NCAAbbs

Approximately $60m of the $80m ESPN/C-USA contract was for football. In regards to the TV deal, the big blow for C-USA was not the loss of the teams going to the Big East. Those have been adequately replaced. It was the unexpected loss of TCU where C-USA stands to lose some ground (and ESPN money). Marshall easily replaces Louisville in terms of TV marketability -- the ability to match the Herd against USM, Memphis and others will give ESPN some outstanding midweek matchups.

Cincinnati, Army and USF were never major factors in ESPN's programming decisions; replacing them with UCF, Tulsa, Rice and SMU is a wash both competively and in market value. TCU, though, was C-USA's second-most televised team behind Louisville, and none of the WAC additions can match their appeal at this time. If they could, the WAC's deal would have been much better. TCU's defection, after the Frogs helped broker the addition of the WAC schools, was a knife in the back.

C-USA's deal is going to be reworked, but leaders expect the football portion of it won't be significantly reduced and that the damage will be mitigated by the addition of a championship game and reduced travel cost within geographically compact divisions.

The bottom line is that C-USA's next TV deal was going to be smaller, anyway. None of the networks are in the mood to pay mega deals at the moment. Even the ACC is going to find that they won't get what they were hoping for when they expanded. The money just isn't there from the networks like it was in the late 1990s when the economy was booming.

Bowl-wise, C-USA should be fine. Most of its bowls have southern ties, and the league is well positioned to hang onto existing deals or replace them with new southern/southwest-based bowls. The only league likely to add additional bowl tie-ins is the ACC, but they'll probably cut into the Big East's lineup. Conversely, the Big East schools are going to find that they are no more attractive than C-USA when it comes to adding bowls -- especially SOUTHERN bowls.

Bowls like the GMAC, Fort Worth, Tangerine, Liberty might even have LESS interest in BE than C-USA. Only West Virginia in the new Big East has a proven track record of traveling well to bowl games. Pitt brought embarrassing numbers to the T-Bowl recently, and Syracuse is a perennial disappointment to bowls. Memphis, Marshall, East Carolina, Southern Miss all are PROVEN bowl ticket-sellers. I am sure UTEP fans would expect to bring a huge crowd when Price puts the Miners in a bowl game.

Remember, There were reasons C-USA had five bowl tie-ins and a mega TV deal while the competitively similar WAC/MAC/MWC did not. Those reasons still exist, and they have nothing to do with Karl Benson's aptitude.

The bottom line is that while the charter members of C-USA such as Houston, USM, UAB, etc., can expect to see their TV money reduced -- but the loss mitigated by reduced travel costs in ALL sports -- and the newcomers are going to see theirs go up. UCF is projecting about a $1 million increase simply by playing a C-USA schedule instead of a MAC schedule. Whatever form C-USA takes, it will be in significantly better position for bowls/TV than the WAC, Sun Belt or MAC and perhaps even the Mountain West. I think the laughable new WAC deal clearly shows that to be true.

Long term, TCU could come to regret its decision to leave. While it’s certainly possible the Frogs will thrive in the Mountain West, it's a big risk. TCU left a division in which it was the clear favorite and had pretty smooth sailing to bowl games -- perhaps even BCS -- to play with billie goats at midnight eastern. TCU is a good program and the Mountain West a solid league. But if the BCS changes occur as publicized, there is no strategic advantage for BCS access in the Mountain West. If anything, it might be harder for TCU or any MWC team to qualify for a BCS at-large. Recruiting wise, the Texas schools will have a chance, if they can seize upon it, to pound TCU over the distance to the games and lack of rivalries.

The opportunity for the Texas. UTEP, SMU, Rice, Houston will be able to maximize media coverage on C-USA as the No. 2 Texas option behind the Big 12 -- in a league headquartered in Dallas -- and sell Texas recruits that their parents will have easy access to the majority of their games. Rivalries will flourish and interest will increase as these Texas teams compete for the C-USA championship game, bowls that were not available to them in the WAC, and more television access on ESPN that was available in the WAC.

