Before we get into this, I want to clarify that this is not a slam against the ULM, it's fans, or it's athletic programs.
Several years ago Temple University was dismissed from the Big East Conference because it decided not to make a financial commitment to it's athletic programs. Should the same thing happen in the Sun Belt? The majority of Sun Belt schools have been raising the budgets while building new facilities on an unprecedented pace. All but one.
ULM has had the lowest athletics budget in the Sun Belt since they joined the league, and that budget is annually the lowest of all FBS colleges in the nation. Even including the FBS move-ups in the WAC and MAC, ULM will still be the lowest.
This budget issue is no secret at ULM. ULM's 6007 undergraduate students currently pay only $22 a semester toward athletics; really no financial commitment at all from the student body. The majority of the reported $8.5 million annual athletics budget is raised through state money, game guarantees, and conference distribution.
The students were presented with an opportunity this month to bolster the ULM Athletics by voting for a fee referendum that would contribute a modest $10 per credit hour maxed at $120 per semester. Result: only 800 ULM students voted in support of the fee. That's a shocking number considering there are hundreds of students involved in sports at the university. Essentially, very, very few people at the university care.
There is nothing wrong with this. There are collegiate athletic levels designed for colleges that want to fund their athletics at these levels. Those levels are NCAA Division 2 and NCAA Division 1 with FCS football (formerly 1AA).
ULM was a full member of the 1AA Southland Conference prior to 2005 but was allowed to play it's football in the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt Conference, and ULM, may be better off with ULM returning to competing for all sports against it's traditional Southland Conference rivals. Their spartan budget would be much better spent on fewer scholarships for games played against regional rivals like Louisiana's Northwestern State, McNeese State, Southeastern Louisiana, Nichols State, and close cross border programs Stephen F Austin, Lamar, Sam Houston State, and Central Arkansas. Travel expenses would be drastically cut as team flights and hotel stays are no longer necessary.
There are several schools able and willing to make a significantly stronger financial commitment to athletics that would consider taking ULM's place in the Sun Belt.
Yes, they should. I say this not as a LA TECH alum but as a person living in the Monroe area. I talked to a person today about it in casual conversation. He stated that his school did not exist. He was a NLU Indian and found no gain in investing in ULM Warhawks athletics. This is the general perception all across their fanbase. People just don't care at ULM anymore. They have become a more commuter school over the past few years and it has taken away from all sports. I do long for the days when playing them meant something but that was 20 years ago.
ULM belongs in the Belt as long as they choose to be here. ULM football always finishes in the top 4 in conference. I find it funny that a UNT fan who's football team that finishes at the bottom of the conference is even asking this question. How bout UNT do something to help the conference before bashing one of its members.
Wow! UNT pays its coaches top dollar!
Wow! UNT has a large athletic budget!
Wow! UNT has a new statdium!
Wow! UNT finished at the bottom of the conference again!
How's that UNT baseball team doing?
(04-27-2011 02:54 AM)statefanatic Wrote: [ -> ]ULM belongs in the Belt as long as they choose to be here. ULM football always finishes in the top 4 in conference. I find it funny that a UNT fan who's football team that finishes at the bottom of the conference is even asking this question. How bout UNT do something to help the conference before bashing one of its members.
Wow! UNT pays its coaches top dollar!
Wow! UNT has a large athletic budget!
Wow! UNT has a new statdium!
Wow! UNT finished at the bottom of the conference again!
How's that UNT baseball team doing?
Careful State. it's just ONE fan. I'm from UNT and have always been a ULM in the Belt backer.
A.) Yes, of course they should. If they can't compete that would be a different matter but they do so the point is moot.
Hopefully, in the near future, we have some more money to spend on athletics and this rising tide lifts all the Sun Belt boats.
By the way, there's something to be said for doing more with less.
(04-27-2011 07:41 AM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]A.) Yes, of course they should. If they can't compete that would be a different matter but they do so the point is moot.
Hopefully, in the near future, we have some more money to spend on athletics and this rising tide lifts all the Sun Belt boats.
By the way, there's something to be said for doing more with less.
Ultimately, it will be decided by ULM alone. It will be harder for them to recruit against schools that are upgrading facilities.
The ULM administration is going to have make a decision probably by this summer on whether the FBS is the place for their football program. Remember, they have to support eleven other sports as well. Are all of the Louisiana Universities facing funding cuts? I know all of the Florida universities and colleges are being hammered.
