Was wondering if NMSU, IDAHO, Utah State left on good terms or if they jumped shipped an abandoned the confrence? Someone asked me on the CUSA board and I couldnt remmber.

The one I do know of is that LA Tech pithced a hissy fit.

My understanding is we were helping them out until they'd be prepared to go to the WAC. Was no hard feelings. Now LA Tech is a different matter.

Jim Oakes, former La Tech AD, pissed in Water's cheerios - so he, in turn, pissed in Jim Oakes' cheerios.

One is gone (thank God) and the other one is leaving.

(02-15-2012 01:48 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Jim Oakes, former La Tech AD, pissed in Water's cheerios - so he, in turn, pissed in Jim Oakes' cheerios.

One is gone (thank God) and the other one is leaving.

No. You all whined the SBC didn't have football. Then the SBC announced it was going to do football--in a ways-- to appease you all. You all took your sorry asses off as soon as the announcement was made. But not having you all in the SBC has been very UN-noticeable.

I understand there's a conference in Taiwan looking for a school in its conference. You should give them a call.

That whole LaTech deal was so unneeded. Never have understood the logic of complaining about a conference following bylaws you voted to adopt (yet see it nearly every time some school leaves a conference). Really made no sense to complain when there was never a request made to seek a waiver on the tournament, just public complaints about having to give it up with some name calling for good measure. At least send in a request for a waiver and let it come to a vote before you go off on someone.

NMSU departed on great terms. No one cried seeing Idaho leave but it was amicable. USU, let's just say if they had asked for an early departure it would have been given gladly.

(02-15-2012 01:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That whole LaTech deal was so unneeded. Never have understood the logic of complaining about a conference following bylaws you voted to adopt (yet see it nearly every time some school leaves a conference). Really made no sense to complain when there was never a request made to seek a waiver on the tournament, just public complaints about having to give it up with some name calling for good measure. At least send in a request for a waiver and let it come to a vote before you go off on someone.

NMSU departed on great terms. No one cried seeing Idaho leave but it was amicable. USU, let's just say if they had asked for an early departure it would have been given gladly.

If Tech had stayed, wouldn't UCF have been a member, too ?

(02-15-2012 02:20 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 01:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  That whole LaTech deal was so unneeded. Never have understood the logic of complaining about a conference following bylaws you voted to adopt (yet see it nearly every time some school leaves a conference). Really made no sense to complain when there was never a request made to seek a waiver on the tournament, just public complaints about having to give it up with some name calling for good measure. At least send in a request for a waiver and let it come to a vote before you go off on someone.

NMSU departed on great terms. No one cried seeing Idaho leave but it was amicable. USU, let's just say if they had asked for an early departure it would have been given gladly.

If Tech had stayed, wouldn't UCF have been a member, too ?

Football only.

They left on bad terms earlier in other sports.

Whats the story with LaT's departure? I'm too young to know and would appreciate the history lesson.

(02-15-2012 02:35 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  Whats the story with LaT's departure? I'm too young to know and would appreciate the history lesson.

Tech was loudly complaining and threatened to leave if we didnt add football. We added football. Tech goes to the WAC and their AD at the time says that the SBC wouldnt last 10 years...and Waters responds that Tech in the WAC wouldnt last 10 years...

Did I miss anything?

If I recall, the Sun Belt provided a home for Utah St, NM State, and Idaho when Big West football fell apart. We gave them a home, then when the WAC called, they ran. I understand that. But once in the WAC they completely dissed the Sun Belt with the usual 'Belch name calling and what a low life conference the SBC was. Keep in mind it's still a relatively young conference. I'd say let them crash and burn with the whole WAC mess.

Long story short. Tech was a football independent. Tech was pushing for a couple of years for the Belt to form a football league. The Belt starts finalizing plans for a football conference. Tech is involved in the planning. The plans called for UCF to be a original member of the football league.

The WAC extends an invitation to Tech to join the east side of the conference with SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP. The WAC had an existing TV contract and bowl tie-ins. The new Belt league was still working out details on the TV deal and bowl tie-ins. Tech accepts the invitation. UCF states that they will not join if Tech does not join.

Tech was supposed to host the Belt basketball tournament, but per Sun Belt by-laws the tournament is moved to another site. Jim Oakes and Wright Waters, neither one is exactly a shining example of congeniality, exchange some heated words back and forth in an attempt to have the last word. Waters felt betrayed by Tech's jump. Tech and UCF were the loudest voices for the establishing football. I am not sure that Waters would have ever started up football.

