CajunNation

You referenced the UT system. You compared us to UTEP. That is a bad example. You see, we are the flagship of the UL system. It will become more evident to you as time goes by. Thank you for your interest in UL athletics.

It was official. LSU and their lapdogs in the rest of higher ed. in the state had the law changed retroactively in 1984. When you hear Cajun fans refer to the university as UL we are only laying claim to what was rightfully ours in 1984. We will have it again. You can read the long story of this here: http://www.angelfire.com/la3/ulragincajuns/battle.html

That would be THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA at lafayette. You can learn more at www.louisiana.edu I'm sorry you are having difficulty with this meangreen. You see, we are oficially UL-Lafayette, but we are known athletically as the UL Ragin Cajuns, especially locally. It's a similar situation to the following schools: UT-Austin(Texas Longhorns) UC-Berkeley(California Bears) UN-Lincoln(Nebraska Cornhuskers) UM-Columbia(Missouri Tigers) UT-Knoxville(Tennessee Volunteers) UL-Lafayette(Louisiana Cajuns) Maybe, over time, you will catch on to this like a lot of other people are. Thank you for your interest in UL.

Make no mistake. ECU, Marshall, and UCF are PI$$ED with the current situation. There is no way that a conference which stretches from the Rocky Mountains of northern Mexico, to the near vicinity of the Great Lakes, to the beaches of southern Florida can stay together much longer. Sooner or later, the split will happen. CUSA will look something like this: UTEP HOUSTON RICE SMU NORTH TEXAS TULSA LOUISIANA TECH LOUISIANA TULANE While the eastern schools will either merge with the rest of the SBC or, more likely, form their own league just like the MWC did.

<<In the second scenario, the biggest conferences (or perhaps the a set of schools from them), leave the NCAA and form their own league, instituting a playoff. This would allow them to institute a playoff while retaining all of the revenue for themselves. I would be happy to see a playoff under the first scenario but not the second. >> That would be a complete failure. If they were to leave, they would basically become pro-franchises, a minor league for the NFL. All of those players are going to want to get paid, big time. Instead of recruiting, you'd have bidding wars for the top talent. Agents would negotiate contracts with booster clubs. You would have agents lurking all over high schools for talent. Without oversight from the NCAA, these programs would eat each other alive. The only way it could survive, was if the NFL stepped in to control it. Then, these schools would dwindle to about 30. That route is not the panacea some people think it is. In the future, either an inclusive playoff will be implemented, or the NCAA allows the big 6 conferences to form their own Division yet still be goverened by the NCAA, and 1-AA would be grouped with the remaining 1-A schools and the playoff expanded from 16 to 32.

I'll address each question in order. 1)The ratio of teams chosen for the playoff is very similar to basketball 350?/65....119/24 2)First round byes are necessary for 2 reasons. First, it cuts down on number of games played. Secondly, it is an added carrot to further entice the big 6 conferences to go for this as it really gives the top 8 seeds a huge advantage. 3)2 rounds of home field is necessary, again, for 2 reasons. First, it rewards the top 16 seeds with an extra, lucrative, home game, another carrot for the big boys. Secondly, this protects the rest of the bowl system from being eaten up by the playoff. Remember, you are still going to have around 40 bowl worthy schools not selected for the playoff. They have to have somehere to go.

RULES ---All eleven conference champions get bid. ---Next 13 highest BCS ranked schools get bid, total of 24. ---Highest 8 seeds get first round bye. ---Seeds 9-24 begin First round action at higher seed's home field on second Saturday of December. ---Sweet 16 would play on third Saturday of December, once again at higher seed's home field. ---Elite 8 would play Christmas weekend. This would begin use of "BCS" bowls, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange. ---Final-Four would be New Year's weekend, once again at 2 of the 4 "BCS" bowl sites. ---National Championship game would be, once again at 1 of the "BCS" bowl sites. Instead of 4+1, it would be 4+2+1. FIRST-ROUND MATCHUPS #24 TROY at #9 AUBURN #23 OHIO at #10 OKLAHOMA #22 HOUSTON at #11 NOTRE DAME #21 TEXAS A&M at #12 ARKANSAS #20 BYU at #13 WEST VIRGINIA #19 TEXAS at #14 WAKE FOREST #18 CALIFORNIA at #15 VIRGINIA TECH #17 TENNESSEE at #16 RUTGERS SWEET 16 (Rutgers/Tenn winner) at #1 OHIO STATE (Va Tech/Cal winner) at #2 FLORIDA (Wake Forest/Texas winner) at #3 MICHIGAN (West Virginia/BYU winner) at #4 LSU (Arkansas/Texas A&M winner) at #5 USC (Notre Dame/Houston winner) at #6 LOUISVILLE (Oklahoma/Ohio winner) at #7 WISCONSIN (Auburn/Troy winner) at #8 BOISE STATE SUMMARY ---This system would allow almost all of the other bowl games outside of the "BCS" bowls to still serve a purpose, and for schools not making the tourney to still have a post-season. ---This playoff should be conducted at a time that does not interfere with the NFL playoffs, which is why I chose the dates I did. ---The "home game" format is necessary to involve as many teams as I did. It is similar to the 1-AA model. The reward of another home game has many benefits, financial or otherwise. ---In order for the major conferences to buy into a playoff, it would have to be seen as almost "rigged" in their favor. I believe first round byes, home field advantage, and multiple at-larges from each major conference, all based on strength of individual schools, is key to getting this passed. ---I also believe that this system would lead to an end to 12 team conferences. Conference championship games would become unnecessary and VERY damaging to the loser. If there is no championship game, what is the need for 12 team conferences? ---This plan woul lead to VERY stable, compact, regional conferences that made sense. This playoff would generate money that would put the basketball tourney to shame. Finally, it would crown a National Champion that was decided by the players and coaches on the field.

SBC is now 3-3 against CUSA this season. That crashing sound you hear is CUSA's ego falling to the floor.

As long as the WAC remains intact, they will not expand eastward except for UTEP. Now, if Boise were to go to the MWC, that leaves the WAC with 8. La Tech would be in a position of power now. They could demand addition of an eastern WAC or else leave, thus puting the WAC below the rerquired 8. Idaho could be removed as well, who adds nothing. If Boise leaves(probable), this is a real possibility HAWAII FRESNO STATE SAN JOSE STATE NEVADA UTAH STATE DENVER NEW MEXICO STATE TEXAS STATE UT-SAN ANTONIO NORTH TEXAS LOUISIANA TECH LOUISIANA 12 basketball 10 football 9 baseball This cuts down on travel considerably. 10 football schools would be the only way that Hawaii/Fresno/Nevada would go for it. Everybody plays everybody. This lineup only requires trips to Hawaii every other year. If we don't do this, this will be the SBC lineup come 2010: NORTH TEXAS ULM LOUISIANA TECH LOUISIANA ARKANSAS STATE WESTERN KENTUCKY MIDDLE TENNESSEE TROY FAU FIU

The reason these schools "get it", is mainly because they "got it". Athletic Budgets: LOUISVILLE--37.1 mill BYU-----------28.4 mill FRESNO ST---24.1 mill TCU-----------21.1 mill UTAH----------21 mill UCF-----------20.8 mill http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp They also have great fundraising machines to back them up. This is something we all can do better than we are now.

That's the best try at denying reality I've seen in quite a while.

The last 4 out of 5 defensive players selected first overall were busts. I believe the Texans choked. The only things I would have done were, 1)Draft Bush 2)Trade the pick. IMHO, Bush was the only player available that would make a difference as much as having multiple picks from a trade. Translation, I don't think the Texans got the true value for the pick.

There's a difference between saying college football doesn't need a George Mason and the truth, which is college football won't allow a George Mason.

Some would say we ARE in the Southland II. What do we do if there are no openings in CUSA for 7-10 years, if at all. There are other options than staying where we are, and they should be explored.

A lot of people would love to see a conference such as you listed form. Here's the problem. SMU, RICE, TULSA, and HOUSTON won't leave CUSA to start this league from scratch. Then, UTSA doesn't even play football. You need 8 to form a league from scratch. There is a way for most of the schools you mentioned to be grouped together. As an E-WAC Most people think Boise St., and only Boise St., will be added to the MWC. This would leave the WAC with 8, and with the strong possibility of La Tech leaving as well. This would leave them in a vulnerable position, perhaps willing to deal. W-WAC Idaho Utah State Nevada San Jose State Fresno State Hawaii E-WAC New Mexico State Texas State North Texas Arkansas State Louisiana Tech Louisiana ...or The MWC goes to 12 with Boise, Fresno, and UTEP. Then, we could make an all new league with: Nevada Utah State New Mexico State Texas State North Texas Arkansas State Louisiana Tech Louisiana I would prefer either lineup to the current mish mash we have in the SBC.

My crystral ball says: around 2010 insert conference name here: UTEP Houston Rice SMU North Texas Tulsa Louisiana Tech Louisiana Tulane

I think you want the Tech board. They seem to have the same screwball problem as you. I hope you come in person to Lafayette next season to see your Mean Green get gutted like a tuna. Your beating will be supplied courtesy of Louisiana or UL-Lafayette. You decide. have a nice day

Replace ULM with Troy, and I think you have the 12 team model that was floated before and shot down by Boise and Fresno. If Boise doesn't leave, the WAC ain't doing anything. But, as most people think, they are invited to the MWC, the WAC will need to add 'cause Tech can't stay forever either. Now, the first places they'll go to are Denton and Lafayette. The trio of Tech, North Texas, and Louisiana just might have enough power to insist on a few stipulations to the deal. Give Idaho the boot. If the Big East can kick out Temple, the WAC can kick out Idaho. They offer nothing and are in the middle of nowhere. We could insist on a few other schools being added to help out travel costs, help baseball and basketball, and have a possibly, very bright 1-A future. There are simply no attractive 1-AA schools out west that would help their situation. So, we could use this to our advantage to build a core group of schools to possibly one day transform the WAC to the new SWC.

UTAH STATE DENVER--(TV market, good basketball, road trip) NEVADA SAN JOSE STATE FRESNO STATE HAWAII NEW MEXICO STATE TEXAS STATE--(TV market, good baseball,great potential) NORTH TEXAS MISSOURI STATE--(great basketball, great fan support, good TV market, great potential) LOUISIANA TECH LOUISIANA 12 for basketball 10 for baseball 9 for football(leaving room for Texas St. and Missouri St. to move up when ready) Boise to the MWC. Idaho must go. If the SBC doesn't improve, and there is no CUSA option, this would be better than our current situation, IMHO. http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/current...e_rankings.html http://boydsworld.com/baseball/rpi/currentrpi.html CURRENT SBC NUMBERS: 113--Avg. Baseball RPI ranking #16--Conference Basketball RPI ranking(0.4882) 106--Avg. Football computer ranking(119 1-a teams) WAC 2010 NUMBERS: 127--Avg. Baseball RPI ranking #8---Conference Basketball RPI ranking(0.5275) 76---Avg. Football computer ranking(30 places better) WAC 2010 would put us in a basketball conference ranked ahead of the A-10, MWC, CUSA, and the MAC. It would put us in a LEGIT football conference with an attractive home schedule. The travel would not kill us.

The techsters will never figure out that the WAC is using them like a rented mule. Just like us in the SBC, the only way the techies go bowling is if they win their conference or if there is a shortage of bowl teams. Then, the one year they did win the WAC, they got sent to freakin' Boise. The main reason they insist on staying WACky until they go broke is unabated PRIDE.

shhhhhhhhhh........

This is our best schedule in years. Money games within driving distance. Winable Non-Conference 1-A home games. Favorable conference schedule. Me likey

Yep. It's right there in front of you. www.louisiana.edu Just like: www.missouri.edu

http://forums.delphiforums.com/RaginCajuns...es/?msg=19779.1 From: Arkstfan Dec-6 1:51 pm To: Tech77 (LaTechDog77) (36 of 45) 19779.36 in reply to 19779.35 Next year you will get one additional bowl with the extra BCS game being created. Special note since you are dissatisifed with Benson as your commissioner, the extra game which will be played at the BCS title game site, funds the extra BCS revenue sharing with the non-auto berth leagues that starts next year. No existing bowl was willing to bid to be that game unless they were in the title rotation. The BCS Four were unwilling to sign off on a deal that added another title rotation bowl. The deal was on the verge of collapse until WRIGHT WATERS suggested that a new bowl be created that would rotate to the title sites and the local ticket purchasers will be required to buy both games in the title game years to insure the game produces enough revenue. If that game existed this year, Tech probably would have been in a bowl because Oregon would have made the extra game, shorting the Las Vegas and sending Tech to Hawaii if not to the Music City or Independence Bowl depending on whether Miami or Auburn got the other slot in the game. You could have had a bowl thanks to the negotiating skills of the Sun Belt commissioner Because of that game, I don't know if the NCAA will approve a 30th bowl for 2006. I have my doubts. But I do think the 30th bowl will be approved no later than 2009, probably sooner. Right now we know South Carolina wants one but the NCAA Confederate Flag mess will keep them at bay. Toronto supposedly wants one as well but certifying a foreign game is problematic. Different currency, different laws to comply with, issues with travel now that re-entering the US is going to require more documentation, issues as to the catastrophic insurance coverage, etc. I think there is an outstanding chance that the 30th bowl game will be in Lafayette and right now if I were betting, I'd wager it will pit Sun Belt vs. MAC or CUSA and the New Orleans Bowl will pit Sun Belt vs. CUSA or ACC. see above

Any questions?