(04-27-2011 12:56 AM)Adler Wrote: [ -> ]Before we get into this, I want to clarify that this is not a slam against the ULM, it's fans, or it's athletic programs.
Several years ago Temple University was dismissed from the Big East Conference because it decided not to make a financial commitment to it's athletic programs. Should the same thing happen in the Sun Belt? The majority of Sun Belt schools have been raising the budgets while building new facilities on an unprecedented pace. All but one.
ULM has had the lowest athletics budget in the Sun Belt since they joined the league, and that budget is annually the lowest of all FBS colleges in the nation. Even including the FBS move-ups in the WAC and MAC, ULM will still be the lowest.
This budget issue is no secret at ULM. ULM's 6007 undergraduate students currently pay only $22 a semester toward athletics; really no financial commitment at all from the student body. The majority of the reported $8.5 million annual athletics budget is raised through state money, game guarantees, and conference distribution.
The students were presented with an opportunity this month to bolster the ULM Athletics by voting for a fee referendum that would contribute a modest $10 per credit hour maxed at $120 per semester. Result: only 800 ULM students voted in support of the fee. That's a shocking number considering there are hundreds of students involved in sports at the university. Essentially, very, very few people at the university care.
There is nothing wrong with this. There are collegiate athletic levels designed for colleges that want to fund their athletics at these levels. Those levels are NCAA Division 2 and NCAA Division 1 with FCS football (formerly 1AA).
ULM was a full member of the 1AA Southland Conference prior to 2005 but was allowed to play it's football in the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt Conference, and ULM, may be better off with ULM returning to competing for all sports against it's traditional Southland Conference rivals. Their spartan budget would be much better spent on fewer scholarships for games played against regional rivals like Louisiana's Northwestern State, McNeese State, Southeastern Louisiana, Nichols State, and close cross border programs Stephen F Austin, Lamar, Sam Houston State, and Central Arkansas. Travel expenses would be drastically cut as team flights and hotel stays are no longer necessary.
There are several schools able and willing to make a significantly stronger financial commitment to athletics that would consider taking ULM's place in the Sun Belt.
Well, I haven't been posting much but can't let this go. You start with "not to insult" and then proceed to give us your opinion on how we should handle our business, as if we (ULM) are dragging the conference down in football with our small student population and small budget.
I will not direct this to all you Mean Green fans, just the one who posted this.
Let's do some comparison shall we? UNT and ULM have played 14 times over the years. The record is 7-7. Dead even. Since joining the SBC, ULM has a 6-4 record against UNT. ULM has won 5 of the last 6 against UNT.
I won't go into other sports as you wanted to talk football.
Now, do we (ULM fans and alumni) wish we were doing better? Yes. Do we wish we had a larger budget? Sure. But you know something, with our paltry budget and small student body, we sure are doing better than some schools with much larger budgets.
I don't want to turn this into some pissing contest and have everyone start lobbing insults one way and the other. But how about you just get ready to open that good looking stadium you are building and supporting your new coach.
Here is to a good game in your new stadium this year!!
Oh, and to paraphrase (steal) a line from Zeebart (my apologies Z), Thank you for your interest in Warhawk Athletics!!
(04-27-2011 08:00 AM)FloridaJag Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2011 07:41 AM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]A.) Yes, of course they should. If they can't compete that would be a different matter but they do so the point is moot.
Hopefully, in the near future, we have some more money to spend on athletics and this rising tide lifts all the Sun Belt boats.
By the way, there's something to be said for doing more with less.
Ultimately, it will be decided by ULM alone. It will be harder for them to recruit against schools that are upgrading facilities.
The ULM administration is going to have make a decision probably by this summer on whether the FBS is the place for their football program. Remember, they have to support eleven other sports as well. Are all of the Louisiana Universities facing funding cuts? I know all of the Florida universities and colleges are being hammered.
There are some major cuts looming for all universities not named LSU within Louisiana. The state is in the process of trying to merge UNO with Southern of New Orleans, but it will probably not happen due to it becoming a race issue now. Even though SUNO has a less than 10% graduation rate.
There has also been rumors of a merger between La Tech, ULM and Grambling. That will never happen, but it has been discussed. ULM has no room to grow financially, they are in big trouble, but will continue to field a 1A program because they do not want to appear inferior to La Tech or Louisiana.
La Tech is operating near their financial ceiling as well, their big money boosters have too much pride to let them come back to the Belt. They have started a fund raising campaign called the Quest For Excellence, which under Dooley was really starting to gain traction and advance their program. Since his departure the Q4E has been pretty stagnant.
