Printable View
http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi...ion_talks.html
More discussions took place in Destin this past week. C-USA officials said they couldn't discuss the specifics or possibilities. But schools mentioned as possible targets if C-USA were to expand included Temple, Louisiana Tech and TCU, or perhaps some schools from larger conferences that might begin to fall apart during realignment, according to some people connected to C-USA.
With Tech and TCU, I can understand them being on CUSA's list. But Temple? Doesn't make much sense to me, especially from a geographic standpoint.
TEMPLE?!?!?! So they don't like having to travel to Marshall because it's too far away, so they're thinking about adding a school in PENNSYLVANIA?!?!?!?
Philly is still closer than all but ONE of our WAC mates. Probably a lot easier to get to than Logan or Las Cruces too. Of course, I figure Temple is mentioned to placate the eastern teams. BB wants to move this conference toward Texas. I imagine when this next round is done, Marshall might be back in the MAC.
Anybody notice the stark contrast between BB and KB? BB is talking about a team that was in a BCS bowl last year while KB is talking about an FCS team.
Absolutely. Britton Banowsky lives in Irving, TX, which is C-USA headquarters. He wants C-USA to not just survive, but grow and be successful (i.e. with a tighter geographical footprint).Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
IMO, Benson has proven that he is just a PR man for his alma mater- Boise State. His next stop is retirement, which should happen a year or so after BSU leaves the WAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
I dont see TCU jumping from one mid major conference to another. I think it comes down to Tech and Temple.
You kill me with this mid major talk. If you are going to use it define it.:icon_wink: You can't unless you are willing to say Iowa State the likes are "large" majors. I'll allow you to use it in MBB.:icon_razz:Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
non bcs..same thing:icon_wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I think there are other schools in the mix. In general, I agree about TCU, but I don't think they see it as mid-major vs. mid-major. I think they see it as potential AQ conference vs. a conference that is not. Now, with Utah and BYU (even if you add Boise), the MWC is no longer a potential AQ. At that point, I think TCU would be open if BB could put them together a sweetheart deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
TCU will make thier decisions based upon the direction of BYU and Utah. If one or both jump ship to join another team, then they have no reason to stay in the MWC.
Temple? This is a play for TV sets. While they may not command alot of televisions in Philly, it will warrant some local coverage. Plus it keeps the east division happy. They are not interested in adding more Texas teams.
Get your terms right radio dude! I prefer non-BCS, but it is actually non AQ. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
That's the problem he's trying to point out. Not everyone uses that definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
TCU has jumped from the WAC to CUSA to MWC already. They'll go where they can get the most money/bowls/pub.
I think LT would do great in C-USA. What are you guys averaging in terms of attendance? Would you fall somewhere in the top half of C-USA? How are your facilities?
Best of luck with the new coaching staff this fall and best of luck with all expansion scenario's. Sounds to me like LT is ready to make a jump.
GO DAMN PIRATES
Hum
Speculation of LA Tech moving to C-USA does seem to be gaining momentum. Here is a UTEP article from a couple of weeks ago...
http://www.ruidosonews.com/ruidoso-e...nt/ci_15001487
Here's a scenario: The Big Ten expands from 11 teams to 12 by adding Pitt, Syracuse or Rutgers from the Big East. The Big East grabs UCF from Conference USA, C-USA poaches Louisiana Tech from the WAC or a Sun Belt school...
A Conference USA wish list presumably would start with Louisiana Tech, which was considered in 2005, and Sun Belt schools. If UCF, perhaps the most attractive C-USA school to the Big East along with Memphis, was to depart, there are two Sun Belt options to keep the league in the Florida market (Florida International and Florida Atlantic).
No, but that sounds much better thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
Actually, we're all BCS. Non-AQ is the right way to dub a conference school who doesn't have an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game.
We are in such a better position than we were last go around. Now we have a ways to go but at least we are pointed and moving in the right direction. I know there is talk about market and other things like that but just look at our FB Coach last time. Look at what we were paying him. Look at the performance on the field and more than that the fact that it was acceptable to our Admin. Look at our facilities, no committment, no basic maintenance. Facilities = Committment. We are not where we need to be but everyday, everymonth there is progress. The lights, the locker room, the new weights, the new turf, the jumbotron, now the multi-million dollar endzone complex is about to be announced. Baseball, track, basketball facilities are much improved. More evidence of commitment, look at our scheduling. We now schedule for success instead of scheduling for income. Finally seeing past the end of our nose and realizing that success will bring income. Head coaching salary is much better. Look at what Dooley and Dykes make compared to JB3. Maybe more importantly what do our OC and DC make now compared with the JB3 era? Much improved.
