WAC Loses a Bowl Game

[aubunique]

Just win!

[RealityCheck]

The NCAA mandates that ALL conference champions have a bowl to play in. So, even if the N.O. Bowl's attendance drops waaaaaaaay down it has to be sanctioned to accommodate the Belt's champion.

The NCAA could drop the New Orleans Bowl but require the new bowl sanctioned in its place to provide a spot for the Sun Belt champion...if the Sun Belt manages to get and maintain the eight all-sport full I-A members needed to survive as a Division I-A conference.

And for anyone who thought that the 15,000 average attendance requirement was going away completely, it is likely to be only modified in the first proposal listed below that will be voted upon next week. Also proposals for use of I-AA games to count toward bowl eligibility and the home game scheduling requirement are listed.

April 2005 Action Items.
Recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors.

a. Recommendation No. 1.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A member shall demonstrate during a rolling two-year period, at least one season in which it averages a minimum of 15,000 in actual attendance for all home football games, or at least one season in which the institution averages a minimum of 15,000 in paid attendance for all home football games.

Reasoning: This recommendation maintains a measure of public support, but aids those who consider actual attendance to be outside the control of an institution by providing the opportunity to demonstrate compliance through paid attendance once every two years. This recommendation also continues to encourage efforts to build a local following, thereby making the institution more attractive to football bowl sponsors associated with the Division I-A postseason format. This membership criterion also provides relief from the 2004 attendance requirement and can be distinguished clearly from the requirements necessary to secure and maintain Division I-AA status.

b. Recommendation No. 2.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one win each year against a Division I-AA opponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) for bowl eligibility.

Reasoning: This provides for some competition between the two subdivisions and is considered an enhancement by Division I-AA. It also has the probable effect of increasing the number of Division I-A bowl eligible teams.

c. Recommendation No. 3.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one game each year against a Division I-AA opponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) to satisfy the home game scheduling requirement for Division I-A membership (for 2005, four home games; for 2006 and thereafter, five.)

Reasoning: This provides flexibility for Division I-A institutions to meet the home-game scheduling requirement and permits some competition between the two subdivisions.

[dawg80]

The NCAA could drop the New Orleans Bowl but require the new bowl sanctioned in its place to provide a spot for the Sun Belt champion...if the Sun Belt manages to get and maintain the eight all-sport full I-A members needed to survive as a Division I-A conference.

And for anyone who thought that the 15,000 average attendance requirement was going away completely, it is likely to be only modified in the first proposal listed below that will be voted upon next week. Also proposals for use of I-AA games to count toward bowl eligibility and the home game scheduling requirement are listed.

April 2005 Action Items.
Recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors.

a. Recommendation No. 1.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A member shall demonstrate during a rolling two-year period, at least one season in which it averages a minimum of 15,000 in actual attendance for all home football games, or at least one season in which the institution averages a minimum of 15,000 in paid attendance for all home football games.

Reasoning: This recommendation maintains a measure of public support, but aids those who consider actual attendance to be outside the control of an institution by providing the opportunity to demonstrate compliance through paid attendance once every two years. This recommendation also continues to encourage efforts to build a local following, thereby making the institution more attractive to football bowl sponsors associated with the Division I-A postseason format. This membership criterion also provides relief from the 2004 attendance requirement and can be distinguished clearly from the requirements necessary to secure and maintain Division I-AA status.

b. Recommendation No. 2.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one win each year against a Division I-AA opponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) for bowl eligibility.

Reasoning: This provides for some competition between the two subdivisions and is considered an enhancement by Division I-AA. It also has the probable effect of increasing the number of Division I-A bowl eligible teams.

c. Recommendation No. 3.
Adopt emergency legislation to provide that effective for the 2005 football season, a Division I-A institution may use one game each year against a Division I-AA opponent (i.e., has averaged 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of grants-in-aid per year in the sport of Division I-AA football over a rolling two-year period) to satisfy the home game scheduling requirement for Division I-A membership (for 2005, four home games; for 2006 and thereafter, five.)

Reasoning: This provides flexibility for Division I-A institutions to meet the home-game scheduling requirement and permits some competition between the two subdivisions.

That is a far cry from the draconian policy talked about a few years ago. Using "paid" attendance, instead of "actual?" And, allowing a school to use a I-AA win every year to count toward bowl eligibility and a I-AA opponent to count toward the 5 home games?

They might as well just shut up and have no legistation at all.

