Should a coach be held responsible for losing a money game?

[anhil8tor]

Yesterday Jay explained how we got Okie State to come to our place. 1 game here... 1 game there... no revenue swap. Then another game there and we get 750K. I love the fact that we get a BCS school here in the swap. Will you same people slaughter Walker, Farmer and the like for having to goto Okie State twice?

[zephyr]

_ That (donations) can and will happen when UL strings together a few back-to-back winning seasons.

Money games cost you money in the long run. They are like borrowing from a loan shark.

jmo _

I will respectfully disagree with you. I believe you are grossly mistaken if you think that private donations and funding will supplement the money we get from BCS game payouts if we are to string together a couple of winning seasons in a row. For a payout of 750k to over 1million, you think we're going to see that in the form of private donations? That is not likely. Consider that we would play 2-3 per year, you are easily looking at over 2 million that we receive yearly in BCS payouts. There is no logical way I can see us bringing that in just in private funding. Sure, we would replace many of those games with others that would either have to pay us to go or we would make money off of home games via the normal routes but that is still a lot of money to leave on the table and have to rely on through private means.


The fact is that BCS paydays are essential to just about everybody out there not affiliated with a BCS conference. Like Cajun T said, even the teams like Tulsa, Boise and others have to rely on payouts from playing the big boys in order to be able to play with the big boys.

[Turbine]

_ I will respectfully disagree with you. I believe you are grossly mistaken if you think that private donations and funding will supplement the money we get from BCS game payouts if we are to string together a couple of winning seasons in a row. For a payout of 750k to over 1million, you think we're going to see that in the form of private donations? That is not likely. Consider that we would play 2-3 per year, you are easily looking at over 2 million that we receive yearly in BCS payouts. There is no logical way I can see us bringing that in just in private funding. Sure, we would replace many of those games with others that would either have to pay us to go or we would make money off of home games via the normal routes but that is still a lot of money to leave on the table and have to rely on through private means.


The fact is that BCS paydays are essential to just about everybody out there not affiliated with a BCS conference. Like Cajun T said, even the teams like Tulsa, Boise and others have to rely on payouts from playing the big boys in order to be able to play with the big boys. _

Well you are not taking my post out of context but the one you quote did come a day after after I gave my formula for getting prestige. LINK So just for clarity I am not advocating "just" private funding. But I can promise you UL would be getting $5 mil more a year in total funding if it had averaged 2 more wins a year over the last 20 years.

As far as for UL taking the next step forward, I like the Oklahoma State model UL implemented for next year.

[Just1More]

_ Well you are not taking my post out of context but the one you quote did come a day after after I gave my formula for getting prestige. LINK So just for clarity I am not advocating "just" private funding. But I can promise you UL would be getting $5 mil more a year in total funding if it had averaged 2 more wins a year over the last 20 years.

As far as for UL taking the next step forward, I like the Oklahoma State model UL implemented for next year. _

Turbine, what UL should have done is not what it did. Our prior administration bricked up the window you wish to go through. We could have had $5 - $10 million or more in private football annualized benefits happening today... you and I both know from our 80s and 90s days that was within grasp... we just didn't want to sign a deal with private people who might challenge our infinitely wise academians from their extremely tight fisted control over athletics. The path through an easier schedule, albeit prone to more wins, is now financially a no-go.

I totally agree with creative scheduling, where financial reward and a better chance at a competitive game go hand in hand and/or some home and home deals get cut. But, the key is the "money" in these money games. We are staying alive with that money... and we need more to spend. We cannot do without the money (if we wish to win the SBC and/or get postseason play). We have to have that money and a whole, whole lot more (including what RCAF is bringing and a whole lot more).

The system that would have been built by a zealous administration more intellectually aware of the benefits football provides a public university... did not happen. We are on a money game recipe and we aren't getting off of it. We keep forgeting that wins are a result. You first finance, build, pay and raise requirements and expectations... and winning starts to unfold.... then winning and taking postseason rewards starts to generate more money to pay the bills on the loans you took out with the initial "feeder money". Read that last one... it is the college football system 1st Law of Physics. Sorry for sounding condescending... but we do have some ignorant "nickel and dime, throw the dice and hope" fools around... so it can easily get lost on a lesser mind.

