NO LIKE NEW SBC RULE ( Revenue Sharing )

[Zeebart21]

As on so many topics you are wrong again. Read the article. This is the first year this new policy is going into effect.

How can you not like Rebel, man If you say the sky is blue, he will fight you tooth and nail swearing its green.

Love the guy!!

Z

[CajunRebel]

The ADs AND Presidents all voted for this. So, Farmer and Savoie approved it. And, schools that knew they were leaving the conference voted for it, i.e. MT, FIU and UNT. Next thing is they will approve the proposed $10M buy-out to get out of the conference. That will allow UL to remain secure in staying in the Sunbelt and can then say we can't afford to get out now. In the meantime, the Sunbelt adds 4 1AA schools and remains the mickey mouse conference it is. And, don't be surprised if 2 of those schools come from the Southland Conference. The lack of vision is alarming. And, Farmer keeps blaming it on our budget and small market, while a school 2/3 our size in the tiny town of Ruston, stays another step ahead of us despite its greater shortcomings. Last time I checked, Tech is located in Louisiana as well and has similar state budget issues as UL, yet understands the importance of athletics and what it can do to change perceptions and create separation with higher expectations. UL seems to just want to stay in its comfort zone. UL has a wonderful opportunity to wine and dine CUSA officials and show off our university before a national audience. But, the Master Plan is still not ready and we struggle with budget issues yet agree to share bowl revenue with conference bowl teams who don't contribute 20% of what we do and others who contribute 0%. With all of the realignment shuffling that is about to take place, if UL is not included in at least CUSA, and our leaders allow us to remain a part of the Sunbelt, there is no need to bring out a Master Plan. Who will want to support a conference that expands with teams like Lamar and Sam Houston State? Don't count me as one of them.

Are you trying to say C-USA picked La Tech, FIU, FAU, UTSA, etc. only because they had more "vision" than UL? Do you think the Big East picked Tulane and SDSU because they had more "Vision" than Southern Miss? C'mon man. Virtually every team that has moved up a conference has done so because they've either had a big budget or a big media market. It has nothing to do with performance on the field, much less "vision."

BTW Tech's budget is higher than ours and Tech's millionaire backers have pledged even more to add to it. Tech's Media Market is also higher.

[CharlieK]

Are you trying to say C-USA picked La Tech, FIU, FAU, UTSA, etc. only because they had more "vision" than UL? Do you think the Big East picked Tulane and SDSU because they had more "Vision" than Southern Miss? C'mon man. Virtually every team that has moved up a conference has done so because they've either had a big budget or a big media market. It has nothing to do with performance on the field, much less "vision."

BTW Tech's budget is higher than ours and Tech's millionaire backers have pledged even more to add to it. Tech's Media Market is also higher.

What they mean by lack of vision, is not doing what we had to do to increase our budget sooner, and market ourselves to the other conferences proactively, to have a PLAN in place. So that "lack of vision" is PRECISELY the problem.

[basinbear]

Are you trying to say C-USA picked La Tech, FIU, FAU, UTSA, etc. only because they had more "vision" than UL? Do you think the Big East picked Tulane and SDSU because they had more "Vision" than Southern Miss? C'mon man. Virtually every team that has moved up a conference has done so because they've either had a big budget or a big media market. It has nothing to do with performance on the field, much less "vision."

BTW Tech's budget is higher than ours and Tech's millionaire backers have pledged even more to add to it. Tech's Media Market is also higher.

Tech does not have a bigger TV market than UL .and go back and read Houston Cajuns post again.We have been caught twice this year with our pants downLA. Tech got in because they had the vision years ago to go to the WAC and roll the dice.and had the vision to fight like hell to get into CUSAwe enjoy telling everyone that we do more with less. We will be adding at least 2 FCS programs to the league. This will affect our recruiting. FAU, La. Tech, UNT, UTSA and UNCC all have budgets under 20 million, which is the level that CUSA wishes all members to be at. All were given a 3 year grace period to reach that level. All of the mentioned schools with the exception of La. Tech are located in large media markets. Our budget this year will come in at over 15 million. If we were allowed to spend all state money that is allotted to athletics it would be over 16 million. We must be proactive in selling ourselves to CUSA. Currently there is no movement by CUSA to add more than the 14 that are members. I believe that they will eventually lose at least 2 more,UTEP and Tulsa. 4 possible adds down the road. Will we be aggressive in pursueing this or content to be left behind with ULM and a bucket full of FCS start ups.some of the Southland Conference schools? Try raising money on the fact that we are back where we were over 30 years ago

[cjdecuir]

This Blows, I guess I am going to have to get Chocolate wasted this weekend.

