Louisiana Tech Receives $1.1million From The W A C

LoveMG · July 7, 2007

This is a break down of the areas and amounts of funds from the WAC received by Louisiana Tech:
$40,000 -- Proceeds from WAC men's basketball tournament
$92,500 -- WAC entrance fees paid by Idaho, Utah State and New Mexico State
$133,333 -- Proceeds from ESPN contract
$300,743 -- NCAA men's basketball revenue
$559,222 -- BCS football revenue
$1,125,799 -- Total
Some of the improvements on tap.
"Athletic facilities can enhance our campus and greatly improve the experience students, fans and alumni have when visiting.
The expansion of the Intramural Center to include a world class swimming facility is huge.
Greatly improved Tennis and bowling facilities are going to assist in competitively building programs for each case.
I also hear plans are definitely in the works for the two new dorms attached to The Joe on the North End Zone.
In addition, a ground floor weight room and athletic fitness complex is being designed.
A second floor with the concept of a super suites area overlooking the field is also being included that would add meeting rooms and conference type capabilities.
Then consider a practice field is being developed with high fences and privacy as its purpose, Tech is beginning to take big steps toward overall athletic facility improvements.
Last week Tech unvieled a new $12 million Biomedical Engineering Facility that is second to none."

interesting plans. would la tech ever endorse an eastern wac division adding some sunbelt teams to reduce travel?

LoveMG · July 7, 2007

What SHOULD have been done was to go to 16 because that could have been done correctly.
An 8 team Western Division and an 8 team Eastern Division with a three tier television package. A national coverage package, a regional package independently negotiated for each division, with any leftover inventory for the teams to deal with. A more "eat-what-you-kill" approach to revenue sharing for TV, any bowl net revenue, and basketball, that addresses Fresno's opposition to the big expansion and unlike the old WAC 16 where rivalries had to be split up, that alignment would not have split rivalries and would have led to very limited inter-divisional play.

is it too late for this to be reintroduced? i can't think west teams like going to las cruces and ruston.

ltudchi72 · July 7, 2007

From what I understand from sources within the WAC and La Tech, UNT and ULL were approached about joining the WAC. As reported by ESPN.

"The WAC will wait to see if Louisiana Tech is either gobbled up by Conference USA or moves to the Sun Belt. If La. Tech goes, then any further WAC expansion won't include the Central Time Zone. If the school stays, then the WAC is likely to add North Texas out of the Sun Belt in the coming months."

This would have made the WAC:

Fresno

Hawaii

Boise

Nevada

SJSU

UTEP

NMSU

Utah State

La Tech

UNT

ULL

with one to be named later

UNT and ULL turned down the offer, and UTEP was invited to join CUSA. The WAC then offered Utah State. Is it too late? Who knows, but I do not have the ear of someone official. It would be interesting to see:

Boise

Fresno

Hawaii

SJSU

Utah State

Idaho

NMSU

La Tech

UNT

ULL

Nevada

Arkansas State

NT80 · July 7, 2007

From what I understand from sources within the WAC and La Tech, UNT and ULL were approached about joining the WAC. As reported by ESPN.
"The WAC will wait to see if Louisiana Tech is either gobbled up by Conference USA or moves to the Sun Belt. If La. Tech goes, then any further WAC expansion won't include the Central Time Zone. If the school stays, then the WAC is likely to add North Texas out of the Sun Belt in the coming months."
This would have made the WAC:
Fresno
Hawaii
Boise
Nevada
SJSU
UTEP
NMSU
Utah State
La Tech
UNT
ULL
with one to be named later
UNT and ULL turned down the offer, and UTEP was invited to join CUSA. The WAC then offered Utah State. Is it too late? Who knows, but I do not have the ear of someone official. It would be interesting to see:
Boise
Fresno
Hawaii
SJSU
Utah State
Idaho
NMSU
La Tech
UNT
ULL
Nevada
Arkansas State

I've heard UNT wanted 3-4 SBC schools total in the deal, and Benson said no. It might now take the PAC10 stealing a MWC team, then a WAC team or two to MWC to cause a new need for WAC additions and possible divisions. Besides, I think Nevada would balk at your new format. Perhaps 14, 7 and 7 in divisions?:

Boise

Fresno

Hawaii

SJSU

Utah St.