Jim Oakes was a political appointee that overstayed his usefulness. His inability to raise money, inability to make any form of facility improvements, hire Kim Mulkey Robertson, allowing the decline of the Lady Techsters, and constantly making olympic sports coaches deal with huge budget constraints without any type of help forced action by the fans. Students and fans bringing "The Joakes on us" banners to the Tech football games finally got the attention of the big money donors and the administration.

Neither individual conducted themselves in a professional manner. Getting both of them out of the way is probably the only reason there is any chance of Tech and the Sunbelt joining forces.

OK, so now that that has all been explained, tell me this. Why do Tech fans still turn their noses up at the Sun Belt? Why are so many Bulldog faithful venemous when discussing returning the Sun Belt, even though it is obviously the best move for the program?

I think a lot of SBC fans would be much more willing to welcome La Tech back if their fans weren't such buttholes about the whole situation. At this point the Sun Belt Conference is a respectable football league, and Tech is in no way superior to our top programs. It would be a solid move for the Bulldogs.

(02-16-2012 10:45 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  OK, so now that that has all been explained, tell me this. Why do Tech fans still turn their noses up at the Sun Belt? Why are so many Bulldog faithful venemous when discussing returning the Sun Belt, even though it is obviously the best move for the program?

I think a lot of SBC fans would be much more willing to welcome La Tech back if their fans weren't such buttholes about the whole situation. At this point the Sun Belt Conference is a respectable football league, and Tech is in no way superior to our top programs. It would be a solid move for the Bulldogs.

I think there are two reasons for what you see, or think you see from LaTech fans. (Let me preface this with....I don't have a problem with LaTech or it's fans). First, UL and ULM are in the Sun Belt and as is the case in many places, instate rivalries are bitter (as evidenced by the love ULM and UL have for each other) and thus LaTech sees themselves better than UL or ULM (and there's nothing wrong with that...WKU sees itself better than EKU and other former OVC mates in Kentucky). Secondly, LaTech moved UP to the WAC. Any move back to the Sun Belt is considered a step down to their faithful, regardless of the fact the Sun Belt is now better than the new WAC. That's just the nature of things.

Personally, I would much rather have LaTech back in the Sun Belt than, to rename nameless, at least one of the newer SBC additions from recent years who has provided little to nothing to the prestige of the conference. If I were a LaTech fan, I'd too have issues with returning...it's a pride thing.

(02-16-2012 12:17 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 10:45 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  OK, so now that that has all been explained, tell me this. Why do Tech fans still turn their noses up at the Sun Belt? Why are so many Bulldog faithful venemous when discussing returning the Sun Belt, even though it is obviously the best move for the program?

I think a lot of SBC fans would be much more willing to welcome La Tech back if their fans weren't such buttholes about the whole situation. At this point the Sun Belt Conference is a respectable football league, and Tech is in no way superior to our top programs. It would be a solid move for the Bulldogs.

I think there are two reasons for what you see, or think you see from LaTech fans. (Let me preface this with....I don't have a problem with LaTech or it's fans). First, UL and ULM are in the Sun Belt and as is the case in many places, instate rivalries are bitter (as evidenced by the love ULM and UL have for each other) and thus LaTech sees themselves better than UL or ULM (and there's nothing wrong with that...WKU sees itself better than EKU and other former OVC mates in Kentucky). Secondly, LaTech moved UP to the WAC. Any move back to the Sun Belt is considered a step down to their faithful, regardless of the fact the Sun Belt is now better than the new WAC. That's just the nature of things.

Personally, I would much rather have LaTech back in the Sun Belt than, to rename nameless, at least one of the newer SBC additions from recent years who has provided little to nothing to the prestige of the conference. If I were a LaTech fan, I'd too have issues with returning...it's a pride thing.

Perfectly stated, thank you.

Before anyone reads this and gets offended, there is no tone in internet message board postings. Tone is assigned by the reader. If you do not like the tone of this posting, look in the mirror.

There is a lot of competition in the State of Louisiana among universities. Most Tech fans do not have issues with Ark State, UNT, or the other out of state Belt schools. And to a smaller degree ULL.

Years ago the state set up LSU as the "flagship" institution. They set up a system that has forced the other state schools to fight for everything they have. Especially in the 60s and 70s. The alumni and administrations from the schools fought tooth and nail for everything they could get.

Its a sad commentary on Louisiana politics, but LSU gets what LSU wants. The other universities have to really work at getting funding for projects. ULM, ULL and Tech all have glaring campus needs, but the state will not give up the money. This constant fighting for funding has caused a lot of alumni, especially alumni with money, to get tired of the other institutions. Some of them see the other institutions as a stumbling block for their school.