[SlappyCajun]

While I'm not normally one to voice support of Farmer. This is the same bowl agreement that virtually every conference has.

[AstroCajun]

While I'm not normally one to voice support of Farmer. This is the same bowl agreement that virtually every conference has.

Understood, but why change it now?

[duggie85]

This Blows, I guess I am going to have to get Chocolate wasted this weekend.

Chocolate wasted in Chocolate City.

[SlappyCajun]

Understood, but why change it now?

Because we have a new commissioner. And, he is doing things other conferences do. Unlike Waters, see TV contract.

[VObserver]

Understood, but why change it now?

For one thing, until last year, there were essentially no bowl revenues to share. No team ever made much more than expenses on their bowl game. Last year, we made money in NOLA, and did not have to share it. ASU may have made a little money in Mobile last year.

This year, the conference expects UL, ULM and ASU to all make money, so there is a little bit to share.

I am sure we will be able to cover all our expenses before sharing whatever is left. I expect ASU will make a little over their expenses, and that ULM and WKU will not cover expenses.

[Just1More]

Are you trying to say C-USA picked La Tech, FIU, FAU, UTSA, etc. only because they had more "vision" than UL? Do you think the Big East picked Tulane and SDSU because they had more "Vision" than Southern Miss? C'mon man. Virtually every team that has moved up a conference has done so because they've either had a big budget or a big media market. It has nothing to do with performance on the field, much less "vision."

BTW Tech's budget is higher than ours and Tech's millionaire backers have pledged even more to add to it. Tech's Media Market is also higher.

Rebel, have you ever heard of someone that doesn't have the prettiest resume, but is persistent at demanding an interview, has an enormous amount of willingness, confidence and commitment to achieve beyond their resume. and can explain the resume weakness as a thing of the past? We don't have the prettiest resume. granted. But, conferences don't just look at resumes in the selection light you mention. We all agree that the majority of candidates have better resumes than we do. but even they go out and lobby conferences above their heads. Many of the schools that successfully move to better conference associations, their president, AD and major boosters, lobby the living snot out of the other member presidents, AD and major boosters. They put their absolute best presentations about their future vision for their university athletics. they exaggerate the market they command. and then they close by telling them that they will go "all in" with facility improvements, fund raising, and every other mechanism at their disposal to raise their program.

Again, it is not just about the snapshot Google resume that gets you in to a better conference. "That" is what people are talking about on here. You keep taking only current revenue and whatever market size others have tagged us with, and insist that it is the only criteria these conference members evaluate. There are programs for the past 50 years that have lobbied and succeeded. against the grain. to obtain new improved conference membership.

You talk about Tech's millionaire backers. They have 5 backers that make the difference for them. To equal one of their largest supporters, we will have to reach out to 20 people. That "reach" isn't a phone call or letter in the mail. It requires proofs of commitment, much improved over our past. There are 100 people available in the multi-millionaire status that are actually accessible to UL. They didn't make or retain their money by being suckers for the likes of puffy, non-committal, academian only, narrow-minded, deep tunnel thinkers. They like to associate their money. just like Davison. with brash, at the ready, wide perspective, capital intense, leaders. Also, Tech leadership has to allow Davison and a few other Tech supporters a place at the decision table. Our leadership does not like that concept. They do not like non UL System employees, especially with money, to have a place in deciding the path forward. At UL, it will have to be that they allow 20 upper level business citizens a voice in the athletic future of our school. Not just information and updates. decision-making rights. They want their money. but not if they have to make bold commitments and are held accountable to those supporters.

