By the standards of this site, the Open Letter to Dan Reneau and Jim Oakes generated an overwhelming response. I have had my gender, sexual orientation, political leanings and courage called into question. I have been rebuked by a number of posters, including George Patton. I was going to just let the letter stand on its own and not really say anything else about it, but after all of that I couldn’t resist writing a little more on the issue.
Many of the posters accused me of being out of touch, of not being ‘near enough’ to Tech to see all the great things that are going on ‘right now.’ Well, its partially true – I haven’t been to Ruston in a while. But I have been able to watch games thanks to ESPN Gameplan, what have I have seen? Crappy football played in front of a half empty Joe Aillet Stadium.
And do you know what else? When I worked for Tech in the Admissions office, selling the University to prospective students, I told high school juniors and seniors the same kind of stuff I am hearing now – “Things are really looking up – we just had a great recruiting class under our new coach. He is bringing a new attitude to our team! We have got a great plan that will lift us to the top ranks of NCAA Football.” And you know what? I meant them. The same ‘great things’ that are going on right now were going on 10-12 years ago, regardless of fancy new names. And they were going on when the transition to I-A was made. But after 20 years of watching this same thing repeat itself over and over, and every few years “We have a new attitude!” “We are really on our way now!” I have had enough. I have heard that the alumni are excited before. It is time to admit what we are – a bad I-A program. But we could be a great I-AA program.
And if one needs justification through numbers, here are some:
3 and 30.*
That’s wins and losses against teams ranked in the top 25. 3 and freaking 30! Why should we feel optimistic about the future when Tech’s winning percentage against ranked teams is .090? That number tells me all I need to know about whether Tech belongs in I-A.
But here are two more numbers: 47 and 16.* Those are the average point totals for those games. And that includes Tech’s 3 wins. It also includes a 51-0 loss to Clemson, a 73-3 loss to Houston, a 55-14 loss to Boise State, and a 56-3 loss to Alabama. And these numbers are consistent throughout Tech’s experience in Division I-A, through new coaches, new attitudes, and rededications to excellence by the administration.
And that’s not all. Check these out:
16,748
25,408
16,636
20,433
18,477
20,778
17,548
16,416
Those are Tech’s average attendance numbers for the years 1998-2005 (thanks to changemaker at Bulldog Barks and Bytes). That’s through good years and bad – the highest the average attendance has ever been was 25,408. That is not the attendance figure of a major I-A program.
Many posters asked me if I wanted to go back to playing schools like NLU (or ULM), ULL, McNeese, or NSU. My answer – heck yes I do! Those are the schools where my relatives went, where my friends from high school went, where my wife’s parents went. It would mean more to me to have a good friendly rivalry with them over a game every year than to be able say “Hey, did you see we beat Utah State last week!” Nobody cares if we beat Utah State. But they do care if we beat their alma mater. And perhaps some posters are too young to remember that once the Tech-NSU game at the State Fair was a major event. An event that people traveled to, filled Independence Stadium for, planned for, tailgated for, got excited about. It was a family affair –everyone knew someone who went to the other school, and the game meant something. Can we say that now about a game against Boise State, or Nevada, or San Jose State or New Mexico State? No, we cannot.
I have been accused of Tech-bashing. That was certainly not my intention – I love Tech, am extremely grateful for my time there which was extremely formative. I met my wife of nearly 10 years there. It’s a great place, with a great atmosphere, and great people. But not a great football program.
True Dawgs should ask themselves this question:
Would I quit loving Tech if it was not I-A? If the answer is no, then why not admit what we are? And if the answer is yes, then I would say you are not a true Dawg, but somebody else’s bitch.
*Numbers from the 2006 Tech Media Guide, plus a survey of last season
Filed under: Commentary
So, you think that ULL, ULM, and all other schools who are “major IA” (an incredibly subjective term) should move to FCS?
Jonathan,
ULM – Definitely. They are even worse than Tech. Yet they won the 1987 I-AA national championship. Don’t you think ULM fans would enjoy that kind of a season more than the kind that they have now?
ULL – I think they are in the same position as Tech. They have had some success, but would still probably better off in I-AA.
Imagine a conference with Tech, ULL, ULM, NSU, maybe McNeese, and some of the smaller schools from Mississippi, Arkansas or Texas. You could travel (easily) to most of the away games, it wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive, and you could watch your team live just about every week. Wouldn’t you like that?
I have some other schools for your consideration:
Division I-A, average attendance around 15,000, hasn’t had a winning season since 1987, 2006 was their first “break even season”, they can’t recruit due to a very high gpa/test score requirement, Record from 1990 – 2005: 47-119-3, the Team is SMU, and yes they lost to Louisiana Tech 3 years in a row in the WAC. And no they can no longer claim the death penalty as holding them back. So why do they stay in I-A? On paper they are much more clearly suited for FCS.
