JO needs to wake up!

[glm47]

We just received an anonymous $1 million donation

And even a blind squirrel will find a nut when it falls from the tree and hits him in the head.

[Tech77]

"Old" Fouts does have some recent improvements . 1. New Jumbotron/scoreboard 2. TV monitors of the tron in concourses. 3. New field turf.

Will the field remain in the same place under the new plan? If not, it's kinda late to be adding field turf, isn't it? What about the jumbotron/scoreboard. To be used in the new plan?

[Dwayne From Minden]

To me there are THREE main things that have to be addressed facility wise -

1) Lighting in JAS - when it doesn't met standards and ESPN will not televise a nite game, you are at a disadvantage -

Prime example of DEFERRED MAINTENANCE biting him in the butt -

2) Women's Athletic facility to be shared by softball, soccer and track -

This is as important or more important than the lighting in JAS - plus you benefit about 6 programs in one fell swope - could have an OUTSTANDING facility for somewhere around $500,000 - could have a feasible facility for $300,000 - and something that will be used for the next 30+ years - and it gets you out of Title IX hot water -

And this is the ONE thing that, if I were in JO's shoes - I would be try to use the student fees for - it will be a permanent fixture for many many years to come and benefit many many athletes - this really should be a NO BRAINER -

3) Track facility upgrades - its embarassing and if any program on campus deserves something based on their on the field mertis the past 5 years - it is this program -

The Jumbotron (which to me is a non-issue since you could get it done by a third party at basically NO COST to the school if they relinquish the ad revenue stream for a period of years) - and remember we are NOT receiving that revenue stream right now so it can not be considered a loss of revenue -

Get those 4 things done within the next 24 months and MAYBE I will think we are making some headway -

[johnnylightnin]

I'm stoked about the large sum that was donated, but I don't consider that to be active. Perhaps my previous statement was unfair...I don't know. I'm just a run of the mill fan and I haven't seen much. Hopefully he's really hittin' up the big timers. With what we've got in the works, I truly hope we can begin to concentrate on our most severe needs. If we can right this ship before 2010, we could be looking at a CUSA invite. If we don't progress at the same rate as UNT/ULL/ULM/Troy/A-State/FAU/FIU, we could again be on the outside looking in.

[theprofessor]

But for me the BIGGEST problem is the budget the state gives us.

the state is not the problem. our budget is no different from anyone else's, including lsu's. as much as we like to complain about lsu's pet projects, the blame lies squarely on jo's and the alumni's shoulders.

[JFord]

the state is not the problem. our budget is no different from anyone else's, including lsu's. as much as we like to complain about lsu's pet projects, the blame lies squarely on jo's and the alumni's shoulders.

When I see the budgets posted on the Flagship agenda thread, and see what the budgets of schools such as southeastern are getting (a community college at best), how can it not be the state?

Are our alumni big spenders on their alum? No. Should we be? Yes. Do our alumni give money to the devil (LSU)? Some, Yes. Should they? Maybe, but only if they are giving more to Tech.

JFord

[Cool Hand Clyde]

And even a blind squirrel will find a nut when it falls from the tree and hits him in the head.

Throw some nuts from your tree.

[faninmonroe]

Throw some nuts from your tree.

That donation was coming to Tech even if SATAN hiself was the Athletic Director. Do not pat your boy on the back for that....

[oledawg66]

Are you sure that what you read about NT's facilities isn't a little hyped? There is a big difference in the athletic program accomplishments between the two schools which will make a difference when under study by a selection committee. I also happen to agree that we tend to throw stones at JO when we don't see immediate improvements in the facilities. We need to temper that with what the man has to work with for a budget. Granted I have never met the man and have to rely on others' testimony on how he does business. From what I've herd (all on this board), he could use a little stimulus to become more active. I will have to reserve my judgment of the man as I have no direct evidence of a problem but do see direct evidence on what he has to work with in a budget and what he has to do. For now I will just try to do all I can to help Tech solve the problems I can help solve. This board has been an eye opening view into what the problems are and has been a stimulus for me to do more.

Its not that we throw stones at JO when we don't see immediate improvements in the athletic facilities. Its that we are throwing stones because we are seeing the results of several years of neglect (JAS, tennis courts, softball, track, etc.) And the fact that the baseball, softball, and tennis programs have to come to us and others like us to get the assistance they can't get from the administration. We simply don't collectively have the time to reserve judgement any longer because we fall behind the rest of the world with every passing day. We throw stones because we do not have a working plan for the maintenance and advancement of athletics at Louisiana Tech.

As far as direct evidence - We hear and see on almost a weekly basis what other schools are doing. A lot of us know people who work in the business of college athletics. I was lucky enough to have talked to the AD of a 1-AA school and saw his "PUBLIC" PLAN for the expansion and advancement of athletics at his school. I have seen the results of actively courting the corporate market and what a difference in millions and millions of dollars it can make for a school's program.

As far as selection committees, specifically cusa, caring about results on the athletic field, I offer SMU, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP. The things that UNT and so many others are doing are what they look at.

I have said it before. We have the worst possible combination, an AD who is not going to do any more than he has to and a prez who just doesn't care. Replace one or the other and Tech will shine, replace them both and Tech will soar. Many more years of the combo and we will be lucky to still be a WBB school. The clock is ticking.

[RealityCheck]

The Board of Regents allows an extra $150K per year to be added to the allowed General Fund transfer for "gender equity". That alone would allow use of about half of the student fee money collected each year without reducing the rest of the GF transfer. An AD with any imagination would have started doing this as soon as the student fee was passed if the money couldn't be accessed any other way.

