"Good. Luck. With. That."

[BRDawg81]

I know you guys don't want to play them but it makes sense the same way it makes sense for us to play Grambling and pack the stadium. Like it or not it creates a buzz in Monroe, among alumni both for and against it, and draws interest when we play ulm. When we are selling out every game at home then we can add onto the stadium and consider it not smart. Until then you will not convince me otherwise. Rice, Houston, Navy, UCA, Nicholls st., and every other OOC team besides usm did not bring 5k fans all together and you are talking about 4-5 YEARS of OOC home game ticket sales COMBINED. That isn't too hard to figure out.

There are differences in those match-ups that you note. Rice and Houston were C-USA teams when we were trying to get into the league. Navy is a nationally know team so playing them was good PR even though we didn't win. UCA, Nichols and Grambling are FCS schools and those were 1 and done. In the case of ULM, they would want at least a 1 and 1. Now the home part would be equivalent to a Nichols but the away part would take the place of a Kansas or NC State. Whatever we might make on the additional, if any, ticket sales for the home game would be more than offset by the loss of payoff for an Illinois or Virginia. To put it simply, it ain't worth it.

[HogDawg]

Strategically, this was a brilliant move. If I or you were the new AD at ULM, we'd be saying the very same thing if we were smart. You're new, fresh, and have a chance to seize the local P.R. "high" ground by playing to THE one thing that makes a ULM alumnus shed his LSU shirt...talk about LaTech. Finally, you publicly paint your local competition as the "bad" guys...mean-ol-Tech...so arrogant they won't play us. I frankly don't like seeing our University being "called-out" by another institution, but credit where credit's due...Nicely played, sir. Nicely played.

I agree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then we can capitalize on their "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston. That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contirbuting to their Div 1A longevity.

[Dwayne From Minden]

I agree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then we can capitalize on their "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston. That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contirbuting to their Div 1A longevity.

Plus you will be giving the new juco what he wants -

Inroads in the Ruston market

[TechAlum05]

We are missing a golden opportunity here -

Come Monday we should call a news conference in response and present them a 4 year contract -

1st Game Ruston, 2nd Game Shreveport, 3rd game Ruston, 4th game Shreveport starting in 2016 -

Put the ONUS on them -

If they fulfill the contract we then then consider a game in Monroe

I still say Tech shouldn't play football against ULM. However, this would be the type of offer I'd propose with one minor addition...all four games between Louisiana Tech and ULM would be home games for Louisiana Tech. No neutral games where Tech and ULM split the money or where Tech gets "the lion's share" of the money.

[Champ967]

I agree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then we can capitalize on their "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston. That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contirbuting to their Div 1A longevity.

As satisfying as that would be, it would be pretty obvious to all parties that Tech was not dealing in good faith.

I think DFM's proposal above (2 in Ruston & 2 in S'port) carries more water.

[HogDawg]

No, it doesn't. Bringing ULM to Ruston would mean we would have to play in Monroe, and that makes 0 business sense for Tech.

Nicholls, Central Arkansas, and Lamar don't demand we play in Thibodaux, Conway, and Beaumont.

Not surprisingly, I disagree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then LA Tech can capitalize on ULM's "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston ONLY!!! That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds (from the Tech side, of course) and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contributing to their Div 1A longevity.

Don't say it can't be done.....LSU does it all the time. WE should take the SAME approach. If ULM doesn't like it, they can stay home. but I really think ULM's new AD would do it just to say he "accomplished" his goal. We should take advantage of that. :icon_wink:

[TYLERTECHSAS]

I agree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then we can capitalize on their "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston. That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contirbuting to their Div 1A longevity.

Plus you will be giving the new juco what he wants -

Inroads in the Ruston market

Guys, "Just say no to drugs" and you will quit thinking along these crazy lines.

[HogDawg]

I know you guys don't want to play them but it makes sense the same way it makes sense for us to play Grambling and pack the stadium. Like it or not it creates a buzz in Monroe, among alumni both for and against it, and draws interest when we play ulm. When we are selling out every game at home then we can add onto the stadium and consider it not smart. Until then you will not convince me otherwise. Rice, Houston, Navy, UCA, Nicholls st., and every other OOC team besides usm did not bring 5k fans all together and you are talking about 4-5 YEARS of OOC home game ticket sales COMBINED. That isn't too hard to figure out.

