Some schools simply do not and will not play obvious rivals.
(Ask Villanova about that one.)
Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
(08-19-2020 10:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
Somebody didn't read the article:
Quote:...Louisiana Tech successfully jumped to the FBS (in 1989) and Louisiana-Monroe didn’t until 1994.
These two are the heart and soul of Northern Louisiana and should be heated rivals who end each season against each other.
Skip Holtz while at USF (big east) avoided playing UCF (CUSA) his entire stint there.
Skip’s not the best recruiter, I imagine he doesn’t enjoy having a local rivalry game for a direct comparison for recruits who want to stay local.
(08-19-2020 10:33 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Some schools simply do not and will not play obvious rivals.
(Ask Villanova about that one.)
Wait, they play in the Big Five every year.
(08-19-2020 10:38 PM)debragga Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
Somebody didn't read the article:
Quote:...Louisiana Tech successfully jumped to the FBS (in 1989) and Louisiana-Monroe didn’t until 1994.
Five WHOLE years.
This would be like App State refusing to play Charlotte because Charlotte is so new and bad at football compared to App State's outstanding, long history. (Had to get a little jab in there mixed in with cockiness, but still, App State isn't too big not to play an obvious rival.)
The LaTech and ULM situation would be like if Southern Indiana had moved up to FBS in the 90's demanding play with Ball State.
Ball State may not want to play them simply on the fact they feel they do not belong as Southern Indiana is a small regional school. That is why LaTech doesn't want to play ULM because they feel they belong in FCS.
(08-20-2020 06:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]The LaTech and ULM situation would be like if Southern Indiana had moved up to FBS in the 90's demanding play with Ball State.
Ball State may not want to play them simply on the fact they feel they do not belong as Southern Indiana is a small regional school. That is why LaTech doesn't want to play ULM because they feel they belong in FCS.
Not the best example because Ball St was a MAC member since 1973.
LA Tech and ULM moves up 5 yrs apart.
This is more akin to Troy refusing USA or MTSU refusing WKU had they not all been in the same conference.
This is one of the unfortunate things about college sports. I think nearly every program in the country has someone that would make sense to play on a regular basis, but the dynamics of it all prevent it. If you are the school on the top end of the dilemma scheduling the other school is a no-win situation, you don't get credit for beating school and you get howls from the boosters if you lose to said school. Moreover, just the appearance of scheduling that school would help the other school to recruit at a higher level and improve their situation financially.
(08-20-2020 05:39 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:33 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote: [ -> ]Some schools simply do not and will not play obvious rivals.
(Ask Villanova about that one.)
Wait, they play in the Big Five every year.
It was paused for a few years, though. Depending on who you ask, you have Villanova and/or Temple to thank for that.
(08-20-2020 07:32 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the unfortunate things about college sports.
Actually, the LAT - ULM situation is the spice of life of college sports. The situation is, Tech looks down its nose at ULM. It thinks it is a better institution and so doesn't want to rub elbows with ULM.
Given that Tech and ULM are about of equal academic stature (both way down the USNWR rankings) and athletic rankings (both G5) is this Tech stance rational to anyone outside northern Louisiana? Of course not.
But it is such irrational beliefs and feelings that college athletics are built on. So I have no beef with Tech's silly attitude. It gives Tech a reason to feel superior, and ULM a reason to burn up about it, both of which feed the fire, LOL, so that when they do play, the sparks will fly.
(08-20-2020 05:43 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:38 PM)debragga Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
Somebody didn't read the article:
Quote:...Louisiana Tech successfully jumped to the FBS (in 1989) and Louisiana-Monroe didn’t until 1994.
Five WHOLE years.
This would be like App State refusing to play Charlotte because Charlotte is so new and bad at football compared to App State's outstanding, long history. (Had to get a little jab in there mixed in with cockiness, but still, App State isn't too big not to play an obvious rival.)
Dude, when you are near the bottom of the barrel, like Tech is, you look for any reason you can to claim to be not AT the bottom, to be able to say at least someone else is below you. For Tech, that's ULM.