Louisiana on the other hand, had neglected athletics since the 70's when we received the Death Penalty. Our former pres put a strangle hold on athletic fundraising and choked off the budget for athletics as well. That 30 year span cost this university several big money boosters. What we are seeing now in Lafayette is Dr Savois and the athletic department mending those broken bridges and building new relationships. This has resulted in the formation of the Ragin Cajun Athletic Foundation. Since the hiring of Marlin and Hudspeth the athletic department have raised over $5M for different projects and that has been less than a year. Our athletic budget will grow by nearly 30% for next year.
Bottom line with ULM, while they have performed well in football no one can deny that, they have not shown the commitment to athletics that it takes to compete even at the Sunbelt level. This is not a flame on ULM, but they would be better served in the Southland. Their Alumni base has a really hard time identifying with ULM, many of those alumni want to be NLU and have their regional rivals back.
(04-27-2011 08:00 AM)FloridaJag Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2011 07:41 AM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]A.) Yes, of course they should. If they can't compete that would be a different matter but they do so the point is moot.
Hopefully, in the near future, we have some more money to spend on athletics and this rising tide lifts all the Sun Belt boats.
By the way, there's something to be said for doing more with less.
Ultimately, it will be decided by ULM alone. It will be harder for them to recruit against schools that are upgrading facilities.
The ULM administration is going to have make a decision probably by this summer on whether the FBS is the place for their football program. Remember, they have to support eleven other sports as well. Are all of the Louisiana Universities facing funding cuts? I know all of the Florida universities and colleges are being hammered.
Where are you getting all this? ULM is going to make a decision "probably this summer" on FBS football? I'm sure this is news to them; I would think they have an FBS schedule going out 5 to 7 years. Do you have anything solid or is this speculation?
I know education is being cut all over the country and yet FAU and UNT can manage to build brand new stadiums. I'm just not seeing this gloom and doom regarding football and athletic budgets; from what I've seen they've been going up and the worst of the recession appears to be behind us (we now need to focus on those huge federal deficits).
Yeah, every school in the state is facing some possibly big cuts. Even the mighty LSU... Thanks for yall's backing. I know we have the lowest budget, but I really believe with our new president we are starting to make some changes to improve the budget and athletics in general. We have already announced a new video board for Malone stadium (the 2nd largest in the state, only to LSU by 100 sq. feet), a video board at the baseball field, and new chair backs in Malone. The next phase will be adding an end zone facility in the north end zone. That may be a while off, but at least we have a vision. Like someone else said, we are doing a lot with very little. We need a major push to get those disgruntled alumni, that were mentioned earlier, back in the game.
(04-27-2011 08:34 AM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]I won't go into other sports as you wanted to talk football.
How convenient...I have no problem with ULM being in the conference, but to even suggest that the program is anywhere close to UNT, or most other Sun Belt schools is absurd. ULM is currently in last place for this years Bubas Cup standings. The only sports ULM did not finish last, or second to last in are men's cross country, football, women's basketball, and women's tennis.
Sure, UNT has sucked at football the last few years, but we have contributed 4 conference titles in the short history of the conference. We have public plans for a baseball team as well. At least be realistic. Regardless, I don't think ULM should be forced to leave.
Let ULM worry about ULM. I'm sure folks from the other Sun Belt schools have their own problems and it's not about ULM. We'll be fine. We finally have a president who understands that sports is the front porch of a university, unlike the previous president who was good for the school but not all that much into athletics. President Nick Bruno has been very visible at many of the Warhawks' athletic events and he's pushing the sports agenda in Monroe. We don't need to build a new football stadium or basketball arena or baseball stadium like other schools have had to do. We're already there and it's all a matter of improvements which are already in progress.
How many times has this kind of discussion come up about Vanderbilt and the SEC? Vanderbilt will not be leaving the SEC any time soon and neither will ULM in regards to the Sun Belt. When North Texas dropped into the lower level of the SBC in football and was still playing in Fouts Field many were asking if UNT was serious about staying in the FCS. I wasn't one of them. I like all the schools in the Sun Belt (yes, ULL, even you!) and I want them all to do well.
Adler, you'll see ULM in Denton this fall and every other fall after that for years to come.
Divisional affiliation is an institutional decision and it should be that way.
Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction and want to be at the highest level or that school X or Y should not be at the highest level.
To me the question is are you funding your programs at a level to create an opportunity for success? I don't just tag football and basketball because if you take the Division I Philosophy Statement seriously you worry about every sport you have elected to sponsor.
