Dawg06

Again, Tech never turned down an Indy Bowl invite. Tech asked them to wait until Sunday like almost ever other bowl because Tech was in talks with the Liberty and Heart of Dallas bowls, and the Indy Bowl would essentially get the last picks. The Indy Bowl got their feelings hurt and had pressure put on them by the MAC commish so they invited ULM and Ohio. When NIU made the BCS, it screwed up the trade to the Heart of Dallas Bowl because it knocked Oklahoma out of a BCS bowl, and the Liberty Bowl director went back on his word. He was telling both Tech, Arkansas State, and Iowa State that they would get that open spot. After all that went down, Tech went back to the Indy Bowl to accept the invite, but it was too late. The only bowl Tech has ever turned down was the Texas Bowl in 2008 to play in Shreveport. You think we lost a coach over the bowl mess? Lol. Rumor has it that Dykes had been shopping around since October, and that's one of the reasons our season ended poorly. We lost Coach Dykes because we can't pay him $2 million per year, and he can't win national championships at a non-AQ school. We had 32 seniors, and he felt he needed to move on when he stock was the highest. Also, our AD wasn't exactly fired over it either. Seven months passed between the bowl mess and when he was forced to resign because we had a new president coming in who wants his guy. Our AD's biggest fault is that we haven't broken ground on the $20 million end zone complex that he announced over 3 years ago. But the bowl rumors did destroy BVDV's reputation, and our new president believed it was time to move on. Our AD was never even liked by our fan base in the first place. Which Tech administrator has ever publicly disparaged ULM or ULL? And why should Tech want to play ULL or ULM in a bowl game if we have better options? It's not a reward or beneficial for Tech to play either one of those schools in a bowl game. And Tech didn't keep ULL out of any bowl. ULL kept themselves out by only finishing 6-6. At that time, 7 wins would have guaranteed them a bowl game somewhere. ULL only has themselves to blame.

I never said they should drop down. If they did that, they would have to swallow their pride and lose what little support they do have. They would also lose so much revenue from their money games. I said it was a poor decision for them to move up in the first place because they simply don't have the resources to be competitive across the board with football at the FBS level. They can't go back in time two decades to fix that mistake. It's not just about football. The result is that it's starved all their other sports and killed support for the university. They also lost a lost of support with their name change, and the name change allowed ULL the opportunity to falsely imply that ULM is their branch campus. ULL is doing more harm to ULM's perception than Tech has ever done, and ULL is doing it illegally. Call it arrogance if you want, but it's really just being honest, objective, and realistic regarding ULM's situation. Nobody at Tech is worried about ULM. They are irrelevant and always will be. They simply don't have the resources to sustain any competitive success. It took them 19 years for them to have 1 winning season and go to their first ever bowl game. They finally lucked into landing a good QB, knocked out the Arkansas QB, and lucked into winning 3 overtime games last year. ULM was bound to get some lucky breaks at some point. Academically (what really matters), there's no comparison between the two universities, and everybody knows it. If ULM can better themselves, then good for them. But Tech shouldn't be expected to help better ULM like so many are implying. That's up for them to figure out on their own. Happy Independence Day! Cheers!

Why should La Tech be obligated to bail out ULM for their failures? We don't owe them anything. We have to look out for our own interests and do what's best for Tech. We got to where we are on our own despite everybody else in the state including ULM trying to pull (or push in LSU's case) us down. What's wrong with letting ULM figure out how to solve their own problems and improve themselves on their own like everybody else? Why should we give them special treatment to our detriment?

There you go. The DFW metroplex has what, about 6.5 million people? The entire state of Louisiana only has a population of about 4.5 million people, and probably 80% of that is concentrated in South Louisiana. We have 3 DI universities (Grambling, LaTech, ULM) located within a 30 mile stretch in rural North Louisiana. Playing in the DFW and Houston markets is huge for us, and our new president has a plan to ramp up academic recruiting efforts in those areas. Playing football and basketball games in those big markets is important for us to reconnect with many of our alumni who can't or won't travel to Ruston. We have a lot of alumni living and working in Houston and DFW because there are no jobs in North Louisiana, especially for our engineering alumni. That's why this Heart of Dallas Classic vs. Army is so big for us and why we were working to get the Liberty Bowl to trade us to the Heart of Dallas Bowl during the bowl mess. And we have room for plenty more fans in Shreveport-Bossier, and there is no DI university in Shreveport. The problem is that they are all bandwagon LSU/Saints/Cowboys fans depending on the year, and they refuse to support anything local. Shreveport has to be the worst sports town in America. Pretty much all of our fans are alumni.

