+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SunBeltbbs (/forum-317.html)
+---- Forum: Sun Belt Conference Talk (/forum-296.html)
+----- Forum: Sun Belt Smack Talk (/forum-309.html)
+----- Thread: Let Tech Starve... (/thread-449316.html)
Let Tech Starve... - bluephi1914 - 08-27-2010 08:50 AM
After reading this article, I am now dead set against inviting Tech to rejoin the SBC. The nerve of their AD to continue to insult the SBC while his university sits in limbo. Let them starve...let them go Indy, load up on a ton of money games, not play for a conference championship, lose out on recruits, and die. I hope they have enough money to pay to broadcast their games on the public access channel.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100827/SPORTS/8270322/Time-on-Tech-s-side-as-it-mulls-future
RE: Let Tech Starve... - SkullyMaroo - 08-27-2010 09:02 AM
I didn't need to read that (which I did) to reach the same conclusion. Let them go independent before letting them back in the Sun Belt.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - ManzanoWolf - 08-27-2010 09:16 AM
(08-27-2010 09:02 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: I didn't need to read that (which I did) to reach the same conclusion. Let them go independent before letting them back in the Sun Belt.
Works for me; I do not want Tech in the SBC . . . not now . . . not ever !!!
RE: Let Tech Starve... - CajunT - 08-27-2010 09:17 AM
(08-27-2010 08:50 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote: After reading this article, I am now dead set against inviting Tech to rejoin the SBC. The nerve of their AD to continue to insult the SBC while his university sits in limbo. Let them starve...let them go Indy, load up on a ton of money games, not play for a conference championship, lose out on recruits, and die. I hope they have enough money to pay to broadcast their games on the public access channel.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100827/SPORTS/8270322/Time-on-Tech-s-side-as-it-mulls-future
Then you will happy to know that Dr. Reneau has told several SBC presidents in the last few days that their prerequisite of their joining the league is the expulsion of ULM. Of course they were laughed at and told there will be no prerequisite to join the SBC.
My feelings are at this point,that Tech is taking a big risk to save face with their alumni. If they return now to the SBC, they won't be able to justify joining the WAC in the long run to major financial backers. They hope that their work behind the scenes to build alliances with CUSA members will pay off in the end. So, they are willing to risk everything in the short term for a chance at a possible invitation down the road.
Best of luck to them, but its time for the SBC to move on by inviting NMSU. If they chose to sit it out in the WAC as well, then the SBC needs to stand pat at this point and wait for some of the FCS programs to commit to playing FBS football. No need to extend any invitations until such commitments have been publicly and funding is in place.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - OwlFamily - 08-27-2010 09:33 AM
Have to agree.
After reading the LA Tech board and comments from thier adiminsistraion its clear they do not want a 'Belt invite under any circumstances. They would rather starve.
So be it. If they get into CUSA great, If they stay in the wac and "dominate" a high end FCS confrence that the WAC will become, good for them. I no longer care AT all what LA Tech thinks or does.
Good for the 'Belt rejecting any thoughts of booting ULM to accomdate someone.
We dont need LA Tech to prosper as a confrence. We are stable with what we have.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - KAjunRaider - 08-27-2010 10:18 AM
LMAO. Tech........ Terry Bradshaw and Karl Malone and not much else
RE: Let Tech Starve... - arkstfan - 08-27-2010 10:19 AM
As many engineers as Tech produces, I would think they could grasp simple timeline analysis.
Tech doesn't have two years to make a decision to avoid independence. Boise is out July 1, 2011 and Nevada/Fresno at least by July 1, 2012.
Tech has to sign a basketball class in November, mid-year jucos in December, freshmen football players in 2011 and second basketball in April 2011. They will have to sign those classes with other schools pointing out they likely don't have a conference, likely have no bowl ties, nor automatic NCAA bid starting Fall 2012.
By July 1, 2011 about 10 months from now, if they don't have a conference lined up, odds are against them finding a home where they can start play in all sports in the Fall of 2012.
Each day that passes equals greater uncertainty for Tech and they recruiting efforts. If I'm AD at a school and I find out any of my coaches are recruiting against them without mentioning the possible loss of post-season access, I'm firing them and hiring coaches that want to win.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - theATLDawg - 08-27-2010 11:21 AM
first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - SkullyMaroo - 08-27-2010 11:29 AM
(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote: first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.
