Why I think money games are a dead end proposition.

[Turbine]

I'm going to make this a quick and painless observation even though the process won't be. . .

If and when UL starts winning on a regular basis the money game offers will dry up faster than a resurrection fern between rain storms.

For long term success the program must be built on individual and family fan attendance. To go another season without a highly public ticket drive would be -once again- unacceptable.

Money games are not the answer for long term success.

jmo

[ULtimateCajun]

I think right now we have to have money games. But now with the RCAF we can afford to phase them out within the next 3 seasons leaving maybe one big road money game on the schedule. For us to have any kind of success, we have to stop putting ourselves in a 3-4 game hole to start every season. No one could survive that for a 8 win season.


igeaux.mobi

[Oiler]

_ I think right now we have to have money games. But now with the RCAF we can afford to phase them out within the next 3 seasons leaving maybe one big road money game on the schedule. For us to have any kind of success, we have to stop putting ourselves in a 3-4 game hole to start every season. No one could survive that for a 8 win season.


igeaux.mobi _

If 3 money games are necessary, then everybody needs to get off of Bustle's case.

[ZuluCajun]

Wow ! I'm finally getting some help on this point. Many supporters feel the same way, but on this board, it has been a hard sell for some reason. I guess the Athletic dept is a better balogna salesman than i thought.

[Just1More]

No offense Turbine, but your arguments don't support dropping the money games. First, even if UL starts winning on a regular basis (chuckle), no mid to high BCS school is going to forego scheduling us... and paying us. We are not that scary... trust me.

Second, how are we going to increase attendance by not playing money games? We are not beating, most years, anyone in the top 80. Who exactly are we going to add to our schedule, and not get paid, and increase our "automatic wins"? "Nebraska" did not ruin our attendance or current fan support. A homecoming butt-stomping by FAU and a close loss to the heralded "FIU" knocked away the helpful hands of the supporting fans off this little engine we've been trying to push up an old rusty track.

Our money game schedule is not an excuse to retain a coach that cannot win in his own conference. Bustle was placed in a position to take the program to the NO Bowl. If any of you historians care to recall... even mighty Troy with an 8-3 record did not get a bowl invite when they didn't manage to win the SBC. We have only recently entered the 500 bowls for everyone who can spell "not a losing season". That won't last and it shouldn't.

8 years in the SBC... a fledgling FBS conference... made up of D1AA and first time football programs... and UL. And who casually waddles up to the finish line and doesn't make it to the C rated dance in New Orleans? UL... over and over. Give me a break... money games are Bustle's problem?... give me a break.

We may need to manipulate our money game strategy... no doubt. But, just because we have an administration that can't figure out how to start this ship's engine don't start throwing our coaches bailout life preserver packages. Just because the captain can't find the fish it doesn't mean the guy throwing the net could catch a fish if they were jumping in the boat. The SBC proves that.

Do the next right thing... stop talking about all of our whimpy excuses... and bust an administrator in their backside. Oh, and make sure to double bust anyone who comes to their defense. Failure needs to have a penalty and it starts at the top.

[ULtimateCajun]

_ If 3 money games are necessary, then everybody needs to get off of Bustle's case. _

That doesn't change the fact that we still lose games to conference opponents that we should beat. i.e. FIU last season, and the lack of game plan and adjustments through those SBC game. JMO

[rhineaux]

_ If 3 money games are necessary, then everybody needs to get off of Bustle's case. _

The last time Bustle beat a team with a winning record was in 2006. Everyone needs to stay on his, and everyone else's, case.

[BraveCajun]

_ The last time Bustle beat a team with a winning record was in 2006. Everyone needs to stay on his, and everyone else's, case. _

Technically Kansas St. had winning record

[rhineaux]

_ Technically Kansas St. had winning record _

You Sure?

(1-0) W-UMass (FCS)
(1-1) L-UL
(1-2) L-UCLA
(2-2) W-Tenn Tech (FCS)
(3-2) W-Iowa State
(3-3) L-Texas Tech
(4-3) W-TAMU
(5-3) W-Colorado
(5-4) L-OU
(6-4) W-Kansas
(6-5) L-Missouri
(6-6) L-Nebraska

6-6 Record. What is the technicality?

And, not only did they not have a winning record, 1/3 of their wins came against FCS teams.

[cajun tom]

_ The last time Bustle beat a team with a winning record was in 2006. Everyone needs to stay on his, and everyone else's, case. _

Houston had a winning record in 2007.

[cajun tom]

_ I'm going to make this a quick and painless observation even though the process won't be. . .

If and when UL starts winning on a regular basis the money game offers will dry up faster than a resurrection fern between rain storms.

For long term success the program must be built on individual and family fan attendance. To go another season without a highly public ticket drive would be -once again- unacceptable.

Money games are not the answer for long term success.

jmo _

I would rather the Cajuns play Southern or McNeese at home rather than going to Georgia next year. I would think they could come close to making as much money.

[rhineaux]

_ Houston had a winning record in 2007. _

They also had a winning record in 2006, which is the year UL played them.