Money Games

[zephyr]

_ Every third season should be a season built for winning.

Up till now, all the success eggs have been placed in the rent a loss basket and even though the chicken-egg conundrum has been solved; I would like to see UL try the internal growth method that comes from winning.

I believe the fund flow from winning would dwarf the "loss for hire" economic model.

With a budget 33% larger than just 3 years ago there has to be a way to sock some away for more OK State type games at least every three years and not have a neutralizing Georgia game the same season.

jmpo _

Turbine, your theory is something that I think we would all like to see made reality. However, how do you propose we would make up the lost revenue in that year by gaining a couple more wins? I find several holes in your theory since you mention Boise. Yet, Boise's model was built on playing very few money games as you say. They were able to set up, year after year, for winning seasons and competitive play. To me, you will accomplish this "internal growth method" by winning consistently rather than every 3rd year. To me, that year would have little impact on your athletic budget. Also, we have improved our athletic budget over recent years and it obviously has nothing to do with increased numbers of wins. I think it has more to do with an increased internal investment by the school back into the program rather than an affect of wins on the budget. We've seen very little increase in attendance or any other factors that would increase our budget significantly after big wins over recent years. I think this model would be ideal for any program but would still likely require at least 1-2 possible money games per year to subsidize the budget.

[Turbine]

_ Turbine, your theory is something that I think we would all like to see made reality. However, how do you propose we would make up the lost revenue in that year by gaining a couple more wins? I find several holes in your theory since you mention Boise. Yet, Boise's model was built on playing very few money games as you say. They were able to set up, year after year, for winning seasons and competitive play. To me, you will accomplish this "internal growth method" by winning consistently rather than every 3rd year. To me, that year would have little impact on your athletic budget. Also, we have improved our athletic budget over recent years and it obviously has nothing to do with increased numbers of wins. I think it has more to do with an increased internal investment by the school back into the program rather than an affect of wins on the budget. We've seen very little increase in attendance or any other factors that would increase our budget significantly after big wins over recent years. I think this model would be ideal for any program but would still likely require at least 1-2 possible money games per year to subsidize the budget. _

I agree a big win in a losing season does nothing for a program. History has proven such. History has also shown that while money games will get you by . . . . they won't propel you. Only winning can propel a program financially and recruiting wise. We have seen small benefits from non losing seasons because you can at least argue potential, but it is not an excitement motivator that brings in cash.

In the mean time to get by and at least have a motivational stabilizer I would spend 2/3 of money game funds and save 1/3 to use every 3rd year. This would create a steady budget and allow the possibility for a breakout season every third year.

[Just1More]

_ I agree a big win in a losing season does nothing for a program. History has proven such. History has also shown that while money games will get you by . . . . they won't propel you. Only winning can propel a program financially and recruiting wise. We have seen small benefits from non losing seasons because you can at least argue potential, but it is not an excitement motivator that brings in cash.

In the mean time to get by and at least have a motivational stabilizer I would spend 2/3 of money game funds and save 1/3 to use every 3rd year. This would create a steady budget and allow the possibility for a breakout season every third year. _

Turbine, I like you like a brother... but you are wrong on the statement "only winning can propel a program financially and recruiting wise". It could not be more opposite. I have said it 100 times and I wasn't wrong once... "Winning is a result". Is it a feedback multiplier signal to an already winning system?... yes. But, you never start the process with a win in your pocket if the other guy has money in his.

I completely understand your thoughts that a less severe opponent lineup would give us a better chance at a winning season. First, however, it cannot happen at the expense of money to our program... not a nickel. Second, these ideal schedules are virtually impossible to create. Third, this unrealistic belief that if we didn't play the #15 in the poll, but instead played #37... we would get that 7th win... is unreasonable. We would likely lose to a #37 instead of a #15... unless we start getting more money... and perhaps even drop a game to a FCS program we fully intended to "pad our schedule with". That is a history you cannot also deny. I believe teams also play down to some of the lowest denominators in their fantasy schedules.

