Should Unt Sponsor Latech For Full Sbc Membership?

PlummMeanGreen · September 2, 2010

We needed some more of the out of box lagniape here.

OK..concerning LaTech, the Southern Gent' that Commish' Wright Waters seems to be he would probably help rescue La Tech if they ran out of all options even though they've kicked insults left and right about almost every school in the 'Belt and the SBC itself. Irony is how stable the SBC is in all this fruit basket turnover re-alignment business.

So what do you think Dwayne of Minden and Hog Dog? Bring it on! Don't be shy now! :lol:

Yet........I'm tired of talking about HFry, DDickey and TDodge for the time being but now I can only say:

ARE YOU READY FOR............GAME DAY?!?!

GMG!

UNTflyer · September 3, 2010

Yes. LA Tech would bring value to the Sun Belt, and we shouldn't be so quick to thumb our noses at them.

akriesman · September 3, 2010

If the opportunity comes up, yes to LT.

This would also provide 2 forms of entertainment for us:

We would get to follow the reaction of those LT fans, who said they will quit supporting the program if LT joines the SBC.
The verbal battles between LT fans and ULM is reminiscent of the Hatfields vs McCoys. This makes for some interesting LT forum banter.

Seriously, Tech would add more credibility to the SBC. This does not mean that they are superior to most teams in the Sun Belt though.

NT03 · September 3, 2010

Yes , but LaTech views the SunBelt about the same as we view the Southland

Adub4ever · September 3, 2010

hell la tech are already pretty much in the "old sunbelt" !!!!!!!!!!!!

pre 2003 sunbelt

la tech

idaho

nmsu

utah st.

then you got sjsu and hawaii which are 2k and 7k miles away from ruston.... la tech is funny becuz they think they are sooo much better than ULL ULM UNT, but they never play us! i would love to add Latech so we could show them that they are nothing but a mid level sun belt team.

la tech believes they will go CUSA or be independent, but cusa doesnt want them, and going indy would be death becuz no one wants to go play in ruston louisiana. in all honesty tho they belong in the sunbelt from a geographic stand point, but its they that need us, not us that need them. which is pretty nice to say IMO

Coach Andy Mac · September 3, 2010

Is it possible that we could let them be silent partners so they could play our teams without having to admit it to their donors.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Coach Andy Mac

TheTastyGreek · September 3, 2010

1) Louisiana Tech denigrates our league and our conference mates at nearly every opportunity and, until the backlash popped up, flatly refused to schedule them in any revenue sport. Athletic Director made public statements to the effect that playing them was beneath La Tech.

2) Louisiana Tech bailed out on our league and very nearly sank Sun Belt football before it ever began. I'll leave it to ArkStFan to lay out the details on this one, if he happens to stop by.

3) Louisiana Tech actively blocked an SBC member (really, two potential participants when you consider 6-6 and also eligible Arkansas State) from participation in a football bowl game. Through threats and whining, they wound up playing Northern Illinois in Shreveport rather than ULL.

Louisiana Tech... The school and it's administrators, not some group of annoying fans on the internet, has actively and repeatedly worked against our conference and our conference mates. As a conference, and as a collection of schools working together to achieve mutually desired goals and objectives, I think the Sun Belt members would think long and hard before considering Louisiana Tech for inclusion.

On another level, as a strictly self-interested North Texas fan... What's bad for Louisiana Tech is good for us, in terms of potential C-USA membership. If and when openings pop up on the western side of that conference, the two teams mentioned more often than anyone are the ones who lost out to UTEP in the last round of expansion: UNT and LTU. Since then, La Tech's insistence on avoiding the SBC and playing a WAC schedule has limited their ability to upgrade their programs, especially compared to what we've been able to accomplish. The big example, our stadium, comes from an athletics fee that wouldn't be legal in Louisiana. But even beyond that, we've been able to accomplish things financially with our non-revenue sports facilities that they simply haven't had the resources to do (I vaguely recall something to do with tennis courts and another financial/infrastructure embarrassment along the same lines).

They've done everything they can, such as installing a new jumbotron that you'll never stop hearing about if you ever come across their fans somewhere on the internet. But they're keeping pace and modernity with what they already had, and we're taking giant leaps forward. They're treading water, we're making tremendous progress (relatively speaking).

If they have to suffer through even just two or three years of independence in football, it could potentially destroy the program. At the very least, it will devastate them financially and competitively.

So, should UNT sponsor them? I can't think of a single reason why bailing out Louisiana Tech would benefit the University of North Texas. I can think of at least one powerful reason (watching a potential competitor for a C-USA spot drown in an ocean of their own making) why we ought to actively work to keep them out.

