Just Another View

Its NEVER a good idea to go backwards, BlueRaider Fan. I wish what you were saying WAS true....that the Sunbelt wouldn't take us. Obviously I hope C-USA is in our future, but I would love our athletic administration to not have the Sunbelt even in the back of their minds as an option. And, as a fan, you are 100% correct. If we EVER stooped so low as to go back the Sunbelt, I would always be looking for the next opportunity to evacuate for GREEN pastures (notice I intentionally didn't say greener 'cuz I don't consider the Sunbelt to even anything worth looking into).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueRaiderPride

It's very nice of you to base your findings on just one season of football.

MTSU averaged over 17,000 in 2001 when we went 8-3.

---

BRP, you were way too quick to point out the ONLY season since Middle Tennessee State was granted Division I-A status in 1999 that it has reached a 15,000 home attendance average. Two consecutive years to miss 15,000 as MTSU did in 1999-2000 and 2002-2003 will now get a school booted from Division I-A.

MTSU Division I-A attendance averages 1999-2003
1999--12,472 average (62,359 in 5 games)
2000--10,233 average (51,116 in 5 games)
2001--17,857 average (89,286 in 5 games)
2002--11,163 average (55,816 in 5 games)
2003--11,021 average (66,127 in 6 games)

5-year Division I-A average--12,489 (324,704 in 26 games)
3-year average (Sun Belt membership)--13,201 (211,229 in 16 games)

Stop burning bridges. Be polite. State facts. Good advice, but not everyone likes it. I am ready for the CUSA invite to come so that people on this board will start talking about ways to exploit the upcoming change and to increase attendance, financial and fan support. That is exactly what we need to be doing now, not setting deadlines for people who only have their words posted online by people whose paychecks they sign. Sort of like using your little fountain pen to write a letter attacking a newspaper that buys its ink in barrels. Only set deadlines that you can meet yourself.
Tolerance for ambiguity is one of the most important measures of intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech74

When huge egos are involved in negotiations, a hard deadline demand will more often backfire than achieve the desired result. In upper management of higher ed, the egos are about as big as you find in the NBA. The guys in higher ed just have degrees to go with their egos.

As much as my heart is with the hard deadline idea, I just don't think it is the right thing to do at all.

---

That is absolutely NOT TRUE! Hard "deadline's" are a normal part of business negotiation. If you don't give a deadline, you won't keep their respect. People (including negotiators) don't like being told they can't have something (or somebody) that they want. Setting a deadline leaves Tech in a leveraged position.

HD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigdog13

Hog Dog ,

Out of curiosity , what would you pursue if the answer from C-USA is no? Considering these three things.... WAC=financial suicide, Indy=Financial suicide, Belt=Step Backwards

---

Okay, for the benefit of our discussion, I'll answer that.

If CUSA doesn't invite LA Tech, then the ONLY answers are a REVISED WAC and the Sunbelt.

I know, I know.......just like me, everybody hates the idea of joining the Sunbelt. BUT the fact remains that it makes sense geographically, and LA Tech NEEDS to use the Sunbelt as a bargaining tool in discussions with CUSA.

People want what other people want, not what they DON'T want. I don't like the idea of Tech begging for CUSA admittance. If we give CUSA a hard deadline and tell them we WILL be STAYING in a revised WAC or joining the Sunbelt if they don't act by the deadline, one of two things will happen:

1) We'll cut to the chase and get the CUSA invite quicker because CUSA will not want to lose Tech to a REVISED WAC or the Sunbelt.

2) We'll keep our dignity, and move on to discussions with the Sunbelt, which maybe the only game in town.

This is not an easy game to play. But now is no time for Tech to be timid. We must be bold and SERIOUS!

HD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueRaiderPride

The Sun Belt is not suicide.

You don't know what those schools are capable of doing in order to meet NCAA requirements.

Heck, even if they all have to play home games in another state like ULM is doing, that is still keeping your program in 1-A and is a non-issue.

As far as La Tech getting into the Sun Belt, that conferences presidents are seeing what the fans of Sun Belt schools are seeing from La Tech fans and La Tech's administration--a school in Ruston who would be lobbying for any conference in America whether they have even remotely mentioned expansion or not just to get out of the Sun Belt before they are asking the Sun Belt to get in.

La Tech is making their relationship with the Sun Belt worse and worse with each passing day.

I'm sure messages from this board are making their way to Sun Belt presidents in lobbying efforts to keep La Tech out of the Sun Belt. You can't blame anyone for not wanting La Tech in the Sun Belt. The school would be spending too much time getting out that it wouldn't even try to help the Sun Belt become better.

I am 90% sure that the Sun Belt will not invite La Tech even if CUSA does not ask your school to become a member.

If CUSA doesn't happen you guys are going to have two options because the Sun Belt option will be closed--I promise you that.

Your options are:

1. Stay WAC
2. Independence

---

Wow......you're forgetting something pretty huge here. What if UNT --the DONINANT Sunbelt team-- leaves the Sunbelt to join CUSA or the WAC? And what if ULL and ASU decide to join the WAC as well? It very well could happen. And then MTSU would be stranded.