Now. We have 3 of those 20 actually sending big checks to UL. 3. We do not have a Davison in those 3. 8 of those 20 are currently pretty large LSU system donors. They are not "making LSU". but they enjoy believing that the dollars they provide are supporting a stellar athletic system that hoards of people around the country see "Louisiana" in the name. and that Louisiana citizen gets to puff his chest out for once on the national scene. That Acadiana businessman does not mind one bit supporting UL at some level. He only needs to know that the leaders of the university ARE NOT weak in the face of challenges or disrespectful of the flash and flare of capitalists. They need to know that the leadership is going to put their neck on the line first. and they will laugh at their surprise when they add two more zeros to the check our leadership thought was coming. They ARE NOT going to cut a check to weak people. unless it's the children of St. Jude's. They are not going to look at a grown man in a puffy red jacket and cut that man a check unless they know that man has ape size leadership gonads.

T-Joe has to display a willingness to step way beyond the confines of Louisiana historical university protocol. He has to break rank with his academian "advisors". He has to see the critically overlooked association needed with UL athletics and the business community. We ARE NOT doing anything special at UL right now. We ARE playing to the lowest athletic common denominator. We are limping in to everything we do athletically. Nothing ever that was in any way spectacular, done by mankind, EVER happened by limping in.

Non aggressive non-capitalists have enjoyed the fruit of the stallion get-it-done people for decades. They go through the motions in this country and just because it works out most of the time. they credit themselves with "the accomplishment". UL is not accomplishing jack with athletics beyond the stack of programs we're in competition with. T-Joe has to be the one single operator that changes that.

T-Joe has to do precisely what he said when he took over at UL. He has to take out the loans for athletics. Of course, we all know now he meant. if everyone holds my hand. if the timing is perfect. if the stars and the moon are aligned. if I've studied it indefinitely and it looks easy to do. if it doesn't upset my academian friends. if others don't object. if I have undivided support. if the coast is clear. if there are no obstacles in my way. if the board of the board of the board of the board gives me a smile and unanimous approval. I might just consider taking out a small loan for athletics.

Someone has given T-Joe a false assumption that winning a bowl game and making it to another. and the support and money that are derived from that. somehow correlate to the available funds and support in the area. It is a pathetically disconnected association. The far greater support association is the verifiable proof that the current president is not anything like the former. That requires a grand leap out of the confines of Martin Hall. It requires a new breed of unity with the business community, their knowledge, power and wisdom. A kind of wisdom that has never been available to an academian.

[Zeebart21]

Rebel, have you ever heard of someone that doesn't have the prettiest resume, but is persistent at demanding an interview, has an enormous amount of willingness, confidence and commitment to achieve beyond their resume. and can explain the resume weakness as a thing of the past? We don't have the prettiest resume. granted. But, conferences don't just look at resumes in the selection light you mention. We all agree that the majority of candidates have better resumes than we do. but even they go out and lobby conferences above their heads. Many of the schools that successfully move to better conference associations, their president, AD and major boosters, lobby the living snot out of the other member presidents, AD and major boosters. They put their absolute best presentations about their future vision for their university athletics. they exaggerate the market they command. and then they close by telling them that they will go "all in" with facility improvements, fund raising, and every other mechanism at their disposal to raise their program.

Again, it is not just about the snapshot Google resume that gets you in to a better conference. "That" is what people are talking about on here. You keep taking only current revenue and whatever market size others have tagged us with, and insist that it is the only criteria these conference members evaluate. There are programs for the past 50 years that have lobbied and succeeded. against the grain. to obtain new improved conference membership.

You talk about Tech's millionaire backers. They have 5 backers that make the difference for them. To equal one of their largest supporters, we will have to reach out to 20 people. That "reach" isn't a phone call or letter in the mail. It requires proofs of commitment, much improved over our past. There are 100 people available in the multi-millionaire status that are actually accessible to UL. They didn't make or retain their money by being suckers for the likes of puffy, non-committal, academian only, narrow-minded, deep tunnel thinkers. They like to associate their money. just like Davison. with brash, at the ready, wide perspective, capital intense, leaders. Also, Tech leadership has to allow Davison and a few other Tech supporters a place at the decision table. Our leadership does not like that concept. They do not like non UL System employees, especially with money, to have a place in deciding the path forward. At UL, it will have to be that they allow 20 upper level business citizens a voice in the athletic future of our school. Not just information and updates. decision-making rights. They want their money. but not if they have to make bold commitments and are held accountable to those supporters.