TCU better keep winning big; if they slip, they're suddenly on an island.
UTEP has a great opportunity here to elevate its program. The money spent on Price would be well worth it if he can get the Miners into a couple of bowl games quickly. TCU's decision that it was too good to be in a league with its Texas neighbors has opened a door for UTEP -- the Miners need to crash through it and never look back (or look West).

C-USA’s TV deal from ESPN is reported to an eight-year, $80 million deal, with five years still remaining. It is the TV deal that gives C-USA the edge over all the other non-BCS leagues (competiveness has nothing to do with it) just as the BCS bid gave the weakened Big East leverage to raid C-USA (even though competively, the case can be made that the new Big East isn't any stronger than the old C-USA.) Even if it was cut by 75 percent, C-USA's deal is better than the WAC's or MAC's.

C-USA basketball definitely is taking a hit, but I think the league is better on the court than the doomsayers predict. The hit is more in reputation and marketability than in performance.

Memphis, Tulsa, UAB and UTEP are a pretty good base to build a league than can get 3 teams in the tournament most years. An average of 3 per year in a 12-team league actually would be BETTER than what the old C-USA was doing (with a 14-team league).

People forget that C-USA for most of its brief history UNDERACHIEVED in basketball due to down periods for Louisville, Memphis, Houston, DePaul and UAB. Just three years ago, C-USA only sent TWO teams to the dance. I'd say the new C-USA can match that in its sleep.  There also are some programs that are making great strides to get better, such as East Carolina, who might can thrive now that they won't be beaten down by the depth of the league. I also can't imagine that schools like UCF and Marshall won't get better in the new C-USA.

It will be important for the new C-USA teams to schedule good out-of-conference games for RPI purposes. The scheduling deal being brokered in lieu of exit fees for the departing members -- UC, UL, DePaul and USF will schedule a total of 10 games per year vs. remaining members -- will help C-USA keep a TV presence until the league gets back on its feet in time for the next deal. We'll still see good TV matchups -- Louisville vs. Memphis; Cincinnati vs. UAB; Louisville vs Southern Miss in football, for example -- that will help C-USA retain some of its national profile and schedule strength. (of course, C-USA teams will need to WIN those games.) The league will continue to reap the financial benefits of the past two good basketball seasons for years to come.; Next year, the league should be VERY strong, meaning the possibility of significant NCAA units before breaking up. Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, UAB, DePaul, Marquette, and Charlotte all return most of their teams and are bringing in great recruiting classes. Five or six NCAA bids again wouldn't be surprising.

I do know that the UTEP administration clearly recognizes the benefits of C-USA membership. I have been told that, behind the scenes, UTEP began lobbying for C-USA inclusion as far back as last summer and was strongly considered for membership at the time Rice, et al were brought in from the WAC. There was no room at the time, but TCU's Texas two-step changed everything.

Also, the distance issue is significantly offset by the Southwest Airlines connections with many C-USA cities. It's an issue among fans, but it does not seem to be a significant factor for the decision-makers.

From what I understand, UTEP's move to C-USA is a mere formality unless the presidents make a sudden change to stay at 11. This wouldn't be a complete shock as its certainly not unprecedented for deals to fall apart at the end. Almost every major conference shift didn't go down as planned. SEC was supposed to get Texas and Texas A&M -- ended up with Arkansas. SEC was supposed to get FSU, ended up with South Carolina. FSU was supposed to end up in the SEC, got ticked by SEC foot-dragging and went to the ACC. The ACC was supposed to get Miami/Syracuse/BC; instead got Miami/Va. Tech/BC. The old Great Midwest originally was supposed to include Louisville; instead the Cards balked at the last minute and UAB got in .... on and on and on ...

I am told UTEP is supported strongly by the Eastern members of C-USA, who see potential in football and a revived basketball program that can help add some panache back to C-USA hoops. Fan support is crucial to C-USA's goals -- as in being able to provide bowls with potential invitees that can support ticket sales -- which clearly gave UTEP an edge over the other candidates. How many fans would UTEP take, to say, the New Orleans Bowl? I would expect UTEP could bring several thousand.

