(05-15-2016 02:00 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Don't forget about our market too. That combined with our academics gives us a major advantage over every school in this conference.

The result of which has been a winning % of .400 or worse for six of the seven decades since 1950.

People...don't feed the trolls!

(05-15-2016 03:32 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:00 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  Don't forget about our market too. That combined with our academics gives us a major advantage over every school in this conference.

The result of which has been a winning % of .400 or worse for six of the seven decades since 1950.

lol Tulane sucks so bad I can't believe it....lulz

Just imagine how bad things would be if they didn't own the New Orleans market.

(05-15-2016 03:26 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:23 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  That there are schools out there who dominate a market without dominating on the field. You seemed to imply it was impossible.

No you misunderstand. I was saying their is no way Tulane dominates their market because of the lack of being relevant in sports, most notably football. No one is going to watch or follow a team that is irrelevant. Power 5 schools are different in that they can be terrible but still dominate tv because of their conference. Tulane doesn't have that advantage.

You are wrong buddy, the AAC took us because they did their homework. They researched just how valuable of a program we are, they know we deliver New Orleans. If we didn't then why are we in the AAC? The big 12 knows this as well, they know we are the alpha male of this conference. That's why we are at the top of most conference's wish list. You can call it trolling all you want but you know just what we bring to the table. If winning games meant anything then Boise would be in the PAC 12 and Miami Oh would be in the Big 10. Open your eyes dude, we are the hottest commodity in college athletics.

(05-15-2016 03:26 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:23 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  That there are schools out there who dominate a market without dominating on the field. You seemed to imply it was impossible.

No you misunderstand. I was saying their is no way Tulane dominates their market because of the lack of being relevant in sports, most notably football. No one is going to watch or follow a team that is irrelevant. Power 5 schools are different in that they can be terrible but still dominate tv because of their conference. Tulane doesn't have that advantage.

Tulane doesn't dominate the New Orleans/south LA market in the traditional sense. But what it does have is dominant market potential. Not everyone in LA is a LSU fan. In fact a lot aren't. They just don't have any other option except to hate watch LSU and pull for Bama.

Those people, plus the local media, and those watching it, want Tulane to be good. They love Tulane being good. When there isn't anything positive to report, well, then there isn't much to talk about. But when we have success, we are the lead story/front page/what have you. The fans come out of the woodwork. The desire for Tulane to do well is so strong that you see it even when its not deserved. The local media can be outrageous homers. They went nuts over Tulane's 7-6 New Orleans bowl season (the bowl game that we apparently played against no one, according the NCAA), and as a result the expectations were frankly ridiculous going into the 2014 season. They are fawning over the new AD, the new coaches who haven't even coached a game, and getting the vapors for Tulane baseball and beating LSU.

Want proof? There are columns being published about how Tulane is going to take over LA for basketball as LSU implodes. Never mind that La Tech has been successful for years and Dunleavy hasn't coached a single college game. No one cares about La Tech. They care about LSU and Tulane.

Tulane is the only school in Louisiana that can knock LSU off as the lead story. When LaTech/ULL/ULM and the FCS schools are doing well, its still about LSU. ULL has been SBC champs and won their bowl game while LSU barely had a winning season, and the local media was still all LSU all the time. When Tulane is doing well, its about Tulane and whether or not the hottest rivalry in the south is (finally) heating back up again.

EDIT-

Tulane may be near the bottom in winning percentage, but are in tail end of the middle pack when it comes to total number of wins at 84/128, with 511 wins. Thats 4th in the AAC, more than Houston, ECU, Uconn, SMU, Temple, Memphis, UCF, and USF. (1-3 are Tulsa, Navy and Cincy, respectively). Its more than Kansas St, Louisville, Duke, Wake Forest and Indiana in the P5-- thats 1/4th of the ACC. Its more than Boise, Colorado ST, Rice, etc. We've been doing this a long time.

(05-15-2016 03:39 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:26 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:23 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  That there are schools out there who dominate a market without dominating on the field. You seemed to imply it was impossible.

No you misunderstand. I was saying their is no way Tulane dominates their market because of the lack of being relevant in sports, most notably football. No one is going to watch or follow a team that is irrelevant. Power 5 schools are different in that they can be terrible but still dominate tv because of their conference. Tulane doesn't have that advantage.

Tulane doesn't dominate the New Orleans/south LA market in the traditional sense. But what it does have is dominant market potential. Not everyone in LA is a LSU fan. In fact a lot aren't. They just don't have any other option except to hate watch LSU and pull for Bama.

Those people, plus the local media, and those watching it, want Tulane to be good. They love Tulane being good. When there isn't anything positive to report, well, then there isn't much to talk about. But when we have success, we are the lead story/front page/what have you. The fans come out of the woodwork. The desire for Tulane to do well is so strong that you see it even when its not deserved. The local media can be outrageous homers. They went nuts over Tulane's 7-6 New Orleans bowl season (the bowl game that we apparently played against no one, according the NCAA), and as a result the expectations were frankly ridiculous going into the 2014 season. They are fawning over the new AD, the new coaches who haven't even coached a game, and getting the vapors for Tulane baseball and beating LSU.