Is it rational to anyone else? No. But as I said in another post, college rivalries and the like are largely built on irrational beliefs that are nevertheless held dear.
In this case, Tech just doesn't want to acknowledge ULM because it thinks it would be raising up *what it regards* as a little brother to its status. The fact that the rest of the world - when it even bothers to notice either of these athletic gnats - finds this ridiculous is of no consequence.
As one wag once put it, "in academia, the battles are so bitter because the stakes are so small".
(08-20-2020 07:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 06:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]The LaTech and ULM situation would be like if Southern Indiana had moved up to FBS in the 90's demanding play with Ball State.
Ball State may not want to play them simply on the fact they feel they do not belong as Southern Indiana is a small regional school. That is why LaTech doesn't want to play ULM because they feel they belong in FCS.
Not the best example because Ball St was a MAC member since 1973.
LA Tech and ULM moves up 5 yrs apart.
This is more akin to Troy refusing USA or MTSU refusing WKU had they not all been in the same conference.
They had a long history as rivals in the Southland. Its more like Texas A&M refusing to play Texas Tech, trying to separate themselves.
(08-20-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 05:43 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:38 PM)debragga Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
Somebody didn't read the article:
Quote:...Louisiana Tech successfully jumped to the FBS (in 1989) and Louisiana-Monroe didn’t until 1994.
Five WHOLE years.
This would be like App State refusing to play Charlotte because Charlotte is so new and bad at football compared to App State's outstanding, long history. (Had to get a little jab in there mixed in with cockiness, but still, App State isn't too big not to play an obvious rival.)
Dude, when you are near the bottom of the barrel, like Tech is, you look for any reason you can to claim to be not AT the bottom, to be able to say at least someone else is below you. For Tech, that's ULM.
Is it rational to anyone else? No. But as I said in another post, college rivalries and the like are largely built on irrational beliefs that are nevertheless held dear.
In this case, Tech just doesn't want to acknowledge ULM because it thinks it would be raising up *what it regards* as a little brother to its status. The fact that the rest of the world - when it even bothers to notice either of these athletic gnats - finds this ridiculous is of no consequence.
As one wag once put it, "in academia, the battles are so bitter because the stakes are so small".
Okay, this does make a lot of sense. Also, I give you a lot of credit for sharing your view of the situation because you live in Louisiana with a neutral point of view, and you understand the dynamics of the academia aspect since that is your profession. So I'm not arguing against anything you said.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's also true that Tech's stance just screams a combination of arrogance and insecurity. Their fans talk a game as though they are the G5's version of Alabama when they have, at best, a South Carolina trophy case. They act like their program towers over all of C-USA AND the Sun Belt when they have won ten games once in 31 years of FBS ball.
Meanwhile, App State has already won ten games four times in just six years in FBS. App State has every reason to look down its nose at Charlotte and refuse to play them so as not to "legitimize" that unproven program, yet they've scheduled eight games against them. Not too arrogant, not too insecure.
Likewise, look at Marshall. They had a 17 year head start in FBS vs. App State, and they had a lot of success in that period. They easily could have refused to play App State so as not to legitimize their former FCS conference rival. (La. Tech and ULM were once conference rivals at the FCS level, too.) At the time MU scheduled App State to a two game series for 2021-2022, App State was unproven and brand new to FBS. Yet, instead of taking the "nothing to gain, everything to lose" attitude, Marshall decided it would schedule the series because it would bring good attendance and interest for both sides.
I wish LA Tech would see the wisdom of a schedule like this:
ULL
ULM
instate FCS
P5 buy game
That would give them 6 home games a year and a 7th in state vs ULL/ULM.
Since the FCS school would be able to bus in they could pay out less in guaranteed money to them.
(08-20-2020 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 07:32 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the unfortunate things about college sports.
Actually, the LAT - ULM situation is the spice of life of college sports. The situation is, Tech looks down its nose at ULM. It thinks it is a better institution and so doesn't want to rub elbows with ULM.
Given that Tech and ULM are about of equal academic stature (both way down the USNWR rankings) and athletic rankings (both G5) is this Tech stance rational to anyone outside northern Louisiana? Of course not.
