look at the better TV contracts the Belch has and see the $$$$$$$$$$ and better exposure.
And basically nailing their coffin shut. Someone on the CUSA board put it like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
"It is to ESPN's advantage to keep the Sun Belt a bargain basement conference. That's how they sell you on those weekday games."
The comment is not meant as a slight to the SBC schools, rather what he's saying is that ESPN has more or less told them to "know their place" -- if Marshall and USM are cool with relegating themselves to "knowing their place" -- not sure what to tell them. I personally have much more respect for both of them, and hope they think long and hard about what that move would ultimately mean for them.
Ga. Southern-38 (SBC)
La. Tech-3 (CUSA)
Yes, Lafayette and the SBC finally had a good year. China Virus Baby!Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunDave1
Nice classy TD at the end of the game for Lafayette last night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunDave1
2003 La. Tech-34 UL-L -3 (SBC)
2004 La. Tech-24 UL-L-20 (SBC)
2014 La. Tech-48 UL-L-20 (SBC)
2015 La. Tech-43 UL-L-14 (SBC)
2015 La. Tech-47 Arkansas St.-28 (SBC Undefeated Champions)
2017 La. Tech-34 South Alabama-16 (SBC)
2018 La. Tech-30 South Alabama-26 (SBC)
Okay, so that makes Tech 7-1 All-Time versus the SBC.
I think there may have also been a couple of wins vs UNT when they were still SBC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ967
Yes sir, forgot about those two. I stand corrected.
2005 La. Tech-40 UNT-14
2006 La. Tech-34 UNT-31
So 9-1 All-time versus the SBC.
I love history. Unfortunately in today’s world it’s all being erased so no one cares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunDave1
Yet you're the one who brought up past scores.
Unfortunately I don't think there will be an opportunity for advancement -
And realistically we may take a step back if we are offered a chair at the SBC table and refuse the invite...
We need to follow USM, UNT and UTSA go where they go
It’s time to face reality, the only FBS conference that might be worse than CUSA is possibly the MAC. You can keep your blinders on and keep telling yourself that CUSA still maintains a similar status that it did 4 or 5 years ago. However, those in the know on the national scene have made it very clear that the SBC has elevated its status above CUSA. So we can argue and disagree on various message boards all we want to, but that will not change any facts. In today’s NCAA football landscape, the SBC > CUSA, and I think we can agree that football drives the bus.
Yeah, who wants to play on ESPN in a nationally televised game, especially being the only one on at that time? I remember watching teams like Rutgers (Big 10), Louisville (ACC), Syracuse (ACC), Pittsburgh (ACC), West Virginia (Big 12) and Cincinnati (future Big 12) playing on those Wednesday and Thursday night games on ESPN when they had the Big East fill those spots. Why would you want all that prime-time exposure? All that does is build your brand, enlarge your fan base, and grow your budget. Those teams now must battle it out in Power 5 conferences, while being paid tens of millions of dollars. Who wants that trouble? No thank you sir!Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
Tech and CUSA has it figured out. It is best to play your games on the most obscure platform possible. That way you can read sportdawg’s post about how to watch the game, spend an hour or so figuring out how to get it all set-up, maybe even typing in your credit card number, before you watch a little wheel spin or hearing no audio. That’s the best way to watch a football game, right? That way you will never build your brand, enlarge your fan base, and grow your budget. The advantage of this is when conference expansion takes place you never have to worry about what you should do, as the growing conferences have no idea you even exist.
You make good points for sure, Tom. I guess I am thinking more about the overall future of "traditional TV" --- ESPN's subscriber base is down about 6% YoY --- I assume they're trying to get all they can, while they can.
We all know what really drives the bus in money. There is an interesting thread on the CSNBBS message board (C-USA Conference) where a Marshall fan has listed the revenues for all five G5 conferences for 2019 and 2020, and the SunBelt is definitely the pipsqueak of the bunch. Why would C-USA schools want to take a cut in revenues to join that conference?
Marshall and USM aren’t going to the Belt. Look at the financials.
You are right ESPN has lost some marketshare, they have paid too much for some programming. But just like the Big 12 isn't dead, ESPN isn't dead yet either. They still largely control how college football is watched. It will be very interesting how ESPN pays the Pac 12 when their tv deal runs out in 2024. Do they make the deal better than what the Big 12 has? If not, could the Big 12 follow up on the idea to raid the weak Pac 12?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
3.5 minimum for a college football game on ESPN3 vs less than 3 for an nfl game. Tough to watch either one, but the red hats (commercials) are the problem with college, not the clock issues.
Hope you are wrong. I think joining the AAC would be mutually beneficial to Tech and the conference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone_afide_Dawg
Was it that bad? Hope so and hope they lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I would not mind seeing the clock roll instead of stopping to reset the chains on 1st down. I wouldn’t mind the clock rolling as soon as a ball is set for play after a player carries the ball out of bounds. The exceptions to both of those being the 2 minutes before the end of each half.