Want proof? There are columns being published about how Tulane is going to take over LA for basketball as LSU implodes. Never mind that La Tech has been successful for years and Dunleavy hasn't coached a single college game. No one cares about La Tech. They care about LSU and Tulane.

Tulane is the only school in Louisiana that can knock LSU off as the lead story. When LaTech/ULL/ULM and the FCS schools are doing well, its still about LSU. ULL has been SBC champs and won their bowl game while LSU barely had a winning season, and the local media was still all LSU all the time. When Tulane is doing well, its about Tulane and whether or not the hottest rivalry in the south is (finally) heating back up again.

Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

(05-15-2016 03:36 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:26 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:23 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  That there are schools out there who dominate a market without dominating on the field. You seemed to imply it was impossible.

No you misunderstand. I was saying their is no way Tulane dominates their market because of the lack of being relevant in sports, most notably football. No one is going to watch or follow a team that is irrelevant. Power 5 schools are different in that they can be terrible but still dominate tv because of their conference. Tulane doesn't have that advantage.

You are wrong buddy, the AAC took us because they did their homework. They researched just how valuable of a program we are, they know we deliver New Orleans. If we didn't then why are we in the AAC? The big 12 knows this as well, they know we are the alpha male of this conference. That's why we are at the top of most conference's wish list. You can call it trolling all you want but you know just what we bring to the table. If winning games meant anything then Boise would be in the PAC 12 and Miami Oh would be in the Big 10. Open your eyes dude, we are the hottest commodity in college athletics.

Once again you in the aac because we needed an aau school nothing else. Otherwise we would have taken rice instead.

(05-15-2016 03:16 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  No. I'm a lawyer. Good guess though. I love those commercials.

(05-15-2016 03:16 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:13 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:42 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:38 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  The AAC didn't seem to think LSU controls that market. We control New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. It's really not even close.

The aac took houston even though its supposedly dominated by bigger markets so your point is invalid. The aac isn't a power conference either they took you more for the academics than the market.

Also i would like to see your proof the at a terrible athletic school even comes close to controlling any market. Anything you otherwise is just homerism if you cant back it up with facts.

Texas.

You could also make arguments for Penn State, pretty much any of the B1G west schools not Nebraska, Cal, Oregon State, Wazzu, Vanderbilt, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest, Rutgers, etc.
_____________________________________________

I'll try to extrapolate/explain some of the points I made in response to the serious replies. The rest of you, continue to sling your own **** around. Don't mind me.

As to the relevance of 1965, conferences, independents, etc, it was to demonstrate that there are no "new men" in the cabal atop the College Sports racket. All of the current P5 teams were either in a University level conference in 1965, or were University level independents. At the "end" of every realignment period, its always the same group of schools holding all the chips. The only movement is those who get left behind, and for almost all it has been self-inflicted or voluntary.

The schools that got the "call up" to P5 were all previously in the BCS or the University tier. The schools that got the "call up" to BCS conferences have almost been exclusively the same schools that were in the Univesity tier. The only exceptions (Houston, USF, UCF, Memphis) all went to a BCS conference that promptly became a G5 conference. Whenever new money gets into the old money club, the old money separates themselves again. Its a cycle.

Tulane has a structural advantage, they just need to take advantage of it. We have new president, AD, and coaches who finally get that. Whether they fully take advantage remains to be seen, and it certainly is an open question. Timing is always a consideration. The point wasn't that Tulane deserves to be a BigXII pick right now, its that it could be. Posters saying there is "0 chance" Tulane becomes P5 are just being dense, trolling, or both.

Your response literally had nothing to do with what i was talking about so not sure why you quoted me.

It "literally" did have something to do with you. Hence, the dividing line between the portion about terrible athletic schools in response to your post, and the rest of my post.

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

SMU is basically the same as Tulane academically (not that it matters to anyone related to conference affiliation) and our market, as well as UH's market is 5X new orleans. You are being silly. You are very fortunate to be where you are. Had we not been in a panic we would not have overrated and grabbed Tulane.

(05-15-2016 03:55 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

Well I'm to lazy to look up to lanes winning seasons. So if its actually 11 ill take your word for it.

(05-15-2016 03:59 PM)gostangs Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

SMU is basically the same as Tulane academically (not that it matters to anyone related to conference affiliation) and our market, as well as UH's market is 5X new orleans. You are being silly. You are very fortunate to be where you are. Had we not been in a panic we would not have overrated and grabbed Tulane.

SMU is basically the same as Tulane is more ways than that. We are practically identical in many ways, right down to program scandals and death penalties albeit ours was basketball, and self-imposed. SMU was SWC, Tulane was SEC, both used to be dominant programs on the field, etc etc. Our ex (hallelujah) AD used to say SMU and Tulane were tied at the hip. Might have been one of the few things he was right about. Broken clocks and all that.

(05-15-2016 04:01 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:55 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

Well I'm to lazy to look up to lanes winning seasons. So if its actually 11 ill take your word for it.