Tech and ULM have an especially rocky relationship. We share a lot of the same TV and Radio stations. Our alumni work in close proximity to each other. There is only so much money available in the marketplace and we are constantly battling over the donations and air time. LSU gets first billing on the local sports broadcast and in the local papers, followed by the Saints. Usually Tech or ULM get a story before the high schools. This competition continues to escalate the tension between supporters.

There was a huge uproar among ULM fans when the City of Monroe gave money to Tech for Enterprise Park. Followed by the uproar that Tech has advertising at the Monroe airport and ULM does not. ULM fans have called for boycotting restaurants that display Tech paraphernalia. For some die hard Tech fans, the Sunbelt is nothing more than an enabler for ULM (aka MeTooU in some fans minds).

Throw in the fact that Grambling is 10 miles from Tech and it gets even more muddied.

Most modern day Tech grads do not remember playing ULM. They do not care what happens in Monroe. Most, but certainly not all, of these young alumni do not share this dislike for the Belt. The alumni that harbor this ill will have developed it over the course of decades of competition for funding.

After all of that, several of the serious money backers got really pissed off at Waters. Jim Oakes was an idiot, but he was our idiot. Oakes really did burn some serious bridges in leaving, but Waters made sure to knock down the pilings as well as dredge the fords to make them impassable.

I am not advocating that ULM be tossed out of the league, but as long as they are there some alumni will find the Belt distasteful. They will be constantly longing to take the first road out. Of course, if Oakes had not jumped ship, ULM would not be in the Belt and this conversation would not be taking place.

The landscape of college football is changing dramatically. Conference realignment is no where near the end of this roller coaster. I really liked the WAC that we joined. The WAC following the departure of SMU, Rice, and Tulsa was not as good but profitable. The new WAC does not thrill me. Not sure if we will end up in the Belt, but it is very possible. Anyone, including current Belt teams, that say they would not jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation is lying.

(02-16-2012 01:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Anyone, including current Belt teams, that say they would not jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation is lying.

I would not under any circumstance jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation. Are you calling me a liar?

(02-16-2012 01:29 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Anyone, including current Belt teams, that say they would not jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation is lying.

I would not under any circumstance jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation. Are you calling me a liar?

No, but you are not the AD.

(02-16-2012 01:29 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 01:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Anyone, including current Belt teams, that say they would not jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation is lying.

I would not under any circumstance jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation. Are you calling me a liar?

Certainly wouldn't call you a liar, but would question your vision for Troy. The alliance is far from ideal, but it's an opportunity that cannot afford to be passed on by anyone in the Sun Belt, I cannot imagine a single Sun Belt member passing on the invite.

(02-16-2012 01:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Before anyone reads this and gets offended, there is no tone in internet message board postings. Tone is assigned by the reader. If you do not like the tone of this posting, look in the mirror.

There is a lot of competition in the State of Louisiana among universities. Most Tech fans do not have issues with Ark State, UNT, or the other out of state Belt schools. And to a smaller degree ULL.

{SNIP} Basically blah, blah life's hard in Louisiana{SNIP}

Life is tough all over. How you react shapes who you become.

Until fairly recently the state of Arkansas funding formula for state universities provided X dollars per full time equivalent enrolled the past three years. Unless a university awarded doctoral degrees then the payment was X+Y per student enrolled without regard to whether the student was a doctoral candidate or not. Then it was tweaked so that in the case of law school student X+Y was only awarded for the number of law students (so UALR could afford the law school that had been a satellite campus of UA Law and then became an independent part of UALR but not benefit overall). The three year average was designed so that a growing university would have to clamp down growth because it would be three years before funding caught up with spending.

The Federal government hired one of the big name foundations to do a study about improving the economic health of the delta. This independent Federal study concluded that two new doctoral programs needed to be created within the Delta region. After looking at universities in Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky the foundation opined that the two programs needed to be created at Arkansas State based on existing resources and proximity to the region.

The University of Arkansas opposed the creation but an independent study funded by the Feds is hard to argue against. So UA went to the Department of Higher Education with a novel proposal. UA would pay ASU a token sum to use our facilities and faculty and the new degrees would be awarded under the University of Arkansas. After much fighting ASU finally prevailed. The legislature promptly changed the funding formula. It is much more equitable but it became equitable 90 years after ASU was created.

Nothing new, ASU requested to change its name from Arkansas State College to Arkansas State University. A decade and a half later it happened.

In 1987 a legislator introduced a bill to force Arkansas and Arkansas State to play. It passed the House in a symbolic vote by a wide margin. The House then moved to reconsider and defeated it narrowly. The first vote was designed to express intent without actually getting involved. Two years later a bill supported by UA placed oppressive limits on athletic spending. If ASU were to be invited to the SEC tomorrow and get millions in conference money, none of it could be used to pay in excess of the base salaries authorized for a head coach (roughly $150,000 for a head coach) anything else still has to come from fund-raising. The new law resulted in most jucos in Arkansas being forced to drop athletics and at one point UALR was literally within 30 days of closing its athletic department as frantic fund-raising took place to keep it afloat.

