Money Games

[ZuluCajun]

_ the athletic director was addressing why we put Ole Miss away game to replace Boise and he said that several options were being looked at and one was a 1 for 1 with UL and it was nixed by you guys to play a guarantee game with LSU. I am sure the fans of both schools would have probably prefered winnable games and restarting an old rivalry. its on BleedTEchblue _

I have to agree with you T-Beaux these Rent-A-Loss games just turn my stomach.The Cajun Faithfull have been crying for a better than 500 season, yet some continue to support losing by playing these $$ Games. When this
athletic dept. ever decides to promote winning, I'll buy my season tickets again.

[CajunCherokee]

When this
athletic dept. ever decides to promote winning, I'll buy my season tickets again.

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.

[CajunRed]

I have to agree with you T-Beaux these Rent-A-Loss games just turn my stomach.The Cajun Faithfull have been crying for a better than 500 season, yet some continue to support losing by playing these $$ Games. When this
athletic dept. ever decides to promote winning, I'll buy my season tickets again.

The reason we MUST play money games is because not enough people support the program on a consistent basis. If more bought tickets, those games could stop.or at least could be limited to one per season.

igeaux.mobi

[CajunT]

_ I have to agree with you T-Beaux these Rent-A-Loss games just turn my stomach.The Cajun Faithfull have been crying for a better than 500 season, yet some continue to support losing by playing these $$ Games. When this
athletic dept. ever decides to promote winning, I'll buy my season tickets again. _

Until you can find a way to replace about 1.6 mil in guaranteed revenue, it will be part of life for a small budget program.

[Turbine]

_ The reason we MUST play money games is because not enough people support the program on a consistent basis. If more bought tickets, those games could stop.or at least could be limited to one per season.

igeaux.mobi _

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

[cajunfan32]

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 _

That would be a dream schedule.

[CajunMarine81]

_ 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 _

hit the nail on the head!!!

[Just1More]

_ 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, the only modification I believe we should consider is alternating years of less severe matchups in OOC contests. This "chicken-egg" thing has turned into "being chicken of big programs". We do not have to get waxed by larger programs. Others within the SBC are succeeding by playing equally difficult OOC contests, getting that boost in revenue, national recognition, more than accomplishing 7 plus win seasons, winning the conference championship, going to bowl games, etc, etc. Those who believe our downfall are the money games are sitting in a tub of dirty bath water trying to figure out why rinsing doesn't seem to be working. Get out of the damn dirty water! I'm sick of being in a football division that obviously has programs with much more money and recruiting/coaching advantages and whining about having to play these programs. We are in the same division.

I want to do a 5 year stint where we play nothing but top 20 teams in all 12 contests. I want to erase this babified attitude about how you win by playing only the worse teams. This nonsense about manipulating the "perfect schedule" so we ____-poor Cajuns can have a winning season is about the sorriest excuse for being in competition that I've ever heard in my life. It makes me want to tell some monied Cajun fans around the country to make sure and never be a part of our program. We are sorry little wannabees that don't have a scrotum large enough to sack a set of peas. I'm sick of it. Play everyone and learn how to beat them.

We more than play enough lousy football programs to get a championship and a winning season!!!

[Just1More]

Another point on money. It makes ALL the difference. It defines who wins and who does not. I don't know what silly factor anyone wants to tell me substitutes for money. What intangible do fans think the Cajuns or anyone else has that substitutes for money. When we get twice the money from RCAF than we do from the money games. we STILL cannot cancel the money games. We need all of that money and more. That is why this discussion is stupid and has always been stupid.

We need money! Period. Now, we do have some panty-wasters that think you "sell your soul" when you exercise your options on getting more money. That is a waste of thought. You stick to a set of principles and values, even when you make truckloads of money. Ever heard of that? You don't free your soul by being poor any more than you buy your soul with money. They are mutually exclusive attributes to the human condition.