I think we are being mentioned because we are committed and engaged now. This doesn't get us in but this plus geographics at least gives us a fighting shot.
We averaged 20K this year. Not outstanding but respectable for our record and schedule. We will probably be somewhere between 22K and 25K this year. Would be more if we count the Grambling game that will probably sell out Independence Stadium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
And in terms of facilities, we are catching up to everything. It took a while before we were willing to make changes but now we have the ball rolling. Plans for a new fieldhouse should come out soon which will be VERY nice. Just added Dawgzilla last year. Year before we got brand new basketball court (as well as various other basketball related upgrades). I believe we are either getting a new scoreboard or just a video board in basketball this year and possibly more upgrades there.
Good summary! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigdog13
Paint me in as someone who thinks TV markets are a bunch of BS. If you have a solid football program and people watch you play because you play solid football, TV market rankings are a bunch of crap. What C-USA should be interested in is bringing in a competitive football program, not a TV market. I want a solid, blue-collar, football team who isn't afraid to strap it on against the big boys. If you have that, you may submit your resume' IMO, TV Markets be damned.
I'd agree that TV markets are overrated. ESPN had a story on LeBron James a few weeks ago that made a very good point. In the internet age, it doesn't matter where you play. You will get exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
That said I think we do provide a decent TV market. We have Shreveport, Monroe, and El Dorado as our area.
I agree, but this whole (hypothetical) situation is driven by TV markets aka money, money, money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
I think the market talk is more important for the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ect. Those huge landgrant schools that graduate 10K a year (or whatever) really do bring HUGE chunks of those markets with them. SMU and Rice, not so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allgood
CUSA was exposed on the market deal when they picked UTEP. Many will argue that UTEP had Tech beaten in market size. I don't agree. Juarez doesn't count. They picked UTEP because UTEP had shown a commitment to athletics. That was it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
cusa is hung up on market size. The last two times they considered us they ended up with teams in bigger markets, not necessarily more competive programs, just bigger markets. It is their perception that we have to overcome, not ours. Maybe the third time will be the charm. We finally got off our lethargic asses with the DD hire and hopefully we have taken enough steps to try to catch up with the rest of the college athletics business world to garner some attention. I am so ready to be in a better geographical situation where I can travel to road games and we can develop some real rivalries. Time is running out for some of us old dawgs.
Hummell:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
Good to have you on our board. We've been discussing markets on this board for the last few weeks. Tech's market was an obstacle back in 2004. But maybe not this time around.
Market really only matters if it translates into viewers and moves TV numbers. Tech has had enough national television games in the past few years to have a good idea of what type of viewership we could bring to the table.
In fact, Tech has outperformed its market. We might bring as much if not more from a TV standpoint than some of our competition for potential CUSA openings. Some of those schools have little to no following in their larger markets. See this article.
http://www.neworleans.com/index.php?...837&Itemid=578
LA Tech's Sept. 30 game against Hawai'i, a game in which the Bulldogs dominated in a 27-6 win, close to a million people tuned in as the game recorded a 0.99 share on ESPN2, more viewers than Major League Baseball's AL Central race being broadcasted simultaneously on ESPN.
UTEP (El Paso)did not have a bigger market that Sheveport, Monroe, and ElDorado combined. Those three are our markets. Our admin. just wanted everybody to think that was the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by oledawg66
Plus El Paso market is more into fútbol (soccer).Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I'm with you 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
Our Administration did not sell Shreveport, Monroe, and ElDorado as our market. They didn't try. It was Joakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
CUSA had consistently gone after market (or what they THOUGHT was market). They took the our bottom dwellers in performance from the WAC because of their market - SMU anyone? Problem is that SMU did not and will never deliver Dallas. We outdraw SMU and have even outnumbered them in their own stadium. The TV sets they deliver are some alumni and a few others. I bet we outdraw the number of TV sets than many CUSA teams.
I think there's a larger chance of TCU landing in the Big 12 than going back down to CUSA.