Idaho

Nevada

NMSU

La Tech

UNT

ULL

Ark St.

ULM

MTSU

Green Mean · July 7, 2007

Lets say that this LT payoff did not occur.....if LT was given a choice to either stay in the WAC or go to the SBC which one would you think they would take??? Even if say their traveling costs is really that much more like we all think it may be, do you think they would choose to go to the SBC vs. staying in the WAC? I honestly dont think they would make that move since WAC is a more prestigous conference with some good teams in all the sports. I think they would say, we dont mind spending more on travel costs and possibly losing a little bit more if we are in a better conference. I dont know, just my two cents. What do you guys think???

CajunNation · July 7, 2007

2004

Right after New Mexico State and Utah State accepted WAC membership, this deal was on the table from the WAC so that the WAC could avoid adding Idaho:

Hawaii

Fresno State

San Jose State

Nevada

Boise State

Utah State

New Mexico State

North Texas

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana

At such time, the SBC held a conference call which Wright Waters began with by airing the song, "Please Don't Go".

Our administration was against it, and UNT was talked out of the deal by the rest of the SBC, including us.

A deal was floated by SBC schools that would have looked like this:

Hawaii

Fresno State

San Jose State

Nevada

Boise State

Utah State

New Mexico State

North Texas

Arkansas State

Middle Tennessee

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana

This was never seriously considered by the WAC.

Consequently, the WAC invited Idaho to get to the 9 they have now.

I would have taken the deal offerred by the WAC.

MeanGreen61 · July 7, 2007

2004
Right after New Mexico State and Utah State accepted WAC membership, this deal was on the table from the WAC so that the WAC could avoid adding Idaho:
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
Boise State
Utah State
New Mexico State
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
At such time, the SBC held a conference call which Wright Waters began with by airing the song, "Please Don't Go".
Our administration was against it, and UNT was talked out of the deal by the rest of the SBC, including us.
A deal was floated by SBC schools that would have looked like this:
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
Boise State
Utah State
New Mexico State
North Texas
Arkansas State
Middle Tennessee
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
This was never seriously considered by the WAC.
Consequently, the WAC invited Idaho to get to the 9 they have now.
I would have taken the deal offerred by the WAC.

Not exactly. The WAC wanted UNT instead of Idaho. When UNT said no, the WAC turned to UL-Lafayette, then they also contacted Arkansas State and MTSU looking for ONE SCHOOL to make 9. UNT then floated a WAC east, the WAC presidents said no and voted on Idaho again and Idaho was accepted.

UNTFan23 · July 7, 2007

2004
Right after New Mexico State and Utah State accepted WAC membership, this deal was on the table from the WAC so that the WAC could avoid adding Idaho:
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
Boise State
Utah State
New Mexico State
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
At such time, the SBC held a conference call which Wright Waters began with by airing the song, "Please Don't Go".
Our administration was against it, and UNT was talked out of the deal by the rest of the SBC, including us.
A deal was floated by SBC schools that would have looked like this:
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
Boise State
Utah State
New Mexico State
North Texas
Arkansas State
Middle Tennessee
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
This was never seriously considered by the WAC.
Consequently, the WAC invited Idaho to get to the 9 they have now.
I would have taken the deal offerred by the WAC.

Whenever I see one of the Louisiana schools do this, I can't help but wonder "which one?" :lol:

CajunNation · July 7, 2007

Not exactly. The WAC wanted UNT instead of Idaho. When UNT said no, the WAC turned to UL-Lafayette, then they also contacted Arkansas State and MTSU looking for ONE SCHOOL to make 9. UNT then floated a WAC east, the WAC presidents said no and voted on Idaho again and Idaho was accepted.