I agree that it's time for Jim Oakes to start mending fences with the Sunbelt, simply due to our our lack of options. Having said that, you need to remember that this "conference realignment" carousel is not going to stop anytime soon. EVERYBODY wants to move up. And until the BCS systems is removed from the equation, MTSU could very well be stranded in the future just like Tech is today.

HD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HogDawg

[quote:7c911aa350="Tech74"]When huge egos are involved in negotiations, a hard deadline demand will more often backfire than achieve the desired result. In upper management of higher ed, the egos are about as big as you find in the NBA. The guys in higher ed just have degrees to go with their egos.

As much as my heart is with the hard deadline idea, I just don't think it is the right thing to do at all.

---

That is absolutely NOT TRUE! Hard "deadline's" are a normal part of business negotiation. If you don't give a deadline, you won't keep their respect. People (including negotiators) don't like being told they can't have something (or somebody) that they want. Setting a deadline leaves Tech in a leveraged position.

HD[/quote:7c911aa350]

I don't really disagree with this and if we were in a slightly different situation I'd say do it now. However, when negotiations are still vague/friendly and there is no logical extraneous-to-the-problem-at-hand hard deadline approaching, the ultimatum is not a good tool. Haven't you been in negotiations where someone prematurely pulls out the hard deadline and the whole deal becomes a train wreck?

What logical reason would we have to set a deadline now. Are we really going to start negotiating with the Belt or Southland? No one in CUSA would believe that and if they did, our ultimatum puts us in a position of weakness, not strength because it tells them we're willing to take two steps backwards. Telling them we're in no rush because we can continue to pay the travel in the WAC or hint that we always did enjoy playing the MAC teams sends a different signal.

When I negotiate with someone from Chicago or New York, I often use different techniques than if I'm negotiating with someone from Mobile ( the dumb cracker from the South schtick usually works at least once for the Northerners). We are negotiating with people mostly from the South, are we not?

I just think the timing for an ultimatum is not right for now. Hardassed negotiations have their place but I gotta trust Reneau on this one because he knows his audience, I don't.

Dignity can be an awfully expensive possession, kind of like a boat, airplane or girlfriend.

Blue Raider...

you say that Tech is holding less and less favor with Sunbelt schools daily, and that these posts are making it to the administration of the Belt and its member schools.

IF the Sunbelt or ANY conference makes its decisions on membership based on "Angry Internet Sports Fans" fan boards...I wouldn't want to be part of it ANYWAY. That's just plain stupid.

I can sit here with my keyboard and say "The SEC Sucks" "The Pac-10 Sucks" or whatever I want (within reason) but in NO way should my comments be taken as the position of our Administration. Hey, there are times I certainly wish our Administration WOULD listen to us, but they do their own thing.

If you guys wanna post fan-comments as board fodder, go for it. We're just "real men of genius" who like to call it from our own angle.

Basketball and baseball had a great weekend. What did the other teams do?

Hey Hogdawg,

Count all three of those schools out of a future WAC.

All three have gone public saying they would not intentionally destroy the Sun Belt to form a new alignment in the WAC.

North Texas' president has gone public saying he want UNT in a southern conference and that UNT is not willing to pay what the WAC is asking for in the way of entrance fee.

The WAC is a geographic unfit for North Texas, and UL-Lafayette and Arkansas State won't go there either.

Don't believe me? Send their presidents or AD's an email and ask them yourself!!

BlueRaider,

As you can tell from the content of our posts, we do not care about the SunBelt. If at some point in the future, we need to consider the Belch as an option, then we will discuss it. Concern over the Belch not wanting us is not an issue. The Belch will invite us if we so desire. They cannot afford not to invite us. The Belch needs teams that likely have a future in 1A. The last I heard the Belt was depending on two D1AA Florida teams to successfully make the jump to D1A. If that is the case, then obviously the Belch would take a geographically-fit Louisiana Tech that has been around D1A for several years.

losing all 3 would destroy the belt. but losing unt would not. thats why i think the wac should add uno and ualr as the 11th and 12 teams.

the sunbelt would be left with:

ull
ulm
asu
mtsu
troy st.
fla int.
fla atl.
wku - non football
south alabama - non football

they can add texas st., texas arlington, and texas san antonio if they want to go back to 12 schools, 8 football teams or they could stay at 9,7.

FWIW, the idea of a possible March 15th deadline is not making any friends on the CUSA board. Read toward the bottom.



http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/confus...ST&f=22&t=3758

I thought our team sucked last year... MTSU losing to Temple and ULL?!?! That is pretty low... Maybe lower than 672 yards rushing --- maybe lower than 49-10 in BR -- maybe lower than 48-18 in Tulsa.

Tech fans, we should take solace here. At least we aren't trying to defend close LOSSES to such football powers as the mighty Temple Owls and ULL Ragin Cajuns... Obviously things could be worse! MUCH WORSE!

OK>>Where did this BOSTON guy go that started this thread?