It's probably a moot point, as I don't think they'd have enough votes to gain admission, anyway. The schools that would benefit the most in terms of travel costs (us, Arkansas State, ULL, and ULM) and would ordinarily push for their membership are the ones who likely have the strongest aversion to their inclusion. I think they'd need 8 our of 12 votes to get in, and I think all four of those would be strong "no" votes. If anyone else holds a grudge about the way they almost strangled SBC football in the crib (MTSU, I'm looking at you), then that's plenty to block them out entirely.

Mo Green · September 3, 2010

So If we divest the league of all the non-football playing members, then this question was asked, I'd probably say yes just to rub their noses in it!

NT91 · September 3, 2010

Yes to La.Tech and NMSU

PlummMeanGreen · September 3, 2010

1) Louisiana Tech denigrates our league and our conference mates at nearly every opportunity and, until the backlash popped up, flatly refused to schedule them in any revenue sport. Athletic Director made public statements to the effect that playing them was beneath La Tech.

2) Louisiana Tech bailed out on our league and very nearly sank Sun Belt football before it ever began. I'll leave it to ArkStFan to lay out the details on this one, if he happens to stop by.

3) Louisiana Tech actively blocked an SBC member (really, two potential participants when you consider 6-6 and also eligible Arkansas State) from participation in a football bowl game. Through threats and whining, they wound up playing Northern Illinois in Shreveport rather than ULL.

Louisiana Tech... The school and it's administrators, not some group of annoying fans on the internet, has actively and repeatedly worked against our conference and our conference mates. As a conference, and as a collection of schools working together to achieve mutually desired goals and objectives, I think the Sun Belt members would think long and hard before considering Louisiana Tech for inclusion.

On another level, as a strictly self-interested North Texas fan... What's bad for Louisiana Tech is good for us, in terms of potential C-USA membership. If and when openings pop up on the western side of that conference, the two teams mentioned more often than anyone are the ones who lost out to UTEP in the last round of expansion: UNT and LTU. Since then, La Tech's insistence on avoiding the SBC and playing a WAC schedule has limited their ability to upgrade their programs, especially compared to what we've been able to accomplish. The big example, our stadium, comes from an athletics fee that wouldn't be legal in Louisiana. But even beyond that, we've been able to accomplish things financially with our non-revenue sports facilities that they simply haven't had the resources to do (I vaguely recall something to do with tennis courts and another financial/infrastructure embarrassment along the same lines).

They've done everything they can, such as installing a new jumbotron that you'll never stop hearing about if you ever come across their fans somewhere on the internet. But they're keeping pace and modernity with what they already had, and we're taking giant leaps forward. They're treading water, we're making tremendous progress (relatively speaking).

If they have to suffer through even just two or three years of independence in football, it could potentially destroy the program. At the very least, it will devastate them financially and competitively.

So, should UNT sponsor them? I can't think of a single reason why bailing out Louisiana Tech would benefit the University of North Texas. I can think of at least one powerful reason (watching a potential competitor for a C-USA spot drown in an ocean of their own making) why we ought to actively work to keep them out.

It's probably a moot point, as I don't think they'd have enough votes to gain admission, anyway. The schools that would benefit the most in terms of travel costs (us, Arkansas State, ULL, and ULM) and would ordinarily push for their membership are the ones who likely have the strongest aversion to their inclusion. I think they'd need 8 our of 12 votes to get in, and I think all four of those would be strong "no" votes. If anyone else holds a grudge about the way they almost strangled SBC football in the crib (MTSU, I'm looking at you), then that's plenty to block them out entirely.

Pride cometh before destruction? :innocent:

GMG!

MUTS 2'nd string QB doesn't look that bad. For sure we need MUTS to win this game.

Edited September 3, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

TheTastyGreek · September 3, 2010

Pride cometh before destruction?

If you're referring to La Tech, it very well might.

Green Mean · September 3, 2010

Sure why not. It would call for a pretty decent rivalry with our fans going there and theirs coming here. And I would totally love to play NMSU every year.

PlummMeanGreen · September 3, 2010

If you're referring to La Tech, it very well might.

Who else would I possibly be talking about?

All About UNT · September 3, 2010

guys....tonight....a Sun Belt team almost beat a Big 10 team with a backup quarterback who hasn't taken FBS Level snaps... plus a FAU team beat a respected CUSA team....Do we really need to endorse an ingrate team like LA Tech? We don't need them....let them revel in their own self-conceived pompousness.

wardly · September 3, 2010

hell la tech are already pretty much in the "old sunbelt" !!!!!!!!!!!!

pre 2003 sunbelt
la tech
idaho
nmsu
utah st.

then you got sjsu and hawaii which are 2k and 7k miles away from ruston.... la tech is funny becuz they think they are sooo much better than ULL ULM UNT, but they never play us! i would love to add Latech so we could show them that they are nothing but a mid level sun belt team.

la tech believes they will go CUSA or be independent, but cusa doesnt want them, and going indy would be death becuz no one wants to go play in ruston louisiana. in all honesty tho they belong in the sunbelt from a geographic stand point, but its they that need us, not us that need them. which is pretty nice to say IMO

we played la tech a home and home a few years ago and got pounded. i think their real hang-up is la.monroe. i certainly see no reason to support their entry back to the belt, as they are one of our compeatators for cusa/west slot, should one become available.