'70, '72, '73, '79, '80, '81, '97, '98, '00, '02, '14.

Tulane goes through these cycles. When we try, we get hot. But we always self-sabatoge or give up. In the 70s through to the early 80s, we were doing very well as an Indy with a mostly SEC/SWC schedule. We tried to get back into the SEC in 81-82. When LSU successfully blocked us, we just sort of gave up entirely, when we could have at least kept the status quo and become the ND of the south. In the 90s/00's we got Sclefo and Rich Rod who led a revolution in D1 football offense. We snubbed Rich Rod because our windbag of a President decided that "anyone can run a spread" and didn't want to pay Rich Rod. When that predictably failed miserably said President even tried to get us to go DIII (alumni and board revolted). And then Katrina happened. 2012 could have been the start of something, but CJ was frankly a disaster of a coach. Amazingly, we had a chance to get Rich Rod back, but the same Prez and AD still wouldn't pay him or give him the resources he needed, and went with a position coach from the NFL instead. 2014 was probably the easiest schedule we ever had, Rich Rod could have gone 12-0 with that schedule. CJ coasted to 7-6 with blind luck.

Hopefully this time is different.

(05-15-2016 03:55 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

Six seasons over .600 since 1970, not .500. If you're going to call someone a troll make sure you actually understand what is being said.

(05-15-2016 04:11 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 04:01 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:55 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

Well I'm to lazy to look up to lanes winning seasons. So if its actually 11 ill take your word for it.

'70, '72, '73, '79, '80, '81, '97, '98, '00, '02, '14.

Tulane goes through these cycles. When we try, we get hot. But we always self-sabatoge or give up. In the 70s through to the early 80s, we were doing very well as an Indy with a mostly SEC/SWC schedule. We tried to get back into the SEC in 81-82. When LSU successfully blocked us, we just sort of gave up entirely, when we could have at least kept the status quo and become the ND of the south. In the 90s/00's we got Sclefo and Rich Rod who led a revolution in D1 football offense. We snubbed Rich Rod because our windbag of a President decided that "anyone can run a spread" and didn't want to pay Rich Rod. When that predictably failed miserably said President even tried to get us to go DIII (alumni and board revolted). And then Katrina happened. 2012 could have been the start of something, but CJ was frankly a disaster of a coach. Amazingly, we had a chance to get Rich Rod back, but the same Prez and AD still wouldn't pay him or give him the resources he needed, and went with a position coach from the NFL instead. 2014 was probably the easiest schedule we ever had, Rich Rod could have gone 12-0 with that schedule. CJ coasted to 7-6 with blind luck.

Hopefully this time is different.

Ok, Tulane was in SEC from 1933-1966...those days long gone and ancient...and you saying Tulane could have became ND of the South ?? Haha! Hardly think so. But Well, I guess everybody and anybody "could" say that or we should have.. about their respected school.

(05-15-2016 04:11 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  '70, '72, '73, '79, '80, '81, '97, '98, '00, '02, '14.

Tulane goes through these cycles. When we try, we get hot. But we always self-sabatoge or give up. In the 70s through to the early 80s, we were doing very well as an Indy with a mostly SEC/SWC schedule. We tried to get back into the SEC in 81-82. When LSU successfully blocked us, we just sort of gave up entirely, when we could have at least kept the status quo and become the ND of the south. In the 90s/00's we got Sclefo and Rich Rod who led a revolution in D1 football offense. We snubbed Rich Rod because our windbag of a President decided that "anyone can run a spread" and didn't want to pay Rich Rod. When that predictably failed miserably said President even tried to get us to go DIII (alumni and board revolted). And then Katrina happened. 2012 could have been the start of something, but CJ was frankly a disaster of a coach. Amazingly, we had a chance to get Rich Rod back, but the same Prez and AD still wouldn't pay him or give him the resources he needed, and went with a position coach from the NFL instead. 2014 was probably the easiest schedule we ever had, Rich Rod could have gone 12-0 with that schedule. CJ coasted to 7-6 with blind luck.

Hopefully this time is different.

Cycles? Tulane has not had a winning decade in football in the last 65 years. In fairness, anyone can have an off half-century.

(05-15-2016 04:44 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:55 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:50 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:48 PM)coogrfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:43 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  Other than one season was the last time Tulane had a wining record?

14 winning seasons in the last 65 years; only 6 seasons over .600 since 1970.

Thank you. But they have potential, I would argue NMSU has more potential since they are the only team in their market. Plus they have more winning seasons recently.

To directly answer your question, the last winning season was 2014. Katrina makes the late 2000s early 2010s sort of a lost time no matter what you tried to do. Before Katrina we had winning seasons in 2002 (Hawaii Bowl), 2000, 1997, and of course 12-0 in 1998. Its not exactly ancient history.

Also, the quoted figures are false. There have been 11 winning seasons since 1970. Its not really much better, but 6 is patently false, and I can't abide falsities about my school. If you are going to troll, at least be accurate about it.

Six seasons over .600 since 1970, not .500. If you're going to call someone a troll make sure you actually understand what is being said.

Ya that makes a big difference.