(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!!