I don't understand!

[WOSgrad]

Now at the outset, I know that responses will label me a "hater" or "unambitious" or a number of other words.  If you feel so compelled, go for it.

But, I do not understand this compulsion seemingly shared by so many to bolt the Southland Conference for "greener pastures."  I mean what does Lamar gain from moving from the SLC to a "mid-major."  Please tell me! I am dying to know, what advantage do we have having the Idaho Vandals as opposed to the McNeese Cowboys?  Guys, this is not the WAC of the BYUs or the Air Force Academy.  We are asking our university to beg the likes of the freaking University of Denver?  I have never seen this option as "moving up."  The greatest successes that Lamar University have known came as members of the Southland Conference.  In that conference, we enjoyed our greatest success in basketball and in baseball. 

What?  Does anyone harbor the hope that moving to a "mid-major" will actually improve the athletic program at Lamar?  How?  Ladies and gentlemen, as an alumnus of Lamar University, I see its limitations and everyone else should, too.  Let's take this year for example.  Lamar restarted a program that had been shut down after the 1989 season and finished 5-6.  That is a great start for a program that had been dormant, but sadly the again new LU football program will be the biggest accomplishment for the LU athletic program this year.  The once vaunted basketball program is welcoming a new head coach, not because the prior coach bolted for a bigger program, but because the prior coach had to be fired because of consistently poor seasons.  The LU baseball program appears to be headed for a season in which it will not even make the tournament of its own conference.  Do we really think we could improve on that effort in moving to a new conference?  Is a movement to FBS football going to further the program, or just render us another UL-Lafayette where we go happily bouncing around the country getting our brains beat in for a big check?  I don't know about y'all, but I am not one of those that counts as an accomplishment, "Yeah, A&M beat us by 50, but we got them to come to our place!" I would much rather us stay in the Southland, develop our programs to competent levels before we even think we are ready to move to another conference.  Our egos may tell us that Lamar is too good for the Southland Conference and that LU is ready to grow beyond it, but the results say otherwise.

And really, what does LU at this point bring to another conference?  A big TV market?  Nope! 

A rabid fan base?  Well, remember this example.  Say what you will about Billy Franklin shutting down the program in 1989 and all of the political reasons you may attach to it, the bottom line reason is that nobody attended the games...they couldn't get 1,000 people to attend games then and that is when they gave tickets to the students.  One season of good attendance does not a rabid fan base make, not in the eyes of other conference officials and not given Lamar's history.  And when was the last time the Montagne Center was filled for a basketball game?

Any particular sport which would bring particular notoriety to a new conference?  I'll just refer you to the above paragraph.

I love Lamar and want the greatest of success for it just like anybody here.  But to say that this University is ready right now to move to a mid-major conference and to FBS in football is just us foolish talk.

[UNLV]

I have several reason for wanting to move up. One of them is old rivalries. I was going to Lamar football games in the late 70's to the end in 1989. And as much as Terror tries to push the Lamar/Sam Houston old buddies crap, SHSU, SFA, Nicholls st were not the schools I saw. So I don't get excited to see SHSU. The only SLC that excite me is Mcneese, an old rival. Idaho or SJSU don't excite me either, but they do at the very least get Lamar name exposed out west, especially if we win.

FBS also brings exposure, exposure brings money and growth. Is it worth it? I think so.

[LCM2LU]

[quote name="UNLV" post="1009798" timestamp="1305297855"]
I have several reason for wanting to move up. One of them is old rivalries. I was going to Lamar football games in the late 70's to the end in 1989. And as much as Terror tries to push the Lamar/Sam Houston old buddies crap, SHSU, SFA, Nicholls st were not the schools I saw. So I don't get excited to see SHSU. The only SLC that excite me is Mcneese, an old rival. Idaho or SJSU don't excite me either, but they do at the very least get Lamar name exposed out west, especially if we win.

FBS also brings exposure, exposure brings money and growth. Is it worth it? I think so.


[/quote]

The question I think, is whether getting crushed by Idaho because you moved up before you were ready is the kind of exposure that brings you any money or growth?

[AshlyHasBeen]

We've been saying this over and over on the Insider. This is not the WAC with BYU, Hawaii, Nevada or even Fresno State. While yes sports fans would know that Idaho is a FBS school but for the most part here people would rather show up to see McNeese or Sam. Yes I do want LU to move up but only for the right situation that doesn't kill the budget. Can you imagine the costs of all the west coast roadtrips?

