The Brainwashing continues from the 16th

[Dawgbitten]

Fans support teams, despite conference

This item originally appeared in the May 13, 2004 issue of The Tech Talk.

(Everyone should know that our lack of marketing, fanbase, plan, etc. had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DECISION--Dawgbitten's comments to be read with sarcasm. Now on to the editorial.)


After months of speculation and much anticipation, the presidents of Conference USA decided to invite fellow Western Athletic Conference foe UTEP to be its 12th member, instead of Tech on April 30 in what we think was a horrible decision.

Despite the decision, we will continue to hold our heads high in the WAC.

Both Conference USA and Tech missed this opportunity for growth.

Tech desperately desired membership in Conference USA, as it would have given us stronger competition, a potential rival, lesser travel expenses and economic development.

While the WAC is dropping in level of competition, Tech would have played much stronger teams in Conference USA and benefited by identification and recognition in a well-respected conference. Membership would have helped recruiting and attendance because fans want to see the Bulldogs play fierce, quality opponents.

Considering competition, Tech would better suit Conference USA. In the past two years, the UTEP Miners' football team posted a mere 4-25 record against sub-par opponents, but while Tech's 9-15 mark is slightly improved, at least the Bulldogs have played nationally respected programs and pulled off upsets in the process.

In Conference USA, Tech would have finally been able to establish a rivalry with another quality athletic program. Proximity is key to rivalries, and Conference USA offered the potential. So why pick a school on the western side of Texas?

Fewer travel expenses, along with stronger competition, rivalries and proximity, would have boosted economic development because the proximity of Conference USA would allow more fans to travel and become interested in regional schools.

So why add a school with only four men's sports and one of its women's sports is rifling?

The answer is marketing. El Paso's population is 563,662 versus Ruston's 20,546. Money talks, and Conference USA hopes El Paso will somehow fall in love with UTEP and rake in the bills.

UTEP's athletic attendance is less than Tech's, and the Miners do not equal the Bulldogs' offer in competition. But Conference USA is eye-balling monetary potential, and marketing is the No. 1 reason of selection.

Regardless, Tech will continue playing in the WAC, where New Mexico State, Utah State, North Texas and UL-Lafayette will join the party.

We want our athletes, athletic officials, alumni and fans to know that we will always support Tech athletics, and we encourage everyone to rally behind our programs. We aren't picky. We'll play anybody. Be proud to be in the WAC, which is still a fine conference, and continue rooting for the home team.

[splicer]

Regardless, Tech will continue playing in the WAC, where New Mexico State, Utah State, North Texas and UL-Lafayette will join the party.

just speculation?

[Dawgbitten]

Who knows?

[Dawg04]

This is the Tech Talk. These kids don't know the whole story and they get details confused. Remember a few weeks ago when a reporter misquoted the SGA President to where it read that if the students passed the fee increase then Tech would be invited to join CUSA.


The editorial is also not written by the sportswriters.

[TechsasDawg]

... Money talks, and Conference USA hopes El Paso will somehow fall in love with UTEP and rake in the bills.

UTEP's athletic attendance is less than Tech's, and the Miners do not equal the Bulldogs' offer in competition. But Conference USA is eye-balling monetary potential.....

DB, I'm a little slow, but please walk me through how UTEP will all of a sudden rake in the bills, and how this money gets to Conf USA? Since individual school presidents voted on this entry, what do they care how rich Conference USA gets?

This is not ment to be a flame, or a frivilous post. I really do want to know how UTEP will all of a sudden starts raking in money just because it's in the CUSA, and what 'monetary potential' is CUSA eye-balling? Is this money the reason the school presidents voted UTEP in the conference? I'm a little confused.

By the way, I absolutely agree that we need to do a lot of marketing to help ourselves out in the financial end of things (as well as improving our won/loss percentages across the board).

Thanks,

TD
~~

aka Ross Harper

[HarborPointe]

UTEP was added over Tech because CUSA (actually, its individual members) wanted a school that could increase TV revenue and make a quick buck off the basketball tourney, yet be so bad in football and so far away from everybody that they would pose no threat to any other school's future aspirations.