The first will all but assure that ULM, SJSU, Kent State and Buffalo, and the new wannabees like Fla Int, Fla Atlantic, will make the attendance number.

The second is designed to accommodate the BCS weak sisters, like Baylor, Vandy, Kentucky, Duke, etc in trying to get them bowl eligible.

[KSDAWG]

We could use a 1AA game like NSU to bolster attendence and get an easy win.

[dawg80]

We could use a 1AA game like NSU to bolster attendence and get an easy win.

If we're gonna do it, make it Grambling or Southern. Having 400 NSU fans come won't help much.

[MADDAWGNBAMA]

If we're gonna do it, make it Grambling or Southern. Having 400 NSU fans come won't help much.

Very good point D80. Jackson State & Southern would bring a much larger crowd and great bands too. Both schools travel well for 1-AA. I would recommend those two schools rather than Grambling for two simple reasons:

1. More of an economic impact due to the sheer number of attendees from out of town spending $$$ at the local restaurants and hotels.

2. Great to play GSU in all other sports to save on our travel cost, but it would not help the local economy as much because the hotels would not benefit as much(See point #1).
________
KTM 300EXC

[aubunique]

True, but Grambling certainly would fill the stadium! And, because of Grambling's storied success in the past, a loss to Grambling and still playing them again after a possible loss, would increase our credibility as an institution unlike LSU and Arkansas in their treatment of small instate schools. It also would bring huge national media attention for the first-ever meeting between the Grambling Tigers and Louisiana Tech Bulldogs in a sanctioned football game!

[NathanDarby]

True, but Grambling certainly would fill the stadium! And, because of Grambling's storied success in the past, a loss to Grambling and still playing them again after a possible loss, would increase our credibility as an institution unlike LSU and Arkansas in their treatment of small instate schools. It also would bring huge national media attention for the first-ever meeting between the Grambling Tigers and Louisiana Tech Bulldogs in a sanctioned football game!

I have wondered for years why Tech and Grambling don't play in football. It just makes WAY too much sense, I guess. It would make for a sure sell-out, not the 28,000 almost-a-sell-out we had with NLULM. Counting standing-room tickets, people on the hills, etc, I think a Tech-Grambling game would be good for 35,000 in JAS. We need to schedule them ASAP. Say 15,000 Grambling fans X $15 per ticket = $225,000. That would be a real nice down payment on a Jumbotron, or it would pay for the installation of the field turf.

[DocMarvin362]

Say no to GSU or Southern.
#1 We've already got 2 "in-state rivals" GSU would be a blowout, and I personally wouldn't go, or if I did, just like when we blow out those other smaller teams, half the stands would leave at halftime because it's 3:00 in the afternoon, 95 degrees, and It would already be 45 - 7 at the half.... BORING!
#2 Seeing that I was in the Tech Band of Pride, let's please hold off on calling GSU a great band. They are more like a danceline with instruments. Entertaining - YES, but if you want to watch that, go to a Grambling game. I've done that myself with some of the Tech band members, and it was cool, but nothing near the quality of bands that have come to town. I know it's a long drive, but you can make it.. i PROMISE!
#3 The Ruston - Grambling area of town has enough trouble filling the stands against some of the other schools that are in our conference in some games that we need to win.
#4 Shreveport and Monroe's populations are 50 times more people to draw into the game than in the Ruston - Grambling area.

There are way too many more options before taking on GSU or Southern. I love that we're taking on the teams like a Kansas, a Michigan State, a Penn State, A Central Florida, a Tulane (another in-state game); Games where we're the under-dawgs, but not teams that can blow us out with their 2nd string. I'm not the only one who hates seeing Tech lose to those Top 10 teams 63 - 14. Those kind of "big conference-mid level" teams are who we need to play... for now.

[Dawgpix]

Very good point D80. Jackson State & Southern would bring a much larger crowd and great bands too. Both schools travel well for 1-AA. I would recommend those two schools rather than Grambling for two simple reasons:

1. More of an economic impact due to the sheer number of attendees from out of town spending $$$ at the local restaurants and hotels.

2. Great to play GSU in all other sports to save on our travel cost, but it would not help the local economy as much because the hotels would not benefit as much(See point #1).

So, when GSU has a home game local restaurants and motels are not filled . . . . ?
I'm afraid they are.

[Jetstorm]

Oh come on, how did my post on this thread get a freakin' red dot?!?!? I'm just askin' a freakin' question, THAT'S ALL!