[smith]

Here are a couple of Pics from the 1989 season (vs SFA and vs SHSU).  Definitely more than 1000 people
That card has been more than overplayed.  I think they wanted to shoot the patient before he fully woke up.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=1549471110907&set=o.57988980539&type=1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/photo.php?fbid=1343895406284&set=o.57988980539&type=1&theater

Lamar did not have good attendance that's for sure but it wasn't as bad as it's being billed.
Let's see, they killed football in 1989 because the people in the stands in the pics above really aren't there.  But why did they kill softball in 1987 ?  They gave the program 5 years and then quit on them too.

I'm glad that era is over  :)

As for FBS, I'd like to see it at some point.  I've always thought SBC is a better fit for us initially if that chance came up in a few years.

[coachacola]

This is not the 70s and 80s.  Lamar is no longer a newbie to D1 like back then.  But by staying in the SLC the schools that want to better themselves move on and more D1 newbies join up (see TAMU-CC and Central Arkansas).  Actually half the teams in the SLC now were not even D1 when Lamar was, and now two of them are moving on up to a FBS conference before Lamar (Texas State and UTSA).  I just don't see the attraction of getting left behind while previous conference mates get more attention and are perceived as better schools because of that.  Unless Lamar wants to be an Ivy League type school then athletics does matter.

[geezer]

Did a little research and since I am a relatively new comer to Bmt.  Moved here in the fall of 83.  From 83 to 89 last six years of football LU played SHSU three times and SFA twice.  From 83-84 basketball through the 97-98 seasons (last year in the Sunbelt) LU played SHSU three times and SFA once.  They played San Jose St twice I believe.  So where are these long time rivalries?

[coachacola]

[quote]So where are these long time rivalries?[/quote]

When it comes to football, Lamar really didn't have any back then.  Not winning much was a big part of the problem, but also the SLC just wasn't that great of a football conference back then outside of McNeese.  Then leaving the SLC and having the football team play as a D1-AA independent practically guaranteed the program would fail.

Lamar's kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.  If they stay in the SLC then there's a good chance that as soon as they build a good rivalry with say SHSU or SFA. one of them will jump to FBS (SHSU is already talking about it).  If Lamar moves to the WAC. more than likely it'll be temporary destination or half the teams will leave again (and again and again) and no good rivalries will get built.

I am hoping Lamar can slowly advance, maybe something similar to what TCU has done.  When they got dumped along with SMU, UH and Rice, they've managed to jump around and make it to a BCS league.  Boise State is attempting to do the same.  The odds are against Lamar big time, but the other choice is to stay in the SLC and have moderate success but for the most part be invisible to almost all college fans outside of SETX.

[WOSgrad]

Really???  This is about exposure??? Really???  This is about having a better shot of having our alma mater's name on the bottom of a ESPN crawl during football season??? Really???  No matter that the crawl reveals a 4-6 touchdown beating that it had handed to it.  Really???  You're worried that Texas State and UTSA would be considered "better schools" because they have that and Lamar doesn't???

Really??? LU would have "exposure" by popping up in such huge media markets as Logan, Utah, Boise, Idaho, or San Jose, CA??? Really???

I can see Chris, Lee and Herby salivating right now.

[puddin tane]

[quote name="WOSgrad" post="1010598" timestamp="1305351946"]
Really???  This is about exposure??? Really???  This is about having a better shot of having our alma mater's name on the bottom of a ESPN crawl during football season??? Really???  No matter that the crawl reveals a 4-6 touchdown beating that it had handed to it.  Really???  You're worried that Texas State and UTSA would be considered "better schools" because they have that and Lamar doesn't???

Really??? LU would have "exposure" by popping up in such huge media markets as Logan, Utah, Boise, Idaho, or San Jose, CA??? Really???

I can see Chris, Lee and Herby salivating right now.
[/quote]

[u]not boise[/u],  but that monster market in Moscow, Id,(pop 23,000) ...and las cruces, NM..whoopee

Idaho..best known for their poor attendance

Feb. 2010
"•Last season every team in the WAC crossed over the 15,000-person threshold except for one: the Idaho Vandals. Getting an average of 12,500 folks to get all claustrophobic up in the Kibbie Dome is quite a letdown for a team that experienced a semi-renaissance last season by not audibly sucking wind. Perhaps the Vandals need to go 1-11 again to get those overall bibs back in the seats."

