dawg80. I see a trend. Bicknell, Long, and Sim are all great guys. Dooley can be a jerk sometimes. Rupp can be a jerk sometimes. Dooley is winning and Rupp is pulling the team together alright. Maybe we need to hire a couple more jerks.
|
|
|
|
|
dawg80. I see a trend. Bicknell, Long, and Sim are all great guys. Dooley can be a jerk sometimes. Rupp can be a jerk sometimes. Dooley is winning and Rupp is pulling the team together alright. Maybe we need to hire a couple more jerks.
If you care about winning, then, maybe so.Originally Posted by techman05
Hmmmm, is Spoon a jerk?
If you care about winning, then, maybe so.
Hmmmm, is Spoon a jerk?
I am not sure. I haven't ever met her. She hasn't been around long enough to kick anyone off of her team either. I guess we will have to see.
Actually I believe she has (suspended indefinitely was the term).
You are right about that. The current non-conference record does play a role in THIS discussion. But, my point was that a winning non-conference record shouldn't get him off the "hot seat" considering what happened last year.
I think we can agree that no decision either way should be made until this season is over due to the fact that we are currently WINNING.
BUT, if we fall apart in WAC play and finish with another losing season, I believe a change would be warranted.
An even BIGGER difference is that JB3 took over with Tim Rattay and Troy Edwards and co; Long took over a team that was in the NCAA's 25 STRAIGHT years and constantly got worse; Sim took over a pretty bad program and has made them respectable.
That said, last year was SO DISAPPOINTING, that I wouldn't have had a problem with them making a change last year after the season ended. Since they didn't right after, in my opinion, he needs a MINIMUM .500 WAC record to be safe. Anything less than that, and he deserves to be on the hot seat. Anything BETTER than that, and we'll be back on the (uh oh... ) potentially dangerously good train tracks.
Please post the "dripping sarcasm" emoticon when you post stuff like that... you're kinda new, but you should know that I get VERY RED DOT happy with serious posts like these. :icon_wink:
Get your facts in order before posting anything about Tech's athletic budget. Tech earned almost $1.5 million more in revenues and spent $266K more than ULM and UNO combined in 2007-2008. Tech made close to $3.2 million more while spending around $3.6 million more than ULL in 2007-2008. Last time I checked those are all Sun Belt schools, and all have had at least modest baseball success recently.
Do you happen to know the spending on football/baseball for the schools mentioned? Are ULM and ULL getting their "modest baseball success" by spending less on football and more on baseball?
ULM, ULL and Arkansas State are the ONLY THREE football-playing Division I-A schools (FBS) that have smaller athletic budgets than Louisiana Tech. UNO is not a fair comparison because they do not play football and, therefore, while having a smaller budget, they have FAR fewer expenses.
Last time I checked, Tech has had moderate success in football while ULM and ULL are laughingstocks of the FBS. Also keep in mind two things: 1) We have a football coach for an AD that probably doesn't give two craps about baseball, just as long as they stay out of trouble and aren't an embarrassment to the athletic program, so he pours more resources into football than those other two schools, and 2) We spend more money because we have to travel in the WAC.
In all fairness, he didn't say less than ULM, ULL, and UNO; he said less than most Sunbelt schools.
It's not up to date, but giving an apples-to-apples comparison, [URL="http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/revenue_stat/show"]this site shows FAU, FIU, Troy, UALR, and WKU all having bigger budgets than Tech (and I couldn't get info on Ark St., Denver, UNO, or MTSU), with ULL, ULM, and UNT having smaller budgets. So, technically, his assertion is not offbase.
1- Do you honestly just not know how our athletic department works? Football and basketball will always be 1 and 2 in deciding who get how much money. That is because schools can make a profit off both sports if they run them right. Therefore you have to invest in them early and often to provide more money for WBB and baseball and so forth. Saying he doesn't give 2 craps about baseball is pretty ignorant. Probably the same thing you said about WBB until he fired Chris Long.
2- Denver and Miami are about as spread out as anywhere in the WAC.
I don't know who RD is, but I know who you are. And I also know that I know more about how Tech's athletic department works than you do, as do a lot of people on this board.
You really think I don't know that football and basketball rule the roost? Of course they do. They do everywhere. That's not news. But obviously ULL and ULM put more into their baseball programs than Tech does. Both have nicer facilities, bigger crowds on a regular basis, and ULL sells beer, which generates a TON of revenue that likely goes straight back into their baseball program (and we've already had the beer discussion on here before, so I don't want to get into that again).
Yes, Denver and Miami are spread out. That means there are 3 out of 12 schools in the Belch that require a flight from Louisiana as opposed to, well, ALL of them in the WAC.
When did I ever make this about you? It was specific to RD. Even so it is laughable to say ULM has better baseball facilities than us. I've been there twice and both times I left unimpressed. Selling of alcohol on campuses in the state is illegal. I don't know anything about ULL but it sounds like the city controls their athletic facilities.
As much as we talk about how bad Benson is, Wright Waters has made the travel distance somewhat comparabel. Benson has the sense to use travel partners. The Sun Belt did not do that last season. Meaning at a point last season, ULM traveled to eiter FIU or FAU and then had to come back to Monroe to play the other. It sounds like next year they won't have that problem but I think if you take Hawaii out, our travel would have been pretty close to equal.
My question to everyone is when did you start to care about winning? I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as a segway to this statement.
In 2005 we were 17-39 (.300 WP) and the only reason we didn't lose 40 is because of a rainout on the final game of the season to a very good Hawaii team that year. I can remember getting on here and it was hardly a topic. The sentiment seemed to be "oh well it is time for spring football."
In 2006 we went 33-25 (.560 WP) in an unbelievable turnaround, last time a checked winning 16 more games and losing 14 less is a huge acomplisment from year to year.
In 2007 we one upped the year before by posting a 35-24 record (.590 WP)
Last year we stumbled down the stretch...
This year so far we are winning games with a very young team, but yet some are calling for Sims head on a silver platter.
Last I checked Sim has 2 of the three winning seasons that Tech as registered in the past seventeen years. The fact that anyone on here even cares if this team wins or not tells me that he is doing his job and winning games. In his 6+ years at the helm Sim has taken this program from "that game that happens before spring football," to a program who's fans expect wins.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