C-USA has more bowl tie-ins than the other non-BCS leagues because it can present bowls with good-traveling teams close to the bowl locations. A big part of locking down those slots was being able to present the bowls with decent options in "worst-case" scenarios. The WAC/MAC/Sun Belt get no such luck because, if one of their weaker teams has a great year and a bowl is stuck with them, it could darn-well put a bowl out of business. San Jose State to a Southern bowl ain't ever going to happen if the bowl wants to stay in business.

The old C-USA could present 5-6 strong options in terms of ticket sales to bowls like Fort Worth, Mobile, and New Orleans that wouldn't want to risk getting stuck with a non-marquee Midwestern or Western team. The fan bases/geography in relation to bowl locations didn't support more bowl bids for WAC/MWC, even if quality of play did support it. Hence C-USA got those bids. C-USA remains attractive to Southern/Southwestern bowls, though all the teams need to step up their support and be sure to travel well in the next 2-3 years.

This is where UTEP could quickly become a key member of C-USA. Because the Miners already have a strong base, it would greatly benefit C-USA for the Miners to come on board and step up as a competitor. UTEP in a bowl, bringing a strong show up fan support, could greatly enhance C-USA's ability to retain or land bowl games. UTEP seems to have the support system in place to dramatically improve -- if the school gets/is serious about its commitment (which the hiring of Price seems to indicate).

UTEP should take a look at what UCF is doing -- now there is a school that has taken a MAJOR step up in commitment to the tune of more than doubling the athletics budget, preparing for a new 10,000-seat basketball arena, etc. All of the current C-USA schools have made significant upgrades or are in the process of such. Even schools that have struggled financially recently -- such as UAB, Houston and Tulane --have taken huge steps to raise money, increase support and improve facilities. C-USA is dead- serious about improving its lot in DI athletics. Schools like Memphis aren't playing around.

Now, my own opinion of the situation, as an outsider looking at the landscape: This is UTEP's chance to jump off a dying carcass and help raise up something new -- to be a vital, thriving part of a like-minded, ambitious universities who are strongly committed to improving their position, or to just try to hang on and survive in a league that isn't even remotely close to being the conference that gave UTEP its western identity in the 1st place. Those teams are long gone and they dumped on UTEP on their way out. C-USA isn't perfect and has room to improve in many areas. But unlike the new WAC, I think it has the means to do so. And I think UTEP as a partner helps both sides do exactly that.

I don't really have a specific team C-USA team that I follow, but I do follow UAB more closely than others (living in Birmingham) and have followed C-USA closely since its inception.

I think UTEP has strong support of ...

UAB, Memphis, Southern Miss, East Carolina, Marshall, UCF for sure, though some of them definitely initially supported Eastern schools like some of the MAC teams or Temple ...

JMO, but I think Tulane privately wants UTEP but publicly will support La. Tech for political reasons, knowing they won't have to vote against them because Tech doesn't have enough votes to get in, anyway. Tulane can shrug their shoulders back home and say, "we tried." They'll also be careful not to burn any bridges. If, for example, another team would leave, Tech probably then goes to the top of the list. For that matter, ditto that on North Texas with the current C-USA Texas schools.

I don't think Houston really cares that much either way. My impression is that just want this to be over with so they can get on with it. Their football program seems on the way back, and they've got work to do in hoops.

I am not as familiar with the WAC schools coming in, so therefore I can't say whether Rice, Tulsa and SMU support UTEP or not. Those Western Division schools may prefer La. Tech simply due to geography. Tech is closer to them, and within their division, they'd get cheap travel in all sports.

That's one reason the Eastern schools may be so strong in support of UTEP, despite the distance. For Marshall, UAB, UCF, et al, it's a plane ride either way. Because of Southwest Airlines, it's cheaper for them to go to El Paso than Shreveport. Much cheaper over the course of a season. And because the East is more spread out than the West, it's a definite issue to the Eastern schools. They'll be spending significantly more on travel than the West within division games. West Virginia to Birmingham, Orlando to Memphis, etc., is a lot more expensive than Houston to Dallas or from one side of Houston to the other.  Making the Western schools bus to El Paso every now and then evens up the costs of doing business.  For UTEP, they're used to traveling in the WAC, so no big deal to travel in C-USA.

Two other important factors swing support UTEP's way in the East, in addition to the things I outlined in previous posts ...
1) UTEP is a lot better in hoops than La. Tech, which is very important to charter members and Eastern Division teams Memphis and UAB, currently the two best hoops teams of the NCUSA. It was crucial to Memphis (and therefore EXTREMELY crucial to the new C-USA, that a decent hoops program comes on board.
2) UTEP in the West keeps Southern Miss, UAB and Memphis together in the Eastern Division. These three as charter members sort of set the agenda of expansion. Southern Miss has been the league's best football program, and Memphis/UAB carry basketball clout. All three figure to be a more prominent part of the TV package now that Louisville, etc., are leaving. They want to be in the same division. Tulane, another charter member of what I call the "Central Four," would then become USM's permament cross-division rival (these two have a LONG history) and therefore secure important scheduling rivalries for these schools. They consider it vital to their long-term future -- and therefore the long-term future of the league -- that they play each other home-and-home every year. Let me also say that these four schools all have dynamic, persuasive athletic directors and presidents who are strong assets and advocates for the league. They know they don't really have anywhere else to go (yes, even Memphis) and are committed to making this work as partners. They will be power players in almost every league decision.

C-USA in the configuration described with UTEP as a member then becomes broken down in solid core "pods" (sorry to borrow a WAC term; and no, C-USA won't be using that silly "pod" system) that can foster some rivalries.

-- In the East, UCF, Marshall and East Carolina all have history together.
-- In the Central, the trio of UAB, Memphis and USM share many common traits and have established some good rivalries in C-USA already. UAB-USM has been a bloodbath in football, and the USM-Memphis series has been equally hard-hitting -- in fact, they call it the "Black-and-Blue Bowl." UAB-Memphis is serious, entertaining hoops. And they are close enough that they can help each other significantly, attendance-wise.
-- In the Western Division, all those Texas schools can slug it out in ways we haven't seen since the SWC, while Tulane also will be grouped with the like-minded private schools against which they won't be against a competitive academic disadvantage -- Rice, SMU, Tulsa -- resulting in the closest thing to the "Magnolia League" some of the privates discussed a couple of years ago. Tulane can then schedule Army, Navy, Air Force, Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc., out of conference and have a manageable schedule in line with their academic mission and ideals. It's very easy to see why Tulane really likes the direction of the new C-USA. And if Tulane wants to play La. Tech, they can non-conference. (The fact that they don't regularly do so is telling about their true feelings on Tech.)

La. Tech, while more geographically "in the footprint," throws off the configuration described above just a little and doesn't seem to present quite as much potential.

When it comes down to it, anyone added will come in with a unanimous vote.

They are letting all the schools vote because C-USA is going to be an equitable league, and all the schools tapped are going to get their say in building it. It seems awkward right now, but long term, that even playing field in the decision-making process will prove to be a strength, IMO.

As to why UTEP over La. Tech, I don't think it's necessarily a situation where the C-USA leaders turned their nose up at Tech or held their nose and picked the least of two poor alternatives. I think it's more a situation where they became increasingly intrigued by the possibilities UTEP presented (and vice versa).

The other thing C-USA expansion has been about: Getting a core of 8 schools together who'll stick together to withstand any future raiding. While certainly any school in the league would leave for the opportunity to join a BCS conference, which is unlikely to happen. Between the current proposed lineup, there should be eight solid teams who'll stick together through thick and thin, therefore securing NCAA auto bid, long-term bowl tie-ins, NCAA units, Division I-A status, TV contract, etc.

Isn't it nice to see a fellow fan write something intelligent without flaming? This is a far cry from some of the crap that has been written by la tech fans. I would be totally impressed to see a la tech fan write a similar article concerning their team and their possible invitation to C-USA. My jaw would absolutely drop if HogDawg could express his views without flaming. The ball is now on la tech's court. Please make it count.



UTEP FANS IN DENVER NCAA TOURNEY 2004

Its Huge step down for la tech to join the sunbelt and thats where the buck will stop. North Texas will leap frog them in a heart beat. Supporters of La tech will decline significantly if/when they join the sunbelt and then its over.

This is a post at MinerDigs.com, actually 3 posts by the same UTEP fan, within the same thread:

People forget that C-USA for most of its brief history UNDERACHIEVED in basketball due to down periods for Louisville, Memphis, Houston, DePaul and UAB. Just three years ago, C-USA only sent TWO teams to the dance. I'd say the new C-USA can match that in its sleep.  There also are some programs that are making great strides to get better, such as East Carolina, who might can thrive now that they won't be beaten down by the depth of the league. I also can't imagine that schools like UCF and Marshall won't get better in the new C-USA.

I do know that the UTEP administration clearly recognizes the benefits of C-USA membership. I have been told that, behind the scenes, UTEP began lobbying for C-USA inclusion as far back as last summer and was strongly considered for membership at the time Rice, et al were brought in from the WAC. There was no room at the time, but TCU's Texas two-step changed everything.

UTEP fans post the facts, La. Tech fans post lies.

UTEP fans have said they cannot promise C-USA would get the Sun Bowl if thay are invited.

One or more La. Tech fans actually think if we invite them, they will bring the I-Bowl with them. That's the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. If that was anywhere near true, and the I-Bowl did what La. Tech wanted, they would have dropped either the SEC or Big XII and invited the WAC when the contract was renewed a few years ago (renewed after La. Tech joined the WAC).

IMO, Honesty is the best policy, and UTEP has been honest.

Er, right. Those of you that support UTEP will spin anything and everything. You talk about being "honest" but can't compel yourself to be.

For the record, it was NOT one or more Tech fans posting about the I Bowl, it was just ONE.

BTW, I have since learned what he was talking about in his post. No sense bringing it up on this forum though.

Beyond all that, I don't see what the problem is. I think both Tech and UTEP have been analyzed ad nauseum and everything from budgets to potential have been layed out.

I have noticed that when a UTEP fan posts anything, it goes mostly unchallenged. A few fans have called them on some of it, but then those questioning the legitmacy of a pro-UTEP post are labled as a liar or a flamer.

Just about everyone has an opinion and has made up his mind. But, it doesn't help to express that here. If you are so concerned, call the prez of your school and lobby for UTEP.

I'll say it again: Tech needs CUSA more than CUSA needs Tech. But, in any event, we'll survive.

I habor no ill-will toward any school or its fans. Best wishes to all.

Bowls are more then just about attendance....they also about TV ratings...this is where schools like Syracuse, Uconn, Rugters and Pitt blow the MWC and C-USA away....its probably the main reason we kept our BCS...we offer a lot of TV sets for the networks...also the author of this post is forgetting one major thing...Notre Dame is part of the BE bowl package....ND has the most fans and gets the highest ratings of any school in the country....there are not many major bowls who would choose a non-BCS league over the BE because of these two reasons

Difference in terms of TV markets...the NJ/NY TV market that Rutgers is located in is huge



                            Jackson

Er, right. Those of you that support UTEP will spin anything and everything. You talk about being "honest" but can't compel yourself to be.

For the record, it was NOT one or more Tech fans posting about the I Bowl, it was just ONE.

BTW, I have since learned what he was talking about in his post. No sense bringing it up on this forum though.

Beyond all that, I don't see what the problem is. I think both Tech and UTEP have been analyzed ad nauseum and everything from budgets to potential have been layed out.

I have noticed that when a UTEP fan posts anything, it goes mostly unchallenged. A few fans have called them on some of it, but then those questioning the legitmacy of a pro-UTEP post are labled as a liar or a flamer.

Just about everyone has an opinion and has made up his mind. But, it doesn't help to express that here. If you are so concerned, call the prez of your school and lobby for UTEP.

I'll say it again: Tech needs CUSA more than CUSA needs Tech. But, in any event, we'll survive.

I habor no ill-will toward any school or its fans. Best wishes to all.

UTEP fans post the facts, La. Tech fans post lies.

UTEP fans have said they cannot promise C-USA would get the Sun Bowl if thay are invited.

One or more La. Tech fans actually think if we invite them, they will bring the I-Bowl with them. That's the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. If that was anywhere near true, and the I-Bowl did what La. Tech wanted, they would have dropped either the SEC or Big XII and invited the WAC when the contract was renewed a few years ago (renewed after La. Tech joined the WAC).

IMO, Honesty is the best policy, and UTEP has been honest.

UTEP fans post the facts, La. Tech fans post lies.

UTEP fans have said they cannot promise C-USA would get the Sun Bowl if thay are invited.

One or more La. Tech fans actually think if we invite them, they will bring the I-Bowl with them. That's the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. If that was anywhere near true, and the I-Bowl did what La. Tech wanted, they would have dropped either the SEC or Big XII and invited the WAC when the contract was renewed a few years ago (renewed after La. Tech joined the WAC).

IMO, Honesty is the best policy, and UTEP has been honest.

OleCoog,

I do't know that La Tech fans have posted lies. The posibility of the I-Bowl invite was discussed at the presentation to the CUSA people. Ask Chuck Ninas. He is the high paid consultant that the CUSA school presidents have asked to make a recommendation for expansion. By the way, he recommended Louisiana Tech and will do so again on Friday during their conference call. If you think I am lying, ask your AD or ask your school president. Ask anyone who was there at the meetings last week. Don't rely on a sportswriter in Orlando to do your research, please. He has already recanted when the Tulane AD spoke up.

The I-Bowl invite would be tied to two things; the most important one would be the CUSA Championship game to be played in Shreveport. I wish I could come on this board and tell everyone that the second was a lock, but it is the acceptance of La Tech; which brings some weight, but not as much as I would like it to carry. If the CUSA schools give Shreveport the Championship game, or at least make it part of a rotating schedule, then I am sure most of you will agree that the I-Bowl tie-in would be a lock for the conference. Especially with the Big XII getting more bowls over the last couple of years (Houston & Ft Worth). They barely had enough to go around, hence Tulsa getting into the Boise Bowl, because of Boise getting into the Ft Worth. The I-Bowl is having its own troubles keeping sponsors. I wish we could have gotten the invite on our own, but I won't pretend that we can (very much like your UTEP folks, I suspect).

Everyone says that if we get in, we are 'second rate and should feel like we are the last resort; I look to the old addage about the guy who finished last in his medical school class; they still call him Doctor! We will still be in The CUSA............

Now many of you will call me a liar, but the truth is the truth. Again, ask your AD's personally. Call your school presidents. See what they say.

DFIH

If CUSA decides they want to hold a championship game in Shreveport all they have to do is ask the powers to be and have the rental fee available. La Tech is a non-entity with no bearing on the bowl or stadium except they can rent it like everyone else does.

Eager,

Why would you say something like that????? Do you know someone in Shreveport? Is this what your school president told you. Please give me some insight here. How are you so up on the I-Bowl inner workings? Are you a Board Member and you are holding out on us????? I am quoting people who are part of the process. Do you think that the mayor of Shreveport got his degree from La Tech and is so angry about his poor education that he is doing all this for the city and not thinking about Tech at all?????Why would the mayor make a presentation as part of Tech's proposal? Can you answer me that one? What about the Congressman from S'port; he got a degree from Tech. Wouldn't you think that the powers to be in Ruston would not give these people a call???
Please give us more of your valuble insight.

DFIH[B]

The SMU-UTEP game last year drew 21,000. The Boise St. -SMU game drew about 10,500. So, I'd say that UTEP brought about 10,000 to SMU last season for the powder puff game of the week according to ESPN. La. Tech game in 2002 (Homecoming by the way) had about 14,500.

Please document these lies.

Here are a few lies that a couple of La Tech fans are spewing on the WAC forum:

Compliments of FIM.