Agreed. However, the chances of either are negligible. I have moved 180 degrees on TCU and the Big XII. Used to think they would be in. Now, I think they have almost no shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by FishingBack
All depends on what the B12 is........... If it is without Texas, A&M, etc...., they have a chance. Don't know if it will be AQ if there is too much change, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
I agree. Our biggest problem with cusa is their perception of who we are. We are really haunted by the ghosts of Christmas past. I guess we'll find out soon enough if we've done enough to change the perception.
I agree......... I do think we have done a LOT, though. We have created separation from the belt and that was HUGE. The last time around, even though we were in the WAC, we had that perception. That is gone now (well, it is gone for most people outside of a few of our own fans' minds :icon_wink:). Most people around the country know our name and know that we are on the rise.Quote:
Originally Posted by oledawg66
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecrew
Agree, TCU already left CUSA for MWC back when CUSA lost some bigger schools and went down in stature.
To me, this "large market" vs. "small market" stuff is very misleading when it comes to college football. In reality, a given program's market has very little to do with how many bodies live within a certain radius of the football stadium. Cases in point: Rice and Auburn. Rice is located smack in the middle of the fourth largest city in the United States, yet very few in that "market" actually notice or care - thus, Rice is actually a "small market" team and apparently nothing is really going to change that. Now think of Auburn. They are located in Auburn/Opelika, AL - with a combined population of only 70,000 (less than Monroe/West Monroe). So they are a "small market" team, Right? No, they actually have a very large market. They key is that they draw a great deal of interest from their state and their region of the United States. (Even Alabama fans will watch Auburn on TV so they can cheer for the opposition). Therefore, they are actually a "large market" team.
While I am not comparing Tech's current market with that of Auburn, I am saying that Tech actually has a MUCH larger current, and potential, market than even our own administration has seemed to understand and capitalize upon over the years. The TV statistics have already proven that there is a large market for interest in Tech football. We are a statewide university - always have been - with a storied football program that is over a century old. The "Louisiana Tech" logo and brand is recognized all over the United States, thus we never have to explain who we are - college fans know who we are. When we are on TV, even the "casual" football from Louisiana will be at least somewhat interested in the game. This is also true for the radius of the surrounding states - and depending upon the opponent and magnitude of the game - the rest of the country as well. Therefore, as we continue to improve our "product" on the field, we are going to more fully realize the current reaches of our program's market. Moreover, we will continue to increase that share.
Louisiana Tech is a "large market" program.
Excellent point and post.........Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyDog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice752
Agree on the projected attendance for this year, with a fair chance to averaging 25K+. I think we stand a decent chance of pulling 30K for either Navy or USM. We beat A&M and we sell out one of those, if not both.
The Big XII South is not breaking up. It is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
Great post, DustyDog.Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyDog
I think one of the "informal" statistics that people look at when they talk about markets is not only TV sets, but tickets sold and fans who will travel to away games. For Tech, this is a stat that could be used against us if someone like Giannini wanted to. They could say that we "historically" don't travel well because we don't take thousands of people to away games. Never mind that our away games are mostly in the Pacific time zone (or farther). Getting into a more regional conference would do wonders for Tech footbal, not only because we would be seen as a more marketable team, but also because thousands of our fans to go to ALL of our games. That would lead to increased fan support, which would lead to increased ticket sales at home games.
You are right that we are a much more marketable team than people realize. I just home Mr. Van de Velde and Dr. Reneau are prepared for the arguments against us. Hopefully they are already lobbying with their peers in CUSA or any other league they have their eyes on. They need to counter the "market" argument with the TV stats similar to those that WWDog has posted, and they need to counter the "travel" stats by showing how many tickets we have sold to games in Baton Rouge, New Orleans (Tulane), and our old E-WAC friends at SMU, Rice, and Tulsa.
Preperation is key for us.
I think TCU has a better chance at Big East than Big 12 or CUSA
We shall see
I wonder if the reason why they mention Temple and even going to 16 teams is an effort to keep the Eastern Teams happier since its no secret Marshall, ECU, and UCF feel like their side is far flung and feel little rivalry with the Texas schools. We might hear speculation of MAC, MTSU and other teams. And of course, C-USA doesn't know what teams they will be left with when realignment happens.
Don't get me wrong, I still think our chances are good but I also think we could be part of a group entry.