[Bossdawg]

When I see the budgets posted on the Flagship agenda thread, and see what the budgets of schools such as southeastern are getting (a community college at best), how can it not be the state?

Are our alumni big spenders on their alum? No. Should we be? Yes. Do our alumni give money to the devil (LSU)? Some, Yes. Should they? Maybe, but only if they are giving more to Tech.

JFord

the State allows each school a maximum per year that they can transfer from the general fund to the athletic fund. That amount is the same for all Division 1 schools, it is less for community colleges, and if I am not mistaken LSU does not use any of that money. The state is not to blame for the woefullness of Tech's athletic budget and neither is DR. As apathetic as DR is towards athletics save the Lady Techsters, he does not stop JO from marketing athletics to increase the revenue string to Tech.

Southeastern has a higher budget because they get off their ass and market the school, fill their venues, and generate corporate sponsorship, not because the state feels sorry for them and gives them more money.

Bottom line is the budget falls directly on the shoulders of JO.

[theprofessor]

When I see the budgets posted on the Flagship agenda thread, and see what the budgets of schools such as southeastern are getting (a community college at best), how can it not be the state?

here is where the state is the problem. while you see southeastern as "a community college at best" (and i disagree wholeheartedly), the fact of the matter is slu is a division 1 university. all of their alumni would scream bloody murder (just like you are) if the state didn't give them a fair shake when it came to budgets. just because we think tech is the top university in the state doesn't mean it's right or just for the state to cherrypick us and set us apart when it comes to receiving budgets from the state.

the problem, as has been discussed on this board a thousand times over, is the fact that louisiana has far too many four-year universities -- and we're gaining more, rather than losing them. while i like lsu-s and lsu-a, the fact of the matter is the lsu system needs to be scrapped where shreveport and alexandria are treated like eunice -- a two-year community college which serves as a feeder program for the big school in baton rouge. and on the uls side, there's no way we should have tech, ulm, ull, grambling, nsu, nicholls, mcneese and slu. for a state that is has less than 5 million people, unfortunately many of which don't even go on to higher education, we do not need 15+ (when you throw in southern and the private schools) four-year universities. no, what the state gives us in terms of a budget isn't the problem. the problem on the state level is they refuse to scrap a system that isn't working and redoing for the good, because they are afraid of losing political clout.

now back to the original point. our plight is no different that ull's or ulm's. we're not getting screwed by the state when it comes to budget. the problem lies on jo's shoulders. his job as athletic director is to increase the budget, by any means necessary. and our job as alumni is to make that happen. unfortunately, many of us don't count in jo's eyes. he is simply content with relying on the big-time donors and the football team to float the entire budget. if he solicited some of us "small-time" alums and gave us a clear vision of where we were headed, there is no doubt in my mind that giving would increase dramatically. all it takes is a plan and taking it public to the alumni. so far, jo has failed to produce.

[CorinthEagle]

Will the field remain in the same place under the new plan? If not, it's kinda late to be adding field turf, isn't it? What about the jumbotron/scoreboard. To be used in the new plan?

The stadium plans are to have it built in the Mean Green Village and utilize the athletic center as one end of the stadium with a patio overlooking the field etc... The field turf was put in because the old turf had essentially become a health hazard to the players. It was horrible.

[JFord]

here is where the state is the problem. while you see southeastern as "a community college at best" (and i disagree wholeheartedly), the fact of the matter is slu is a division 1 university. all of their alumni would scream bloody murder (just like you are) if the state didn't give them a fair shake when it came to budgets. just because we think tech is the top university in the state doesn't mean it's right or just for the state to cherrypick us and set us apart when it comes to receiving budgets from the state.

the problem, as has been discussed on this board a thousand times over, is the fact that louisiana has far too many four-year universities -- and we're gaining more, rather than losing them. while i like lsu-s and lsu-a, the fact of the matter is the lsu system needs to be scrapped where shreveport and alexandria are treated like eunice -- a two-year community college which serves as a feeder program for the big school in baton rouge. and on the uls side, there's no way we should have tech, ulm, ull, grambling, nsu, nicholls, mcneese and slu. for a state that is has less than 5 million people, unfortunately many of which don't even go on to higher education, we do not need 15+ (when you throw in southern and the private schools) four-year universities. no, what the state gives us in terms of a budget isn't the problem. the problem on the state level is they refuse to scrap a system that isn't working and redoing for the good, because they are afraid of losing political clout.

now back to the original point. our plight is no different that ull's or ulm's. we're not getting screwed by the state when it comes to budget. the problem lies on jo's shoulders. his job as athletic director is to increase the budget, by any means necessary. and our job as alumni is to make that happen. unfortunately, many of us don't count in jo's eyes. he is simply content with relying on the big-time donors and the football team to float the entire budget. if he solicited some of us "small-time" alums and gave us a clear vision of where we were headed, there is no doubt in my mind that giving would increase dramatically. all it takes is a plan and taking it public to the alumni. so far, jo has failed to produce.

thank you thats exactly what i was looking for.

JFord

[nevester]

On other fundraising fronts: Wow!! Talk about the rich getting richer.

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/261195

Tennessee awards $83.4 million sports media contract to Host
KNOXVILLE -- The University of Tennessee has awarded an $83.4 million, 10-year multimedia sports contract, including radio rights to all Volunteer football and basketball games and television rights to coaches' shows, to longtime partner Host Communications...........