USA asst AD conversation

[Jetstorm]

I haven't heard anything about this on the ULM board. It's just a rumor right now, I guess. The current consensus on that board is that ULM will go down fighting, staying in 1-A until the NCAA forces them down, which they can't do until 2006.

All this talk of early moving and shaking is just talk, IMHO. I think NOTHING happens until 2006, when the first cuts will be made. Then we will see new conferences form. I think anyone wanting to stay 1-A by then had better be well in the clear attendance wise and money wise; sitting on the fence will not get you into the good conference necessary for survival.

[EJ]

All this talk of early moving and shaking is just talk, IMHO. I think NOTHING happens until 2006, when the first cuts will be made. Then we will see new conferences form. I think anyone wanting to stay 1-A by then had better be well in the clear attendance wise and money wise; sitting on the fence will not get you into the good conference necessary for survival.

That is the absolute truth. I hope our administration can see over the hill a little ways...

[PawDawg]

I was told the decision to move down had been made (from a VERY reliable sourch). He didn't say that they would announce anytime soon, so I'm guessing that we may not hear the official announcement for a while yet.

Now the million dollar question (well maybe not a million) that probably deserves its own thread............

If Jim Oakes knows for sure they are going down, does he schedule them in 2004 or 2005 knowing that they will be 1AA but still counting as a 1A game??

[Jetstorm]

On the ULM board an Indian fan (can't think of his handle right now) said that he spoke in person with Bruce Hanks, the AD over there, and Hanks said the Times-Pic blurb was totally false and that ULM will stay in 1-A unless the NCAA forces them down, which can't happen until 2006. He said if the rumor got out of hand, he would issue a press statement denying it. So far there has been no press statement. Makes you wonder if something really is going on behind the scenes. But they are definitely on for 1-A next year. They have three seasons to turn it around. The clock is ticking.

Since you brought it up, have you heard anything about Tech/ULM renewing the series in 2004/2005 Maddawg? I thought the diehard Tech fans were against it. At least most of the ones who visit this board are. Why would you schedule ULM after they announce intentions to move back to 1-AA? What does that change?

[weunice]

Actually scheduling them before they move down is wiser because even if they DO move down, it THINK it still counts as a 1-A home game for us because we scheduled it when they WERE 1-A. We should negotiate a long term home and home with a clause stating that if one team goes 1-AA and the other stays 1-A then the remaining game automatically becomes a home game for the other team. In return, the payout increases for the road team based on attendance.

The sad reality of our situation is that a large percentage of older folks, who only occasionally come to Tech games, will come out to watch Tech beat ULM. That is what they remember about Tech football and that is the highlight of their lives. My generation is mostly lost fans because there were no rivalries during the time I was there ... except MAYBE with ULL. Remember the Big West days?

I am almost convinced that the savior of Louisiana Tech football is going to be a regional all sports conference as spelled out in this thread. Rice and SMU are coming to Ruston next season so that helps. Folks consider them regional enough to have some interest. When there is stability and longevity in the series with some of our EWAC brethren, things will improve because folks will find it less costly to care.

[weunice]

And IMHO, somebody needs to make a move BEFORE the requirements come down for the stability reasons stated above ...

[PawDawg]

On the ULM board an Indian fan (can't think of his handle right now) said that he spoke in person with Bruce Hanks, the AD over there, and Hanks said the Times-Pic blurb was totally false and that ULM will stay in 1-A unless the NCAA forces them down, which can't happen until 2006. He said if the rumor got out of hand, he would issue a press statement denying it. So far there has been no press statement. Makes you wonder if something really is going on behind the scenes. But they are definitely on for 1-A next year. They have three seasons to turn it around. The clock is ticking.

Since you brought it up, have you heard anything about Tech/ULM renewing the series in 2004/2005 Maddawg? I thought the diehard Tech fans were against it. At least most of the ones who visit this board are. Why would you schedule ULM after they
announce intentions to move back to 1-AA? What does that change?

weunice summed it up pretty well. If they are 1A when scheduled then they would count as a 1A game even after moving to 1AA. No I haven't heard anything. Just speculation from some fans. Yes, I am against it. TOTALLY. BUT, since it seems that we are not willing to pay some of these teams to come to Ruston to play, then it will be neccessary to schedule some easy (are there any for us?) and cheap games at home. That is the main reason ULL was scheduled and would be the ONLY reason to schedule nlulm.

weunice's idea of putting a disclaimer in the contract is a great idea, but I'm not sure how the NCAA would view it.