After reading that I wish you were at least an assistant AD for us....well written.Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyDog
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrayDawg
TWSS
If that was true there would be 11 automatic BC$ bids. There aren't, so AQ and non-AQ is the PC speak for BC$ and non-BC$. I refuse to PC speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummell
When CUSA asked UTEP, I questioned each of CUSA's AD on their decision. The only one who answered was Memphis' AD. In his email he said it was not what Tech did not have, it was what UTEP had. This told me alot especially since UTEP had just hired a big name football coach, Mike Price.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddawg
I beleive at the time UTEP most likely had better facilities and a clear vision. I believe we have something comparable to that now.
That big name football coach has had 4 losing seasons in a row. UTEP would have been much better off staying in the WAC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Easydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
Probably not, but these days, you just never know.
labg.Quote:
Originally Posted by hookdown
I know what you're saying, but with June Jones turning things around, things will be looking up for SMU.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
HD
Yeah, but I think it has WAY more to do with a commitment from boosters and administrators than it does wig being in the metroplex.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I agree it might some now, but it wasn't during the expansion when they were taken. I still don't ever see them really carrying Dallas. June could help them, though, build a bigger base.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
SMU has a history of not drawing well, but in it's only consistent winning way's of late 70's early 80's did draw pretty well in Tx. stadium before death penalty. I agree June is creating some buzz and excitement and if he doesn't bring them back to relevancy then no one will!
During the Pony Express days, SMU gave aot of tickets away to get butts in seats. SMU has a small base of fans that Jones can increase some. SMU always runs a deficit in athletics.
atleast we would be included in this model...
http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/C...iddle-93888509
although they still seem to feel we should stay in the WAC.... not much sense... heck swap UTEP and Tech and we're good to go!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSTON
I could live with that new and improved WAC
But Benson can't. Give that boy some Montana State and Cal Poly - now there's ya a recipe for some excitement!Quote:
Originally Posted by techboy09
This guy is definitely not a geography major. Iowa State in the east???Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSTON
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSTON
I agree! Also swap BYU and Utah. No way the Pac whatever takes BYU. Throw in a 16 team playoff (Top two from each conference and the 4 next best, conference champs get the top 6 seeds) and this is a realignment that I could be very happy with. :icon_wink:
Actually if this happened, I would faint from excitement. This is probably the best possible (somewhat realistic) outcome that we could expect. I am not going to hold my breath though.... :angry:
Wasn't temple a CUSA candidate back in 2004?
Seems like they were, but did not want to leave the A-10 for other sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1L_dawg
CUSA wanted only a full sports member, Temple only wanted to play football in CUSA.
Weren't they still in the Big East in 2004??Quote:
Originally Posted by 1L_dawg
That's the year they were kicked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by domangue
The Owls played as independents in 05-06, and joined the MAC the following year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DONW
NO DOUBT!!!!!
But I do like the idea of a 6 mega conferences all becoming BCS worthy (no more Non-AQ crap)...
IMO...if they do form the mega conf it would create some stability in the college coaching ranks.... I know there will always be those schools with $$ and those without $$ and those with will always get what they want...but it's nice to know that a coach can do a job at a school and have an "equal" shot at a National Championship without worring about his school not eligable for any BCS love because their Non-AQ..
AMEN!Quote:
Originally Posted by BOSTON
The problem is that the current aq programs are greedy. They know that some non-aq programs can catch up to them eventually and take some of the tv revenue. That is why they want to keep it an exclusive club.
There is zero chance of TCU ending up in the Big 12 as long as Texas and Texas A&M are still there. Same goes for Houston, Rice, SMU, etc.Quote:
I think there's a larger chance of TCU landing in the Big 12 than going back down to CUSA
They bring nothing to the table that the horns and aggies don't already deliver. All they would do is take another slice of the pie (Tv revenue) and become another competitor for recruits. You level the playing field by letting them in. There's manuevering involved.
Reading that article, its easy to see why smaller conferences fail.
They're talking about expanding and making the conference stronger....but every step of the conversation is laced with comments about programs thinking of leaving the conference. Heck, even the chairman of the C-USA competition committee is waffling in every direction. How do you lead a conference....when you are one of the teams talking about bolting?
+1000:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyDog
So very true and so very amazing when you think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
Total agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
Guys, I won't pretend to understand the market thing, won't even say I agree with it. But it is what it is. As long as TV tells us we need markets to maintain our TV dollars it will play a role in who we chose. It won't be the only factor, see Marshall.
