|
|
I asked Isabella in an email why he would not ask rather than just guessing. He said when he asked, our AD said he would not comment on why he moved the game.Originally Posted by Dawg06
The Baylor deal is HORRIBLE. Our AD is being paid for that crap...he just got a raise to do that crap.
Would he be required to comment if a "Freedom of Information" request was filed? Comment on the Arkansas and LSU deals I mean
He might comment if he were asked directly, but Isabella would not ask him directly or "for the record".
Cancel this series and get a real payday...
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Two for ones are rarely good deals for the "lesser school" anyway, but this one is the absolute worst I've ever seen or heard of.
"That's who we are!"
Alright, someone enlighten me as to why the Baylor deal is "bad." We get a home game vs a Big XII team that, based on recent events, we might be able to beat. I've been looking forward to that one.
We play Baylor 3 times and only get 1/3 of the $$$ 1 guarantee game is worth these days. The home game really doesn't make much $$$.
-We only get $500K to play the off game there. The going rate is $1M now and will be $1.2 in three years. The deal BVDV cut with Miss. State was not a great deal, but still 3X better than this.
Now consider the two games remaining.
- We play there for expenses and they play in Ruston for expenses. We make zero money when we play in Waco and we are trying to make up the shortage on the horrible $500k deal along with no money in year 3.
A very old example (from 2009) of what Dooley did with Mississippi State originally was a game in Ruston and two trips to Starkville where we receive $500K and $700K. The deal was later renegotiated, but it was still a better deal and MUCH better than the apparent resume' building our AD is doing.
http://www.latechsports.com/sports/m...092909aab.html
What's DD doing now? Sure could use him as as AD.
Alright, so we're making considerably less money than if we just played one money game at Baylor? Ok, I can see that. Still, I'd like to see us able to get more P5 teams in town.
Just spitballing here. Some teams (like UNT for example) only play 1 P5 team a year anyway. So if we play a money game and a 2-for-1 game each year, are we worse off than these other teams? I guess those others may already have more money though.
Speaking of North Texas, they have a true home-and-home with Texas Tech scheduled. Houston just landed the same with Wazzu. If we could somehow get that kinda deal rather than a 2-for-1, that would be great.
I agree. If you want to move up, you have to play more P5s at home. Play 2 P5s that way and get the total take better than playing one P5 at their place each year and you give us a better quality schedule for several years AND take home a good payday each season. You just have to work to make the schedules mesh so we get a good payday each season. Not easy to do when you don't have a lot of pull to force keeping the schedule as you planned. But it also gives you more bargaining power for MUCH higher payout if you must change.
WWDog
La Tech
Region and hyphen free since 1894!
Flagship of the University of Louisiana System
Somebody in Ruston reeeeeally likes being able to say we played a P5 at home. This Baylor contract is absurd financially and it ties up a future season's game where we could have actually made a decent payday. Of course that assumes Baylor doesn't buy out the 2nd away game so we can play at Texas for an "extra $100K".
Their student fees subsidize their budget to a tune that we can only fathom...
You are not comparing apples to apples
If the first game was $800k to $900k then it would be more palatable - instead we are getting an FCS guarantee with a wash for the other two games
If they buy-out the Ruston game, as DW mentioned we could literally be down $1,000,000 for that budget year - then you are FORCED to really prostitute yourself for 3 years to make that up
I'm not a fan of 2 for 1's of this $$$ amount, it devalues our product
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
That is pitiful.
Good old Memorial Gym
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
