(04-14-2011 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing I don't understand is why any Sun Belt schools play them. Why help them reduce their costs?

We played them in baseball this year, and have been in their golf tourney the past two years.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Just say NO to Tech. They don't want to be here so let's don't give them a safe haven.

(04-14-2011 03:04 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing I don't understand is why any Sun Belt schools play them. Why help them reduce their costs?

We played them in baseball this year, and have been in their golf tourney the past two years.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Just say NO to Tech. They don't want to be here so let's don't give them a safe haven.

Correct. You have to apply pressure uniformly to make a difference. I agree. Why help them out with their non football sports if there is no return on investment.

(04-14-2011 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing I don't understand is why any Sun Belt schools play them. Why help them reduce their costs?

They ran out on this conference football wise before it even got started, I agree we should not help them out with non-conference scheduling in any sport.

(04-14-2011 03:06 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 03:04 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Only thing I don't understand is why any Sun Belt schools play them. Why help them reduce their costs?

We played them in baseball this year, and have been in their golf tourney the past two years.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Just say NO to Tech. They don't want to be here so let's don't give them a safe haven.

Correct. You have to apply pressure uniformly to make a difference. I agree. Why help them out with their non football sports if there is no return on investment.

Bad blood and whatever else aside, it's not like football and other sports OOC are equatable. One game is generally 25% of your OOC schedule. Is La tech really that attractive of a game? The majority of Sun Belt fans only want to play them for the opportunity to serve them humble pie.

I would imagine the La Tech feels a relative indifference to playing the majority of Sun Belt schools and the majority of Sun Belt schools feel a relative indifference towards playing La Tech. I'm always up for playing another regional non-AQ, but I don't view a football series with La Tech as anything to get excited about, so if we can agree to playing in other sports where you're OOC schedule is much larger, but both of us would rather pursue more attractive OOC games in football...I have no problem with that.

(04-14-2011 01:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:58 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 11:41 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 11:29 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  No.... we must proceed.

You are in the minority in that believe, what's more, inviting any combination of the schools you outlined would be regressing and that belief is shared by most of this board as well as the Sun Belt brass. Don't hold your breath on invites to Texas State, UTSA, or UNCC, actually do hold your breath...maybe you'll pass out and we'll be saved from your obsession with FCS and start up programs for a few hours...

Actually, I am starting to believe that you are afraid of the "start up programs". What...no room at the top? FAU and FIU were start ups. So was every other school at one time. Stop throwing temper tantrums everytime somebody has a different opinon. In fact .....go to your room and keep banging your head until you find a better use for it.

Being afraid of "start up programs" and not wanting them is totally different. If enough people beleive you have an obsession with adding FCS programs, maybe, just maybe it's true.

Are you his girlfriend or something? What are you saying that you agree that I am promoting start up programs and FCS schools. Yes, and they are Ga State and UNCC and UTSA. What is your point other than beeing a cheer leader for your buddy. Speak up! Don't wimper!

The question is La Tech or who else. He is obsessed with keeping the status quo. Apparently, that is not going to happen. So my two cents are in the pot, your two cents plus his equals six cents. Big whoop!

Chill out!

Oh gee, the childish Jag poster doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he's resorting to slurs and name calling. Very, very immature.

Apparently you can't handle it when folks (plural, not singular) beleive that you have an obsession about FCS newbies and the Sun Belt.

If you paid attention you would know that MTpiKapp and I disagree more often than we agree. We just happen to agree that you have tunnel vision and are obsessed with this particular subject. If you don't like that you certainly have my permission to LUMP IT.

(04-14-2011 03:32 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 01:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:58 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 11:41 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  You are in the minority in that believe, what's more, inviting any combination of the schools you outlined would be regressing and that belief is shared by most of this board as well as the Sun Belt brass. Don't hold your breath on invites to Texas State, UTSA, or UNCC, actually do hold your breath...maybe you'll pass out and we'll be saved from your obsession with FCS and start up programs for a few hours...

Actually, I am starting to believe that you are afraid of the "start up programs". What...no room at the top? FAU and FIU were start ups. So was every other school at one time. Stop throwing temper tantrums everytime somebody has a different opinon. In fact .....go to your room and keep banging your head until you find a better use for it.

Being afraid of "start up programs" and not wanting them is totally different. If enough people beleive you have an obsession with adding FCS programs, maybe, just maybe it's true.

Are you his girlfriend or something? What are you saying that you agree that I am promoting start up programs and FCS schools. Yes, and they are Ga State and UNCC and UTSA. What is your point other than beeing a cheer leader for your buddy. Speak up! Don't wimper!

The question is La Tech or who else. He is obsessed with keeping the status quo. Apparently, that is not going to happen. So my two cents are in the pot, your two cents plus his equals six cents. Big whoop!