The biggest thing I see Tech needing to do is increase attendance and budget. You can claim Sherveport but an average of 20,000 suggests that is not the case. I get blasted by fellow USM fans for saying this, but our AD is claiming our market is from Jackson to the Coast, from Mobile to New Orleans. If that were the case, we'd be selling out a 35,000 seat stadium every week.
You have to increase your budget. You can't say getting there will increase it, you have to show your fanbase has the commitment to get you there first.
Don't know where you get that from, being a private school they seldom release figures for public consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by olddog75
However if they do, they like Rice, have plenty of wealthy alums to fill in the gaps. Paying a football coach 2 million a year confirms it.
Increase our attendance like Tulane and SMU???????? :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
In all seriousness, our numbers should rise this year. The problem with our attendance (which has steadily increased) is that we play teams that are 3 time zones away. It is all us, instead of traveling fans from other schools. From what I have seen of how CUSA travels, WITH US, most of your schools will see an increase in attendance at YOUR games - from us. We travel very well.
"IF" they do???? You're joking, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
The fact that SMU, like Rice, may have wealthy benefactors willing to stop-gap athletics doesn't change the fact that operationally, SMU, like Rice, runs huge deficits in athletics.
Tech's budget has grown 104% in the past six years, a far greater rate of increase than USM's. We have a long way to go, but we're also light years ahead of where we were not long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
One of the things we've been trying to point out for the past few months is that Tech does have a market. Our TV numbers prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
It seems like we are on national TV alot more than USM doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
They are already there, non issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
That was my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by champion110
Dude we have one of the smallest budgets in FBS football and for the most part its stagnet. That will help you very little in getting where you want to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
I think a big concern is that Louisiana taxpayers are forced to support your program. Before you get over sensitive, I realize we collect athletic fees and you don't. But those are Southern Miss students supporting Southern Miss. We don't have LSU fans in Ocean Springs supporting Southern Miss. It sends out the message that your students don't care enough to support your program. You may not agree with that, but its an outsiders perspective.
The 104 percent increase is great. Whats the breakdown when you look at private donations VS state gov support?
Thats the kind of ammno you will need.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Where did you get those numbers from? If they include our numbers I'd be interested in a link.
This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Tech's budget. Tuitition paid by our students becomes general fund dollars that is then transferred back to the university, along with additional state support. We then allocate a certain percentage of those dollars for athletics. We are using money from the general fund, but it includes tuition money as well as taxpayer money. I was under the impression USM did virtually the same thing, but then had a student fee added on, as well. Are you guys using no Mississippi taxpayer money?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
Tech could do something similar under our current system, but we would have to get permission from the state to raise the limit on transfer dollars, and then get permission from the state to raise tution. We would then transfer those dollars over. A student fee would be much simpler.
To answer your other questions, about 75% of our growth has been in private dollars. Regarding the TV ratings, each of the conference offices has those numbers, which were given to Tech by the WAC. CUSA should have USM's numbers. Because they were as good as they were, they made our numbers public.
Southern Miss 2007-08
$1,696,428 (University Subsidization/Student Tuition)
$5,137,882 (Student Fees)
$6,834,310 (Total)
Louisiana Tech 2007-08
$5,922,923 (University Subsidization/Student Tuition)
$0 (Student Fees)
$5,922,923 (Total)
Tech students voted for a student-assessed athletics fee in 2004. Tech has been collecting it since then, but it counts against the general fund transfer so it is considered "university subsidization." Go Gold, the "perception" argument that "Tech students don't care so the state taxpayers have to bail out our program" was created by EagerEagle to discredit Tech to other Southern Miss and C-USA fans. The people that matter (BB, C-USA presidents, and ADs) know that is not the case.
Tech being a national tier 3 university is going to carry more weight come expansion time then most of the internet folks realize... Most university presidents number goal is still education.
Louisiana Tech's highest rated game was the Bulldogs' Nov. 6 date against Boise State where a 1.38 share (over 1.36 million) watched LA Tech pull within two points of the nationally-ranked Broncos in the fourth quarter. LA Tech's Sept. 30 game against Hawai'i, a game in which the Bulldogs dominated in a 27-6 win, close to a million people tuned in as the game recorded a 0.99 share on ESPN2, more viewers than Major League Baseball's AL Central race being broadcasted simultaneously on ESPN. Tech's game at Nevada on Oct. 9 recorded a 0.96 share (close to 950,000 viewers). Louisiana Tech had nine of its 12 games broadcast on national television during the 2009 season with five of those broadcasts on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. Two of ESPN's national broadcasts originated from Ruston - a first for Louisiana Tech.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by okiealdawg
Most folks fail to realize that Athletic Directors don't make decisions on conference affiliation. They make recommendations. The decision maker is the University President....and in some cases the Board of Regents.