But it is such irrational beliefs and feelings that college athletics are built on. So I have no beef with Tech's silly attitude. It gives Tech a reason to feel superior, and ULM a reason to burn up about it, both of which feed the fire, LOL, so that when they do play, the sparks will fly.
LaTech is a good mid tier university, the best public university in the northern part of Louisiana and has the only engineering school in the area.
ULM is a small DII type public with rock bottom 4 year graduation rates.
They are on two different levels. LaTech is ranked by Forbes and all the other publications while ULM is largely unranked.
(08-20-2020 08:54 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 05:43 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:38 PM)debragga Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2020 10:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]Well one was FCS for so long while the other was a FBS school for quite a while.
Somebody didn't read the article:
Quote:...Louisiana Tech successfully jumped to the FBS (in 1989) and Louisiana-Monroe didn’t until 1994.
Five WHOLE years.
This would be like App State refusing to play Charlotte because Charlotte is so new and bad at football compared to App State's outstanding, long history. (Had to get a little jab in there mixed in with cockiness, but still, App State isn't too big not to play an obvious rival.)
Dude, when you are near the bottom of the barrel, like Tech is, you look for any reason you can to claim to be not AT the bottom, to be able to say at least someone else is below you. For Tech, that's ULM.
Is it rational to anyone else? No. But as I said in another post, college rivalries and the like are largely built on irrational beliefs that are nevertheless held dear.
In this case, Tech just doesn't want to acknowledge ULM because it thinks it would be raising up *what it regards* as a little brother to its status. The fact that the rest of the world - when it even bothers to notice either of these athletic gnats - finds this ridiculous is of no consequence.
As one wag once put it, "in academia, the battles are so bitter because the stakes are so small".
Okay, this does make a lot of sense. Also, I give you a lot of credit for sharing your view of the situation because you live in Louisiana with a neutral point of view, and you understand the dynamics of the academia aspect since that is your profession. So I'm not arguing against anything you said.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's also true that Tech's stance just screams a combination of arrogance and insecurity.
Well sure. And these feelings are likely to be exacerbated precisely when there *isn't* much difference between schools.
E.g., when LSU doesn't want Louisiana-Lafayette to call itself "Louisiana", there's not likely much fear and insecurity motivating that, as LSU's legacy is light-years ahead of ULL's. But in the case of Tech and ULM, the fact that there is little difference between them means that Tech will cling fiercely to those slivers of difference because, well, that's all it has to hang its hat on.
(08-20-2020 09:18 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 07:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (08-20-2020 07:32 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]This is one of the unfortunate things about college sports.
Actually, the LAT - ULM situation is the spice of life of college sports. The situation is, Tech looks down its nose at ULM. It thinks it is a better institution and so doesn't want to rub elbows with ULM.
Given that Tech and ULM are about of equal academic stature (both way down the USNWR rankings) and athletic rankings (both G5) is this Tech stance rational to anyone outside northern Louisiana? Of course not.
But it is such irrational beliefs and feelings that college athletics are built on. So I have no beef with Tech's silly attitude. It gives Tech a reason to feel superior, and ULM a reason to burn up about it, both of which feed the fire, LOL, so that when they do play, the sparks will fly.
LaTech is a good mid tier university, the best public university in the northern part of Louisiana and has the only engineering school in the area.
ULM is a small DII type public with rock bottom 4 year graduation rates.
They are on two different levels. LaTech is ranked by Forbes and all the other publications while ULM is largely unranked.
Trust me, here in Louisiana nobody sees *much* difference between them. Yes, if you were told your kid had to go to one of them, after crying in your beer more would pick Tech, it is regarded as slightly better. Nationally, I just checked the US News rankings - the only one the public pays attention to - and Tech is marginally ahead, ranked #272 while ULM is in the "#293-#281" category, a distinction without a difference to just about everyone. ACT scores are similar, ULM has a 71% accept rate, Tech a 62% accept rate.
So yes, Tech has a *little* more shine than ULM, but not all that much. They are far more similar than different. But as I said, often times little differences are more fiercely protected than big differences.