Chill out!

Oh gee, the childish Jag poster doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he's resorting to slurs and name calling. Very, very immature.

Apparently you can't handle it when folks (plural, not singular) beleive that you have an obsession about FCS newbies and the Sun Belt.

If you paid attention you would know that MTpiKapp and I disagree more often than we agree. We just happen to agree that you have tunnel vision and are obsessed with this particular subject. If you don't like that you certainly have my permission to LUMP IT.

No homie. It appears that you can't handle it when it thrown back at you. You are the one who started throwing, I just reciprocrated. So you are immature. Apparently, you can't handle the discussion or the argument and you pretty much told me to shut up.

So you two agree sometimes. Congratulations. But if you can't handle it, don't start none won't be none.

(04-14-2011 04:01 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 03:32 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 01:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:58 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:51 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Actually, I am starting to believe that you are afraid of the "start up programs". What...no room at the top? FAU and FIU were start ups. So was every other school at one time. Stop throwing temper tantrums everytime somebody has a different opinon. In fact .....go to your room and keep banging your head until you find a better use for it.

Being afraid of "start up programs" and not wanting them is totally different. If enough people beleive you have an obsession with adding FCS programs, maybe, just maybe it's true.

Are you his girlfriend or something? What are you saying that you agree that I am promoting start up programs and FCS schools. Yes, and they are Ga State and UNCC and UTSA. What is your point other than beeing a cheer leader for your buddy. Speak up! Don't wimper!

The question is La Tech or who else. He is obsessed with keeping the status quo. Apparently, that is not going to happen. So my two cents are in the pot, your two cents plus his equals six cents. Big whoop!

Chill out!

Oh gee, the childish Jag poster doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he's resorting to slurs and name calling. Very, very immature.

Apparently you can't handle it when folks (plural, not singular) beleive that you have an obsession about FCS newbies and the Sun Belt.

If you paid attention you would know that MTpiKapp and I disagree more often than we agree. We just happen to agree that you have tunnel vision and are obsessed with this particular subject. If you don't like that you certainly have my permission to LUMP IT.

No homie. It appears that you can't handle it when it thrown back at you. You are the one who started throwing, I just reciprocrated. So you are immature. Apparently, you can't handle the discussion or the argument and you pretty much told me to shut up.

So you two agree sometimes. Congratulations. But if you can't handle it, don't start none won't be none.

Go hug your boyfriend, chill out and try to have a nice day !:ncaabbs:

(04-14-2011 04:16 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 04:01 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 03:32 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 01:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 12:58 PM)MG61 Wrote:  Being afraid of "start up programs" and not wanting them is totally different. If enough people beleive you have an obsession with adding FCS programs, maybe, just maybe it's true.

Are you his girlfriend or something? What are you saying that you agree that I am promoting start up programs and FCS schools. Yes, and they are Ga State and UNCC and UTSA. What is your point other than beeing a cheer leader for your buddy. Speak up! Don't wimper!

The question is La Tech or who else. He is obsessed with keeping the status quo. Apparently, that is not going to happen. So my two cents are in the pot, your two cents plus his equals six cents. Big whoop!

Chill out!

Oh gee, the childish Jag poster doesn't like it when people disagree with him and he's resorting to slurs and name calling. Very, very immature.

Apparently you can't handle it when folks (plural, not singular) beleive that you have an obsession about FCS newbies and the Sun Belt.

If you paid attention you would know that MTpiKapp and I disagree more often than we agree. We just happen to agree that you have tunnel vision and are obsessed with this particular subject. If you don't like that you certainly have my permission to LUMP IT.

No homie. It appears that you can't handle it when it thrown back at you. You are the one who started throwing, I just reciprocrated. So you are immature. Apparently, you can't handle the discussion or the argument and you pretty much told me to shut up.

So you two agree sometimes. Congratulations. But if you can't handle it, don't start none won't be none.

Go hug your boyfriend, chill out and try to have a nice day !:ncaabbs:

aaah. I hurt your feelings. Isn't that cute. You have a nice day as well.

Here is the reality after talking to Dr. Reneau, the AD Bruce Van De Velde, and Steve Davison, who chairs the football expansion project:

They don't think they can raise the money needed for the new Endzone Project if the leadership comes out and says we are going to the Sunbelt. CUSA has been a goal of Tech's (maybe pipedream) for almost a decade and to go to any other conference will be considered a failure.

I was told by all that Tech will have an idea of what the WAC's revenue will be for 2012 and beyond at the President's meeting in May. At that time, La. Tech will make a decision on whether the WAC is still the best fit financially. If not, then all options will be considered includine applying to the Sunbelt.