First, we don't want a local rivalry. That's what ULM wants. We want to play on a more regional and national platform to expand our brand and increase our national exposure. We want rivalries with Southern Miss, Rice, and North Texas and ultimately Tulane and LSU for in-state rivalries. You can't compare LaTech playing ULM to LaTech playing WAC schools (BTW Hawai'i brought the most fans). You have to compare it to the non-conference games we scheduled. We usually have to play 2 money games and 1 FCS game to balance out a money game. (ULM usually has to schedule 3 money games and 1 FCS game to balance their budget.) That really only leaves room for 1 home-and-home game per season. LaTech played or signed home-and-home deals while in the WAC with Texas A&M, two with Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, Cal, Miami (FL), BYU, Navy, Army, Houston, Southern Miss, Rice, UNLV, North Texas, two with ULL, South Alabama, and Bowling Green. Why should we have to schedule ULM? We don't need ULM butts in our seats, and the last time couple times we played them no ULM fans showed up because we pounded them every time.

We aren't pushing ULM down. ULM (Me Too U) is there own worst enemy. The only reason they are in the FBS is because LaTech moved up. It was an irrational decision by their admin because they are a Southland level program without the resources to succeed at the FBS level. ULM basically committed suicide trying to keep up with LaTech. ULM is now in debt to their ears. ULM has lost an entire generation of fans taking 19 years to record their first ever winning season and bowl game at the FBS level. Arkansas let ULM schedule ULM "home" games against them in Little Rock just so they could meet the FBS attendance requirements. They are the smallest public school in the FBS, the worst academic school in the FBS per USN&WR, and have the smallest budget in the FBS. ULM simply doesn't belong. They can't even afford a ninth assistant football coach or even a director of basketball operations. That's how poor they are. Because of all the added costs of FBS football that they can't afford, all of their other sports suffer. They have the 14th smallest MBB budget in all of Division I (link) and only spend more than some SWAC schools. ULM is basically on life support, and the only thing keeping them alive is the hope of playing Tech again. We are the only thing that can save them, and their new AD knows it. Their choices are to die a slow death in the FBS, or swallow their pride and lose what little remaining support they have by moving back to the Southland to become competitive again. It's a lose-lose situation for them. And why should we be obligated to save another university in our backyard that we compete with for students, money, and support? The difference between LaTech and SMU is that we started from nowhere, took significant risks, and worked hard without cheating to earn the competitive advantage that we enjoy today.

I think Tech fans are most excited about playing Southern Miss, Rice, and North Texas. We look forward to playing y'all. And from what I understand, UNT will travel the band to Ruston. That will make for a great atmosphere. I realize a lot of people hate La Tech because they think we are arrogant. That's fair I guess, but I call it pride. We are really just a small school in a small town with big aspirations. It's that attitude that got us into C-USA. The separation agenda started back in 1971 when La Tech (and USL) killed the Gulf States Conference despite the political pressure to keep the conference together. La Tech and USL left for the Southland seeking a conference with a more national platform. Then McNeese State and NLU later caught up to us in the Southland. Then we were kicked down to DI-AA due to our attendance while USL got to remain I-A. La Tech worked hard to get it back up and increase the stadium capacity to move back up to I-A. Gov. Edwin Edwards put pressure on us to stay in I-AA and told our president that we would fail if we moved up and face political ramifications. Our president did not cave, and then came the American South which later merged with the Sun Belt with football either independent or in the Big West. Thirty years after the separation campaign began, we were invited to the WAC with Rice, SMU, and Tulsa without any of the regional Louisiana schools, and we were told we would fail again and told we couldn't afford the travel. And now here we are in C-USA while all the other former Gulf States schools and regional schools (ULL, ULM, UNO, McNeese, NWST, SELA, Nicholls) are still in the Sun Belt or Southland. Our "arrogance" and taking risks have been the biggest driving forces behind our success. That's why I don't really have a problem with not going to a bowl last season. We were being true to who we are.

I think the Davisons et al knew exactly what was going on and supported BVDV. (BTW we have another donor who gave $1 million for our new turf, and he said that if ULM ever set foot on it that he would roll it up and take it home.) I think the real problem was that BVDV had no leverage with the WAC in its final season and only one bowl tie-in in Boise, and the MAC commish did have leverage with the Indy Bowl by threatening to send them 6-6 Central Michigan. Then Ehrhart of the Liberty Bowl played Benson and Hurd/BVDV like fools. BVDV told Missy Setters that any team the Indy Bowl wanted would still be left for them on Sunday after all the other bowls made their picks. All of this hurt her feelings, and she caved to the pressure from Steinbrecher. If the donors or university president really faulted BVDV for not getting us into a bowl game, I think BVDV would have been fired immediately. The president launched an investigation, and nothing ever came of it. I don't think he was forced to resign because of the bowl mess. The result of the bowl fiasco was that BVDV's reputation was ruined with all the rumors and speculation that went viral. Our end zone project is probably 2 years behind schedule. He completely lost the support of our fan base. We have a new president who just started this week. I think he saw that we needed a fresh start, and he wanted to bring in his guy from the start.

That's not how it went down. Go back and read what ArkStFan and I posted. BVDV would have accepted the Indy Bowl invite against ULM if it was our last option. The problem was that after the Liberty/Heart of Dallas deal didn't work out, the Indy Bowl had already invited ULM and Ohio. And it's not just the bowl fiasco that's tainting his legacy. He announced a football facility project over 3 years ago that still hasn't broken ground.

I'm not looking for sympathy. Just trying to tell a more accurate version of the story. Hope many of y'all make the trip to Ruston this year for football. I know we are basketball travel partners so we will get to play each other home and away this year. Looking forward to the rivalry. Cheers.

Lol. No. La Tech is not the Indy Bowl's problem. The Indy Bowl has only their own mismanagement to blame. The Indy Bowl has been grossly mismanaged for years and years. La Tech saved the Indy Bowl in 2008. They had no title sponsor. Neither the SEC nor the Big 12 could fill their contracted tie-ins. La Tech had an invitation to play Rice in the Texas Bowl at Reliant Stadium. Dooley turned down the Texas Bowl to play in the local bowl. Attendance was 42K (about 32K Tech fans, 8K locals, 2K NIU fans). In addition to the 2008 season without a title sponsor. The Indy Bowl couldn't land a title sponsor in 2004 or 2005. They they finally signed on with Petro Sun as a title sponsor, but then Petro Sun went bankrupt and couldn't make their sponsorship payments to the Indy Bowl. The City of Shreveport ended up having to bail them out with taxpayer money under the table that was eventually discovered. That makes 4 years in the last decade without a title sponsor. You might be hard pressed to find a single bowl without a title sponsor this last decade, much less four years without one. Because they didn't have a title sponsor in the last round of negotiations, they lost the SEC and Big 12 who had been tied in with them for over a decade. On top of that, the Indy Bowl doesn't give you the full bowl experience. For their entertainment, they take the players to the bowling alley. They don't partner with the casinos to bring in shows or anything. They don't offer anything for fans like other bowls do. Just a couple months ago, the Indy Bowl goes before a committee in the state legislature, and they basically got laughed at. Their Indy Bowl hotel tax got pulled for lack of support, and then they tried it again. Missy Setters was totally unprepared. She had no letters of support from local businesses, hotels, or civic leaders. Nothing. Never mentioned the economic impact. Just that Mack Brown (who's never been to the I-Bowl) said that Big 12 teams enjoyed coming to the I-Bowl. She also pleaded that they needed the tax to stay in business. The leadership is really bad. Then add in that Shreveport-Bossier refuses to support anything local. Every minor league football, basketball, baseball, and hockey team in Shreveport-Bossier (even the successful teams) has either folded or moved. The Indy Bowl is the last thing that Shreveport has, and it may only be alive for the life of this next and possibly final contract. If they can't land an SEC team most years, it will likely die. It's not run by ESPN or the local tourism bureau. And if the Indy Bowl dies, there will be plenty of other bowls for the Mean Green if you become bowl eligible.

BVDV and Jeff Hurd supposedly had a handshake deal with Steve Ehrhart, too. Everything I've heard about him is that he is a slime ball. "Sources" on the Indy Bowl committee were anonymously telling the local media that the Indy Bowl had to jump on Ohio early so they didn't get stuck with a 6-6 team, which would have been Central Michigan. But what they weren't saying is that there was always going to be another option. If the Indy Bowl was left with the very last picks, there would have been four options: ULM, Middle Tennessee, Central Michigan, and one of La Tech/Iowa State/Bowling Green. There was always going to be another option besides 6-6 CMU and a rematch with MTSU. La Tech would have accepted the Indy Bowl invitation to play ULM if our admin knew it was our last and only postseason option. But the Indy Bowl refused to let Tech see if they could land a better bowl game. By the time our admin realized the Liberty/Heart of Dallas deal fell through, the Indy Bowl had already extended invitations to ULM and Ohio. At that time, BVDV asked the Indy Bowl for an invitation, but they said it was too late. And I honestly don't believe it was the the sponsor made those demands because the CEO of AdvoCare is a La Tech alumnus. There is plenty of blame to go around, but to me it seems like all of it was unfairly placed on Van De Velde. The WAC had no leverage with only one tie-in in its last ever season. And it's a shame the real story isn't being told.

It's because they didn't have any better options, and the bowl game is struggling financially. The hotels rooms don't really help the Indy Bowl's bottom line. They were going to get last pick, and they didn't want it to appear that way. Essentially in the end after all the primary and secondary tie-ins were filled, the only at-large spots were in the Liberty Bowl, Military Bowl, and Indy Bowl. The Military Bowl had selected #21 SJSU a week earlier, a WAC opponent that La Tech played in our last game of the regular season. That left 1 spot in the Military Bowl for a MAC team. The Liberty Bowl had an at-large Iowa State team fall into their laps to face the C-USA champion. And then that leaves the 2 open spots in Shreveport. Their only other options besides La Tech and ULM were Middle Tennessee and Bowling Green. Neither Middle Tennessee nor Bowling Green were going to sell many hotel rooms either. The Indy Bowl is used to an SEC team anchoring the bowl. Had the Indy Bowl waited, their worst cause scenario would have been ULM vs. 8-4 Bowling Green. That's no different from ULM vs. 8-4 Ohio. The Indy Bowl filled in with MAC teams twice before with Miami (OH) and NIU, and neither brought more than 2,000 fans. The last two La Tech Indy Bowls had attendances of 48,325 vs. Maryland and 41,567 vs. Northern Illinois. The La Tech home game at Indy Stadium against Texas A&M earlier in the season had an attendance of 40,453. The Indy Bowl is run by LSU people who thought that La Tech vs. ULM would surely sell out the Indy Bowl. Instead, they got ULM vs. Ohio with an official turnstile attendance of 19,204. After the bowl game, the Indy Bowl went to the state legislature asking for a hotel tax to save the bowl, but their bill never made it out of committee.

ULM was created as Ouachita Parish Junior College and later renamed Northeast Junior College of LSU. Thus, the Juco nickname. We've also played them 43 times in football and hold a 30-13 record over them. We aren't afraid to play anybody. We don't play them because we have nothing to gain from playing them, and we can get better opponents from outside our own market. ULM also has to balance their budget with up to 3 money games per year with a guaranteed FCS home game. We'd love to play them in all other sports, but their AD got their feelings hurt because we won't schedule them in football. The perception of the bowl fiasco is what it is (and probably the main reason why BVDV was forced to resign), but many members of the media told the story they wanted to tell without even interviewing anyone.

Obviously Van De Velde could have done a better job managing the bowl situation, but I never really blamed him for it. What really happened is that the Indy Bowl tried to play social engineers by matching up La Tech and ULM, then got their feelings hurt, and then decided to screw over Tech. We already played a home game in Shreveport against Texas A&M a couple months before in addition to 4 Indy Bowls in the past. In 2008 we actually turned down an invitation to the Texas Bowl to play in the local Indy Bowl. After thumping ULM 8 consecutive games, we left the juco back in the 20th century. We have always been and will always be superior to the juco in every way. We don't need to prove anything. The Independence Bowl in Shreveport against ULM would not have been a reward for Tech. We wanted something better. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day bowls were realistic probabilities. The Indy Bowl tried to force us into accepting an early invitation to play ULM when there were much better options potentially available to us in the Liberty Bowl or a trade to the Heart of Dallas Bowl. Van De Velde supposedly had assurances from the Liberty Bowl that they would select or trade Tech. Van De Velde asked the Indy Bowl to wait to see how everything unfolds after the final Saturday's games were played. He told the Indy Bowl there was no need to rush because they would essentially have their pick of whatever teams were left over. The Indy Bowl director got her feelings hurt so they invited Ohio early out of spite for Tech. Sun Belt leftover vs. MAC leftover was their worst case scenario, and it would have been no worse had they waited like the majority of the other bowls. Then after everything played out on Saturday and the BCS rankings were revealed on Sunday, NIU leap frogged into the BCS bumping Oklahoma out of the BCS. That sent a chain reaction that left Iowa State available for an at-large bid, and then the Liberty Bowl selected ISU. The only other at-large spot was in the Military Bowl which had already selected #21 San Jose State from the WAC. It ended up backfiring on the Indy Bowl as they hosted the worst Indy Bowl in history. The Indy Bowl is now on life support as a hotel tax bill to save the bowl never made it out of committee in the state legislature. La Tech will be just fine. Van De Velde took the brunt of the criticism, but he was pretty much in a lose-lose situation. I'm not sure what I would have done differently if I were in Van De Velde's shoes at the time. Hindsight is 20/20. But people believe whatever they want to believe even if it's not true.

Happy C-USA Day, Mean Green! Both of our fan bases have waited a long time for this moment going back to when UTEP stole that final C-USA spot about 8-9 years ago. As a La Tech fan, I am honored to share a conference with North Texas and all the other members. (But I can't speak for HogDawg. lol) I also want to mention that the GMG admin do a great job with this site. Cheers