NCAAbbs

BASTROP -- Louisiana Tech football coach and athletics director Derek Dooley gave a presentation on the future of Tech athletics last night, and was asked whether his program will schedule games against ULM in the future.

With the two schools separated by just a 35-minute drive on I-20, ULM makes the most sense for Tech when it comes to developing a year-in, year-out regional rivalry.

But Dooley didn't seem too interested in locking up a home-and-home series.

"In my mind, we're much more elite," Dooley said. "We play in a more elite conference. We don't really acknowledge Northeast. We don't view them as a target, and we don't compete for players."

While most of that is true -- the WAC, with two BCS representatives in the last two years, is a more elite football conference than the Sun Belt -- Dooley's assertion that ULM and Tech don't compete for players is odd. Tech doesn't compete for players with most of its scheduled opponents. Dooley isn't about to take players away from Hawaii, or Ole Miss, or Fresno State, or San Jose State.

It's hard to see how Tech wouldn't benefit from playing ULM. A home game at Joe Aillet Stadium is sure to be well-attended, given the close proximity of the two schools. Travel costs for a trip to Monroe would be non-existent compared to a WAC game in Hawaii. And if one of Dooley's main goals as athletics director is to establish a better "brand identity" for Tech, wouldn't a regional rivlary be a good start?

Can you name Tech's No. 1 rival?

(Crickets chirping...)

(Uncomfortable silence)

Whatever Dooley chooses to call that school down the road -- be it ULM, Northeast, Ulm, UL-Monroe, or something else -- Tech vs. ULM would make for a great football event in NELA, whether Tech wins by 50 points or five.

Just think, ULM beat Alabama last year. Who did LaTech beat to feel so superior. Three winning seasons in the last ten years? That makes for an elite program??? Please..

http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ersonaDest

as i said in another thread...La Tech needs to just man-up and join the Sun Belt...they could help secure a second bowl bid, and it would make a lot more geographical sense.

Go Tigers!!!
Drew

JMO, but La Tech should really just swallow their pride and schedule a long term series with ULM. It would accomplish 2 things mentioned in the article - give it a geographic rival and save a lot of money on travel. If they are so "much more elite" than ULM, wouldn't it just be an easy win anyway?

We both know how this works:
Colorado believes they are "much more elite" than Wyoming
Ole Miss and MSU believe they are "much more elite" than USM

But should La Tech be allowed to think they are "much more elite"
than anyone?

I don't know, just seems weird to me.

Idiots like that AD are what is so wrong with college football. Why not say what he really means:

We don't want to play them because they might beat us.

There is a comical thread on the La Tech board in which some of the more delusional Tech fans actually think they should get a 2 for 1, if they lower themselves to play an SBC team. Yeah, right!!!

Well considering that usf just signed a 1 for 1 deal with a soon to be sunbelt team that is still 1-aa, anything is possible. But then again, it is usf.

Does that loser realize that he is calling La Tech "elite"?

Does that loser realize that his school is located in RUSTON, LA...the armpit of Louisiana?

That has to be the first comment in the history of mankind that called with La Tech or anything in Ruston, LA "elite".

There is room for only ONE elite school in Ruston, LA...and that is:

The Leavitt to Beaver of La's schools.

Tech vs ULM:

1953- W 61- 6
1954- W 51- 6
1955- W 34-14
1956- L 0-7
1957- W 15-6
1958- W 46-21
1959- W 27-0
1960- W 20-15
1961- W 27-7
1962- L 6-13
1963- W 28-7
1964- W 23-0
1965- W 54-7
1966- L 6-14
1967- L 14-21
1968- W 25-10
1969- W 34-6
1970- L 21-28
1971- W 23-0
1972- W 10-6
1973- W 40-0
1974- W 26-10
1975- W 41-23
1976- W 55-35
1977- W 20-0
1978- L 0-18
1979- W 13-10
1980- W 14-19
1981- L 0-35
1982- W 17-10
1983- L 0-17
1984- L 10-12
1985- L 9-13
1986- L 6-20
1987- L 7-44
1988- W 23-0
1989- W 24-6
1990- W 31-7
1991- W 35-10
1992 - DNP
1993 - DNP
1994 - DNP
1995 - DNP
1996 - DNP (ULM started whining)
1997 - W 17-16
1998 - W 44-14
1999 - W 58-17
2000 - W 42-19 (ULM stopped whining and their fans refused to support the game)
2001 - DNP
2002 - DNP
2003 - DNP
2004 - DNP
2005 - DNP
2006 - DNP (ULM started whining again)
2007 - DNP
Total: 1057 - 549.