[puddin tane]

[quote name="geezer" post="1010086" timestamp="1305327521"]
Did a little research and since I am a relatively new comer to Bmt.  Moved here in the fall of 83.  From 83 to 89 last six years of football LU played SHSU three times and SFA twice.  From 83-84 basketball through the 97-98 seasons (last year in the Sunbelt) LU played SHSU three times and SFA once.  They played San Jose St twice I believe.  So where are these long time rivalries?
[/quote]

USL, McNeese, arkie st, UL-M and la tech..

[geezer]

[quote name="puddin tane" post="1010606" timestamp="1305355597"]
[quote author=geezer link=topic=84214.msg1010086#msg1010086 date=1305327521]
Did a little research and since I am a relatively new comer to Bmt.  Moved here in the fall of 83.  From 83 to 89 last six years of football LU played SHSU three times and SFA twice.  From 83-84 basketball through the 97-98 seasons (last year in the Sunbelt) LU played SHSU three times and SFA once.  They played San Jose St twice I believe.  So where are these long time rivalries?
[/quote]

USL, McNeese, arkie st, UL-M and la tech..
[/quote]

Exactly my point the only team in the current SLC that Lamar has a long time rivalry with is McNeese and I doubt that would get dropped if scheduling will allow.

[Guest beechnut]

All I know is that my kid is getting a quality education at Lamar for a fair price.  ;D

[UNLV]

Before we start ripping each others head off, the WAC won't take us and will use the next 12 months to look for any alternative. Lamar future is in the Southland. The Sunbelt might give us a look.

[YouCanUseaMint]

I don't want to get too into it with the OP, but I'll offer a Texas State fan's assessment as to why this jump makes sense.

1. You already schedule body bag games with BCS teams, why not collect a higher paycheck? Sometimes 2-3 times the amount?

2. Consider your peers, academic wise. How do you like being associated with Nicholls St, Southeastern LA, Prison U, Stephen F Austin, TAMU-Corpus? Do you feel they are at LU's level for academics? Or would you rather be associated with Utah State, University of Idaho, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, University of Denver? A handful of these WAC schools are the best, second, or third best academic schools in their respective state.

3. To be frank, if you go WAC you would be choosing the worst FBS conference available (football wise). Some see this as a bad thing, but I see it as an opportunity. What better way to grow and transition your program than in a conference with schools who already aren't that much better than yourself?

4. TV opportunities and exposure are much greater in an FBS conference and judging by TV ratings of the FCS national championship, any one of the toilet bowls garners more attention than the game currently held in Frisco (and toilet bowls aren't incredibly hard to get into).

5. You'll see an increase in quality of OOC opponents coming to play you at home. At Texas State (since last Nov), we've already scheduled Texas Tech, Navy, Nevada, and Wyoming in San Marcos with much more to come!

I think in Lamar and Sam Houston's cases, it's a matter of not being left behind. And while I am quick to harp on Prison U's desire, I completely understand it. I don't want to even think of the replacements the Southland selects should another school or two leave the conference for either budget reasons (LA) or conference realignment (SHSU/LU).

[KingSnake]

[quote name="YouCanUseaMint" post="1010813" timestamp="1305399429"]
I don't want to get too into it with the OP, but I'll offer a Texas State fan's assessment as to why this jump makes sense.

1. You already schedule body bag games with BCS teams, why not collect a higher paycheck? Sometimes 2-3 times the amount?

2. Consider your peers, academic wise. How do you like being associated with Nicholls St, Southeastern LA, Prison U, Stephen F Austin, TAMU-Corpus? Do you feel they are at LU's level for academics? Or would you rather be associated with Utah State, University of Idaho, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, University of Denver? A handful of these WAC schools are the best, second, or third best academic schools in their respective state.

3. To be frank, if you go WAC you would be choosing the worst FBS conference available (football wise). Some see this as a bad thing, but I see it as an opportunity. What better way to grow and transition your program than in a conference with schools who already aren't that much better than yourself?

4. TV opportunities and exposure are much greater in an FBS conference and judging by TV ratings of the FCS national championship, any one of the toilet bowls garners more attention than the game currently held in Frisco (and toilet bowls aren't incredibly hard to get into).

5. You'll see an increase in quality of OOC opponents coming to play you at home. At Texas State (since last Nov), we've already scheduled Texas Tech, Navy, Nevada, and Wyoming in San Marcos with much more to come!

I think in Lamr and Sam Houston's cases, it's a matter of not being left behind. And while I am quick to harp on Prison U's desire, I completely understand it. I don't want to even think of the replacements the Southland selects should another school or two leave the conference for either budget reasons (LA) or conference realignment (SHSU/LU).
[/quote]

makes a lot of sense to me

[badndn]

I've always thought a WAC move was silly, but a move to the Sunbelt is a no brainer. UNT, ULL, ULM, ArkSt., all close.