I have a feeling that more teams are coming up into I-A not moving the other way, because college football is on the rise everywhere from money to fanbase. Heck even the I-A lowly Sunbelt Conference gets a guarantee of TWO Bowl Games ON TV! So ULL, ULM, and Tech are not moving backwards into the FCS (which is never seen on TV so you could cancel your subscription to Gameplan), because at the present time and for the foreseeable future its much brighter in I-A.
Faimon,
Could you tell me who you believe deserves what you call IA (FBS) status? For simplicity’s sake, let your list be comprised of AQ conference schools (non-BCS/Mid-Major).
A few points:
First, don’t complain about the attendance when you only notice it by watching the games on television. Do you really love Tech? Then you should support them.
Second, not many teams can claim success against Top 25 teams. Should LSU have moved to IAA in the mid 80’s to early 90’s when they couldn’t beat Top 25 teams? Should Baylor move down since then have had 1 or 2 winning seasons in the last 20 years? What about Vanderbilt? Will they ever win a conference game, much less a game against a Top 25 team? The list goes on and on… we haven’t even gotten into the 50 or so other IA teams that don’t have the budgets that the elite schools have.
Third, did you read the Shreveport Times article this morning that revealed that Tech was paid $1.1 Million for being in the WAC conference this year and close to 1 Million in the previous years of affiliation? Do you really think Tech could generate that kind of money playing McNeese and Northwestern State?
You need to drop the subject, you can’t win the debate.
With regards to your question “Imagine a conference with Tech, ULL, ULM, NSU, maybe McNeese, and some of the smaller schools from Mississippi, Arkansas or Texas. You could travel (easily) to most of the away games, it wouldn’t be prohibitively expensive, and you could watch your team live just about every week. Wouldn’t you like that?.
They have that. It’s called the Sun Belch Conference. NLULM and UhLaLa have the same if not worse attendance problems that we do. They also are known for having the worst football teams in the country. They have lower budgets than we do. We were doing really good until JB3 came to TECH with the defeatist attitude that you are displaying now, and gave up on any chance of TECH being a real winner.
The one constant all those years that you state is the Athletic director. Take a look at http://www.firejimoakes.com to find many things that a big collection of TECH fanatics put together for things that need to change.
You got such a strong response from some of us TECH fanatics, because we think that your OPINION stinks. We respond because we don’t want some casual fan to come across your blog and think that your opinion is how TECH fans truly feel.
Questions for you: When was the last time that you did ANYTHING that helped TECH directly?? What was the last game that you attended?? They just had a big event in Baton Rouge with the new coaches and other guest speakers; did you attend??
…a Bama man, here. And, despite the fact that Tech has given us hell over the years, it is clear that Faimon has reason on his side. Truth is, while schools such as Bama can draw nearly 100,000 persons for a SPRING game, the LA Techs of the world don’t regularly draw more than a quarter of that. They’re not national programs and, frankly, never will be. Better, as Faimon has remarked, to take advantage of what programs such as Tech DO bring to the table–which are opportunities to bring together the local community and, in turn, to facilitate good competition WITHIN the state. We actually have an analogous situation in Alabama, i.e., with UAB. Solid hoops program, to be sure, but the football program would be better off in a smaller role. Of course, one might argue that the football program enables UAB to stay in CUSA, and that is true. But why couldn’t UAB just slide back to the Sun Belt and prosper there. After all, as Faimon has pointed out, there are a number of very good basketball schools that either don’t play football or, at least, have much more modest aspirations in the sport. No, anybody who comes to this discussion with anything but blind partisanship will see that Faimon is right. Sorry Tech fans…
UAB beat LSU in football just a few years ago. They are fine in CUSA. Besides, if there were no mid-majors, who would the Alabama’s of the world schedule Out of Conference games against?
Ok after 18 seasons of Louisiana Tech Division 1A football, you have had enough. I went on cfbdatabase.com and did a brief research project. I found that Tech’s 18 years in D-1A have resulted in a 101-102-3 record or a 0.490291262 winning percentage. I look at other school I figure are comparable to us and find this:
Louisiville’s first 18 years in D-1A
94-91-5 for a 0.494736842 winning percentage
UNLV’s first 18 seasons in D-1A
100-100-3 for a 0.492610837 winning percentage
And for fun ULL’s first 18 seasons in D-1A
91-102-5 for a 0.45959596 winning percentage
So I think we are about par for the course in our D-1A history. Also given that our administrations haven’t given us the best athletic support, I think we have faired well.
Growing up in Monroe, I remember when ULM was winning in D-1AA before they moved up with the big boys. I remember asking why and being told ULM can make more money off of 1 D-1A game than the D-1AA playoffs.