Ask ArkStFan.

They went after you guys first, then us, then both of us.

I don't know how serious the discussions with Arkansas State were. ArkStFan could explain better.

Clearly, the best deal offerred by the WAC was the 10 team WAC including the Mean Green and the Cajuns.

MeanGreen61 · July 7, 2007

Whenever I see one of the Louisiana schools do this, I can't help but wonder "which one?"

Their childish name-game fight gets tiresome doesn't it ? Maybe we can make it to CUSA some day and get away from that little bush league battle with their constant bickering. :argue:

Edited July 7, 2007 by MeanGreen61

ltudchi72 · July 7, 2007

Their childish name-game fight gets tiresome doesn't it ? Maybe we can make it to CUSA some day and get away from that little bush league battle with their constant bickering.

It is all they got to argue about.

MeanGreen61 · July 7, 2007

It is all they got to argue about.

:thumbsup: They need to grow up.

Edited July 7, 2007 by MeanGreen61

ltudchi72 · July 8, 2007

They need to grow up.

Amen brother from another mother.

NT80 · July 8, 2007

Ask ArkStFan.
They went after you guys first, then us, then both of us.
I don't know how serious the discussions with Arkansas State were. ArkStFan could explain better.
Clearly, the best deal offerred by the WAC was the 10 team WAC including the Mean Green and the Cajuns.

I kinda like that group, but the number-crunchers probably didn't like it, so a 12-team conference was suggested and rejected.

Maybe when the PAC10 or MWC expansion rumors start again we'll retry that idea?

Edited July 8, 2007 by NT80

PlummMeanGreen · July 8, 2007

Was in Bartonville/Argyle today at Enriques' Mexican eatery discussing this very same subject.

A fellow alum said "why jump into a new league that keeps losing its marquee schools?" What is the WAC w/o Boise State (if they were to move to another league)? If UNT could have only been in the WAC when CUSA expanded we would have probably coat-tailed it into that league like 1 (maybe 2) other Texas-based schools we all know and love. :rolleyes:

I think U of Houston had the right formula when they gained admission into the SWC by just getting better than most of the other SWC schools back then. They also brought with them only the "8'th Wonder of the World", ie, the Astrodome as well. That stadium had as much to do with UH's entrance as the quality of their program.

At UNT, I know its all about what monies will be available, but if at all possible we just need to build a bigger and better football stadium than the majority of present CUSA schools have now. All this is just the ingrediants of getting their attention (which can lead to eventual votes) to get in such leagues as CUSA or the MWC (my personal choice if that ever became do-able).

GMG!

Edited July 8, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

Cr1028 · July 8, 2007

Whenever I see one of the Louisiana schools do this, I can't help but wonder "which one?"

I thought ULL was the real U of Louisiana like the U of Texas in Austin and Monroe was like UTA or UTD. Am I wrong?

MeanGreen61 · July 8, 2007

I thought ULL was the real U of Louisiana like the U of Texas in Austin and Monroe was like UTA or UTD. Am I wrong?

Yep, they're both Louisiana (Laf. & Mon.)......... Don't get um started :censored:

Edited July 8, 2007 by MeanGreen61

MeanGreen61 · July 8, 2007

Ask ArkStFan.
They went after you guys first, then us, then both of us.
I don't know how serious the discussions with Arkansas State were. ArkStFan could explain better.
Clearly, the best deal offerred by the WAC was the 10 team WAC including the Mean Green and the Cajuns.

We don't need to ask him, you need to provide a link to a post of his that states UNT and ULL were offered to make a 10 team WAC. Don't recall ever seeing one.