(04-14-2011 09:12 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  Here is the reality after talking to Dr. Reneau, the AD Bruce Van De Velde, and Steve Davison, who chairs the football expansion project:

They don't think they can raise the money needed for the new Endzone Project if the leadership comes out and says we are going to the Sunbelt. CUSA has been a goal of Tech's (maybe pipedream) for almost a decade and to go to any other conference will be considered a failure.

I was told by all that Tech will have an idea of what the WAC's revenue will be for 2012 and beyond at the President's meeting in May. At that time, La. Tech will make a decision on whether the WAC is still the best fit financially. If not, then all options will be considered includine applying to the Sunbelt.

In the mean time, Reneau has been on the phone with Savoie, Bruno, ASU and UNT to measure possible support for a SBC vote. I'm positive that you haven't been told that.

(04-14-2011 09:18 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 09:12 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  Here is the reality after talking to Dr. Reneau, the AD Bruce Van De Velde, and Steve Davison, who chairs the football expansion project:

They don't think they can raise the money needed for the new Endzone Project if the leadership comes out and says we are going to the Sunbelt. CUSA has been a goal of Tech's (maybe pipedream) for almost a decade and to go to any other conference will be considered a failure.

I was told by all that Tech will have an idea of what the WAC's revenue will be for 2012 and beyond at the President's meeting in May. At that time, La. Tech will make a decision on whether the WAC is still the best fit financially. If not, then all options will be considered includine applying to the Sunbelt.

In the mean time, Reneau has been on the phone with Savoie, Bruno, ASU and UNT to measure possible support for a SBC vote. I'm positive that you haven't been told that.

T. does there seem to be much, if any, support per your sources ?

(04-14-2011 09:12 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  Here is the reality after talking to Dr. Reneau, the AD Bruce Van De Velde, and Steve Davison, who chairs the football expansion project:

They don't think they can raise the money needed for the new Endzone Project if the leadership comes out and says we are going to the Sunbelt. CUSA has been a goal of Tech's (maybe pipedream) for almost a decade and to go to any other conference will be considered a failure.

I was told by all that Tech will have an idea of what the WAC's revenue will be for 2012 and beyond at the President's meeting in May. At that time, La. Tech will make a decision on whether the WAC is still the best fit financially. If not, then all options will be considered includine applying to the Sunbelt.

If Tech might have to apply to the Sun Belt, then why would La-Tech not silence statements made, such as:

"No way do I want to be a part of that," Bradshaw said at a Monday press conference at Squire Creek Country Club. "I don't know anything about that. I don't think that's anything we'd want to do. We're not going forward (in the Sun Belt) — no disrespect. We're not going forward. We're dropping back. We might as well bring back the Gulf States Conference and play everybody in the state, you know? No. That doesn't excite me."

"I know quite a bit about what's going on, and certainly I don't want to talk out-of-school here," Bradshaw said. "(The Sun Belt) may be saying that, but I don't think the folks around here are saying that. They need us more than we need them, and we don't need to go that route."

The SB member schools know that nothing has changed in Ruston, and the commissioner is aware of this as well. I don't think La-Tech would get the needed votes to join the SB even if it begged to be in.

I know that we are looking at joining the Sunbelt and I personally think that it would be a good move for La. Tech instead of staying in the WAC. For a long time, I thought Tech was playing in a better league, but that is no longer the case.

I know people at ULL, ULM, Troy and N. Texas. All have told me that they would vote for La. Tech. ULM and ULL for no other reason that they think the rivalry would be good for them and the conference.

Business wise, adding La. Tech would kill the WAC's contract with ESPN and increase the Sunbelt's.

(04-14-2011 09:58 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  I know that we are looking at joining the Sunbelt and I personally think that it would be a good move for La. Tech instead of staying in the WAC. For a long time, I thought Tech was playing in a better league, but that is no longer the case.

I know people at ULL, ULM, Troy and N. Texas. All have told me that they would vote for La. Tech. ULM and ULL for no other reason that they think the rivalry would be good for them and the conference.

Business wise, adding La. Tech would kill the WAC's contract with ESPN and increase the Sunbelt's.

Some LaTech posters seem to think the old WAC contingent is out there to save them and will vote for them to be added to CUSA:

http://latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.ph...300&page=5

and that Rice, SMU, and Tulsa are not happy with UTEP.

"I can't say, but my source is not in our administration. He simply pointed to the fact that they tried to swap UTEP for us 6 months ago."

That is False! Rice, SMU, and Tulsa would not trade UTEP for LaTech. Our history with LaTech is a short 4 years. The old Wac contingent has been in CUSA longer than the time spent with LaTech in the WAC. I may not know the latest in what Rice is thinking, but Rice is VERY happy having UTEP in CUSA (which the old WAC contingent pushed to have added over LaTech) and have been told that LaTech is not the old WAC's favorite choice to be added to CUSA. Period.

