Why I think money games are a dead end proposition.

[Cajunsmike]

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

In 2009, our two money games brought in about 1.4 million dollars which is more than 10% of the entire athletic budget. In fact, it may approach 15%. Getting rid of those games is much more difficult than most imagine from a financial point of view.

[Just1More]

_ 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. _

I played jingle bells on my harmonica at Christmas and all of my little nieces and nephews clapped. I played it a second time and half of them almost clapped. I played it a third time and one kicked me in the shins and two ran out of the room crying for their mommies.

You might be the one to almost clap at another McNeese and Southern game. I am going to be the one to kick someone in the shins.

Dear Southern and McNeese: See you in a few years... maybe... just maybe... it will be interesting. I will clap and act like a third grader for a halftime "Thriller" rendition only once... the next time... I'm popping a cap in someone's behind.

As for money games... we need them... even when we get RCAF out of diapers. Once we do get RCAF off of breast milk... we'll still need the money games... we'll just be in a lot better shape to knock someone in the BCS off their lofty perch.

Money... thru money games and an administratively supported super private funding campaign... we will win the SBC championship and head to the NO Bowl... or maybe get another bowl invite... who knows... but first and foremost... we have to have a coach that makes big bucks and makes big demands of this institution. I want me some luxurious problems with UL football.

We need to see threads in the very near future on how ridiculously large our ultra-modern scoreboard video display is and how the suites and press box look awesome from new endzone seats at the remodeled Cajun Field... and wasn't it cool that Gameday kept calling us "Louisiana".

[CajunZ1]

We need to see threads in the very near future on how ridiculously large our ultra-modern scoreboard video display is and how the suites and press box look awesome from new endzone seats at the remodeled Cajun Field... and wasn't it cool that Gameday kept calling us "Louisiana". _

In order for that to ever become a reality, we'd need an administration that craves success in football to the point where it's over the top.

We've done pretty well as a university, navigating slowly and meticulously. It's garnered us all kinds of accolades that nobody knows about because we suck at football.

Wouldn't it be awesome to see T-Joe at a podium with crazy in his eyes as he unveils a broad-scale athletic plan so ridiculously large it would make even us raginpagers blush?

[HoustonCajun]

_ I played jingle bells on my harmonica at Christmas and all of my little nieces and nephews clapped. I played it a second time and half of them almost clapped. I played it a third time and one kicked me in the shins and two ran out of the room crying for their mommies.

You might be the one to almost clap at another McNeese and Southern game. I am going to be the one to kick someone in the shins.

Dear Southern and McNeese: See you in a few years... maybe... just maybe... it will be interesting. I will clap and act like a third grader for a halftime "Thriller" rendition only once... the next time... I'm popping a cap in someone's behind.

As for money games... we need them... even when we get RCAF out of diapers. Once we do get RCAF off of breast milk... we'll still need the money games... we'll just be in a lot better shape to knock someone in the BCS off their lofty perch.

Money... thru money games and an administratively supported super private funding campaign... we will win the SBC championship and head to the NO Bowl... or maybe get another bowl invite... who knows... but first and foremost... we have to have a coach that makes big bucks and makes big demands of this institution. I want me some luxurious problems with UL football.

We need to see threads in the very near future on how ridiculously large our ultra-modern scoreboard video display is and how the suites and press box look awesome from new endzone seats at the remodeled Cajun Field... and wasn't it cool that Gameday kept calling us "Louisiana". _

You are so right. These are the kind of things we should be excited about and talking about here. Instead, it is always negative because so little is being done and/or communicated to us. Unfortunately, none of the stadium improvements you referenced are scheduled for another 3-4 years and ONLY after the spring sport facilities are completed. I hope we do not miscalculate our timeline for conference realignment.

[Turbine]

_ 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.

You (yes surprisingly you) are a victim of current perception. I know it is hard to picture UL winning big but schools will not pay for a home loss. When that happens UL will not have the business model in place to make the long term move to prosperity.

How many schools are paying Virginia Tech a million bucks to come to their place only to lose at home?

[zephyr]

To me, the money games are just the universe for which we will ALWAYS live in and we have to accept it, especially with the terrible budget we are dealt and the cuts being made every year. However, the number of money games should be managed for which we can still schedule to fair OOC games that are winnable and hopefully at home. Playing a 10 game schedule is better than playing a 9 game schedule since there is usually little to no chance of beating the BCS powers we typically play.

[zephyr]

_ You (yes surprisingly you) are a victim of current perception. I know it is hard to picture UL winning big but schools will not pay for a home loss. When that happens UL will not have the business model in place to make the long term move to prosperity.

How many schools are paying Virginia Tech a million bucks to come to their place only to lose at home? _

Brother, we aint VT and no BCS school is scheduling us thinking they are going to lose. Also, scheduling outside the money games becomes much harder for schools like us because ALL midmajors are playing these games in the same weeks which makes it harder for us to find other OOC games to play on our level.

[zephyr]

_ 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. _

I don't think we can expect to make near the money when we have to pay out 200k-350k to host one of those schools minimum and given our ticket prices and size of stadium, I don't think that is logical when we are getting 800k+ to play at many of these places.

[Turbine]

_ Brother, we aint VT and no BCS school is scheduling us thinking they are going to lose.

No UL isn't VT, however VT wasn't the VT you know today before they turned the corner in 1993.

In fact in the 20 years before they turned things around they averaged 4.73 wins to every 4 UL wins.

True UL had a turn around year in 1993 that pretty much matched what VT did with the big difference being UL didn't capitalize on their success.

Point being back then no school was afraid of scheduling VT at home and thinking they were going to lose. Now they are and if they schedule VT it will only be a home and home with no pay.

The success model has to be built first and foremost on the idea that at some point schools will not pay to play.

The current model is built on 6-6 forever.

jmo

[Oiler]

_ No UL isn't VT, however VT wasn't the VT you know today before they turned the corner in 1993.

In fact in the 20 years before they turned things around they averaged 4.73 wins to every 4 UL wins.

True UL had a turn around year in 1993 that pretty much matched what VT did with the big difference being UL didn't capitalize on their success.

Point being back then no school was afraid of scheduling VT at home and thinking they were going to lose. Now they are and if they schedule VT it will only be a home and home with no pay.

The success model has to be built first and foremost on the idea that at some point schools will not pay to play.

The current model is built on 6-6 forever.

jmo _

An athletic plan must be put into place where every supporter/donor, as well as POTENTIAL supporters/donors, can see a logical chronology of future football scheduling. A plan where the need to schedule three money games will be reduced to the need to schedule only one, or perhaps even NO, hopeless money games. It is very hard to garner financial support for an athletic model that is "built on 6-6 forever". No one is interested in investing in any business that does not have a SOUND BUSINESS PLAN. College athletics is very much a business. It is time that UL treats it as such.

[zephyr]

_ No UL isn't VT, however VT wasn't the VT you know today before they turned the corner in 1993.

In fact in the 20 years before they turned things around they averaged 4.73 wins to every 4 UL wins.

True UL had a turn around year in 1993 that pretty much matched what VT did with the big difference being UL didn't capitalize on their success.

Point being back then no school was afraid of scheduling VT at home and thinking they were going to lose. Now they are and if they schedule VT it will only be a home and home with no pay.

The success model has to be built first and foremost on the idea that at some point schools will not pay to play.

The current model is built on 6-6 forever.

jmo _

VT is also not hampered by a higher education budget that is continuously being cut and the upcoming years will be no exception. How good do you think VT would be or would have been over the years had they only been able to pay Coach Beamer up to 225k out of state budget funds and the rest out of private funding dollars? Not to mention that just to be able to pay that 225k in budgeted salary requires a vote and passing of the board of regents which is no gimme considering constant budget cutbacks. I hear what you are saying, that there needs to be a systematic change as I also feel the same, but I feel that the systematic change needs to start from somewhere higher than even our administration to be able to compare us to a VT. It also doesn't hurt for them to have been affiliated with BCS conferences that provide them with a large revenue sharing stream that supports their means. I'd prefer us be compared to a Southern Miss, Fresno State etc..

To me, the money games is the best form of a "business model" that we have to work with to provide ourselves with any type of budget possible.

[zephyr]

_ An athletic plan must be put into place where every supporter/donor, as well as POTENTIAL supporters/donors, can see a logical chronology of future football scheduling. A plan where the need to schedule three money games will be reduced to the need to schedule only one, or perhaps even NO, hopeless money games. It is very hard to garner financial support for an athletic model that is "built on 6-6 forever". No one is interested in investing in any business that does not have a SOUND BUSINESS PLAN. College athletics is very much a business. It is time that UL treats it as such. _

The problem with your statement is that money games are guaranteed and this great supplemental financing that we all "hope" will occur when we decide to schedule differently and generate more private funding dollars is anything BUT guaranteed.