So the ultimate root of the debate is the almighty dollar. Given that Tech had one of the 5 smallest budgets out of all 119 teams last year, I can’t see how moving down will give us more money. As of right now, financial support is being generated and it is being invested into our program. I agree that we could be good at the old D-1AA level, but how does that help us. Being in D-1A and the WAC gives us more publicity which gathers more students from other areas and subsequently more support for Louisiana Tech.
Your suggestion gets us absolutely no where and Tech will be just fine in spite of your opposition.
…well, that hardly amounts to a serious defense of mid-major football…
Does Boise St amount to a serious defense of mid-major football? Or what about Hawaii? Fresno St? TCU?
Or go back to your own conference…Alabama WON’T play UAB, because of fear they might be better one year. Vanderbilt is worse than some mid-major schools. College Football is great because of these mid-major schools. Funny I seem to remember of Tech’s wins in Alabama. Check it out!
I think Faimon’s argument is more in-line with Theo’s thinking…we should do away with “mid-major” football. But, that will never happen because the “big boys” want 7 home games per year. And Theo, don’t try to act like 92K for the spring game is the average at Bama.
…true, not the average, but a ‘normal’ A-day game will draw close to 50,000–still twice what LA Tech snags for a REGULAR season game…
…the thing about Boise State is this: their last season was amazing, capped by one of the most thrilling bowl victories of all time. Can’t take any of that away from them. And yet, and yet–a #5 ranking. That, and nothing more, is what a ‘great’ mid-major team can accomplish. Sure, it’s fun to talk about around the water cooler (or what have you). And, sure, it was fun watching Stoops lose on a friggin’ hook-n-ladder. But, until a mid-major can compete for a NATIONAL championship, then it’s all just window-dressing. Nice to look at, but, finally, inconsequential. That, to me, is why college basketball, in principle, is superior to college football: each season it is POSSIBLE that a #16 seed will go all the way. Of course, that’s not the case in football, and, doubtless, no one expects the situation to change anytime soon. THERE is the real problem with mid-major footbal, so don’t blame me for pointing out what has been determined in advance. And, lastly, if the NCAA isn’t going to alter the present system, then I maintain that Faimon (despite drinkin’ deep from the LSU kool-aid) is right: LA Tech might as well drop down to I-AA, where the team (and its fans) can have some fun again…
So Theo,
You would have to conceded that you would apply Faimon’s comments to all “mid-major” teams and not just Tech. And yeah, it’s “possible” that a sixteen seed could win the NC, but in reality, they’ve never won a game. Had all the top schools had 2 or 3 losses, BSU would’ve been playing in the NC. I mean good lord, BAMA hasn’t won a national championship in God knows how long, should they move down to? What about Vandy and Mississippi State? Sure, Wake Forrest had one a good year, but what did they get for it? The same thing that Boise got (except that they lost). You’re position is just ridiculous. The NCAA has set the criteria for being a Division One Football Bowl Subdivision school. If you don’t like the criteria, go get a job at the NCAA and start your crusade to rid the world of the mid-majors (the only reason Bama’s had winning seasons lately).
What defines success? 95% of the nation would say that Bama fans are so out of touch with reality that their opinion doesn’t matter. If you look at pure dollars and cents, it makes sense for “mid-major” programs to be where they are. Your school benefits from it…everybody wins.
…if LA Tech’s program brings in money for the university, then fine: keep the program. Farbeit from me–a red-blooded American who understands the value of making a buck–to hold that against anyone. Hell, isn’t that what college sports are about these days? But let’s don’t think that that defense addresses Faimon’s concern. For Faimon–who seems to be something of an idealist or a dreamer, as he harks back to the good ol’ days in Ruston, or wastes time nitpicking over the exactitude of Memphis Tider’s blog posts–apparently wants LA Tech football to be about MORE than making money. He wants to see a program that brings the community and, in fact, the fine state of Louisiana together. If I might put words into his mouth, he is suggesting that, EVEN IF Tech makes more money playing Miami or Boise State, that shouldn’t take priority over games against local/regional programs. And my point is that there is some merit to his point. You’d have to be a regular Gordon Gekko not to see it…
…in addition, let me say that my friend Mr Nida has missed my point vis-a-vis the issue of ‘possibility’. Here’s the thing: as SEC schools, it is POSSIBLE that a Vandy or a Miss. St. or (might as well throw it in there, since, you’re right, it’s been a long time) an Alabama COULD win a national title. IF those teams were capable of putting together a great season, they would more than likely be in a position to win it all. The ‘possibility’ would be present, and that, in my view, gives them a raison d’etre. They are playing for SOMETHING. With mid-major football, it’s different, because, as Boise State showed, even a remarkable, indeed, perfect season can get you no more than #5 in the polls. And you know what: Chris Petersen knows that, and that’s why he’ll move on in a few years. That’s the sad truth of college football right now. So, don’t shoot the messenger, my friend. Your real beef should be with the NCAA. Programs such as LA Tech and UAB would do much better if they thought they were playing for more than a few extra bucks for their universities…