(04-14-2011 09:45 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 09:18 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 09:12 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  Here is the reality after talking to Dr. Reneau, the AD Bruce Van De Velde, and Steve Davison, who chairs the football expansion project:

They don't think they can raise the money needed for the new Endzone Project if the leadership comes out and says we are going to the Sunbelt. CUSA has been a goal of Tech's (maybe pipedream) for almost a decade and to go to any other conference will be considered a failure.

I was told by all that Tech will have an idea of what the WAC's revenue will be for 2012 and beyond at the President's meeting in May. At that time, La. Tech will make a decision on whether the WAC is still the best fit financially. If not, then all options will be considered includine applying to the Sunbelt.

In the mean time, Reneau has been on the phone with Savoie, Bruno, ASU and UNT to measure possible support for a SBC vote. I'm positive that you haven't been told that.

T. does there seem to be much, if any, support per your sources ?

Don't know where ASU and UNT stand, but my understanding is both presidents still have good relationships with Reneau. Savoie and Bruno are ditto heads, guys all connected to Reneau politically in the UL-System. The question remains where do MT, WKU, USA, Troy, FIU and FAU stand? I think we will all know soon enough if Tech doesn't request entry into the SBC. No way do they even make a formal request if the votes aren't there for them. They are not going to put themselves in a position to be embarrassed publicly.

BTW, does anyone really buy that Tech is waiting to see what the 2012 WAC numbers look like? They have enough information to at least make reasonable projections.

I have no idea where stAte stands on this issue....but Loser Tech hasn't been on our schedule in a very long time.

(04-14-2011 09:58 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  I know that we are looking at joining the Sunbelt and I personally think that it would be a good move for La. Tech instead of staying in the WAC. For a long time, I thought Tech was playing in a better league, but that is no longer the case.

I know people at ULL, ULM, Troy and N. Texas. All have told me that they would vote for La. Tech. ULM and ULL for no other reason that they think the rivalry would be good for them and the conference.

Business wise, adding La. Tech would kill the WAC's contract with ESPN and increase the Sunbelt's.

You absolutely were in a better league with Boise developing the way they did. No one is disputing that at all. the WAC was a good move for LATech and worked out well for them.

Fast forward and the 'Belt is on par with the WAC (after the depatures next year) and MAC.

(04-15-2011 08:42 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I have no idea where stAte stands on this issue....but Loser Tech hasn't been on our schedule in a very long time.

1998 in Jonesboro was the last time.

(04-14-2011 10:15 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(04-14-2011 09:58 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  I know that we are looking at joining the Sunbelt and I personally think that it would be a good move for La. Tech instead of staying in the WAC. For a long time, I thought Tech was playing in a better league, but that is no longer the case.

I know people at ULL, ULM, Troy and N. Texas. All have told me that they would vote for La. Tech. ULM and ULL for no other reason that they think the rivalry would be good for them and the conference.

Business wise, adding La. Tech would kill the WAC's contract with ESPN and increase the Sunbelt's.

Some LaTech posters seem to think the old WAC contingent is out there to save them and will vote for them to be added to CUSA:

http://latechbbb.com/forum/showthread.ph...300&page=5

and that Rice, SMU, and Tulsa are not happy with UTEP.

"I can't say, but my source is not in our administration. He simply pointed to the fact that they tried to swap UTEP for us 6 months ago."

That is False! Rice, SMU, and Tulsa would not trade UTEP for LaTech. Our history with LaTech is a short 4 years. The old Wac contingent has been in CUSA longer than the time spent with LaTech in the WAC. I may not know the latest in what Rice is thinking, but Rice is VERY happy having UTEP in CUSA (which the old WAC contingent pushed to have added over LaTech) and have been told that LaTech is not the old WAC's favorite choice to be added to CUSA. Period.

Rice, SMU and Tulsa were consulted in the CUSA expansion process and their endorsement of UTEP helped defeat the push by Memphis to not replace TCU.

My contact in CUSA insisted all along that there were four options considered. UTEP, No expansion, UNT, and La.Tech and that Tech had the least support of the four and UTEP vs. No Expansion was the only thing that was close.

Because of that, I doubt the story is true.

(04-15-2011 09:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Rice, SMU and Tulsa were consulted in the CUSA expansion process and their endorsement of UTEP helped defeat the push by Memphis to not replace TCU.

My contact in CUSA insisted all along that there were four options considered. UTEP, No expansion, UNT, and La.Tech and that Tech had the least support of the four and UTEP vs. No Expansion was the only thing that was close.

Because of that, I doubt the story is true.

This is also what I heard. I'm just surprised that some LaTech posters keep stating that the old WAC 3 are pushing/voting for them.