Now. We have 3 of those 20 actually sending big checks to UL. 3. We do not have a Davison in those 3. 8 of those 20 are currently pretty large LSU system donors. They are not "making LSU". but they enjoy believing that the dollars they provide are supporting a stellar athletic system that hoards of people around the country see "Louisiana" in the name. and that Louisiana citizen gets to puff his chest out for once on the national scene. That Acadiana businessman does not mind one bit supporting UL at some level. He only needs to know that the leaders of the university ARE NOT weak in the face of challenges or disrespectful of the flash and flare of capitalists. They need to know that the leadership is going to put their neck on the line first. and they will laugh at their surprise when they add two more zeros to the check our leadership thought was coming. They ARE NOT going to cut a check to weak people. unless it's the children of St. Jude's. They are not going to look at a grown man in a puffy red jacket and cut that man a check unless they know that man has ape size leadership gonads.

T-Joe has to display a willingness to step way beyond the confines of Louisiana historical university protocol. He has to break rank with his academian "advisors". He has to see the critically overlooked association needed with UL athletics and the business community. We ARE NOT doing anything special at UL right now. We ARE playing to the lowest athletic common denominator. We are limping in to everything we do athletically. Nothing ever that was in any way spectacular, done by mankind, EVER happened by limping in.

Non aggressive non-capitalists have enjoyed the fruit of the stallion get-it-done people for decades. They go through the motions in this country and just because it works out most of the time. they credit themselves with "the accomplishment". UL is not accomplishing jack with athletics beyond the stack of programs we're in competition with. T-Joe has to be the one single operator that changes that.

T-Joe has to do precisely what he said when he took over at UL. He has to take out the loans for athletics. Of course, we all know now he meant. if everyone holds my hand. if the timing is perfect. if the stars and the moon are aligned. if I've studied it indefinitely and it looks easy to do. if it doesn't upset my academian friends. if others don't object. if I have undivided support. if the coast is clear. if there are no obstacles in my way. if the board of the board of the board of the board gives me a smile and unanimous approval. I might just consider taking out a small loan for athletics.

Someone has given T-Joe a false assumption that winning a bowl game and making it to another. and the support and money that are derived from that. somehow correlate to the available funds and support in the area. It is a pathetically disconnected association. The far greater support association is the verifiable proof that the current president is not anything like the former. That requires a grand leap out of the confines of Martin Hall. It requires a new breed of unity with the business community, their knowledge, power and wisdom. A kind of wisdom that has never been available to an academian.

This why you are one of my favorite people! I usually just say F/U that's the way it is You, you eloquent, passionate, brilliant SOB. You have a way with words!!



Z

PS Rome!! Roam the streets!!

[Turbine]

This why you are one of my favorite people! I usually just say F/U that's the way it is You, you eloquent, passionate, brilliant SOB. You have a way with words!!

PS Rome!! Roam the streets!!

I agree.

PS So Roam was built in a day!

[Turbine]

Reading a Dan McD article it looks like the UL ticket revenue will be right at $1mill---UL's take would be the first $500K and then a 50/50 split for $250k more----BUT now the CAjuns per new Belt rule must split the take with the conference---ergo the $750K shrinks to $375K---Quick little loss there right---They will share in the conference take of the other bowl participants but don't know what helps more ---I would think the former!!!-----Also do the old/new members share in the take???

Few schools in the country sell as many tickets as UL does.

Certainly no school in the SBC will ever suffer paying the "UL success penalty" fee.

[CajunRebel]

As on so many topics you are wrong again. Read the article. This is the first year this new policy is going into effect.

Never mind. I hadn't read the article, just the Boomereese.

Yeah there's no way this will be a net positive for us. It will help us fill huge budget holes in years where we go to far away bowls but it will still hurt us badly when we go to the NO Bowl. As often as we'll go to New Orleans we're going to come out way, way behind on this deal.

What I don't see in this article is whether or not Farmer voted "yes" for it. He certainly didn't say he supported it.