goTULA.NEt

gbgreenie wrote:Bowden was asked about the Tulane coaching search and if he would consider going back to coach the Wave. He said coaching the Wave was some of his best years and would consider going back if everything was right. He reflected on what may have been if he stayed saying they matched Clemsons offer and it was very hard to leave. Says if Tulane shows a true committment in Football he would not hesitate in going back. Mentioned getting in the Big 12 would be big for the Wave. Ended by saying lets wait and see.

RobertM320 wrote:
And yet all the media thinks there's no way to get someone like TB,RR or ML. Then again, they ARE the media, so of course they know that anything in the media is BS. I'd put more stock in the direct quotes I've seen from Bowden, Tuberville, Mack Brown and RichRod than ANYTHING the local media has to say.

Robert1969 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:
And yet all the media thinks there's no way to get someone like TB,RR or ML. Then again, they ARE the media, so of course they know that anything in the media is BS. I'd put more stock in the direct quotes I've seen from Bowden, Tuberville, Mack Brown and RichRod than ANYTHING the local media has to say.

The college sports media as a whole is poisonous. The NCAA just approved a $2000 a year stipend for athletes that will basically drive the final nail in the coffin for the have-nots in college athletics. Why? Because the college sports media built up a lie that said that athletes are worth more to a university than those who are there solely for academics. That might seem true in the short term. But in the long term it simply isn't true. The university endowment is built largely by guys who parlayed their academic success into professional success. Even many of the boosters of athletic programs are donating not because they built fortunes playing pro-ball but because they thrived academically at whatever university, and that enabled them to thrive professionally and ultimately give to the athletic department. The $2000 stipend may not seem like much, but it essentially says that athletes are worth $2000 more a year than your top young scholars. Further, it will likely put the nail in the coffin of smaller athletic departments.

TU23 wrote:

Robert1969 wrote:

RobertM320 wrote:
And yet all the media thinks there's no way to get someone like TB,RR or ML. Then again, they ARE the media, so of course they know that anything in the media is BS. I'd put more stock in the direct quotes I've seen from Bowden, Tuberville, Mack Brown and RichRod than ANYTHING the local media has to say.

The college sports media as a whole is poisonous. The NCAA just approved a $2000 a year stipend for athletes that will basically drive the final nail in the coffin for the have-nots in college athletics. Why? Because the college sports media built up a lie that said that athletes are worth more to a university than those who are there solely for academics. That might seem true in the short term. But in the long term it simply isn't true. The university endowment is built largely by guys who parlayed their academic success into professional success. Even many of the boosters of athletic programs are donating not because they built fortunes playing pro-ball but because they thrived academically at whatever university, and that enabled them to thrive professionally and ultimately give to the athletic department. The $2000 stipend may not seem like much, but it essentially says that athletes are worth $2000 more a year than your top young scholars. Further, it will likely put the nail in the coffin of smaller athletic departments.

Around $1 million (which is probably about what it will cost us to pay this stipend) is going to put us out of business? I really don't think so. If it does, we have just been jerking ourselves around for the past 30 years and we should just give it up. Whether or not athletes are more valuable to a university is a whole other issue and frankly it's irrelevant because the stipend was passed. We are either going to commit to being good (which means paying the stipend) or we're not. We can blame the media or society or whomever else we want, but the rules have changed and we can either do what we have to do to be good or we can whine about it like we have consistently done about things for 50 years.

RobertM320 wrote:
What I've never understood is this whole concept of athletes being so needy? Do you really think they are on the field (practice/weight room/game) more than a good student is studying? I understand they can't get jobs. But, and if I'm wrong tell me, I've also heard that the football players get about $1100 a month for rent? So, when four guys rent an apartment together, they've got $4400/month to spend on rent, food, utilities, and spending money. That's more than a lot of families have. Maybe they have to go without a new set of rims on their car or that data package on their cell phone. And Robert1969 is right. The real money that comes to the University for endowments and ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS doesn't come from the former athletes making good in the pros. It comes from students who parlayed their education into something more.

By the way, where are all the big money donations from the Matt Fortes, Patrick Ramseys and J.P. Losmans of the world? You know, the guys who did parlay their athletic prowess into an NFL career. Heck, J.P. and Ramsey were first round draft choices. Where's the big bucks from them?

sader24 wrote:If Tommy Bowden would've stayed we would be a Top 10 program drawing 50-60K and in either the ACC or Big 12. I know he didn't want his kids going to high school in New Orleans any longer than they had to and I think or so I've heard that was part of the decision.

sader24 wrote:I think the argument is that alumni are alot more likely to donate money to a University that is winning on the football field and that success on the football field is a great marketing tool that helps increase applications, donations, etc. We've stated on here numerous times the positives of a great football program from a donating standpoint and an application standpoint.

1ndabag wrote:It outweighs by megatons what David Filo can do for a university. He can write a big check. Great. He can't help Tulane garner national attention year after year, attract young people to the school in greater numbers year after year, enhance the university's brand, provide an important part of the college experience to students which is likely to pay dividends down the road with donations, provide a means to endear the university with the community and the state, etc.

Robert1969 wrote:

1ndabag wrote:It outweighs by megatons what David Filo can do for a university. He can write a big check. Great. He can't help Tulane garner national attention year after year, attract young people to the school in greater numbers year after year, enhance the university's brand, provide an important part of the college experience to students which is likely to pay dividends down the road with donations, provide a means to endear the university with the community and the state, etc.

Here's other things that can attract highly talented young people to the school in great numbers:

Having the kind of research budget so that faculty can do the kind of groundbreaking research that makes national headlines.

Having the kind of budget to attract big name faculty who can commandeer the airwaves at will. Every time Melissa Harris Perry appears on MSNBC (the most watched news network by young people) there's a big advertisement for Tulane as she is introduced as Tulane Professor of Political Science...

Having the kind of financial aid/scholarship budget that makes the University a more attractive option for students whose parents have a tight budget.

Robert1969 wrote:

1ndabag wrote:It outweighs by megatons what David Filo can do for a university. He can write a big check. Great. He can't help Tulane garner national attention year after year, attract young people to the school in greater numbers year after year, enhance the university's brand, provide an important part of the college experience to students which is likely to pay dividends down the road with donations, provide a means to endear the university with the community and the state, etc.

Here's other things that can attract highly talented young people to the school in great numbers:

Having the kind of research budget so that faculty can do the kind of groundbreaking research that makes national headlines.

Having the kind of budget to attract big name faculty who can commandeer the airwaves at will. Every time Melissa Harris Perry appears on MSNBC (the most watched news network by young people) there's a big advertisement for Tulane as she is introduced as Tulane Professor of Political Science...

Having the kind of financial aid/scholarship budget that makes the University a more attractive option for students whose parents have a tight budget.

Many of your best students care as much, if not more, about these things as they do about athletics. Again, I think athletics can be an important part of a university environment, but it is hardly the most important part of it. And to a university the big checks that a David Filo can drop means a heck of a lot more.

1ndabag wrote:

Robert1969 wrote:
MSNBC? An absolute juggernaut. Commandeer the airwaves at will, huh? That's a hoot.

jogger wrote:Didn't bowden's son go to Curtis?

superwavefan wrote: When Bowden said it was a "hard decision," that is SO a bunch of hot garbage. The real story has been documented: http://hullabaloohuddle.blogspot.com/20 ... alert.html

superwavefan wrote:here's the link to Tommy B's interview. It's at the very end of the interview, literally the last bit in the podcast. The radio guys mentioned us. They said they were "eternally grateful for Tulane going 13-0 (?)" and all he said was "Hey! Keep That Going! It's been a great week" (or something like that).