Wasn't UL's mission in getting into the SBC, to take these "lesser" programs down and march on to the NO Bowl? What happened to that "lofty" goal? I can tell you... the admin... again... underestimated the requirements and the rocket fell down to earth before reaching the clouds.

We are pretty much relegated to winning the SBC (if we go ballistic with everything we have) and getting our postseason that way. We should never be talking about 7 wins. We should be talking winning every game and making sure we do not lose a single conference game. The key is to win the SBC... and the fact remains... we need the money to up our facilities, add some bling, get some better recruits, and not allow a single SBC team to be anywhere close to us.

We are never going to ever give up "money games". When we finally reach the point that we handily dominate the SBC, cannot win less than 8 games... and have much more money coming in... we will not even call these "money games". We will call them "opportunities to upset the giants"... and we will not think twice about not being competitive in them. Ask Troy.

[Turbine]

Good stuff Just1More even if you were in disagreement and lowering your self to my level aka con-descending

On a side note if UL recruits to who we might play at the BCS level it is a msitake. There are ways to recruit 4 and 5 star athletes and schedule is not one of them. It would be like talking yourself out of a sale. Why promote someone elses assets?

[Just1More]

_ Good stuff Just1More even if you were in disagreement and lowering your self to my level aka con-descending

On a side note if UL recruits to who we might play at the BCS level it is a msitake. There are ways to recruit 4 and 5 star athletes and schedule is not one of them. It would be like talking yourself out of a sale. Why promote someone elses assets? _

Dude, I was apologizing for getting up on my soapbox and talking down. You are always up to me, Turbine. I get wound up about people who think we can wish ourselves into being better. It takes money... lots and lots of money... I hate it... but it is undeniably a fact.

I don't think we recruit too many 4 and 5 star athletes. We need to go after and get many more 3 star guys that have a connection to UL or south Louisiana in some way. That is the here and now for us. I'm afraid that 4 and 5 star athletes are doubled up with accolades. Those they deserve initially... and get a lot of BCS attention as a result... and then the ranking boost following the BCS attention. When that happens... it's over with for us.

There is a stature penalty for playing and getting creamed by top 15 programs. But, we could get ourselves competitive enough not to embarrass ourselves. Again, we need the money... and those guys checks are bigger paydays than we can manage any other way right now. I maintain that when we have more money by other means, we will no longer call these games "money games" and we won't mind playing them one bit.

[Turbine]

I guess part of my angst is the phrase 'money game' it is becoming a ranking system unto itself.

I am consistent in that I don't want to know player contracts or how much Tiger earned at the US Open.


igeaux.mobi

[DrumRoll]

There is a stature penalty for playing and getting creamed by top 15 programs. But, we could get ourselves competitive enough not to embarrass ourselves. Again, we need the money... and those guys checks are bigger paydays than we can manage any other way right now. I maintain that when we have more money by other means, we will no longer call these games "money games" and we won't mind playing them one bit. _

Technically, we have arrived at success when we become the check writers in the "money games" transactions with lesser opponents and are playing top 15 teams on straight up seasonal rotations. In order to do this arriving, we are going to need check writers in our fold that offer up the required coin, some visionary administrators to develop the best possible alternatives to spend the coin, and a coaching staff that is willing to drag us kicking and screaming into success, despite the the best efforts of our MPS (Mediocrity Preservation Society) to run and hide from it :-)

I think the RCAF is a HUGE step in the right direction, and good things are in store for the future...

[zephyr]

_ Well you are not taking my post out of context but the one you quote did come a day after after I gave my formula for getting prestige. LINK So just for clarity I am not advocating "just" private funding. But I can promise you UL would be getting $5 mil more a year in total funding if it had averaged 2 more wins a year over the last 20 years.