Dooley's point is that when we lose a recruit it is usually to Tulane, USM, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, TCU, and Baylor. It is his first priority to get those teams on the schedule. Scheduling ULM only benefits ULM.

I'm not sure how that article gets translated to "La Tech too good for CUSA" ??? Dooley's an idiot anyway, but what he's saying is that the WAC > Sun Belt and La Tech > ULM. ULM has the smallest budget in the Sun Belt and I'd imagine a smaller fan base that La Tech. And while Monroe, LA is an improvement on Ruston (I'd know...almost had the misfortune of moving to that hellhole...Monroe that is...can't even fathom Ruston), uhh, who gives a damn? La Tech should be playing ULM annually...no doubt about it. Heck, they ought to play ULL at least several times per decade and do their best to get a game occasionally with Tulane and USM.

Too good for CUSA? Nah.

Tech vs CUSA teams:

UAB: 4-0
UCF: 1-3
ECU: 2-4
Houston: 2-3
Marshall: 1-0
Memphis: 5-5
Rice: 2-3
SMU: 3-1
USM: 13-39
UTEP: 6-2
Tulane: 0-8
Tulsa: 7-2

Total: 46-70

Too good for Sun Belt? Yeah.

Tech vs Sun Belt teams:

ASU: 25-12
ULL: 46-33
ULM: 30-13
MTSU: 3-1 (they rushed the field and tore down the goalposts)
UNT: 6-5
WKU: 2-1

Total: 112-65

La Tech and Louisiana-Monroe were 95th and 104th in football "announced" attendance in 2007.

Yeah...who would want a close road game so visiting fans could attend...and so that there would look like more than 9,000 fans at a game.

PS. Here are a few special promotions for upcoming La Tech Home Games this year:

Oct 18th: IDAHO - Promotion - "Have your own section night!"

Nov 15th - UTAH STATE - Promotion - "Smokers contest to see how can smoke 3 packs of cigarettes the fastest wins 30,000 FREE TICKETS to this game to hand out to friends/family!"

What is funny is that LSU thinks of LaTech as a glorified junior college. That is evidently how LaTech feels about ULM. Only problem is that LSU has two recent National Championships while LaTech can't even win a WAC title. The mere fact the AD and head football coach would try and act like LaTech is an elite school compared to ULM is funny beyond words. What a tool this Dooley guy is.

for the record, memphis and la tech havent played football since 1959. i dont look for that to change any time soon.

Tech did win a WAC title. USM can't even stay on the same field with Boise State. Bottom line: You know what you think of ULM? So do we.

Yeah, CUSA East #3 couldn't keep with Boise @ Boise, but as much as I get annoyed with 'irates, CUSA East #2 took care of business on a neutral field. We'll see how Boise handles the Rock next year.

Let's give Louisiana Tech some credit though, they've done a good job creating this image as being the #2 public school in Louisiana. This is a combination of those Rattay years where they were really good and them being in the WAC rather than the Suck Belt. Yet the more research that I do, the more I come to the conclusion that Tech is on the same level as ULL and ULM. The budgets are practically the same, attendance is virtually identical, the media markets suck all the same, and the on-field results have pretty much been the same of late. Academics are pretty similar as well. What, if anything, does Tech excel in over ULL or ULM? If Tech gets back to 9 win seasons, that'll change, but right now I see nothing to indicate that they're any better than ULL or ULM.

