|
|
altadawg,
That was really a typo. I don't think I even know what I would be trying to say by calling you "alto".
It's all cool, though. I don't get offended easily. Besides "Chumpion" is a pretty cool nickname. :-)
I don't have to re-read any posts by anyone, though. I catch it the first time around. When it is wrong, I say it is wrong.
The belt? geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The bad thing about this situation is the fact that there are no real good options:
1. stay in WAC and spend all our money on travel and lose local Tech fan base
2. go independent and whore ourselves out to the BCS schools who need Homecoming opponents. As an indy., even if we win 8-9 games, we'll still get no bowl and we'll have trouble getting real teams to come to Ruston.
3. go to Belt and fall off the national radar
Looks like the second Dark Age of Tech football (Dark Age #1 for me = 1993-97) might be looming on the horizon if the admin. aren't careful.
Dark Age #1 = 1979
Dark Age #2 = Carl Torbush
Dark Age #3 = 93-97
Dark Age #4 = ????? Are we there yet?
(i'm sure some of our older posters can predate dark age #1)
I would shorten Dark Age #3 to 93-95 (Big West); 1997 was a pretty good year.Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
We've had some bad years, but few bad eras (unless you want to expand the discussion to sports other than football). And even when we had bad years, there was usually hope for the future.
Dark Age #1 --- Larry Beightol's year --- was pretty short. It was actually just 10 games since he got fired before the Gravy Bowl.
And I think we have been in Dark Age #4 since the Humanitarian Bowl.
That would be the best strategy, in theory. The problem is that Tech simply DOES NOT have the money to pay for travel in the WAC and facility upgrades....that is just reality. And no amount of saying how much the Belt sucks (which it does) is going to change that reality. Why do you think the facilities are in the crappy state they are in now? Because we don't have any extra money, and we have all seen how proficient our administration is at raising new money.
Look, we all want the same thing for Tech. That is to eventually end up in CUSA. Some think that joining the Belt, saving money, and investing in facilities is the best route. Others think that staying in the superior WAC while trying desperately to stay afloat financially is the best route. I suppose only time will tell who is right.
I would shorten Dark Age #3 to 93-95 (Big West); 1997 was a pretty good year. [/quote:74bfaef0c9]
I'd have to agree there. 96 was ok, 6-5 I think? 97 was darn good as well.
Has anyone seen anything --- published or private --- from anyone in the Tech administration that suggests we are leaving the WAC any time soon?
My point is that I think joining the belt just makes it worse. The next round would be picking between us, ull, asu, and even ulm. We lose the slight edge we have that had them even considering us this time.[url]
That would be the best strategy, in theory. The problem is that Tech simply DOES NOT have the money to pay for travel in the WAC and facility upgrades....that is just reality. And no amount of saying how much the Belt sucks (which it does) is going to change that reality. Why do you think the facilities are in the crappy state they are in now? Because we don't have any extra money, and we have all seen how proficient our administration is at raising new money.
Look, we all want the same thing for Tech. That is to eventually end up in CUSA. Some think that joining the Belt, saving money, and investing in facilities is the best route. Others think that staying in the superior WAC while trying desperately to stay afloat financially is the best route. I suppose only time will tell who is right.[/quote:de8182d3fe]
Can we afford to be wrong this time? Is there any room for someone to say " my bad guys?" I do not know if time is in our favor.
For those wanting the Belt or see it as no other option, I think the revenue sharing in the WAC would be a wash with travel savings in the SBC not to mention the drop in recruiting level. i could be wrong, but I bet it is pretty close.
Your recruiting level takes a hit with NO Tulsa, SMU or Rice - so that is a wash -
Our travel costs outwiegh the increased revenue sharing (which is dropping and will drop for the next 3 years) to the tune of about $300,000 annually (maybe more, maybe less)...
You seperate yourself by your OVERALL product - and that you can't improve your overall product without MOOLA -
And yes, there are indications that talks have taken place between intermediaries with TECH via UNT, the Cajuns and MTSU with Pohl at UNT acting as the main contact between Reneau and the other Presidents -
And I will say this, its not about those schools joining the WAC...
Evidently we were given a PRETTY clear message in Scottsdale that the next and ONLY invitee to the WAC will be alot further from Ruston than 900 miles -
I'm not saying our administration is smart enough to cut their loses, but I am encouraged that they are atleast interested in listening to the options and have talked to the other (regional) Presidents -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Dwayne,
First of all, what you say is totally depressing to me. Second of all I question your belief in how you separate yourself from the pack. If that were true, wouldn't ASU have been considered in this CUSA round? Wouldn't ULL have been considered since they have a great plan?
I don't think any Belt team will have serious consideration by CUSA in the future unless there is no one left to choose from. Even if they did, Tech would be in competition with ULL and UNT on the next round if we were in the same conference.
I believe in updating facilities, but I also believe that you have to separate your program.
Saying all of that, thanks for the information. I am reading everything with interest that anyone hears.
i still don't ever remeber us dominating the WAC!! What makes everyone think we will next time. If we go sunbelt count ULL, MTSU and UNT in CUSA before LATECH!!
The dirty little secret is we were considered. As far as I can gather, the word was get football a little more competitive and we were a shoe-in. Basically, CUSA told us we were not "done" yet to use a cooking term.
Hey, this round is over. Our focus is building THE BELT.
LOTS of things could change in the next 3-7 years.
It now looks like THE BELT will be here to stay.
Champion -
I can argue this all day long as well as you can -
Unless someone is willing to pick up the tab for about $1.5 to $2.0 million over the next two years - we will be relegated back to the SBC -
You achieve SEPERATION by beating people on the fields of play over and over again - not by not being associated with them...
The competition in the WAC is better - but that is the ONLY thing that is better now that Tulsa, SMU and Rice are gone - we are not associated with ELITE academic schools anymore - and outside of using it as a stepping stone to CUSA wasn't that the PRIMARY reason we decided to go WAC even though we knew we were going to take a $300,000 loss annually - was to associate ourselves with the "academic" elite of those schools -
The stepping stone "cracked" and those schools are gone, there is no need to continue to throw good money after bad -
Finances WILL dictate what TECH does -
And for those who still want to believe CUSA was acting in good faith and we had a legit shot - here is how low they were, CUSA called us last Friday and told us to have a press release ready for the "announcement", they were still toying with us as late as 2:30 in the afternoon - knowing that the decision had been made DAYS before that -
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote