coachacola Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Here's the comment that Jack is referring to: Bruce Van De Velde: Through my discussions with Conference USA, much of what will happen in the short-term depends on the Big East. If Villanova decides to play FBS football, then there could be little impact on CUSA and thus LA Tech. If Villanova decides to stay at the FCS level, then the Big East could look at adding a school from CUSA and thus create an opening for LA Tech to join. There also will be opportunities for the WAC to possibly strengthen its membership in 2013 if some schools decide to make the commitment to the FBS. My guess he means Lamar and/or SHSU.
Lamar Pride Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 our tailgating group expanded from 8 parking spots and 20 people last year to 12 parking spots and 30 people this coming year.i think 7 of the people coming in didnt attend a game last year.i was told by them that they heard how great lu tailgating was and decided to get in on it.i expect this to be the norm and lu will have way more people tailgating this year.word of mouth is the best advertising!! Not to mention, one of your tailgate people from last year has moved next door and picked up an additional 8 spots with another crew of people. Come on football season.
Guest bigred360 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Just got my season tickets as I didn't have them last season. I'm pumped for football season! B)
jdcurran235 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 @ Jack's Quote: I think he is probably talking about western schools and the montana's. The way it is worded is that he is talking about invites that have already happened. I don't think he is talking about LU or SHSU. Although I wish he was.
jdcurran235 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 SOMETHING THAT KEEPS BUGGING ME. Everyone keeps talking about wanting an FBS school to move to the WAC. Specifically ULL. I understand wanting UNT, but ULL in all reality should probably not be an FBS school. Same goes for ULM. TxSt, and ootsa are better prepared for FBS than ULL or ULM. If they come to the WAC they just drag it down in the long run. You are better off with LU or SHSU in your division in the long run. At least those schools have money and are continually improving. Same thing with the montanas. In fact probably half the SLC not that you would look at anyone else except for maybe UTA. I just dont understand the excitment of having a bankrupt school moving to your conference. There are many better FBS and FCS teams than either one of the Louisiana schools.
Guest Roadrunner Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I am on my mobile so I can't repaste the still live transcript of the chat with LA Tech AD Van De Velde, but I underlined something that might interest you guys. Check it out, and I don't care if you guys copy me for your posters.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 SOMETHING THAT KEEPS BUGGING ME. Everyone keeps talking about wanting an FBS school to move to the WAC. Specifically ULL. I understand wanting UNT, but ULL in all reality should probably not be an FBS school. Same goes for ULM. TxSt, and ootsa are better prepared for FBS than ULL or ULM. If they come to the WAC they just drag it down in the long run. You are better off with LU or SHSU in your division in the long run. At least those schools have money and are continually improving. Same thing with the montanas. In fact probably half the SLC not that you would look at anyone else except for maybe UTA. I just dont understand the excitment of having a bankrupt school moving to your conference. There are many better FBS and FCS teams than either one of the Louisiana schools. Completely agree, I made a statement similar to this on the WAC board earlier today. Here is the thread - http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=7439451
coachacola Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 @ Jack's Quote: I think he is probably talking about western schools and the montana's. The way it is worded is that he is talking about invites that have already happened. I don't think he is talking about LU or SHSU. Although I wish he was. Everything I've read seems to indicate the western schools do not want to upgrade to FBS. I think the WAC is morphing into a southwest conference. 2013 happens to be the same year that Terror says SHSU hopes to have a $15 million budget. I'm sure Lamar is aiming for a similar budget. I think Lamar and SHSU will join either the WAC or the Sun Belt in 2013 as a package deal that will give the conference the Houston market. ULL is well ahead of Lamar and SHSU. Maybe 5 years from now Lamar might be caught up but they are in a slightly larger metro area, have a larger enrollment, are already a high-research university, and already have plans to spend millions on athletic upgrades. ULM on the other hand is probably belongs back in the SLC.
jdcurran235 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I just look at the schools that are FBS and I look at LU and I dont see a huge difference. You are probably right about ULL, but people think that any FBS add will be better than LU. This is just not true. There are multiple schools in FBS that cant even make the attendance requirement. The only reason some schools do is cause they get one big game a year to artificially make their figures high. I see LU as a school growing increadibly fast. I see FBS schools that are stagnent or decreasing in size. I see people saying they would prefer these dying schools over an FBS upgrade that is better aligned to be FBS than some of the current schools that are FBS. If you knowz what I meanz
jdcurran235 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 As far as the western schools go, there is maybe one or two that could be ready by 2013. But I see the same thing as you about the southwestern conference. I think the quote is about the western schools, but I think they are being hopefull at the sametime. The WAC will probably turn into a southwest conference.
TexGator Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I just look at the schools that are FBS and I look at LU and I dont see a huge difference. You are probably right about ULL, but people think that any FBS add will be better than LU. This is just not true. There are multiple schools in FBS that cant even make the attendance requirement. The only reason some schools do is cause they get one big game a year to artificially make their figures high. I see LU as a school growing increadibly fast. I see FBS schools that are stagnent or decreasing in size. I see people saying they would prefer these dying schools over an FBS upgrade that is better aligned to be FBS than some of the current schools that are FBS. If you knowz what I meanz I see one big difference- they've been playing FBS football and have developed an, in theory, FBS program. I think we'll be taken more seriously once we play an FBS school or two and don't get overmatched... which, we get a chance to do that next year.
jdcurran235 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I just look at the schools that are FBS and I look at LU and I dont see a huge difference. You are probably right about ULL, but people think that any FBS add will be better than LU. This is just not true. There are multiple schools in FBS that cant even make the attendance requirement. The only reason some schools do is cause they get one big game a year to artificially make their figures high. I see LU as a school growing increadibly fast. I see FBS schools that are stagnent or decreasing in size. I see people saying they would prefer these dying schools over an FBS upgrade that is better aligned to be FBS than some of the current schools that are FBS. If you knowz what I meanz I see one big difference- they've been playing FBS football and have developed an, in theory, FBS program. I think we'll be taken more seriously once we play an FBS school or two and don't get overmatched... which, we get a chance to do that next year. I tend to believe whether or not a program is already developed really doesnt mean that much. I look at UTSA and see them saying we are committed to sports and the conference taking the risk. I think we have just said that with the Knight hire. I think you have to compare everything a school has to offer. LU goes FBS they would have no problem beating ULM in thier second year. They might even do it in their first year. I know I am picking on ULM, but they are a prime example of why we should be FBS already. (Note: I do set the bar higher than ULM for LU)
TexGator Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I just look at the schools that are FBS and I look at LU and I dont see a huge difference. You are probably right about ULL, but people think that any FBS add will be better than LU. This is just not true. There are multiple schools in FBS that cant even make the attendance requirement. The only reason some schools do is cause they get one big game a year to artificially make their figures high. I see LU as a school growing increadibly fast. I see FBS schools that are stagnent or decreasing in size. I see people saying they would prefer these dying schools over an FBS upgrade that is better aligned to be FBS than some of the current schools that are FBS. If you knowz what I meanz I see one big difference- they've been playing FBS football and have developed an, in theory, FBS program. I think we'll be taken more seriously once we play an FBS school or two and don't get overmatched... which, we get a chance to do that next year. I tend to believe whether or not a program is already developed really doesnt mean that much. I look at UTSA and see them saying we are committed to sports and the conference taking the risk. I think we have just said that with the Knight hire. I think you have to compare everything a school has to offer. LU goes FBS they would have no problem beating ULM in thier second year. They might even do it in their first year. I know I am picking on ULM, but they are a prime example of why we should be FBS already. (Note: I do set the bar higher than ULM for LU) The bar is set higher than ULM... but it's a start. But, until we go FBS, let's start by winning some conference games. THEN, we'll go after winning the conference.
