Jordan Brown

[Cajunsmike]

I have said it for years, we need to do whatever it takes to get high quality mid majors to play us, both home and away. I remember a few years back and I forgot who it was but it was a west coast (pretty good mid major, maybe UCSB or Long Beach) played someone in our conference in a home and home in the same season. I know we are doing that with the MAC this year, but with so many quality mid majors looking for opponents, why can't we work deals out like we do in football. Have a home and home in various years against each other. I don't even care if it is we play you next year and you come back to us in 2027. But start building a resume of teams that you can work with. We do it in football, can it not be done in basketball the same way. I will open this up to CM as I know he will have the correct answer.

Our football schedule is built out years in advance, why exactly can we not do something similar in basketball with some pretty solid mid major teams. I know there is no guarantee they will be good then, but if a team is traditionally pretty good, they will still be pretty good.

Conferences like CUSA, AAC, A10, WAC, IVY League, Missouri Valley, ASUN, Big West, Summit and others are traditionally not bad conferences to chose from. Others could include the MAC, America East, Colonial, Southern, Big Sky, ETC.

I know these teams might not excite many of our fans, but they can be teams that are better than what we have traditionally gotten into the dome.

There is no reason why what you propose here can't be pursued. Travel costs is one thing that comes to mind that may limit the options. It is cheaper to travel to CUSA schools than out West but we have had trouble lining games like that up. There are instances of multi year contracts in basketball but we have generally set them up with schools in the area (La. Tech for example). Sometimes schools like to wait to finalize schedules in the event a nice MTE opportunity pops up. If we can good home and home deals with schools like Murray State I would be all for it.

[Cajunsmike]

How dumb.

Let's hope.

I think dumb is a strong word. You go on the road for two games and don't get paid for either in a 2 for 1 scenario. You hopefully get a nice crowd for the home game which helps with the finances. We had less than 4000 when we played Tennessee several years ago (think it was 2009) as part of a 3 for 1. We had a poor team that year which explains the weak support. With the team we had last season, such a game would draw well. The finance situation is why we have not pursued 2 for 1 deals in the recent past.

[Cajunsmike]

I’m really surprised UL
would consider any team coached by Will Wade.

We go to McNeese again this coming season in the final contest of a four game contract. They came here 2 straight years so we have to do the same. What happens after that is something I don't know. My guess is they try to continue the series regardless of who the coach is. The Cowboys will be very good this year. May be a good game to help prepare for conference play.

[Turbine]

I think dumb is a strong word. You go on the road for two games and don't get paid for either in a 2 for 1 scenario. You hopefully get a nice crowd for the home game which helps with the finances. We had less than 4000 when we played Tennessee several years ago (think it was 2009) as part of a 3 for 1. We had a poor team that year which explains the weak support. With the team we had last season, such a game would draw well. The finance situation is why we have not pursued 2 for 1 deals in the recent past.

Improved schedule should be prioritized.

If it takes a 3 for 1 with multiple schools to get an improved SOS for the 4 years of the multile spread out contracts it would be more than worth it in many ways.

For starters, the improved schedule would make a one-n-one much more attractive to your peer group.

Granted with decades of playing a weak schedule, it would take a multi year track record of improved scheduling to change the programs poor reputation.

[CajunEXPRESS]

Of course beyond money with the tv deals we’re locked into not having many two for one deals much less three for one.

[Turbine]

Of course beyond money with the tv deals we’re locked into not having many two for one deals much less three for one.

There is room, Louisiana needs to bite the bullet for a few years.

After Louisiana gains a reputation for a solid overall schedule, the cost of home and away goes way down.

[Cajunsmike]

Improved schedule should be prioritized.

If it takes a 3 for 1 with multiple schools to get an improved SOS for the 4 years of the multile spread out contracts it would be more than worth it in many ways.

For starters, the improved schedule would make a one-n-one much more attractive to your peer group.

Granted with decades of playing a weak schedule, it would take a multi year track record of improved scheduling to change the programs poor reputation.

We don't have a reputation of a weak schedule overall as our road schedule is usually fine if not challenging in most years. You can't have multiple 3 for 1 deals as we are required to have a certain no. of home games. You could do two of them I suppose but you also need to bring in income in that individual year and the pay games generally do that.

[Rainman66]

There is room, Louisiana needs to bite the bullet for a few years.

After Louisiana gains a reputation for a solid overall schedule, the cost of home and away goes way down.

Not following your logic. Can you expound more?

[Turbine]

... You can't have multiple 3 for 1 deals as we are required to have a certain no. of home games. You could do two of them I suppose but you also need to bring in income in that individual year and the pay games generally do that.

Sure you can a single 3-for-1 deal is not a 4 year contract, but more like an 8 to 12 year deal.

Under that scenario you can can have 3 or more reputation repair contracts running concurrently.

Like I said it won't have to last forever. Once schools know their RPI and SOS will get a boost playing you, you will end up with solid 1-n-1 deals.

[Turbine]

Not following your logic. Can you expound more?

One-n-one deals are not happening because UL has nothing to offer at the moment.

The one thing that is worth more than money to other programs is a high RPI opponent and a SOS boost.

UL can't offer that right now, and telling some team we will offer it down the road is not believable.

The only way to change that perception is an any place/your place model with 25% in your favor.

Once you new reputation is cemented and it could take 10 years, you have something to offer.

That is when contracts can be be 33% in your favor and finally schools are knocking down the door for a 50/50 deal.

[CajunVic]

and you are asking a coach we want run out to undertake that course . . .

[RaginDave]

I am very interested in what our MBB schedule looks like this year. We think, fairly confidently, as CM has put it that we will get a very good McNeese team on the road, we know that we have a home and home with one of the better (from last year at least) MAC teams. That is a pretty good start. I would assume we will be in some sort of MTE tournament and on the road for at least 1 P5 game. I assume we are still under contract with La Tech who came here last year, but I am not sure about that.