All because La-Tech WANTS in the Belt doesn't mean they would get in. I'd be interested to see how the presidents voted. La-Tech would only be a poison to our conference.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - theATLDawg - 08-27-2010 11:34 AM
(08-27-2010 11:29 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:whatever. everyone of your schools would jump ship if they got an invite from CUSA. So get off Techs back. why move to the Belt, when their may be better options. And no I don't think INDY is a better option.(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote: first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.
All because La-Tech WANTS in the Belt doesn't mean they would get in. I'd be interested to see how the presidents voted. La-Tech would only be a poison to our conference.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - T_Won1 - 08-27-2010 11:35 AM
(08-27-2010 08:50 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote: After reading this article, I am now dead set against inviting Tech to rejoin the SBC. The nerve of their AD to continue to insult the SBC while his university sits in limbo. Let them starve...let them go Indy, load up on a ton of money games, not play for a conference championship, lose out on recruits, and die. I hope they have enough money to pay to broadcast their games on the public access channel.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100827/SPORTS/8270322/Time-on-Tech-s-side-as-it-mulls-future
National perception and monetary reality is that the SBC is a step down from the WAC. You can deny that to yourself all you want, but it is the truth. He wasn't trying to insult the SBC, he just stated that he wants Tech to be in CUSA or another conference comparible with the one we may be leaving.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - SkullyMaroo - 08-27-2010 11:36 AM
(08-27-2010 11:34 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:(08-27-2010 11:29 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:whatever. everyone of your schools would jump ship if they got an invite from CUSA. So get off Techs back. why move to the Belt, when their may be better options. And no I don't think INDY is a better option.(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote: first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.
All because La-Tech WANTS in the Belt doesn't mean they would get in. I'd be interested to see how the presidents voted. La-Tech would only be a poison to our conference.
My point wasn't that you were hoping for a C-USA invite versus a Sun Belt invite or about what other teams might want to go to C-USA. My point was you aren't guaranteed a spot in the Sun Belt like you make it seem. It has to be voted on by the presidents, and I am unsure Tech could secure 'Yes' votes on enough ballots.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - OwlFamily - 08-27-2010 11:47 AM
(08-27-2010 11:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: National perception and monetary reality is that the SBC is a step down from the WAC. You can deny that to yourself all you want, but it is the truth. He wasn't trying to insult the SBC, he just stated that he wants Tech to be in CUSA or another conference comparible with the one we may be leaving.
You are correct, but I think that perception has now swung SOLIDY over to the WAC now. Even though those schools havent left yet most casual fans consider them gone already. Look at the many media articles from all over that basically have the WAC in the 2011 year as the worst BCS confrence by far.
Honestly I can say that as a fan I would not want FAU to move from the 'Belt unless it was for an AQ status confrence. I like the rivalrys we have built and now that we have 2 guranteed bowl games and a solid backup agreement with a third the 'Belt is establishing itself as a growing confrence quickly.
The same cannot be said of the WAC (dying) or the MAC (stagnant).
Do LA Tech fans REALLY want to be hitched to what will be the new lowest confrence in the land?
RE: Let Tech Starve... - Crump1 - 08-27-2010 11:49 AM
(08-27-2010 11:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:Fixed it.(08-27-2010 08:50 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote: After reading this article, I am now dead set against inviting Tech to rejoin the SBC. The nerve of their AD to continue to insult the SBC while his university sits in limbo. Let them starve...let them go Indy, load up on a ton of money games, not play for a conference championship, lose out on recruits, and die. I hope they have enough money to pay to broadcast their games on the public access channel.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20100827/SPORTS/8270322/Time-on-Tech-s-side-as-it-mulls-future
National perception and monetary reality is that the SBC was a small step down from the WAC, but that has all changed. You can deny that to yourself all you want, but it is the truth. He wasn't trying to insult the SBC, he just stated that he wants Tech to be in CUSA or another conference comparible with the one we may be leaving.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - T_Won1 - 08-27-2010 11:55 AM
(08-27-2010 11:47 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:(08-27-2010 11:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: National perception and monetary reality is that the SBC is a step down from the WAC. You can deny that to yourself all you want, but it is the truth. He wasn't trying to insult the SBC, he just stated that he wants Tech to be in CUSA or another conference comparible with the one we may be leaving.
