So, which is it?

[Cajunsmike]

Our agenda is simple: 1. Put a team on the court every year that beats top 100 RPI teams at the rate Marlins teams beat RPI 101-200 (about 40 percent), and beats teams RPI 101+ at the rate Marlins teams beat RPI 201+.
2. Stop playing non D1 teams.
3. Stop playing teams OOC with 3 year rolling average RPI of 200+.

Do those three things and everything else takes care of itself.

If Marlin could do that, I am fine with him staying as long as he wants; but we all know he can't.

There is a desire by the administration to reduce the no. of non D1 games (Point No. 2). However, No. 3 is not being considered as the administration supports the policy of playing several state teams Dr. Maggard and Nico Yantko will have to be lobbied and hard to make a change there. Now if the state teams improve and we get paired with good opponents in the proposed alliance it could happen by default.

[zephyr]

Nobody wants to hear that and most having a fit about it just ignore it. Any extension at all is against the agenda. I trust Maggard.

We don't ignore it. We just don't agree with it.

[zephyr]

I can see it from both angles.

On one angle, it frustrates fans because we gave him a raise while the program has been kind of stagant/plateaud.

On the other hand, the contract extension lowers his buyout, gives him a raise, and focuses more on incentives (making the postseason, winning conference, etc.)

If the trend continues where we miss the dance, Marlin will have to answer as to why at such a higher salary that he’s not performing. It also makes the job more attractive for the next hire. Like I’ve previously mentioned, I support the extension because of this.

I'm confused. I thought you were one of the more vocal opponents of Marlin in recent days. You support the extension?

[ULvictory]

I'm confused. I thought you were one of the more vocal opponents of Marlin in recent days. You support the extension?

I support the extension because it justifies a reasoning to make changes necessary if the time comes. Now, he’s getting paid more. Now, he has higher incenvtives. And now, the buyout is lowered if he doesn’t produce. The salary increase showed us that Maggard is serious on where he wants this program to go. The ball is now in Marlin’s court to get us there. And if he doesn’t, well.....

As far as me being a vocal opponent, I don’t think he should be fired. But I have my doubts to whether or not he can get us to the next level. The administration has recently put more resources into the program, so now it’s time to compliment it with results. What I don’t like is when our coaching staff attempts to inflate our program (“we are the conference standard,” “teams that just beat us celebrate like they win the Super Bowl,” “we are the team everybody gets up for,” etc.) as if we are some serious contender when we have only been to the tournament once in 15 years along with one NIT berth. And they mostly do it after a loss. It’s like when Hud blamed the APC for losing to Akron. It’s insulting and laughable. And then, Krewe de Corner Bar comes right behind them and repeats what they say like parrots. And if we disagree, we are either “haters” or we “want Marlin fired.” No. We want the cost to match quality. Stop trying to sunshine pump the program and go produce.

My demands are simple. Consistent top 4 finish in conference (which we have done recently) and more postseason appearances. If they do both of those, I will shut up. If they can’t do both of those, then it’s time to find someone who can.

[zephyr]

I support the extension because it justifies a reasoning to make changes necessary if the time comes. Now, he’s getting paid more. Now, he has higher incenvtives. And now, the buyout is lowered if he doesn’t produce. The salary increase showed us that Maggard is serious on where he wants this program to go. The ball is now in Marlin’s court to get us there. And if he doesn’t, well.....

As far as me being a vocal opponent, I don’t think he should be fired. But I have my doubts to whether or not he can get us to the next level. The administration has recently put more resources into the program, so now it’s time to compliment it with results. What I don’t like is when our coaching staff attempts to inflate our program (“we are the conference standard,” “teams that just beat us celebrate like they win the Super Bowl,” “we are the team everybody gets up for,” etc.) as if we are some serious contender when we have only been to the tournament once in 15 years along with one NIT berth. And they mostly do it after a loss. It’s like when Hud blamed the APC for losing to Akron. It’s insulting and laughable. Stop trying to sunshine pump the program and go produce.