Tech went 7-5 in 2001 when they won a WAC title. How impressive that is.
USM has 14 straight winning seasons. LaTech has 3 in the last ten years.
USM has been to bowl games 9 out of the last 10 years. LaTech has been to 1 bowl in the last ten years.

Yes, Boise beat the crap out of USM. What in blazing hades does that have to with the fact that LaTech still sucks canal water compared to USM. LaTech fans that think they are even in the same universe as Boise State are delusional. For a LaTech AD to think they are an Elite program compared to ULM is hilarious. LaTech isn't an elite program compared to McNeese State.

And got curb stomped by the worst Clemson defense since the early 1970's in the Humanitarian Bowl.

FWIW - 4 of La. Tech's wins vs CUSA were against UAB.

Yea, a 49-24 butt whupping administered by Clemson. Once again, how impressive that is for such an elite program like LaTech.

The 5 losses were:
30-23 at Oklahoma State (blocked punt was the difference)
38-28 at Fresno State (Top 10, David Carr, Bernard Berrian, etc)
48-41 (OT) at Auburn
40-7 at Kansas State
49-24 vs Clemson in the bowl game

The 7 wins were:
36-6 over CUSA's SMU
41-38 over CUSA's Rice (strange game... 31-0 at halftime and Rice came back to tie the game in the second half)
53-30 over CUSA's UTEP
19-7 over CUSA's Tulsa
48-42 over Boise State
45-42 over Nevada
41-20 over San Jose State

You know how you think USM is elite to Tech. That's how we feel towards ULM.

You don't get it, do you? It is not just some fan on a message board mouthing off, but it is the LaTech AD amd head football coach mouthing off about being elite to ULM. How big of an idiot does it take for a person in that kind of position to make a stupid comment like that?
I can assure you that Richard Gianinni the USM AD and Larry Fedora the head football coach, would never ever make such a stupid comment about LaTech, even if they thought it.
It is not the kind of talk an AD or head football coach at a university uses. To say it is unprofessional is a huge understatement.

You do realize ULM has never had a winning season in 1A football? That's hard to do in the Sun Belt. They won 1 National Championship in 1AA. They have won or shared 4 conference titles. Their all-time record is 259-338-8.

Tech's All Time Record is 538-402-36 and we have won 2 National Championships and won or shared 23 conference titles.

Oh, I think you misunderstood how this got started. He made this statement at a Tech athletic rally with a charged admission to get in... the boosters basically. A reporter happened to be there and posted a blog about what he said. The next day, the newspaper ran the story above about the blog and the comments made in response to the reporter's blog. I'm sure Fedora has told recruits that USM is elite to Tech... same thing.

I do realize that ULM beat Alabama last year. Who did LaTech beat last year that compares to that win for ULM?
Like I said, Dooley proved himself to be unprofessional and an immature brat to make that kind of statement publicly.

That was a monumental win for ULM and a great accomplishment. (We've beat Bama twice though... once when they were SEC West champs).

He can't help it. Being a pompous jackass is in his DNA.

I'll admit he's a pompous jackass... but I think he learned it from Nick Saban, not his dad. He's great when he's on your side (we love him), but can be kind of abrassive when he's not on your side.

Pretty good explanation actually. Not sure why some feel the need to constantly bring Tech up just to bash them?

Yeah, I was under the impression that this was a CUSA board.

That was a pretty stupid article. Although IMO, La Tech would definitely prosper a lot more rapidly in CUSA than they ever will in the WAC. With the WACs overall small revenue they get every year it's no wonder why the Bulldogs have 2-3 "bodybag" games every year. That's not good for any program. In CUSA and their healthy/steady stream of income, La Tech would definitely make some noise. Not an immediate splash but definitely improve overall in football and basketball.