You are correct, but I think that perception has now swung SOLIDY over to the WAC now. Even though those schools havent left yet most casual fans consider them gone already. Look at the many media articles from all over that basically have the WAC in the 2011 year as the worst BCS confrence by far.
Honestly I can say that as a fan I would not want FAU to move from the 'Belt unless it was for an AQ status confrence. I like the rivalrys we have built and now that we have 2 guranteed bowl games and a solid backup agreement with a third the 'Belt is establishing itself as a growing confrence quickly.
The same cannot be said of the WAC (dying) or the MAC (stagnant).
Do LA Tech fans REALLY want to be hitched to what will be the new lowest confrence in the land?
From an AD's perspective.. you take things one step at a time. All WAC contracts are still in place right now. Nothing has changed. We have one more year as a pact. In our AD's defense, he is looking to next year and trying to find a home that is comparable to what we have this year. He is saying the Sun Belt is not comparable to where we are this year. He is saying CUSA is. He is also saying he wants to see what the WAC is going to look like next year. Basically saying that he is weighing our options, but does not want to be in a worse position next than we are this year. You can take that as an insult if you want to, but it is the truth.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - RaiderATO - 08-27-2010 11:58 AM
(08-27-2010 11:35 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: He wasn't trying to insult the SBC, he just stated that he wants Tech to be in CUSA or another conference comparible with the one we may be leaving.
So, Southland? SWAC? That's about equal to leaving behind NMSU, USU, Idaho, and SJSU. . .
RE: Let Tech Starve... - theboro - 08-27-2010 12:02 PM
No one's saying that the WAC with Boise, Nevada and Fresno the WAC isn't better.
The problem Sun Belt teams have is that Tech thinks they are better merely by playing these teams.
Nevermind the fact that in regards to budget, facilities and fan support Tech is just average by Sun Belt standards.
Your fans say your better simply because of your conference. They say you're the best CUSA candidate based solely on geography.
What's funny is that Tech was in a better position than SBC schools to advance itself. What's funnier is that there are Sun Belt schools that have done more with less.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - CajunT - 08-27-2010 12:09 PM
(08-27-2010 11:21 AM)theATLDawg Wrote: first of all I didnt get any of that from that article. It sounds like just another pro ULM writer trying to as he says "speculate" "read between the lines". Trust I am sure that Tech will go Belt before going Independent but right now we are in a big wait and see and it would be stupid with the current landscape to move over to the Belt now when you might be moving again. When the dust settles if Tech is not in CUSA they will go belt. Can almost guarantee it, unless the WAC invites a whole lot of Texas teams and waves a carrot to get us to stay but I doubt it. All this die before Belt stuff is coming from fans not the administration. They would be stupid to actually say we will never be in the belt.
My source is not a fan bubba! Reneau has told several SBC presidents that any discussion of possible SBC membership for Tech would begin with the prerequisite of expulsion of ULM from the conference. He was told that the SBC would not entertain any such prerequiste from Tech for a possible invite to the SBC.
The cost for possible SBC membership for Tech in the future just became a little more expensive.
RE: Let Tech Starve... - johnnylightnin - 08-27-2010 12:16 PM
Well T, I'll take your word for it, but it seems a little out of character. That sounds like something Dooley would say to a group of supporters and then the Monroe media would treat it as if it came out of the SID office. Reneau couldn't care less about athletics, but he's very smart. In fact, he's smart enough to know that there is very little chance that the Belt would expel ULM, so it seems like the whole meeting would merely be a waste of time. Reneau isn't one to waste time.
But, if you say so...
RE: Let Tech Starve... - CajunT - 08-27-2010 12:23 PM
(08-27-2010 12:16 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote: Well T, I'll take your word for it, but it seems a little out of character. That sounds like something Dooley would say to a group of supporters and then the Monroe media would treat it as if it came out of the SID office. Reneau couldn't care less about athletics, but he's very smart. In fact, he's smart enough to know that there is very little chance that the Belt would expel ULM, so it seems like the whole meeting would merely be a waste of time. Reneau isn't one to waste time.
But, if you say so...
Since I've supported Tech membership all along, I have no reason to make a story up. Keep in mind that Reneau served under Dr. Savoie and they have a good personal relationship. And as you know, Davison has felt this way all along, so why would this be a surprise to anyone at Tech? No way is he going to make any public statement on the subject of ULM, but don't believe for one minute that this hasn't been discussed with his peers in the SBC.