TexGator Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I don't know how recently this was posted, but I saw it on the front page of the conference realignment topic. (and like most of the posters, I don't know why they'd stop at 11 and not go to 12) http://collegesportsinfo.com/2011/04/07/sun-belt-considers-expansion-11th-football-school/ I know I'm going against the prevailing opinion, but if Wright Waters (SBC commissioner) were to call, I'd offer the phone and offer to pick up the beignets for an 8AM breakfast meeting. And remember- they like Community Coffee over there... don't get hung up if they don't have Seaport Dark Roast available.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I don't know how recently this was posted, but I saw it on the front page of the conference realignment topic. (and like most of the posters, I don't know why they'd stop at 11 and not go to 12) http://collegesportsinfo.com/2011/04/07/sun-belt-considers-expansion-11th-football-school/ I know I'm going against the prevailing opinion, but if Wright Waters (SBC commissioner) were to call, I'd offer the phone and offer to pick up the beignets for an 8AM breakfast meeting. And remember- they like Community Coffee over there... don't get hung up if they don't have Seaport Dark Roast available. Unfortunately this is slightly old and somewhat questionable news. After it was leaked that they might be looking to go to 11 several SBC AD's said it wasn't true and La Tech as publicly stated they will not go to the SBC.
jdcurran235 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 We need some WAC rumors!!! Things are just way to quiet
coachacola Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I have a feeling Lamar won't be joining the WAC until 2013.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I have a feeling Lamar won't be joining the WAC until 2013. I hope your right because that's what I have preferred from the beginning. 2012 is too soon, we have much to accomplish, athletic budget, facilities upgrades, winning in basketball, etc. 2013 allows us to compete in football for at least one year in the SLC. I'm just more uncertain about 2013 than I am about 2012, that gives the WAC and California schools more time to take our spot. Make sense?
jdcurran235 Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 I dont think the WAC is going to give us an ultimatum. I think they will probably let us commit at a comfortable schedule since they do not have to add anyone this year. But we will see.
coachacola Posted April 21, 2011 Posted April 21, 2011 Here's what Justin, a site admin over on bobcatreport.com has to say on the subject: I recently spoke to a couple of my sources out west and nothing has changed. This will upset many of you, but Texas Terror is pretty much spot on (and he knows more than he is willing to discuss on any message board). I have been saying for a couple of months now that SAM was also a WAC target. Lamar and Sam are not the WAC's first choice by any means, but they may be the most realistic. The WAC is in survival mode and needs football schools. Montana and Montana State are at the top of the list, but this is remains a long shot at best. Budgetary issues remain at the forefront for the majority of the schools on the WAC's wish list. This is under the SHSU to the WAC thread over on bobcatreport.com.
TexasTerror Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Can't stand when that 'TT' guy is spot on! Even worse when a Bobcat fan mentions it... :laugh:
Guest NorthoftheBorder Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Can't stand when that 'TT' guy is spot on! Even worse when a Bobcat fan mentions it... :laugh: Terror, nobody here as far as I can tell questions your knowledge. It is quite apparent you have very good connections to information going on in SHSU/TSUS/college sports world. In fact your insight is welcome. From my perspective, what irritates me is you sarcastic jabs at Lamar and the fact that you are condensating in your remarks. I have to read around that to get to the tidbits of good information that you provide for lay people like me. Just sayin.......
coachacola Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 Can't stand when that 'TT' guy is spot on! Even worse when a Bobcat fan mentions it... :laugh: Terror, nobody here as far as I can tell questions your knowledge. It is quite apparent you have very good connections to information going on in SHSU/TSUS/college sports world. In fact your insight is welcome. From my perspective, what irritates me is you sarcastic jabs at Lamar and the fact that you are condensating in your remarks. I have to read around that to get to the tidbits of good information that you provide for lay people like me. Just sayin....... I think Terror was referring to the posters over on bobcatreport.com as a lot of them think SHSU (and Lamar to a certain extent) are not good enough for the WAC like Texas State is.
TexasTerror Posted April 22, 2011 Posted April 22, 2011 I think Terror was referring to the posters over on bobcatreport.com as a lot of them think SHSU (and Lamar to a certain extent) are not good enough for the WAC like Texas State is. Correct. They all are stating that Lamar, but particularly SHSU - are not ready for FBS and would knock the wind out of their sails. Unfortunately, they need one - if not both - of our schools in order for the WAC to maintain some stability. Lamar and SHSU are clearly not their first choice(s), but ultimately may be their only choice(s).
.png.88e0b900f1aa353dc4be09303a3550aa.png)
Recommended Posts