Dr. Savoie Retiring

[HoustonCajun]

Louisiana City, now that'd be a name!!

Louisiana City would be a great name for UL's athletic complex!

[CajunFun]

There needs to be some serious conversations on these points. It's not just a question of whether or not winning athletics brings in donors and students. It's a question of what kind of donors and students?

What serious student picks a university because they have a football team? And the kind of donors that big-time athletics bring in, just want even bigger-time athletics.

We have a problem right now, the students aren't going to the games, the more we win, it seems the smaller our crowds get, athletic costs have jumped the track, NIL & the portal are making a mockery of the entire concept of a university.

Meanwhile, we have become the state's leaders in research.

Why do we want to continue playing to LSU's strengths?

Particularly since we are passing them up in what they were supposed to have been doing for the past 160 years.

Are we absolutely confident that the best way to build a university, today, is through athletics?

[GeauxCajuns]

Yes.

[Turbine]

... What serious student picks a university because they have a football team? ...

Not many if any.

But no one picks a university they never heard of either.

Even if they have no conscious memory of how or why the name rings a bell.

Class bell .... enrollment.

[SMD7636]

UL can lead both on and off the field. Smart students like athletics too. Research proves that students with extra curricular activities do better in school than students with minimal involvement. If you want the best for UL, we need strong academics and athletics.

[ULvictory]

There needs to be some serious conversations on these points. It's not just a question of whether or not winning athletics brings in donors and students. It's a question of what kind of donors and students?

What serious student picks a university because they have a football team? And the kind of donors that big-time athletics bring in, just want even bigger-time athletics.

We have a problem right now, the students aren't going to the games, the more we win, it seems the smaller our crowds get, athletic costs have jumped the track, NIL & the portal are making a mockery of the entire concept of a university.

Meanwhile, we have become the state's leaders in research.

Why do we want to continue playing to LSU's strengths?

Particularly since we are passing them up in what they were supposed to have been doing for the past 160 years.

Are we absolutely confident that the best way to build a university, today, is through athletics?

It can be done if we do it right. Alabama doubled their enrollment (a lot of foreign students) during the Saban era while their academic standards dramatically increased. Miami did something similar in the late 1980s with their campus buildings while football was winning championships. Tulane is doing it right now with the rise of their football program.

Athletics has its place when it comes to easy marketing whether it is making a run for the CFP, the NCAA Tournament, or a baseball/softball regional. Our logo on ESPN on the tv's of millions of homes goes a long way as long as we continue to promote academic standards and continue to increase our research.

[ULvictory]

UL can lead both on and off the field. Smart students like athletics too. Research proves that students with extra curricular activities do better in school than students with minimal involvement. If you want the best for UL, we need strong academics and athletics.

See: Alabama

[RedTails]

There needs to be some serious conversations on these points. It's not just a question of whether or not winning athletics brings in donors and students. It's a question of what kind of donors and students?

What serious student picks a university because they have a football team? And the kind of donors that big-time athletics bring in, just want even bigger-time athletics.

We have a problem right now, the students aren't going to the games, the more we win, it seems the smaller our crowds get, athletic costs have jumped the track, NIL & the portal are making a mockery of the entire concept of a university.

Meanwhile, we have become the state's leaders in research.

Why do we want to continue playing to LSU's strengths?

Particularly since we are passing them up in what they were supposed to have been doing for the past 160 years.

Are we absolutely confident that the best way to build a university, today, is through athletics?

CajunFun coming in this thread and saying, “do we reaalllyyyy need athletics?” Makes me nervous

[zeppelincajun]

CajunFun coming in this thread and saying, “do we reaalllyyyy need athletics?” Makes me nervous

Yep

[zeppelincajun]

There needs to be some serious conversations on these points. It's not just a question of whether or not winning athletics brings in donors and students. It's a question of what kind of donors and students?

What serious student picks a university because they have a football team? And the kind of donors that big-time athletics bring in, just want even bigger-time athletics.

We have a problem right now, the students aren't going to the games, the more we win, it seems the smaller our crowds get, athletic costs have jumped the track, NIL & the portal are making a mockery of the entire concept of a university.

Meanwhile, we have become the state's leaders in research.

Why do we want to continue playing to LSU's strengths?

Particularly since we are passing them up in what they were supposed to have been doing for the past 160 years.

Are we absolutely confident that the best way to build a university, today, is through athletics?

Why have our admissions standards fallen off if we are truly elevating ourselves and bringing in top tier academic minds?