Quit dreaming about adding New Mexico and TCU and forget about adding W. Kentucky, UNC Charlotte, FAU or who ever else as your next expansion candidates. If CUSA knows what's good for them, they'll scoop up La Tech and N. Texas quick!

I don't know about La Tech being elite or too good to play another non-LSU, Louisiana school. Having said that, I'd rather see USM play La Tech than I had teams like Arkansas State. It could turn into a pretty good rivalry.

Cat I agree. Its quotes like this that when the next conferece shake up comes that will turn around and bite LA Tech in the rear. You don't think the CUSA comish and presidents can't read. Quotes like this stick with you.

I lived in Lafayette LA for 11 years and the 11 years I was there I seen 2 Tech games on TV there. And Lafayette's paper "The Advertiser never had artices on Tech.

LA Tech wouldn't add anything to CUSA. No Market, Name Recognization, Winning Tradition, Fan Support, Ficilities, I could go on but most see my point.

Dooley should learn to keep is mouth shut. LA Tech isn't Georgia.

I keep hearing this statement over and over. Tech wouldn't "add" anything to CUSA. What is there to "add" to? In my opinion, there are very few, if any, CUSA teams with name recognition, winning traditions, fan support, and great facilities. They are some big markets, but the people in those markets don't support the teams. Who exactly do ya'll think you are? Ya'll sound like Derek Dooley!!

:lmfao: We're the premier non-BCS conference with 6 bowl games, a CCG on ESPN, and TV contracts with ESPN and CBS/CBS College Sports. We're the conference that had a team in the Final 4. We're the conference that has the best non-BCS fan support, where 2/3s of our teams are well-attended in football. We're the conference Louisiana Tech would kill to be in, and you sound worse than Derek Dooley by suggesting La Tech would be doing us some sort of favor if we let them join.

collectively, in football maybe not so much [more] history,
but in regards to fan support and facilities

basketball, baseball and soccer?

I need some of whatever you're smokin' T_Won1.

Don't like his dad and he sounds more arrogant than him, if thats possible.

Give me 1 reason that I can't argue why Tech would be an asset to CUSA. And bring the Indy bowl or closer to schools won't cut it. Because 1 we have already seen LA Tech has no influance over the Indy bowl, if so they would have a WAC tie already and 2 we have already seen CUSA couldn't give a flyin' leap about being regional.

I'm not saying Tech would be doing CUSA a favor. I just think we are a perfect geographical and competitive fit. With the above mentioned conference attributes, I don't see how Tech wouldn't profit and excel by becoming a member. I think Tech would be a middle of the pack school immediately, and long term, would be a top tier school in the conference once revenues increased to the level of current CUSA schools.

Oh, and calling yourself the premier non-BCS league (which is highly debatable), isn't saying much. All non-BCS teams are the have-nots of the world... that's why they are not invited to the BCS.

We have been in the same conference with SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP. We competed very well with those schools and have at least as big a fan base as all but UTEP.

The Indy Bowl reminds me of CUSA, they think they are bigger than what they are. It sounds more prestigious to invite Oklahoma State and Arkansas to the game. Nevermind that both schools finished 7th in their conference and fired their coaches. They consider themselves too big for CUSA or the WAC.

Sheez. What the man was saying is that Tech is tired of filling up ULM's stadium and beating the hell out of them.

Tech is clearly elite vs UL-Monroe. UL-M's fans don't travel to Ruston, but Tech fans certainly travel by the thousands when they are the host. They love that Tech $$$.

And the games are a no contest TKO for Tech. Tech is 30-13 in the series and has won the last 8 games consecutively by a score of 274 - 89. Been there, done that.

Why doesn't LA Tech schedule Houston, Southern Miss, UAB, Memphis, Tulane, SMU, TCU, etc....

I makes since to me.

Agreed. I would rather us play La Tech than some of the non conference games we have played....mainly the 1-AA's of the past.