As far as for UL taking the next step forward, I like the Oklahoma State model UL implemented for next year. _

I still think the money game is a required and necessary evil. If you can supplement up to 40% of your athletic budget in 2-3 games per year in football, you are "taking one for the team" per se. Do I like doing the money game thing? No. But I understand it and realize that until our budget is at least triple what it is right now, playing these games is good for ALL athletic programs here at this university.

[headragincajun]

_ I still think the money game is a required and necessary evil. If you can supplement up to 40% of your athletic budget in 2-3 games per year in football, you are "taking one for the team" per se. Do I like doing the money game thing? No. But I understand it and realize that until our budget is at least triple what it is right now, playing these games is good for ALL athletic programs here at this university. _

For what it is worth. The University of Cincinnati agreed to a MONEY GAME (4-5 weeks ago) to go to Tennessee for 950 K in 2011 NO RETURN GAME. They are coming off a Orange Bowl and are Top 10 Today.

Headragincajun

[Turbine]

Headragincajun I sure miss you and yours.

[Just1More]

_ Technically, we have arrived at success when we become the check writers in the "money games" transactions with lesser opponents and are playing top 15 teams on straight up seasonal rotations. In order to do this arriving, we are going to need check writers in our fold that offer up the required coin, some visionary administrators to develop the best possible alternatives to spend the coin, and a coaching staff that is willing to drag us kicking and screaming into success, despite the the best efforts of our MPS (Mediocrity Preservation Society) to run and hide from it :-)

I think the RCAF is a HUGE step in the right direction, and good things are in store for the future... _

UL is a long, long way off from becoming a check writer. We have got to stop expecting a winning football program to launch us. We have to launch a system that results in a winning football program.

There are two missing check writers (going through their lives today without a care or a connection to UL football... but they would love nothing more than to be convinced doing so would give them some joy) from UL's private system. One is a person that requires no voice, but does have to witness a radical new direction by the administration, in order to loosen up their wallet (bold visionary public and private promises by the lead administrator). The other is a person who requires a say-so in where the money is being directed. We need both groups to join the system. All RCAF has done today is gather money from people that required no further solicitation than the creation of RCAF. That may be good news to those disappointed in the first wave of RCAF memberships and money. I sure hope our admin didn't think passing the hat to the already connected was going to miraculously result in an influx of monster cash. Silly boys.

Our admin needs to build UL football the way a businessman builds a new company. They don't just open up a bank account and see if customers will send money to it. A third grader would know you don't just write on a shoebox "accounts receivable" and call the business "complete".

The two largest groups of check writers that we desperately need are not easily motivated to write checks. The administration has to know that there will be no celebration to bring these people on board. We will have to bring them on board in order to celebrate. I'm telling you Drumroll, we have people so ridiculously afflicted with perpetual underdog disease, that they think they will one day win the lottery... or win football games... without any greater effort than the other guy holding a similar ticket.

The two check writers that I mentioned have to be pursued. And, we will not "win" without them. Our competitors have them and are working feverishly to get more. The one fact is that if these people join UL (through deliberate action on our administration's behalf) we will not be battling it out with the tier of schools we currently hang with. We will elevate ourselves into a new level of problems... high class problems. Our admin needs to desire high class problems.

There is no need to pump the raginpagin crew. Very few people read this on a regular basis that are not already either UL diehards, braindead noncontributors, or pinhead enemies of UL. None of which need us to cheerlead. The key for us to advance is to get our administrators out of their comfortable UL shells... "I really love UL football... I hope someday it has a breakthrough season." Hope... hope... hope... and 75 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

I do believe a public bang gonging should coincide with an SBC championship (the only guaranteed bowl appearance). In the meantime, the single biggest need and mission of our administration and their current business friends, is to go convince an Acadiana neighbor (people worth in excess of $20 million) and get one or two to write a big check directly to UL football... and as part of the announcement... state that they expect their philanthropic Acadiana fellows to join in and make this something special for all of Lafayette and Acadiana.

I see no argument for anything else close to Lafayette not to take center stage on the economic and social development front. A wildly successful UL football team would bring in fantastic economic stimulus, social bonding and community benefits. It is an investment that should no longer be passed on.