Shof · September 3, 2010

It's probably a moot point, as I don't think they'd have enough votes to gain admission, anyway. The schools that would benefit the most in terms of travel costs (us, Arkansas State, ULL, and ULM) and would ordinarily push for their membership are the ones who likely have the strongest aversion to their inclusion. I think they'd need 8 our of 12 votes to get in, and I think all four of those would be strong "no" votes. If anyone else holds a grudge about the way they almost strangled SBC football in the crib (MTSU, I'm looking at you), then that's plenty to block them out entirely.

I honestly can't say whether or not the Cajuns would vote "no". Reason being that this will be voted on by Presidents, and both UL and LaTech are in the same University System. Politically, I just don't know where the UL President would lean, and our two schools go WAY back in athletics. That said, if the ADs were voting it might be an easier call.

VideoEagle · September 3, 2010

I honestly can't say whether or not the Cajuns would vote "no". Reason being that this will be voted on by Presidents, and both UL and LaTech are in the same University System. Politically, I just don't know where the UL President would lean, and our two schools go WAY back in athletics. That said, if the ADs were voting it might be an easier call.

ULM is also in that system. I'd be real curious how the ULM President would think about including La Tech. I think - not certain about this - the La Tech President has actually called for ULM to be closed to make up the budget deficit in Louisiana.

PlummMeanGreen · September 3, 2010

ULM is also in that system. I'd be real curious how the ULM President would think about including La Tech. I think - not certain about this - the La Tech President has actually called for ULM to be closed to make up the budget deficit in Louisiana.

These 2 schools should go ahead and trade cities, too, or just close one of the cities down which would close one of the 2 schools by default. :blink:

You know a state thats had Huey P. "The Kingfish" Long running the show just about anything left of center or things from the far side are possible albeit their present Gov' Jindel is a right-on, pro-active sort of guy.

I started this thread in a tonuge in cheek sort of way and never dreamed some would take it this serious but........my secret plan would be for La Tech to join the SBC and then we would congratulate them and proceed to take the upcoming CUSA slot!

GMG!

Edited September 3, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

GrayEagle · September 3, 2010

Good grief, I can't believe that I'm defending often arrogant, pompous LaTech but much of the contention can be laid at the feet of their former coach/athletic director and malicious posters.

As to bailing on the Sun Belt football program, Louisiana Tech (along with Boise State) was invited to join a conference with members UTEP, Hawaii, Fresno State, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, San Jose State and Nevada. Who, in their right mind, would turn them down to join an embryo conference of Arkansas State, Louisiana, Middle Tennessee, New Mexico State, North Texas and worst of all, ULM?

Northern Illinois was the most qualified 6-6 team in 2008 of those available to play in the Independence Bowl. They had four losses by four points or less Minnesota, Tennessee, Central Michigan and Western Michigan. ASU's losses were by wider margins.

The one point that I cannot argue is that Derek Dooley continually trashed anyone that suggested that they were as deserving as LaTech. Sadly, I must admit that seems to be how the game is played. They probably learned it from old Southwest Conference recruiting.

God help us if every deed must be done with only what's in it for us and not what's best for the conference. Sponsoring Louisiana Tech, should they want to return, would not hurt us in the least. Someone needs to explain to me how this act would keep us (or them even) out of another conference. Those choices will be made on each school's merits, along with politics.

I think that the SBC would be a stronger conference with LaTech and the New Mexico State Aggies. It would also lower travel costs with two divisions as opposed to a ten-team league. So, even if we are not accepted into CUSA or the MWC we would still be better off than we currently are.

By the way, the merger of some of the Louisiana colleges as a cost-cutting measure was not proposed by LaTech.

PlummMeanGreen · September 3, 2010

Good grief, I can't believe that I'm defending often arrogant, pompous LaTech but much of the contention can be laid at the feet of their former coach/athletic director and malicious posters.

As to bailing on the Sun Belt football program, Louisiana Tech (along with Boise State) was invited to join a conference with members UTEP, Hawaii, Fresno State, Rice, SMU, Tulsa, San Jose State and Nevada. Who, in their right mind, would turn them down to join an embryo conference of Arkansas State, Louisiana, Middle Tennessee, New Mexico State, North Texas and worst of all, ULM?

Northern Illinois was the most qualified 6-6 team in 2008 of those available to play in the Independence Bowl. They had four losses by four points or less Minnesota, Tennessee, Central Michigan and Western Michigan. ASU's losses were by wider margins.