If Tech joins CUSA, immediately, they are recruiting the same kids that Tulane and USM are after. If Tech joins CUSA, one more non-BCS school is put in a stronger position to advance to bigger and better things. If Tech joins CUSA, somebody gets pinned with a couple of more losses on the football field over time.

Screw that. Just invite UTEP.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

UTEP was added over Tech because CUSA (actually, its individual members) wanted a school that could increase TV revenue and make a quick buck off the basketball tourney, yet be so bad in football and so far away from everybody that they would pose no threat to any other school's future aspirations.

If Tech joins CUSA, immediately, they are recruiting the same kids that Tulane and USM are after. If Tech joins CUSA, one more non-BCS school is put in a stronger position to advance to bigger and better things. If Tech joins CUSA, somebody gets pinned with a couple of more losses on the football field over time.

Screw that. Just invite UTEP.

Best total "combo-meal" list of reasons for TECH's snub given to date.

[TechsasDawg]

I was under the impression that La Tech received no money from the games we had televised the last couple of years. Just the national exposure of our school and it's programs. Am I mis-guided? (as usual - good thing I'm not a missile. I'd wipe out half the country!!!)

TD
~~

[DawgyNWindow]

UTEP was added over Tech because CUSA (actually, its individual members) wanted a school that could increase TV revenue and make a quick buck off the basketball tourney, yet be so bad in football and so far away from everybody that they would pose no threat to any other school's future aspirations.

If Tech joins CUSA, immediately, they are recruiting the same kids that Tulane and USM are after. If Tech joins CUSA, one more non-BCS school is put in a stronger position to advance to bigger and better things. If Tech joins CUSA, somebody gets pinned with a couple of more losses on the football field over time.

Screw that. Just invite UTEP.

Ya know, I think you're pretty close to the truth there. Silliest thing is, what kind of TV contract will CUSA demand when the power ratings show just how far they've fallen?

Not that I think we're great, mind you. I just think we're a known commodity, and we're not 800 miles away!

We beat Michigan State last year, and God knows we sucked pretty bad last year!

[aubunique]

That article reminded me of the reason that student journalists should not be the editors of the student newspaper!

[HogDawg]

With apologies to Markay (who is very sports wise), this is what happens when FEMALE student editors (but not female SPORTS editors) are allowed to write stories about sports. I'm betting that a young lady wrote this story, and she just didn't have a grasp of all the facts. There are a number of mistakes in this editorial. In fact, this is very embarrassing.

Wyly Hilburn should be ashamed of himself for allowing so many foolish mistakes to go out the door.

HD

[Cal&Ken]

When you find out who wrote the article, please let us know. After HogDog's comments, I sure do hope it was a male.

[The Historian]

For accreditation purposes, The Tech Talk isn't pre-read by journalism department staff before publication, at least that's the way it was from the late 80's to the late 90's.

Journalism schools have few options when it comes to accreditation. Accreditation boards prefer schools to give up complete control of the school newspaper, a trend that started in the early 80's. In that case, the staff of the paper votes on its editors in what's basically a popularity contest.

In Tech's case, the Tech Talk is only read and stories judged by journalism department staff after publication in order to have as much of a hands-of approach as possible. Editors are assigned and promoted based on merit.

Tech's approach - of having some control - has gained more popularity in the last few years. It's much more real world. It's one of the reasons the print journalism program at Tech has a pretty good reputation.

All that aside, the writer in this case should have done a better job.














Accreditation boards prefer

[Dawg04]

Tech's journalism department is not accredited. It was a choice so that they could pay the students for writing the stories.

[The Historian]

Dawg 04:

You're correct in that the paying of the editors - by the university - is part of it. The journalism department has chosen not to be accredited. If it gave up complete control of the The Tech Talk, it could gain accreditation.

In fact, accreditation and review boards that have looked at the program over the last 20 years or so have found that the program has had, by far, the fewest "areas of concern" than any other program in the state. All of those areas have been addressed in the past 15 years except for one. The school is unwilling to give up control of the The Tech Talk.

However, in the past few years accreditation boards have been more receptive to schools that want to take Tech's approach for several reasons. It's almost impossible for college newspapers to purchase libel insurance, and several schools have seen their papers become controlled by editors who will basically print anything.