Looking at last year's Bubas Cup standings, ULM sponsored 16 sports in the Sun Belt. UNT, Troy, ULL, FIU sponsored 16 sports and finished ahead of ULM. ASU and USA sponsored 15 and finished ahead. Denver sponsored 10 and finished ahead. UNO sponsored 58% of the number of sports ULM sponsored but scored 60% as many points. For the sports they played, UNO finished slightly ahead. In 10 of 16 sports ULM finished in the bottom third of the conference and the top third in only two sports (Football tied for 3rd and 3rd in women's tennis). Finished in the bottom half in 13 sports.
With 7 sports completed for ULM in the most recent standings, finished in the top half twice (football tied for fourth, women's cross country 5th out of 11) and finished in the bottom third in the remaining five sports, with two last place finishes and three next to last finishes.
That across the board performance ought to cause the ULM community to ask if the issue can be fixed within the structure of the Sun Belt and if it cannot they should seek affiliation consistent with what they can afford to be successful at.
I know that most ULM fans will look at that and say what I would have said a few years ago. "We can do this in football, we can do it in other sports". I have immersed so much in the business of college athletics that I no longer feel that way. I suspect ULM is having the success it has in football because football is sucking all the wind out of every other sport. Everything that can be spared is likely going to football at the expense of the other progams. That can only work if it is a targeted short-term effort designed to generate new revenue that can be diverted to catch-up the deprived programs, it cannot be a way of life. It can but the facilities in other sports will go to crap and you get the ugly choice of keeping an unsuccesful coach because you cannot afford to replace them convincing fans that you don't care or you can fire them and hire the next cheap option and run the risk that eventually a player upset about a coach given no chance be successful files a Title IX suit or the fired coach files a Title IX suit.
If you had talked to me in 1985-87 I was a strong advocate for Arkansas State to go I-A because the program had some momentum. Late 1989 when the decision was made, I was very wary that ASU was going to "do it on the cheap" because of circumstances and I was right. We essentially lost a decade of alums becoming fans because as students there was little to show for the era.
I don't think the ULM situation is so critical that anyone should be beating the drum to expel them but I would hope the ULM family would look hard the situation and figure it out. If that means a strong aggressive internal fund-raising plan (ie. not the crap everyone try to recruit one campaigns ASU relied on for years, that pushed responsibility on the fans and away from admin), then go do it. If it means a different alignment, then do that, just quit leaving so many sports twisting in the wind.
(04-27-2011 09:19 AM)SOT1977 Wrote: [ -> ]Let ULM worry about ULM. I'm sure folks from the other Sun Belt schools have their own problems and it's not about ULM. We'll be fine. We finally have a president who understands that sports is the front porch of a university, unlike the previous president who was good for the school but not all that much into athletics. President Nick Bruno has been very visible at many of the Warhawks' athletic events and he's pushing the sports agenda in Monroe. We don't need to build a new football stadium or basketball arena or baseball stadium like other schools have had to do. We're already there and it's all a matter of improvements which are already in progress.
How many times has this kind of discussion come up about Vanderbilt and the SEC? Vanderbilt will not be leaving the SEC any time soon and neither will ULM in regards to the Sun Belt. When North Texas dropped into the lower level of the SBC in football and was still playing in Fouts Field many were asking if UNT was serious about staying in the FCS. I wasn't one of them. I like all the schools in the Sun Belt (yes, ULL, even you!) and I want them all to do well.
Adler, you'll see ULM in Denton this fall and every other fall after that for years to come.
Uh, okay?
(04-27-2011 09:17 AM)Mean Green Matt Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2011 08:34 AM)InjunJohn Wrote: [ -> ]I won't go into other sports as you wanted to talk football.
How convenient...I have no problem with ULM being in the conference, but to even suggest that the program is anywhere close to UNT, or most other Sun Belt schools is absurd. ULM is currently in last place for this years Bubas Cup standings. The only sports ULM did not finish last, or second to last in are men's cross country, football, women's basketball, and women's tennis.
Sure, UNT has sucked at football the last few years, but we have contributed 4 conference titles in the short history of the conference. We have public plans for a baseball team as well. At least be realistic. Regardless, I don't think ULM should be forced to leave.
Not absurd. The title of the thread is "does ULM belong in FBS football" and I addressed that.
asf', I think you can say that football is sucking the wind out of every other program at every university (I think WKU can attest to this).