They panned the stadium a couple of times. It looked like a ULM game.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Who won and score?Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I thought it was that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I think 49-14 Chili peppers. Ohio is a bad football team.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
I haven’t noticed. Will pay attention tomorrow. I thought running out of bounds stopped the clock until the next snap. I am probably wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Thanks but a bummerQuote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I may be thinking about incomplete passes or just plain wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by techman05
You are correct that some of the 2nd half camera shots did not look very good since many fans departed once the game was well in hand. But happy you were able to tune in and watch at least some of the game, if not all of it. But if you want to talk about attendance and atmosphere, let’s compare Cajuns vs Bulldogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Attendance in Ruston for Bulldogs vs Southeastern = 15,385 (a Saturday night at 6:00PM)
Attendance in Lafayette for Cajuns vs Ohio = 17,709 (a Thursday night at 7:00PM & game on ESPN) & 25,500+ for Cajuns vs Nichols on the prior Saturday.
I think we will be OK.
I was watching during the 1st quarter. There was no one there.
I stand corrected. I saw 1 picture of the home side from the start of the game. Maybe 2500 scattered around. It was over the top of the visitor side. By the band. Probably 5-6,000 scattered on that side, plus the band.
You are correct that there were probably only 4000-5000 on the visitors side and south end zone. The other 10,000-11,000 were on the home side. But since you were not actually inside the stadium, I can understand that you didn’t get the full picture.
If you knew what you were looking at, you would realize that picture is of the bands pre-game performance! Our full crowd doesn’t normally come into the stadium from tailgating and listening to the band outside the stadium (Wayne Toups last night) until the very last minute. I’d say the maximum crowd was not inside the stadium and in their seats until about 5 minutes into the 1st Qtr. Especially with the $2.00 beer special last night!
I think running out of bounds stops the clock in the last five minutes of the half -- but that may be NFL and not college (or vice versa). (I know, some help)Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
I think most of that is a red herring. Do you realize how many financial supporters USM would lose by moving to the Sunbelt? Never mind the exit fees they will be responsible for from CUSA and the entrance fees to join the Sunbelt.Quote:
Originally Posted by THEarmada
Pretty sure the Belch is paying exit and entrance fees for anyone not named Latech
.....and look at the Scumbelt's basketball. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Say what you will, but CUSA is a 10X better mens basketball conference than the Scumbelt. But CUSA needs a real Commissioner than can negotiate a 2nd auto-bid for the 14-team conference.
Really? So the Scumbelch would pay several million dollars? (I think I read $4-5 million just to leave CUSA) for everybody that comes in? If not, you gotta hate your conference pretty bad to absorb that. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I’m betting UAB and likely Marshall will be let out of exit fees since they have always had a different set of rules for other exit and entry moves.
College rule is only inside the last two minutes of a half. Clock restarts if it is at 2:00 but remains stopped if it is at 1:59.Quote:
Originally Posted by TechDawgMc
This stuff is all temporary. If you jump conferences every time yours has had a couple of down years, you'll pay a fortune in exit fees and end up right where you started every time.
Southern Miss will eventually get back to where they were, as will Western Ky and some others and CUSA (or wherever we end up) will be fine.
Why? It's their votes that put UTEP, FIU, and some of the other losers in CUSA. We should charge 'em DOUBLE!Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
As predicted...the MWC schools have told AAC thanks but no thanks.
My prediction:
MWC decides to get pro-active, invites UTEP (who accepts), ASU (who declines), and UAB (who accepts). That gives them 14 (a stupid number for a football conference).
AAC invites Old Dominion (who accepts), Troy (who accepts), ASU (who declines), and James Madison (who accepts). They stop at 11 (a stupid number for a football conference).
CUSA is now down to 11 (a stupid number for a football conference) so we invite South Alabama to get to 12 (the second best number of schools in a football conference). We're all really broken up about losing UTEP and Old Dominion (our analytics go shooting up despite the loss of UAB).
The Sunbelt is down two teams (or really just down 1 from the best football number). So they invite LSU (who declines), A&M (who declines), Cal (who declines), SMU (who declines), Sam Houston (who accepts), and add another non-football school. So they have 9 for football (the best!) and 3 extras to make basketball an even 12.
Everyone is happy and content. CUSA slowly moves to the top of the G5 world, but the playoff expands so the whole P5/G5 thing sort of dies out (although you can still generalize about what schools have more money based on conference). Then in about 10 years there is another shuffle.
Bet the house on it, this is what's coming. Probably all be public by next week.
Yup -- sounds like a done deal.
Okay, I will jump in now. We have 22 teams (football) left in CUSA and AAC. Set them down in a room and form two east west conference. Effectively split CUSA by divisions and invite AAC schools. It makes sense, so it's not likely (thanks Inudesu).Quote:
Originally Posted by SicemDawgz
West (4 AAC + 6 CUSA)
SMU
Memphis
Tulane
Tulsa
UTSA
Louisiana Tech
UTEP
RICE
Southern Miss
North Texas
East (3 AAC + 7 CUSA)
ECU
Temple
South Flordia
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
Marshall
WKU
ODU
Middle Tennesse
UAB can decided which direction they want to go.
Navy can decided which direction it wants to go, or move back to independent.
Once Memphis leaves ULL can have their spot. :(
Ap State, CC, GA State, A State and TX State are available if their is a desire to get to 12/14 by either.
The article said two of their targets are down and you know UAB would leave CUSA in a heartbeat. So they have filled three of their four spots, Boise can stay an try for the big 12 but the AAC can surely find one more team.