Wright Water interview - ESPN contract - Louisiana Tech

Sorry, BRP, but no action was taken by the NCAA Board of Directors last week regarding Division IA membership criteria. The official summary of what wasn't done last week can be found here http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/gove..._MC_report.htm

3. Review of Division I-A membership standards. [Reference BD Supplement No. 7.]

BOARD ACTIONS:

a. Received a presentation from the chair of the Management Council’s Membership Subcommittee, which included a historical review of Division I-A membership standards along with an explanation of the standards scheduled to go into effect August 1, 2004.

b. Acknowledged that a great deal of thought and effort went into the development of these standards, but recommended that in light of the changing landscape in Division I, the membership standards should be revisited in this context, including the attendance requirement, home scheduling requirements, consideration of Division I-AA opponents for postseason eligibility and the impact of noncompliance.

c. Asked that the matter be placed on the August 2004 Board of Directors agenda for further discussion and possible action.

Until the August meeting all requirements scheduled to go into effect August 1 still exist.

Attendence requirements are not the only reason a team won't stay in D1-A football. Losing money is a major one. NLU loses a bunch of money every year and is in the middle of a state mandated audit. My personal opinion is that the result of the audit will be that they(Northeast) will be asked to either a) give up football altogether, or b) move down to compete in all sports within the Southland conference, as does its contemporaries, ie. McNeese, Nicholls, N'western, etc.....which is more likely, although I wish they would just go away.

How much money does Tech lose in a year, as compared to ULM?

Will Tech be going through the same state mandated audit which is now facing ULM?

If Tech is found to be losing similar amounts of money, do you think Tech will be asked to a) give up football altogether, or b) move down to compete in all sports within the Southland conference?

[DawgFaninHous]

No, Tech did not lose money in athletics last year, I believe we were somewhere around $80k in the black (could someone else please give his chap exact numbers, as I don't have the post showing the numbers to which I am referring to site) nor do I have the exact dollar amount that NLU is in the red.

Yes, Tech and USL will go through the same audit as NLU is now experiencing.

Yes, if they find Tech loses the same amounts, I am confident that they will be asked to do the exact same thing. As a conservative voter (albeit not in Louisiana any more) I would expect no less from my state tax funded institutions.

Any more questions?????

[OLDBLUE]

[
Any more questions?????

Probably not. You took all the fun out of it for ARKY-EGO.

Any more questions?????

Yes.

You stated that ULM loses a lot of money every year, but, according to the state of Louisiana, the ULM athletic department showed a profit, for the year ending ending June 30,2003, of $186,526, while transferring $2,339,565 from the state General Fund.

www.lla.state.la.us/fc/ulmncaa03.pdf+university+of+louisiana+at+monroe+au dit&hl=en]ULM Info[/url]

According to the state of Louisiana, for the year ending ending June 30,2003, Tech showed a profit of $85,099, while transferring $2,480,026 from the state General Fund.

LTU Info

ULM showed a $101,427 greater profit than LTU, while transferring $140,461 less from the state general fund.

Given the above facts, why do you think ULM's financial status will cause the state to ask ULM to "a) give up football altogether, or b) move down to compete in all sports within the Southland conference" and not expect the same demands to be made of LTU whose athletic department showed less profit and transferred more funds from the state's General Fund?

[quote:ff2ad8f65d="DawgFaninHous"]Any more questions?????

Yes.

You stated that ULM loses a lot of money every year, but, according to the state of Louisiana, the ULM athletic department showed a profit, for the year ending ending June 30,2003, of $186,526, while transferring $2,339,565 from the state General Fund.

www.lla.state.la.us/fc/ulmncaa03.pdf+university+of+louisiana+at+monroe+au dit&hl=en]ULM Info[/url]

According to the state of Louisiana, for the year ending ending June 30,2003, Tech showed a profit of $85,099, while transferring $2,480,026 from the state General Fund.

LTU Info

ULM showed a $101,427 greater profit than LTU, while transferring $140,461 less from the state general fund.

Given the above facts, why do you think ULM's financial status will cause the state to ask ULM to "a) give up football altogether, or b) move down to compete in all sports within the Southland conference" and not expect the same demands to be made of LTU whose athletic department showed less profit and transferred more funds from the state's General Fund?[/quote:ff2ad8f65d]
You should have also seen that ULM had less than $3.5M in revenues other than its state general fund transfer, while Tech reported over $5.5M in similar revenues and ULL right at $4.8M. That's a more accurate reflection of the financial situation than simply looking at the bottom line revenue over expenses number.

[DawgFaninHous]

http://www.lla.state.la.us/fc/ulmncaa02.pdf

That means they have only lost approximately $360k in the last two years. I also noticed that they recieved 40% of their total revenue from the General fund for athletics???? Tech on the other hand relies on 31% of a much larger budget, so we really are not talking apples to apples since our buget is 37% larger and the monies from the general funds are comparable (okay we used 5% more money).

I had not seen the latest audit since it was just issued about three weeks ago. Besides I spend very little time on the Louisiana Auditor's website. I unfortunately do not have any audits beyond '02, but I feel confident that '03 is their first year in a great while in the black.

I still stand by my statement that they will be required to look at how they are doing their athletic budgets and where they participate in athletics in the coming years. Let's wait until the recommendations come out to see who is closer to being right on this issue...........

[Tech77]

Did "asuwon" (snicker) ever answer the question someone asked him about his signature (I-N-D-I-A-N-S spells victory).

The question being: "When?"

Did "asuwon" (snicker) ever answer the question someone asked him about his signature (I-N-D-I-A-N-S spells victory).

The question being: "When?"

That's the last line of the ASU fight song.

However, a more specific example would be the last year which La. Tech was in the Sun Belt. The Indian's men's basketball team picked up two victories over the Bulldogs that year to sweep Tech in conference play.

[champion110]

LOL asuwon! That is reaching back to find something.

[Bigdog13]

That WAS a reach.

LOL asuwon! That is reaching back to find something.

ASU defeated #6 Ole Miss in baseball, two weeks ago, to give ASU their second victory over the Rebels, in this year's three game series.

Is that better?

[NathanDarby]

Waters doesn't know who would win between ULM and Tech if the presidents decided today, both are wonderful institutions. Last contact with Tech AD at Tulane seminar last Winter.

I'm not sure I would want in a conference led by people that had trouble deciding between Tech and ULM. Or any conference that refers to ULM as a "wonderful institution" and actually believes it.

[champion110]

Congratulations on your win against Ole Miss, asuwon. That is certainly better to use than the one you did for your example.

Nathan,
You are exactly right!

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Administrators<

Can we start a new folder and segregate all the Sunbelt posters to it? Name it something like chickenshit or whatever.

Then, I won't waste my time in meaningful folders trodding through their crap.