Current law strictly limits use of state funds for athletic facilities, yet government money built all but the most recent facilities or recent renovations at UA. The state leases War Memorial in Little Rock to the Hogs below cost of operation even today.

UA-Monticello was nearly forced to drop athletics because their conference moved to Division II from the NAIA and the UA board wanted them to stay NAIA. UALR has been screwed over repeatedly and couldn't even have dorms for several decades.

It sucks to not be the golden child but La.Tech hasn't had any harder of a life than anyone else at this level of the collegiate world. ASU had a chance to veto UALR when the Sun Belt and American South merged. Instead we passed on the idea and the relationship has grown so that ASU and UALR often present a joint front before the legislature fighting UA's land grabs.

These Louisiana diatribes leave me shaking my head. The opportunity is presenting itself to use athletics to build a relationship to work cooperatively in blunting the LSU juggernaut and no one seems to want to latch on to it.

(02-16-2012 01:06 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Before anyone reads this and gets offended, there is no tone in internet message board postings. Tone is assigned by the reader. If you do not like the tone of this posting, look in the mirror.

There is a lot of competition in the State of Louisiana among universities. Most Tech fans do not have issues with Ark State, UNT, or the other out of state Belt schools. And to a smaller degree ULL.

Years ago the state set up LSU as the "flagship" institution. They set up a system that has forced the other state schools to fight for everything they have. Especially in the 60s and 70s. The alumni and administrations from the schools fought tooth and nail for everything they could get.

Its a sad commentary on Louisiana politics, but LSU gets what LSU wants. The other universities have to really work at getting funding for projects. ULM, ULL and Tech all have glaring campus needs, but the state will not give up the money. This constant fighting for funding has caused a lot of alumni, especially alumni with money, to get tired of the other institutions. Some of them see the other institutions as a stumbling block for their school.

Tech and ULM have an especially rocky relationship. We share a lot of the same TV and Radio stations. Our alumni work in close proximity to each other. There is only so much money available in the marketplace and we are constantly battling over the donations and air time. LSU gets first billing on the local sports broadcast and in the local papers, followed by the Saints. Usually Tech or ULM get a story before the high schools. This competition continues to escalate the tension between supporters.

There was a huge uproar among ULM fans when the City of Monroe gave money to Tech for Enterprise Park. Followed by the uproar that Tech has advertising at the Monroe airport and ULM does not. ULM fans have called for boycotting restaurants that display Tech paraphernalia. For some die hard Tech fans, the Sunbelt is nothing more than an enabler for ULM (aka MeTooU in some fans minds).

Throw in the fact that Grambling is 10 miles from Tech and it gets even more muddied.

Most modern day Tech grads do not remember playing ULM. They do not care what happens in Monroe. Most, but certainly not all, of these young alumni do not share this dislike for the Belt. The alumni that harbor this ill will have developed it over the course of decades of competition for funding.

After all of that, several of the serious money backers got really pissed off at Waters. Jim Oakes was an idiot, but he was our idiot. Oakes really did burn some serious bridges in leaving, but Waters made sure to knock down the pilings as well as dredge the fords to make them impassable.

I am not advocating that ULM be tossed out of the league, but as long as they are there some alumni will find the Belt distasteful. They will be constantly longing to take the first road out. Of course, if Oakes had not jumped ship, ULM would not be in the Belt and this conversation would not be taking place.

The landscape of college football is changing dramatically. Conference realignment is no where near the end of this roller coaster. I really liked the WAC that we joined. The WAC following the departure of SMU, Rice, and Tulsa was not as good but profitable. The new WAC does not thrill me. Not sure if we will end up in the Belt, but it is very possible. Anyone, including current Belt teams, that say they would not jump at a CUSA/MWC invitation is lying.

I took a look in the mirror and came away with the same thought I had before...that this is just another "Tech is innocent and it's all ULM's fault" story written by a Tech fan. I must have read hundreds of these things over the years written by Techies. Same old, same old, and most of it well-blended with a Ruston-side bias.

Geez, I remember when the old then-NLU and Tech series was fun and a natural rivalry. But when we won 7 of 10 games in the 1980's everything changed and Tech couldn't get out of the Southland Conference fast enough. Anyway, that was long ago and the two schools haven't played each other in football in 12 years. Yes, the students at both schools don't have those old memories to drag them down and most of them would actually love to restart the football series. They think the alumni are the problem and they may be right.