ULM has always played the role of a bratty little kid that always started whining when we decide to go in a different direction. When we decided to go 1-A in the 80's they told us that we were idiots and should stay in I-AA with them. We went to I-A because our president at the time called I-AA "Mandated Mediocrity". We moved up and stopped playing them because I-A does not travel to I-AA and they were mad with that also. We had some success in I-A and that got them jealous so they decided they were going to move up to 1-A also but not to play better competition but instead to play us.

Then we answered their request to do a 4 game in the late 90's. We were definitely the dominate crowd for the whole series.

Our crowds last year were a steady 20,000 + throughout our entire home stand. Each year, ULM gimmicks their attendance usually by playing Arkansas in LR but getting to claim the attendance as a home game. Last year they had a well attended game with Grambling but if you look at figures for their other games, they are a steep drop.

Now granted our home attendance could be better and I think will get better and that is what Dooley our AD is trying to do with these meetings he is holding around the state to drum up support and rally our fan base. At least we have an AD that is doing something for the summer.

Oh yeah, and then there are the numerous projects our school, alumni base, and donors are financing through fund raising efforts. ULM wanted to do similar things but got an outgoing state legistlator to fund their stadium renovations with tax payer money from the state.

Yeah, we may be on a low rung as far as where we are with the rest of the college football world but when comparing how we do things to how ULM does things, we feel we have somthing to be proud of.

I can't argue that Tech isn't better than ULM, but you guys need to save on travel $$$. I know your facilities need an overhaul and it doesn't help when you're blowing money traveling instead of playing someone down the road.

You guys could always work into the contract that you get a % of the ticket sales from ULM past their normal attendance average.

Are you serious???

He is speaking to alumni at a fundraising event. The overwhelming majority of alumni are tired of the Monroe media and ULM fans constantly whining about not playing Tech. Every couple of months the local newspaper in Monroe starts talking about how great it would be for Tech and ULM to play.

As a student, Tech and Northest played. They only brought 500 fans to Ruston. 30 miles away and they only brought 500 fans? Not much of a rivalry if you ask me. The year we played them in Monroe, there were more Tech fans at the game than Northeast fans. Not exactly a rivalry.

What advantage is there in playing ULM? Recruiting? No, we already get coverage in the Monroe news media. Scheduling North Texas, Rice, SMU, ULL, Ark State at least gets us media coverage in other markets where we recruit.

If we play ULM and beat them - great we get a win and a couple of hundred visitors.

Any attempts to negotiate with ULM has proven fruitless. They want a 1-1 series without any special provisions.

Our former AD tried to offer them a 2-1 series starting in Ruston. They wanted a 1-1 with the first game in Monroe. Our former AD countered with 1 game played in Ruston and they refused.

I agree. This would lay the ground work for them to get into CUSA, which in all honesty is the conference that they should be in. IMO the WAC is light years better than the Sun-Belt, and it would be a step down for LA Tech to go into that conference.

So you traded mandated mediocrity for mediocrity at a higher level.

Makes perfect sense.

We went to the WAC because prior to that we were already in the "Sunbelt" because we played ULL, Ark State, and a few others of that league. The attendance for those teams we meek especially when it was generally a given that we beat them regularly. We knew that suddenly being in a conference with them would not change the apathy. I think the only thing that would have changed our minds was if UCF had taken the plunge with us at the time. They also decided to stay out and be the lone Florida school in the MAC

The WAC at the time had Rice, Tulsa, SMU, and UTEP. Teams that we knew had recognition among local fans and yet were a different match-up that would draw interest.

I grant you that with the current price of oil, I do have my worries about travel costs but those decisions were far different back in the early '00s.

We want schedules like that too. However, historically, we have scheduled one lesser opponent like North Texas, MTSU, SE Louisiana, Mississippi Valley, etc... and 2 to 3 giants like Miami, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, etc.. I think Dooley's plan is to schedule 1 giant and 2 to 3 mid-tier programs like CUSA, MWC, and lower level BCS teams like Mississippi State, Kansas, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, etc...

Have your AD call our AD!!