Edited July 8, 2007 by MeanGreen61

CajunNation · July 8, 2007

We don't need to ask him, you need to provide a link to a post of his that states UNT and ULL were offered to make a 10 team WAC. Don't recall ever seeing one.

http://www.beltboard.com/?p=181

<<<North Texas did have a chance to move to the WAC as did UL Lafayette, both said “No Thanks”. That incident ought to remembered as a big leap in the right direction. Despite all the shuffles two members weighed a chance to escape and found that the situation wasn’t desperate enough that any move beat staying.>>>

Arkstfan · July 8, 2007

Not exactly. The WAC wanted UNT instead of Idaho. When UNT said no, the WAC turned to UL-Lafayette, then they also contacted Arkansas State and MTSU looking for ONE SCHOOL to make 9. UNT then floated a WAC east, the WAC presidents said no and voted on Idaho again and Idaho was accepted.

You are correct. Idaho wasn't on the table. The offer was only to UNT who wanted time. The WAC told UNT take it or the Cajuns will. They called the Cajuns who laughed in their face and promptly sent UL System data on La.Tech's revenue and expenses to UNT. The WAC inquired of MTSU and ASU but did not offer and found a similar warm reception. UNT countered with a 12 team format and the WAC said NO and UNT with the real numbers staring them in the face declined. Then the WAC ended up inviting Idaho.

Arkstfan · July 8, 2007

Ask ArkStFan.
They went after you guys first, then us, then both of us.
I don't know how serious the discussions with Arkansas State were. ArkStFan could explain better.
Clearly, the best deal offerred by the WAC was the 10 team WAC including the Mean Green and the Cajuns.

There was never a WAC offer to take 2 Sun Belt teams when UTEP left. All that was offered was to snub Idaho in favor of UNT and then a threat to leave UNT twisting in the wind by taking the Cajuns and leaving UNT and Idaho out. ASU and MTSU were only spoken to as possible 9th teams in the event UNT and ULL turned down offers.

Arkstfan · July 8, 2007

In 2004-2005 Tech spent $1.1 million in total travel costs. This was the last year of SMU, Rice, Tulsa and UTEP in the WAC. Hawaii was a Tech home game.
In 2005-2006 Tech spent $1.6 million in total travel costs. This was the first year of NMSU, etc in the WAC. We also played Hawaii in Hawaii.
In 2004-2005 ULL spent $1.1 million in total travel costs.
The 2005-2006 figures are not available yet.
Just an FYI.

In 2005-06 Tech received $1 million more from the WAC than ASU did from the Sun Belt and $1 million more in game guarantees and spent $8,000 less on athletics.

CajunNation · July 8, 2007

We don't need to ask him, you need to provide a link to a post of his that states UNT and ULL were offered to make a 10 team WAC. Don't recall ever seeing one.

You were right. I was wrong.

Sorry about that.

CajunNation · July 8, 2007

There was never a WAC offer to take 2 Sun Belt teams when UTEP left. All that was offered was to snub Idaho in favor of UNT and then a threat to leave UNT twisting in the wind by taking the Cajuns and leaving UNT and Idaho out. ASU and MTSU were only spoken to as possible 9th teams in the event UNT and ULL turned down offers.

I was told by people very close to the situation on our side that the deal I referenced was on the table. However, you have proven way more reliable with information than them, so I'll defer to you on this.

MeanGreen61 · July 9, 2007

From a Monroe News Star article

3. Louisiana Tech received a revenue sharing check from the WAC for more than $1 million. Does that kind of money make it worth playing in conference that is a bad geographic fit for the Bulldogs?

Looks good on paper, but no rivalries and ludicrous travel demands make this league the ultimate sell-out for Tech. -- Letlow

Not when you consider the money the Tech teams spend on travel. -- Boatright

Ideally Tech would play in the WAC just for football and find a more regional conference for other sports. -- Kern

Never. Right now, Tech's only natural rival is a team it doesn't play. -- Stickney

The travel expenses alone eats up most of that check. For that reason I say no. It's not worth it. Money is not the issue here though. If it was, you would schedule ULM and ULL on a home and home bases every year. Renew the interest for the FANS. You'll make the same money and have only a fraction of the travel expense. -- Soignier

It helps out some, but how can you really justify the volleyball team traveling to Idaho? -- Reynolds

FULL ARTICLE

http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...010/1006/SPORTS