My demands are simple. Consistent top 4 finish in conference (which we have done recently) and more postseason appearances. If they do both of those, I will shut up. If they can’t do both of those, then it’s time to find someone who can.

My approach is similar except I'm not in favor of the recent extension but that's neither here nor there. I want there to be an expectation of excellence in our program. One that eventually spills over beyond conference dominance and into success in OOC scheduling. To me, top 4 in conference is not really excellence. I want to compete for that top spot every year. I feel like we should, especially when paying the staff what we pay. I want to see better recruiting and I want to see obvious postseason participation.

[ULvictory]

My approach is similar except I'm not in favor of the recent extension but that's neither here nor there. I want there to be an expectation of excellence in our program. One that eventually spills over beyond conference dominance and into success in OOC scheduling. To me, top 4 in conference is not really excellence. I want to compete for that top spot every year. I feel like we should, especially when paying the staff what we pay. I want to see better recruiting and I want to see obvious postseason participation.

We pretty much have similar demands except for where we finish in conference. I’ve recently stated that I’m pretty generous in that regard and that it’s a low floor. But postseason appearances have to compliment it for me to be fully satisfied. Again, what really irks me about this coaching staff are the excuses and the sunshine pumping. We have seen they’re capable of winning. Just go and do it.

We can’t just fire a coach who won 27 games. But what we can do is raise the bar for the program and make the job attractive for another coach if this coach can’t cut it.

[cajun4life]

There is a desire by the administration to reduce the no. of non D1 games (Point No. 2). However, No. 3 is not being considered as the administration supports the policy of playing several state teams Dr. Maggard and Nico Yantko will have to be lobbied and hard to make a change there. Now if the state teams improve and we get paired with good opponents in the proposed alliance it could happen by default.

I don’t think anyone is opposed to home and home with LaTurd, 2 for 1 with McNeese & SLU. But we should never play Loyola, Dillard, Louisiana College, and Centenary.

Our OOC road games should be against top 125 RPI teams and neutral site tournaments should give us those opportunities. Plus some pay day games against teams not named Kansas.

[LaCajunsFan]

I don't think anyone is opposed to home and home with LaTurd, 2 for 1 with McNeese & SLU. But we should never play Loyola, Dillard, Louisiana College, and Centenary.

Our OOC road games should be against top 125 RPI teams and neutral site tournaments should give us those opportunities. Plus some pay day games against teams not named Kansas.

Yes, I very much agree with keeping the series going with the 'turds. As disappointing....and worrying....about the loss this year, let's remember that since the current series began in this decade out of six games we are up on them 4-2. That includes a stomp down of them at their place that ended a longing winning streak of theirs back in 15? 16?
This series is a good thing for both teams, and the only way to determine the better program is to play consistently. I hope it gets renewed.
And I also agree with you about msu and the other schools you mentioned.

[Crawfish]

Serious question: what is the "Krewe de Corner Bar?"

[Cajunsmike]

I don't think anyone is opposed to home and home with LaTurd, 2 for 1 with McNeese & SLU. But we should never play Loyola, Dillard, Louisiana College, and Centenary.

Our OOC road games should be against top 125 RPI teams and neutral site tournaments should give us those opportunities. Plus some pay day games against teams not named Kansas.

I think that view is pretty close to what the administration wants other than McNeese will be home and home due to history. SLU wanted to get paid in the third game which is why they went for the 2 and 1 deal. Now, the neutral site tournaments may not get you the 125 parameter as you don't control completely who will be invited. Also, you can't play in the same tournament but once every four years. Still, there will be no overall guideline for rolling RPI averages as that is not a focus of the administration. The proposed alliance and increased no. of conference games will take a lot of the scheduling debate away.

[zephyr]

Serious question: what is the "Krewe de Corner Bar?"

Scott Farmer and some backers who used to defend him at all costs.

[CajunJeaux]

Scott Farmer and some backers who used to defend him at all costs.

Assuming all those guys who used to huddle around the kickers net on the sideline for every home and road game?