We have a schedule right now that has 8 games with SBC opponents, none of which are in the top 70 ranked in the country. How much damn easier are we suppose to get it... and be in the FBS?

The only compromise I see in this "money game" debate is that we alternate years of severe and less severe lineups. But, realize what I mean. I want all 4 OOC games as money games in alternating years. The idea that we get "beat up physically" in those games is a dumb man's myth. We would probably run the table in the SBC in the year we play the 4 money games. It would, however, provide you and others that wanted schedule relief... that I do not necessarily truly believe in... in that alternating year. If we can work that out as a scheduling mission... let's see it.

Otherwise... I vote we play all 4 OOC games as money games every year... and totally focus our efforts on winning the SBC conference championship. The key is that Cajun fans and our administrators stop embracing underdoggedness as a strategy, and every year praying to their dice for another Cinderella Dream. Without a severe influx of money... forget the Cinderella Dream. The other programs aren't banking on a scheduling jackpot and neither can we.

[Turbine]

Well the 100% money game angle has not been tried but I doubt it would ever raise the perception of the school.

I could see it bringing in $6 mil a year perhaps $8 mil in a few years but I really think a consistently winning program with a winning track record would bring in much more in the long run.

I also understand the "How much damn easier are we suppose to get it" comment, it is a dilemma.

Part of the reasoning behind my 3 year rotation idea is to get them on our turf because that is the only chance of ever really turning the corner. On average even the BCS teams have historically losing records on the road.

[zephyr]

_ I agree a big win in a losing season does nothing for a program. History has proven such. History has also shown that while money games will get you by . . . . they won't propel you. Only winning can propel a program financially and recruiting wise. We have seen small benefits from non losing seasons because you can at least argue potential, but it is not an excitement motivator that brings in cash.

In the mean time to get by and at least have a motivational stabilizer I would spend 2/3 of money game funds and save 1/3 to use every 3rd year. This would create a steady budget and allow the possibility for a breakout season every third year. _

But where does the revenue come from beating smaller schools and getting an extra win or two? I don't see our attendance numbers spiking drastically after one 7-5 season and I don't see where the additional funds would come from that would potentially make up for 1.6 million in guaranteed money. Then, you likely have to pay other teams to come play us to get an extra home game or two since you are going to want to maximize your amount of home games when playing teams from weaker conferences or even FCS teams which you aren't going to travel to play. I think, in order to make that model work, you would have to put a 3-4 year plan together of this type of scheduling mixed in with the money game from year to year and hope you produce on the field and hit the jackpot with RCAF donations because the major source of your operating budget will be gone.

[Duggie35]

Because the State of Louisiana does not allow State schools to implement and utilize student fees dedicated to athlectic's (like virtually every other State in this country) we cannot utilize the existing models of several other mid-major schools that have risen up from the dead. Therefore, we have to do some things to raise additional funds that other schools in other States don't necessarily have to do. As has been stated numerous times by the administration, as well as on this forum, until UL fan's and supporters increase their donations significantly through the RCAF and/or other methods, we have no choice but to make money anyway that we can. Right now the easiest way to do that, is to play "money games" in football. The largest paychecks are typically written by the more successful programs in D-1A. Therefore we have to do what we have to do.

I realize that it is a tough task to play top notch SEC and Big 12 schools on a regular basis on the road, but because we have always been a D-1A program, we shouldn't back down from the competition. I know the odds are currently against us, but we need to continue working hard and when we get where we want to be, the rewards will be that much sweeter. These "money games" will not be a big issue when we simply start taking care of winning our conference.

[USLJim]

_ I hope you know that you have become part of the problem by not being a season ticket holder. It's fine if you don't want to, but I just want to make sure you know that. _

I totally agree, talk about put foot in mouth. Fill up the stands and we don't have to have money games. GEEZ, it don't take brains to figure that one out.

GEAUX CAJUNS