[coachacola]

[quote name="badndn" post="1011400" timestamp="1305554113"]
I've always thought a WAC move was silly, but a move to the Sunbelt is a no brainer. UNT, ULL, ULM, ArkSt., all close.
[/quote]

Lamar probably has to go to the WAC first to have any chance to get to the Sun Belt.

[badndn]

[quote name="coachacola" post="1011418" timestamp="1305556922"]
[quote author=badndn link=topic=84214.msg1011400#msg1011400 date=1305554113]
I've always thought a WAC move was silly, but a move to the Sunbelt is a no brainer. UNT, ULL, ULM, ArkSt., all close.
[/quote]

Lamar probably has to go to the WAC first to have any chance to get to the Sun Belt.
[/quote]
If ULM can get into the Sunbelt...LU can...I've read where the Florida teams are looking to go CUSA.

[coachacola]

[quote name="badndn" post="1011502" timestamp="1305567638"]
[quote author=coachacola link=topic=84214.msg1011418#msg1011418 date=1305556922]
[quote author=badndn link=topic=84214.msg1011400#msg1011400 date=1305554113]
I've always thought a WAC move was silly, but a move to the Sunbelt is a no brainer. UNT, ULL, ULM, ArkSt., all close.
[/quote]

Lamar probably has to go to the WAC first to have any chance to get to the Sun Belt.
[/quote]
If ULM can get into the Sunbelt...LU can...I've read where the Florida teams are looking to go CUSA.
[/quote]

The Sun Belt was desperate back then so they took ULM.  The Sun Belt can afford to be picky now.  But of course, all bets are off if the Sun Belt gets raided.

Right now the WAC is dysfunctional with the western schools blocking Lamar for now until they either get invited to the MWC are they find a few western football schools (not likely).  Either way, Texas State and UTSA want Lamar in the WAC so it'll probably happen next year and the WAC will be a lot more travel friendly.

[Bobcat1]

Doesn't really matter now does it?

[UNLV]

[quote name="Bobcat05" post="1011847" timestamp="1305646287"]
Doesn't really matter now does it?
[/quote]Nor does it matter or makes any common sense. Many think next years vote by UTSA and Texas st makes Lamar a lock for the WAC, I don't. But lets say it does, then what sense does it make to block Lamar this year and get the conference out of default.
Either the WAC is very stupid or there is something big coming to the WAC that does not involve Lamar.

[TexasTerror]

[quote name="UNLV" post="1011897" timestamp="1305649658"]Nor does it matter or makes any common sense. Many think next years vote by UTSA and Texas st makes Lamar a lock for the WAC, I don't. But lets say it does, then what sense does it make to block Lamar this year and get the conference out of default. Either the WAC is very stupid or there is something big coming to the WAC that does not involve Lamar.[/quote]

Comes down to timeline... the WAC can not have all these FCS schools playing full league schedules at once. If you bring in Lamar now, you will have LU and UTSA both on the same timeline making a mess of '12 scheduling, since neither could have full WAC schedules...

2012 - TXST counts as FBS, UTSA counts as FCS (Lamar counts as FCS)
2013 - TXST & UTSA count as FBS (Lamar does too)

Best bet is Lamar in all sports including football in '13.

[UNLV]

[quote name="TexasTerror" post="1012254" timestamp="1305743384"]
[quote author=UNLV link=topic=84214.msg1011897#msg1011897 date=1305649658]Nor does it matter or makes any common sense. Many think next years vote by UTSA and Texas st makes Lamar a lock for the WAC, I don't. But lets say it does, then what sense does it make to block Lamar this year and get the conference out of default. Either the WAC is very stupid or there is something big coming to the WAC that does not involve Lamar.[/quote]

Comes down to timeline... the WAC can not have all these FCS schools playing full league schedules at once. If you bring in Lamar now, you will have LU and UTSA both on the same timeline making a mess of '12 scheduling, since neither could have full WAC schedules...

2012 - TXST counts as FBS, UTSA counts as FCS (Lamar counts as FCS)
2013 - TXST & UTSA count as FBS (Lamar does too)

Best bet is Lamar in all sports including football in '13.
[/quote]If Lamar gets a WAC invite before July 1st for 2013, then Lamar would not need to pay the exit fee to the SLC.
If Lamar gets an invite from the WAC after July 1st, then Lamar pays.

Hopefully neither happens and the SBC calls up Lamar. Let SHSU go to the WAC.