: Louisiana Tech vs. UTEP

: A Twenty Year Look at the Two CUSA Finalist

: Men’s Basketball

: Louisiana Tech 9 NCAA Units, 3 NITs including a Final Four
************WRONG, LA TECH 5 NCAA APPERANCES 4-5 RECORD***********************
: UTEP 14 NCAA Units, 3 NITs never advanced past 2nd round
************WRONG, UTEP HAS 15 NCAA & WHERE'S UTEP'S NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP?********
: Both schools had 1 NCAA sweet 16
************WRONG AGAIN, UTEP HAS 4 SWEET 16**********************************
: Since Tech joined the WAC, UTEP has a 4-3 lead in head to head
************WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*********************************** **

We'll all know in 4 days

Give it up eager eagle, all of this LA Tech bashing is getting old. Everyone, even here in Texas knows LA Tech is head and shoulders above UTEP in academics and athletics. The market size for UTEP is a joke and the "eastern block" is using the media as last ditch effort before the presidents decide on LA Tech. END OF STORY

Having just resided in Shreveport-Bossier City for 8 years I am fully aware of the state fairgrounds, the stadium, and the Independence Bowl. That facility is open to any college or high school team who can afford the rental if a time is selected that does not conflict with another stadium commitment. La Tech gets in line just like anyone else wanting to use it and has absolutely NO official input into its operations or how it is used. You cant honestly tell me that a city like Shreveport, with is gambling oriented base, would not fall all over itself to bring in a CUSA championship game. The city and sports authority spends thousands upon thousands trying to induce conventions, etc. to select that area due to the economic impact of visitors. So, dont tell me they wouldnt salivate at the chance to host a championship game and when it gets to the nut cutting they dont give a crap about La Tech. Mention La Tech and they do the ho-humm. Mention LSU, Arkansas, or Tex A&M and they flip with enthusiasm. I certainally hope CUSA never entertains the notion of playing there however if they did it will never depend upon blessings from La Tech.

Eager,

OK, you lived in Shreveport. Yes the stadium is for rent. Answer the rest of my questions, why would Keith be a part of the presentation, mind you that presentation was put on by Louisiana Tech, not the city of Shreveport. Also the presentation was not about hosting a Championship game and renting the stadium. The presentation was about asking Louisiana Tech to join the CUSA schools in a conference.

You said they say "HoHum" about Louisiana tech, who is They????? Are these your friends, are they Southern Miss alum who live in Shreveport? Are they LSU alum? Shreveport is the very largest base of Louisana tech alum any where (Houston is 2nd and DFW is 3rd). You are saying to us, that those people who are Shreveport citizens and some quite important, do not want Tech in CUSA????? Are you saying that if Louisiana Tech does not join and they aren't asked, that Shreveport will try to get the Championship game any way. Do you honestly believe that they only had their interest at heart during those meetings.

I apologize to everyone else for keeping this going, but as you can tell, I am interested in exposing why Eager is so anti-Tech, that he calls me and other Tech alum liars or at least dispute our posts as Bull$hit. I am truly interested in hearing his sources. How connected is he really. I live in Houston and have for almost 20 years, does that mean that I have the pulse of the Houston Cougars? I won't profess to, as I am sure they will attest. Don't print something on a board and expect people to believe it at face value, without giving us your sources. I think Eagar has been exposed for the Flamer he really is. Your thoughts?

DFIH

And Louisiana Tech has 3 national championships/The first was under the old system before the ncaa took the tournament over.After which LaTech won it's second consecutive championship only it's the first under the ncaa heading(it doesnt mean that you wipe the championship off the map).They then won another ncaa championship years later.It sounds to me like you are trying to get technical to make The Techsters less than the powerhouse that they are.

Eager,

All you did was write opinion and pure conjuncture on your part about the process and the people of Shreveport. You didn't really answer my questions. People like you are easy to debate, although you don't realize that because you are so strong in your position that you don't present facts, just trivia, thinking you are making sense and writing it down, so people have to believe it. Especially when you emphasize how the opposition is lying without proving they are. You really proved my point very well.

Okay you know the 'water cooler crowd'. You worked for a big company in Shreveport and you talked sports. You definately have an opinion. Not neccessarily the right one.

No one knew about the I-Bowl connection until after the Orlando article because the administration had kept it close to their vests. They got very angry once the article came out because it went against everything they had been told from Ninas and the rest of the CUSA people including several school presidents. Once they cooled down and made some calls, they found out that the article was bull$hit. They are back to feeling very confident once again, especially after Stull's trip to New York with Benson.

Some people on this board will be surprised in the coming weeks, it may very well be me. I don't think so, but at least I won't post crap about other schools and topics, I know nothing about. Eager, you should show some maturity and think about the same policy.

DFIH