We are trying to climb this BCS ladder and everybody knows that football drives the bus...everyone else is just along for the ride.
(04-27-2011 09:19 AM)SOT1977 Wrote: [ -> ]How many times has this kind of discussion come up about Vanderbilt and the SEC? Vanderbilt will not be leaving the SEC any time soon and neither will ULM in regards to the Sun Belt. When North Texas dropped into the lower level of the SBC in football and was still playing in Fouts Field many were asking if UNT was serious about staying in the FCS. I wasn't one of them. I like all the schools in the Sun Belt (yes, ULL, even you!) and I want them all to do well.
Adler, you'll see ULM in Denton this fall and every other fall after that for years to come.
Vandy isn't analogous. They can effectively fund a program with little internal revenue development because of the SEC revenue stream. Vandy does tend to hang around the bottom third in league all-sports race but has a number of programs competitive within the conference and nationally. Bowling is their only national team championship but they've fielded some nationally successful men's and women's basketball teams, baseball team, and men's and women's tennis.
As a Cajun fan, I'll abstain from this discussion.
But I will comment that I agree with arkstfan's analysis as it relates to ulm's non football programs. ULMs relative success in football clearly has come at the expense of everything else.
(04-27-2011 09:36 AM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]asf', I think you can say that football is sucking the wind out of every other program at every university (I think WKU can attest to this).
We are trying to climb this BCS ladder and everybody knows that football drives the bus...everyone else is just along for the ride.
Really? Women's basketball two bids each of the last two years. Baseball at least two bids for 22 years. ASU bowling finished 5th in the nation. MTSU scored national director's cup points in WBB and men's track.
There is a distinction between emphasizing a sport and gutting others at the expense of another.
(04-27-2011 09:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Divisional affiliation is an institutional decision and it should be that way.
Too many people have a knee-jerk reaction and want to be at the highest level or that school X or Y should not be at the highest level.
To me the question is are you funding your programs at a level to create an opportunity for success? I don't just tag football and basketball because if you take the Division I Philosophy Statement seriously you worry about every sport you have elected to sponsor.
Looking at last year's Bubas Cup standings, ULM sponsored 16 sports in the Sun Belt. UNT, Troy, ULL, FIU sponsored 16 sports and finished ahead of ULM. ASU and USA sponsored 15 and finished ahead. Denver sponsored 10 and finished ahead. UNO sponsored 58% of the number of sports ULM sponsored but scored 60% as many points. For the sports they played, UNO finished slightly ahead. In 10 of 16 sports ULM finished in the bottom third of the conference and the top third in only two sports (Football tied for 3rd and 3rd in women's tennis). Finished in the bottom half in 13 sports.
With 7 sports completed for ULM in the most recent standings, finished in the top half twice (football tied for fourth, women's cross country 5th out of 11) and finished in the bottom third in the remaining five sports, with two last place finishes and three next to last finishes.
That across the board performance ought to cause the ULM community to ask if the issue can be fixed within the structure of the Sun Belt and if it cannot they should seek affiliation consistent with what they can afford to be successful at.
I know that most ULM fans will look at that and say what I would have said a few years ago. "We can do this in football, we can do it in other sports". I have immersed so much in the business of college athletics that I no longer feel that way. I suspect ULM is having the success it has in football because football is sucking all the wind out of every other sport. Everything that can be spared is likely going to football at the expense of the other progams. That can only work if it is a targeted short-term effort designed to generate new revenue that can be diverted to catch-up the deprived programs, it cannot be a way of life. It can but the facilities in other sports will go to crap and you get the ugly choice of keeping an unsuccesful coach because you cannot afford to replace them convincing fans that you don't care or you can fire them and hire the next cheap option and run the risk that eventually a player upset about a coach given no chance be successful files a Title IX suit or the fired coach files a Title IX suit.
If you had talked to me in 1985-87 I was a strong advocate for Arkansas State to go I-A because the program had some momentum. Late 1989 when the decision was made, I was very wary that ASU was going to "do it on the cheap" because of circumstances and I was right. We essentially lost a decade of alums becoming fans because as students there was little to show for the era.
I don't think the ULM situation is so critical that anyone should be beating the drum to expel them but I would hope the ULM family would look hard the situation and figure it out. If that means a strong aggressive internal fund-raising plan (ie. not the crap everyone try to recruit one campaigns ASU relied on for years, that pushed responsibility on the fans and away from admin), then go do it. If it means a different alignment, then do that, just quit leaving so many sports twisting in the wind.
Very well said.