I agree with you. I don't know why we wouldn't play ULM in Ruston instead of some of those other clowns we've been playing. We don't have to go to Monroe. Period. IMO, this is a great opportunity for LA Tech to take advantage of ULM's hunger to play Tech. Fine. Let's schedule a 3-game series --with ALL the games being played in Ruston-- and move on. That's the ONLY way it's worth it to LA Tech. Frankly, I think that would be a hell of a good deal for LA Tech too.

[HogDawg]

Simply put, ULM needs Louisiana Tech a lot more than Tech needs ULM.

.....which is PRECISELY why LA Tech should schedule a 3-game series against ULM, with all games being played in Ruston. ULM is desperate, and LA Tech can take advantage of their desperation.

[Dawg06]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with you. But if this really is just about playing Louisiana Tech, then LA Tech can capitalize on ULM's "need" by offering ULM a 3-game series in Ruston ONLY!!! That's right, all 3 games to be played in Ruston. Period. End of story.

Frankly, I'm good with that kind of offer, because LA Tech actually gets something out of it. Offering to play ULM in Ruston gives BOTH sides something they need: ULM's new AD will have accomplished what he pledged (playing LA Tech), and LA Tech can schedule some home games that are guaranteed to draw big crowds (from the Tech side, of course) and boost our attendance. Scheduling all the games in Ruston will also prevent LA Tech fans from feeling like we're "propping up" the ULM athletic department and contributing to their Div 1A longevity.

Don't say it can't be done.....LSU does it all the time. WE should take the SAME approach. If ULM doesn't like it, they can stay home. but I really think ULM's new AD would do it just to say he "accomplished" his goal. We should take advantage of that. :icon_wink:

I think we actually sorta agree. I just don't think ULM would ever accept a deal with Tech that didn't include an equal deal to play in Monroe. They simply can't afford to play on the road without getting a huge check to fund their athletic department. That AD should be fired if he accepted a deal with Tech that didn't include any Monroe games. I'm pretty sure Gooddawg was talking about a home-and-home deal.

[detltu]

I've got an idea. If they will agree to play the first game in Ruston, the winner gets the next home game from then on!

I would be up for make it-take it. Might give the warharks some added incentive to show up for the games after the first drubbing.

[HogDawg]

As satisfying as that would be, it would be pretty obvious to all parties that Tech was not dealing in good faith.

I think DFM's proposal above (2 in Ruston & 2 in S'port) carries more water.

Maybe so. But LA Tech doesn't NEED to schedule games in Shreveport. LA Tech NEEDS quality home games scheduled in Ruston!! Games that will draw big crowds. We can always schedule another TX A&M, Miss St, OSU, etc.... for Shreveport.

For a deal to work, BOTH sides have to get something out of it. By scheduling a 3-game series in Ruston, LA Tech gets the "high attendance" home games it needs (as opposed to scheduling a Lamar or Nicholls St), and ULM gets to finally play Tech in football. It's a win-win. Playing in Shreveport really doesn't satisfy either side. We don't gain anything from that.

[detltu]

I think we actually sorta agree. I just don't think ULM would ever accept a deal with Tech that didn't include an equal deal to play in Monroe. They simply can't afford to play on the road without getting a huge check to fund their athletic department. That AD should be fired if he accepted a deal with Tech that didn't include any Monroe games. I'm pretty sure Gooddawg was talking about a home-and-home deal.

Agreed. 1 for 1 isn't worth it for us, and anything else hurts their sensibilities because they would have to admit that we are in a stronger position than them. I would definately come to them with an offer that is agreeable to us though. They have publicly stated that they would like to make inroads to Ruston and would like to play us, and I think we could help them. I don't mind the proposals that Dwayne and HogDawg put forth and those are better starting points than what I suggested. I think we should definately present them with something though, they sound like they may be willing to consider something besides the 1 for 1.

[HogDawg]

I think we actually sorta agree. I just don't think ULM would ever accept a deal with Tech that didn't include an equal deal to play in Monroe.

Then --as Dwayne said-- we just shifted the onus back on ULM. THEY will be the one's saying "no" instead of us.

It's really simple. Offer ULM terms that are very, very, attractive to LA Tech --and nothing else. Then let ULM be the bad guy if they say "no".

[RougeDawg]

Why would we do ANYTHING that would create interest in ULM? We would basically be throwing them a life preserver. Let their fan base and budget continue to shrivel up until they are finally forced to go back to AA so we are the only program in the North.

Entertaining the idea of a game with them is akin to McDonald's doing a joint promotion with Burger King just as Burger King is filling for bankruptcy.