We need money! Period. We have to get our program elevated via revenue generation. There is no chicken and the egg argument. We are not going to win, in any way shape or form without money. We are not going to somehow one day create interest and money just because the knuckleheads that have been loitering around this program keep saying "just win baby" and don't give money. We will win only when we build with money what makes you win.

We are not in the infancy of college football. The wonderful stories of rising out of nowhere are not available to us. We cannot sneak up on a winning season. We have to get money and build the constructs that get better recruits and better coaches and that will translate into winning. Period.

Buy season tickets, join RCAF, and go to the games. Just do it. Shut up and just do it. You aren't smarter than everyone else. Get your vermillion on and go to the games. It really isn't that complicated. We have to have all the money we can get and then some to compete in college football.

[Cajunsmike]

_ Another point on money. It makes ALL the difference. It defines who wins and who does not. I don't know what silly factor anyone wants to tell me substitutes for money. What intangible do fans think the Cajuns or anyone else has that substitutes for money. When we get twice the money from RCAF than we do from the money games. we STILL cannot cancel the money games. We need all of that money and more. That is why this discussion is stupid and has always been stupid.

We need money! Period. Now, we do have some panty-wasters that think you "sell your soul" when you exercise your options on getting more money. That is a waste of thought. You stick to a set of principles and values, even when you make truckloads of money. Ever heard of that? You don't free your soul by being poor any more than you buy your soul with money. They are mutually exclusive attributes to the human condition.

We need money! Period. We have to get our program elevated via revenue generation. There is no chicken and the egg argument. We are not going to win, in any way shape or form without money. We are not going to somehow one day create interest and money just because the knuckleheads that have been loitering around this program keep saying "just win baby" and don't give money. We will win only when we build with money what makes you win.

We are not in the infancy of college football. The wonderful stories of rising out of nowhere are not available to us. We cannot sneak up on a winning season. We have to get money and build the constructs that get better recruits and better coaches and that will translate into winning. Period.

Buy season tickets, join RCAF, and go to the games. Just do it. Shut up and just do it. You aren't smarter than everyone else. Get your vermillion on and go to the games. It really isn't that complicated. We have to have all the money we can get and then some to compete in college football. _

Just1More may have just penned the most pertinent posts ever made on this forum.

[poirrsf]

Turbine, the only modification I believe we should consider is alternating years of less severe matchups in OOC contests. This "chicken-egg" thing has turned into "being chicken of big programs". We do not have to get waxed by larger programs. Others within the SBC are succeeding by playing equally difficult OOC contests, getting that boost in revenue, national recognition, more than accomplishing 7 plus win seasons, winning the conference championship, going to bowl games, etc, etc. Those who believe our downfall are the money games are sitting in a tub of dirty bath water trying to figure out why rinsing doesn't seem to be working. Get out of the damn dirty water! I'm sick of being in a football division that obviously has programs with much more money and recruiting/coaching advantages and whining about having to play these programs. We are in the same division.

I want to do a 5 year stint where we play nothing but top 20 teams in all 12 contests. I want to erase this babified attitude about how you win by playing only the worse teams. This nonsense about manipulating the "perfect schedule" so we ____-poor Cajuns can have a winning season is about the sorriest excuse for being in competition that I've ever heard in my life. It makes me want to tell some monied Cajun fans around the country to make sure and never be a part of our program. We are sorry little wannabees that don't have a scrotum large enough to sack a set of peas. I'm sick of it. Play everyone and learn how to beat them.

We more than play enough lousy football programs to get a championship and a winning season!!!

igeaux.mobi

[Turbine]

_ Turbine, the only modification I believe we should consider is alternating years of less severe matchups in OOC contests.

You are an even stronger advocate of softening the schedule than I I only proposed every 3rd year and in that year bringing the power house home.

When Boise State began to turn the corner in 1998 (LINK) they were only playing "1" sure loss game a year.

Not till they started winning big did they begin playing "2" big time schools in the same season.

The perception of winning is much more lucrative than flinging it downfield on every play/season hoping to catch a powerhouse napping.

[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.