The one point that I cannot argue is that Derek Dooley continually trashed anyone that suggested that they were as deserving as LaTech. Sadly, I must admit that seems to be how the game is played. They probably learned it from old Southwest Conference recruiting.

God help us if every deed must be done with only what's in it for us and not what's best for the conference. Sponsoring Louisiana Tech, should they want to return, would not hurt us in the least. Someone needs to explain to me how this act would keep us (or them even) out of another conference. Those choices will be made on each school's merits, along with politics.

I think that the SBC would be a stronger conference with LaTech and the New Mexico State Aggies. It would also lower travel costs with two divisions as opposed to a ten-team league. So, even if we are not accepted into CUSA or the MWC we would still be better off than we currently are.

By the way, the merger of some of the Louisiana colleges as a cost-cutting measure was not proposed by LaTech.

GrayEagle: Always the voice of well thought out reason. You are the Eric Sevareid of GMG.com, Jack. (No, few "yungins" will know who that former CBS employee was).

See you and Jessica next week at Fouts, Jack!

GMG!

GrandGreen · September 3, 2010

Disregarding the hyperbole coming out of Ruston,a decision on a conference mate should be made on a logical basis; what is best for UNT. The pluses are that you would have a close conference mate with some tradition. The cons are that you may be throwing a life line to a recruiting competitor and would have a conference with two teams in a relatively small North Louisiana market. Plus the Belt really at this time does not need another team. The X factor is that La Tech has continually announced to the world that they would not be in a conference with ULM. So the whole question becomes moot because ULM is in the conference and is not going to be forced out by the conference.

The facts are that La Tech is probably a bigger competitor than anyone in the Belt against NT for recruits. They have been very successful in part due to their perceived better conference, that is an advantage that is likely gone. La Tech compares favorably with some of the current Belt members, but in my mind would not be an above average athletic member. You can disregard all the incredibly stupid banner of their fans, but I do think their administration has proven less than admirable. In summary, I would not support La Tech admission at this time primarily because the Belt does not need another football team. In fact, I have nothing against USA but I wish the number of teams was kept as is. I like playing 4 oc games, and I don't like the idea of not playing all conference members. The Belt is far away from making a two division football league with championship game viable. If the necessity of another team arrives, La Tech if interested should obviously be considered.

GrayEagle · September 4, 2010

Disregarding the hyperbole coming out of Ruston,a decision on a conference mate should be made on a logical basis; what is best for UNT. The pluses are that you would have a close conference mate with some tradition. The cons are that you may be throwing a life line to a recruiting competitor and would have a conference with two teams in a relatively small North Louisiana market. Plus the Belt really at this time does not need another team. The X factor is that La Tech has continually announced to the world that they would not be in a conference with ULM. So the whole question becomes moot because ULM is in the conference and is not going to be forced out by the conference.

The facts are that La Tech is probably a bigger competitor than anyone in the Belt against NT for recruits. They have been very successful in part due to their perceived better conference, that is an advantage that is likely gone. La Tech compares favorably with some of the current Belt members, but in my mind would not be an above average athletic member. You can disregard all the incredibly stupid banner of their fans, but I do think their administration has proven less than admirable. In summary, I would not support La Tech admission at this time primarily because the Belt does not need another football team. In fact, I have nothing against USA but I wish the number of teams was kept as is. I like playing 4 oc games, and I don't like the idea of not playing all conference members. The Belt is far away from making a two division football league with championship game viable. If the necessity of another team arrives, La Tech if interested should obviously be considered.

As to LaTech having to accept ULM...yep, as ArkStFan said that would have to be their decision. But I disagree in part or in toto with the other points.

If we can't compete with Louisiana Tech for recruits then we need to get out of the FBS. We have a lot more advantages than they have such as more courses of study and more leisure attractions to name a couple. We will always lose a few to other schools and rightly so. We don't fit for everyone; some like small schools in a quieter environment but if we were in the same conference, conference prestige at least would not be a factor in a recruit's decision. I suppose that we should stay out of a conference with any other Texas team because the only ones that we are fairly competitive with (for recruits) are UTEP and Rice.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in how you view a 9-team conference vs. a 12 but when your league runs from Bowling Green, Kentucky to Miami, Florida to Denton, Texas then I prefer two six team divisions to cut travel costs. If I were to be satisfied with 9 teams it wouldn't be the ones that are currently conference members.

Louisiana Tech would be an above average member based on their prior history. Only Troy and Middle Tennessee would be ahead of them and not by much. Based on five all-time ranking studies they are 68th compared to our rank of 82. FAU is #96 and the others are above 100. Troy and MTSU were 62 and 63 respectively.

One thing that we are in total agreement on is that their fans are their worst enemy in the eyes of many fans in Louisiana and its surrounding states.

Edited September 4, 2010 by GrayEagle