No theo, I didn’t miss your point, I just don’t think it’s valid. I agree that Tech football should be about more than money. But, if you look at attendance averages, you’ll see that we’re doing better than the FCS schools in our state that are playing local competition (as well as ULM who’s in a larger metro area). So, you think we’ll bring the state and the community to rally around Tech by decreasing finances, attendance, and potential? Wow…
…au contraire, Mr Nida, you missed my point about you missing my point. But, alas, I don’t think it matters much. I entered this discussion because it seemed to me that ol’ Faimon was taking it on the chin for making a reasonable suggestion–indeed, one that has ramifications beyond the pale of LA Tech football. His suggestion, at bottom, has to do with the viability of mid-major football. To what extent is mid-major football worthwhile, when the surely laudable efforts behind it often fail to amount to anything more than mediocrity and, in the case of teams like Boise St, accolades for what has to be the most forgettable of unforgettable seasons (five years hence, only die-hards will care that the Broncos finished fifth for the ‘06 season). Why not, Faimon asked, return to I-AA football, where aspirations are more modest and thus realizable? You and others have answered that the key here is money, to which I, humbly, have had to submit. Make your money, I have said. However, given that, I just don’t think you’re addressing Faimon’s original concern. You DID imply, admittedly, that you think more money leads to better community, etc. But isn’t that like saying that persons such as Donald Trump have greater MORAL potential than, persumably, you and me? Put differently, isn’t it the case that things such as WINNING and TRADITION are more vital to the health of a program than money?
Well, if athletic programs were people and financial success equalled moral succes, then yes. But that, of course, is ridiculous. And, when the basis for your argument is a possibility that has never crossed over into reality (even further, a 16 seed has never one a game, much less one a national title), your argument is weak.
And while Faimon may have asked “why not?”, my reply (why?) has not been answered. It doesn’t make financial sense. It would shrink not only athletic budgets, but attendance as well (in addition to negatively affecting all of our other programs). So, we’ll have less people, less money, and lesser competition and your assertion is that we will have better state and community support as a result? That, my friend, is absurd.
I think a move to FCS would be direct contrast to the spirit of sportsmanship. “We don’t compete like we’d like to, so let’s find worse people to play.” That won’t ever cut it for me. BCS-homers may believe that there is no point to non-AQ football conferences, but they could never take that assertion further than mere flippant and condescending opinion.
Surely you can admit that Boise was MUCH closer to a NC last year than a VAST majority of BCS schools.
one/won…whichever
…so be it, Mr Nida. I realize that I appear condescending. But let me assure you: I hope I’m wrong. I have no ill will toward the LA Techs of the world, but, at the same time, I see plenty of reasons why a move to I-AA would make sense. Of course, your reason (finances) for staying in I-A makes sense as well, cynical as it may be. But who knows? Maybe one day a WAC team win will it all; maybe one day LA Tech will pack its stadium on a regular basis; maybe one day Notre Dame will come to Ruston and be shredded by three touchdowns; maybe one day the LA Tech/Tulsa game will have national implications; maybe one day children across Louisiana will dream of donning the Red and Reflex Blue and scoring a touchdown before the faithful at awe-inspiring Joe Aillet Stadium. But I sure as hell wouldn’t bet on it……if only because the system in place won’t allow it. So, in the meantime, enjoy the extra funds; enjoy the pre-determined mediocrity that is Bulldog football. As Faimon suggested, it could be different. But folks such as yourself seem happy enough already, and, in the end, that’s all that really matters…
Theo,
Don’t you see that attendance and contributions are more than just dollars and cents? They are indicators of support. Isn’t that what this is all about? Increasing support from the community and the state? I thought that’s what you were talking about. Well, the numbers say otherwise. NSU has fewer season ticket holders and receives less money from their alumni (not just conference pay-out). Of course it’s not all about dollars and cents…it’s about support. FCS programs have less of it. That seems pretty clear to me.
If #5 in the country is mediocrity, my school and your school would both love to get some of that. Once we get to the point of a Boise St./Utah/ect, then we can start whining about the system. The system isn’t keeping us out of a BCS bowl.
Lastly, where did I say I’m satisfied with where we are? That is certainly not the case. I want Tech to be as great as it can be. And, I pay hard earned money every year to try and help that dream become a reality. A move to FCS is absolutely counter to that dream. And, as of right now, no one has made any logical post to convince me otherwise.
[...] one of the worst teams in the country, and my opinions on what should be done can be found here and here. So let’s take a closer look at things in [...]