GoGold:
To add to what Dawg06 said about student fees - we have a fee at Tech, but it is relatively small. And the reason it's small, is because that's all the Louisiana Board of Regents would allow the school to put in front of the students in a vote. It easily passed. Our students care a great deal and always have.
In fact, the fee could have been many times greater, and it still would have passed. The reason we were capped at a low amount by the Regents is because the smaller dollar figure barely passed a student vote at UL-Lafayette. So because the Cajun athletic department could never hope to get more from their student body, Tech had to settle for the same fee amount on our ballot.
In the year prior to both votes, it was clear what ULL had in mind for a student fee and what Tech had in mind for a student fee were in different ballparks.
Thats interesting. My apologies for being misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoGold
No problem. Just remember that Eager Eagle has an agenda and distorts the figures to match said agenda.
So, if I am understanding this correctly, our students pay their "bills", tuition, student fees, room and board, etc., but that money goes to the state then back to us as a "subsidy" from the state? All the more reason for us to contrbute to LTAC!
Nuke
Athletics Contributions/Donations 2007-08
$2,064,622 - Louisiana Tech
$1,931,025 - Mississippi State
Athletics Contributions/Donations 2008-09
$2,728,546 - Louisiana Tech
$?,???,??? - Mississippi State
I don't understand the intricate variables that go into these figures so they are irrelevant to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
How do I apply this knowledge?
What do those figures really mean?
Somebody help me understand this.
Good luck. It's like Churchill's description of Russia - "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
I'd just like to understand it so I can see where folks are going with that discussion.
Right now I don't see the significance of it in regard to which School is more attractive to a conference.
Velton Knight (aka EagerEagle) is already spin-doctoring on the CUSA board...:laugh:
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=437006
The Get More Referendum of 2004 for the self-assessed athletics fee passed with 70% of the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
The Change For Change Referendum of 2007 for new tennis facility, track, bowling alley, and swimming and diving facility passed with 85% of the vote.
Louisiana Tech had a full-time undergraduate enrollment of 6,484 when these pictures were taken Fall 2009. I would guess 2/3 of that population was cheering in Tech's student section for that game. There are not many schools that can say that.
Tech students care.
It was a response to GoGold's question about Tech's financial support. EagerEagle has brainwashed USM and C-USA fans into thinking that Tech only survives off of government handouts and Tech students and alumni don't support the university. Those figures show that Tech has more financial support from alumni donations (LTAC) than Mississippi State. It also shows Tech's support is growing significantly right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tbone1
Tbone,
I don't really understand it either, but I can give you my opinion.
Government funds are not guaranteed (as we have seen with the budget cuts this year) and if the athletic budget relies too heavily on taxpayer dollars, then it isn't really self-sufficient. And, if it can't sustain itself, then we are at risk of having our athletic budget cut in half during bad economic times. I'm sure that no conference wants that kind of risk. But, as others have explained in this thread, the money comes from legitimate sources and the athletic department isn't heavily dependent on taxpayer dollars.
Of course, we are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, and the budget is still growing, which should be a good sign for everyone who is paying attention to Tech athletics.
EagerEagle is a childish idiot who will always try to say negative things about us, regardless of the progress we make. We need to keep LTAC growing, and keep selling season tickets. But, we also need to keep pushing academic improvements and we need to WIN games....especially the USM game, so EagerEagle will shut his pie hole for a day or two.
He's claiming all of our increases over the past six or seven years have been through general fund transfers. I guess I must have missed the entire Dooley era, LTAC, the deal with Learfield, and everything else we've done to grow the budget since 2004. He also questions the existence of a student fee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
Hey Velton - here's the story from The Tech Talk. Dawg06 has already posted the results.
http://www.latech.edu/techtalk/archi...urrent/fee.php
Eager Eagle may be one of the most disturbed forum regulars in Internet history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia). I'm not sure if he was attacked by a Bulldog when he was little or failed out of Tech, but the dude is spooky. Like Silence of the Lambs spooky.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogsWin