You know things are getting rough around here when posters are advocating for a return to C-USA.
Can Tulsa ever be successful (more wins than losses) in D1?
- Thread starter Tulsa76
- Start date
The fact that they review restarting it every few years speaks to the power of college football at an institution.....otherwise they would not keep bringing it up! I don’t believe the reason is that they see no net benefit, but rather the huge up front expense and logistics of starting a program from scratch. Sure they have had a nice run in basketball, but the school falls off the map during football season. I also believe they will bring back football some day and it will be beneficial to the university & city.....just like football at TU.
Speaking of Turner Gill, take Liberty University where he coached a few years ago. Here is a school that most people outside their region had never even heard of a few years ago and now they are being listed in every major sports media outlet as a projected bowl team. This kind of national exposure has such value to a school and I guarantee you they recognize the power of D1 football at Liberty.
I believe the whole attendance thing is overblown as it is only one of many ways to measure the success or interest in a program. Everybody knows college football is driven by TV, not actual attendance. Look at the bowl games.... with the exception of the major bowls, most are sparsely attended, but new bowls are seemingly added every year in order to capture the TV dollar. And that dollar is in part passed on to schools such as TU (see their recent increase in $$ from the new AAC tv contract). I am not trying to down play attendance, but it’s more like gravy vs. a meal ticket. With that said, I do feel like TU is working hard to create a fun and exciting game day experience. Sure, the goal is to maximize attendance, which obviously generates more revenue, but just because we don’t sell out the stadium every game doesn’t mean we can’t be a good program.
Liberty has 110,000 (!!) students enrolled, with 94,000 online. This is a perfect example of academics driving athletics. Love 'em or hate 'em, they had visionary leadership on the academic side and have $$ to invest in football and it's paying off.
All of this. A good program is one that graduates, doesn’t convict, that puts a highly entertaining brand of football on TV but can also be reliably beaten by the core group of thirty major powers in college football. Gate sales are pure profit and one method of measuring brand loyalty locally. But over time, the lack of fans in the stands does influence the quality of the TV product. You have to spend enough to provide amenities so that you attract enough people in the stands to complete the visual fantasy that the TV viewer desires - getting the feel of being at an exciting sports event while still sitting in his favorite chair in his underwear drinking a beer that cost him $0.80 but still getting expert commentary and replay. That’s what ESPN sells and that’s what they expect us to help them sell in exchange for a boat load of money.
Running up the middle forty times for no gain to set up 10 long pass plays that may or may not score with 2,000 in the East stands doesn’t cut that over time. Reason number #367 that I thought this offense was a bad fit
And just for clarification: C-USA no longer receives the $1.1 million per year that we did while we were there. They dropped down to $200k per year and just got bumped back up to $400k per year this last season. Also they have little exposure on tv (8 games on cbs sports network and some on the nfl network). The rest are Facebook feeds or other online broadcasts.
So... while we are indeed struggling right now, going back to C-USA would put us in even further financial turmoil.
I will continue to hold onto hope that we can turn this ship around with some changes... all while enjoying $7 million per year in tv revenue. As opposed to accepting defeat, moving down, and getting $400k in tv revenue to play on Facebook.
So... while we are indeed struggling right now, going back to C-USA would put us in even further financial turmoil.
I will continue to hold onto hope that we can turn this ship around with some changes... all while enjoying $7 million per year in tv revenue. As opposed to accepting defeat, moving down, and getting $400k in tv revenue to play on Facebook.
I can say ORU is trying to copy the Liberty model and deliver "Christian" education globally. It hasn't quite caught on at ORU like it has at Liberty.
Of course there are several articles out there questioning Liberty's spending on athletic facilities and athletics in general as there seems to be some shenanigans in how that funding was (or wasn't secured). At least one of them has several board members questioning if it was too much too quickly...especially without a conference for football.
ADD: C-USA has turned Liberty down for membership more than once.
Every team in a conference can't be above 0.500 in conference. We should be doing better, but it is not a reason to go to CUSA. We need a new head coach and some help from the University.
But in the meantime, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Arkansas, and Colorado aren't going to be kicked out of their conference. I'm sure Alabama, Ohio State and the like don't mind having an easy week. That is not something that I would desire for us, but in the meantime, we don't need to panic and go back to CUSA. We just need to get our stuff together, because right now our stuff is weak.
But in the meantime, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Arkansas, and Colorado aren't going to be kicked out of their conference. I'm sure Alabama, Ohio State and the like don't mind having an easy week. That is not something that I would desire for us, but in the meantime, we don't need to panic and go back to CUSA. We just need to get our stuff together, because right now our stuff is weak.
ORU missed the bus on the online thing - with 90k at Liberty and 70k at Grand Canyon, they're too late. Going online is right up there with "become a technical school and teach job skills" for the trendy thing in academics. But if you're working on either today, it's too late. The market is taken already. It's why you need strategic leaders, not followers. Being he 47th school to pay for the consulting firm's PowerPoint isn't leadership and it won't work.
I know this. I also know ORU's model is self-defeating and is cannibalizing traditional students. Their fee structure for online classes is all sort of jacked-up and instead of gaining new students in volume as they had hoped, they've actually turned on-campus traditional students into online students which then hurts their revenue stream in a number of ways.
They've been rough almost every single year since TU left C-USA. Montgomery's first couple years were great, but tough to watch ever since. A big part of why TU was so good back then was getting to play those lower tier teams most weeks. And UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, etc hadn't yet invested quite as much into football and outpaced TU so much as they have now. And now TU has to compete with teams like Cinncinnati which are far beyond TU in many ways. They all have revenue, facilities, location that put TU at a massive disadvantage.
There’s nothing special about Cincy’s stadium. It’s older than ours and like us, nobody knows how many people it can seat. They publish 40,000 but the soccer team sold 2500 SRO tickets and published paid attendance of 35,000. I’ll take us in any Pepsi Challenge on program and facilities. They get an artificial boost in recruiting Ohio and Western PA and don’t have to fight the perception of the city being inferior like TU does. They do a good job of recruiting problem 5 stars in a basketball hit bed. Other than that, they are a push with TU.
There's a massive difference between Texas "sucking" and TU's level of atrocious play. 1 season at 2-10 and you'd be fired from texas. Tulsa's last 2 head coaches won 2-3 games for their last few years (pending Montgomery being fired after this one). Being the bottom barrel of AAC is a far cry from being a middle of the pack to 9-10 win team in Pac-12 or Big 12.
I'll be convinced TU can actually compete and win in AAC when I see a new coach come in and get a recruiting class ranked in the 80s or above and get multiple .500 seasons, but I have little faith in the TU admin to be able to find or afford any coach who might be able to do that. Who is TU going to hire? Who is TU going to beat in any given year? They're scheduling tough OOC like OU/OSU/Arkansas which have all been losses the last 20 years (plus Ohio St, UW & Ole Miss). That guarantees 2 losses OOC every year so TU would need 4 conference wins (big time upsets) to even get bowl eligible vs 8 teams who have invested heavily in football and are far above TU in recruiting and are mostly in rich recruiting areas those schools take advantage of.
No coach can just mine "diamonds in the rough" all the time. TU used to have an advantage with the early adoption of the spread, hurry-up no-huddle offense Malzahn brought in that took advantage of guys like Demarus Johnson that big programs ignored. Now big programs search for those types and so there's no elite-speed guys left for TU (not to mention QBs TU used to lure are now poached by teams who run those offenses well). At the time, that offense was visionary and game-changing. Everyone runs similar offenses now. TU has no where to go to differentiate itself like that. There's no equivalent on defense (though TU's defense is the only bright side lately) and the only way to be unique nowadays is to go back to the power-I which relies on being outright bigger and better than anyone else. Lincoln Riley and Mike Leach types don't grow on trees and are high demand.
Maybe TU should become an option or wishbone school because why the heck not? Everything else has been terrible. Might as well try something novel. Maybe do that thing the Arkansas High School does (never punt and always onside kick). Would at least be entertaining to watch for a while.
TU needs to do some sort of open try-outs program similar to what KSU has going on, except also provide scholarships for those who make the cut. KSU is always full of big guys that might've been ignored by other programs. I bet there's plenty who might walk on it there who could make the cut at TU. Then aim to offer most every single decent player who enters the transfer portal.
Yet there are people who absolutely proclaim Nippert as being a great place to catch a game. Skelly/Chapman is now described as "cozy". Chapman has far more character than Ford Stadium in Dallas which would probably only qualify as the 6th best high school stadium in the Metroplex. But it serves SMU's need as an on campus stadium which was sorely needed once they left the SWC and no longer buying the likes of Eric Dickerson and Craig James.
As a university, Cincinnati is roughly the equivalent of Houston. Mostly a commuter school of local students. Cincinnati has a higher racial tension on its campus than Houston does. I've interviewed for student affairs positions at both places. UC interviewers focused a lot on reducing racial tensions in potential incidents, Houston's interviewers focused on engaging a mostly disengaged and uninvolved commuter population. (TBH, the UC interview shook me a little bit...I was prepared to answer almost any question about engaging diverse populations of students in activities, etc. but the racial tension question was one I had not experienced at any of the places I had interviewed to that point).
I don't know what the answer for TU's attendance issue is. Get rid of Gragg and insert Jerry O. A ton of people in Tulsa know and like Jerry and he has the personality to recruit and engage new fans and donors unlike Gragg. While the record doesn't reflect it, this team is good...and the schedule of home games has been really good. The AAC has 5 teams in the top 28 of the latest AP poll (Navy-27, UCF-28) which is more than the big XII, Pac-12 and ACC. People can gripe about the conference not being any good, but that's just them being ignorant and deniers.
LOL, I guess we can take comfort knowing our administration is (probably) not as incompetent as ORU's...
Maybe not the punting part as Bennett has been a weapon to flip field position for us and our D is good enough to keep the advantage most games.
I would opt for never kicking a FG, always going for it once you're in the opponent's half of the field, and always going for 2 pt conversions. And always onside kicking. We're terrible at FGs and our KO specialist can only kick the ball about 55 yds (avg catch position is the 10 yd line). When you consider the avg KO return is somewhere between 18-19 yards, teams should always try to attempt to return the ball instead of the fair catch and take the ball on the 30. Romo leaving really hurt us as he had very few KOs returned in his time here simply because he kicked the ball into the end zone nearly every time. The lack of quality placekickers has really hampered us on special teams this year with regards to points and field position. If you're giving up field position on kick offs anyway, you might as well go for the onside kick.
Yeah, online programs should be an additional delivery method for students who simply aren't in a place to come to campus...not an alternative for traditional students.
According to you we might as well just pack it in in football, because all our avenues to being decent in football are now closed. Thanks for playing troll.
I think it’s a grumpy professor trolling. He also probably likes black licorice.
I'm not sure if shutting football down is the best option, but it's almost delusional to think TU will ever replicate the success of 2007-2012 again. This is based on recent results, (lack of) successes by the current administration and AD, plus the massive strides other AAC schools have made. Either accept that this is the new reality for Tulsa football (chance at a few bowl seasons per decade) or downgrade/shut it down.
It sounds like the new TV money will make it worth continuing this, but they should expect dwindling TU fan attendance (but visiting team attendance has picked up). I would expect that money to just replace the school's financial burden rather than be new money which would be great for the academic side.
Along with your train of thought, we haven't been successful in basketball since the turn of the century. So why would the conference want Tulsa as a basketball only school. Wichita St. was up there with the Gonzaga's when the AAC offered them conference membership. Your logic is inconsistent between football and basketball.
We've been through the long ordeal of Rader-Burns and other era's similar. I won't be ready to accept that the football universe in our present conference has changed so drastically that we have no chance at sustained success. I won't be entertaining those thoughts at least until we have another coach or two fail consecutively and equally to Blankenship and Montgomery.(That could change quickly though with player pay.)
The one thing that makes me question that is the financial difficulties of the academics dragging down the football program,(not vice versa) especially with the poor academic administration going on right now. That is the one thing that is drastically different now. Everything is in upheaval now. Making judgements on what is the new reality shouldn't be assessed before the upheaval settles down in the next 5 or so years.
If the academics are in upheaval and our "Harvard of the Southwest" status is no more, I'd like to see Tulsa go back to the way it was in the early '90s when TU had lower academic standards and a kickass football team that beat A&M and gave MIami a run for their money and garnered crowds of 40k plus each weekend. I don't attend TU anymore, and my degree from TU gave me absolutely ZERO opportunities to enter Tulsa's job market, so to hell with it. Let's at least excel at football, since as alumni, it's the only damn thing that matters: bragging rights and mainstream exposure.
Tulsa was invited to the American for one reason; we were the best available football program when the conference was looking for a 12th member.
No football, no American. Period.
The topic of adding Wichita was discussed for a few years before they got the invite, and I still don’t think everyone is onboard.
I can’t see the conference taking another Olympic-only member.
Add this to the mix and read the writing on the wall for by far the smallest Div 1 university:
https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/c...cle_30e5ad53-be15-5ea1-ab48-57338682cd64.html
https://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/c...cle_30e5ad53-be15-5ea1-ab48-57338682cd64.html
There isn’t any more writing on the wall for us than there is for many other institutions. There are many other schools who have athletic programs that are in much worse shape than TU has ever been.
You’re not going to have much luck convincing anyone here that TU needs to drop football, drop to FCS, or even drop back down to C-USA.
Fair enough on b-ball. I think TU's b-ball and olympic programs are decent enough to hold its own in the AAC even though they might not be big money and the AAC might not allow it. I'm thinking TU could heavily invest in b-ball to become great if there were not football (which the new pay-sponsor rules might push many universities to before too long).
Those eras were rough, but Rader put 26+ guys in the NFL, had several respectable seasons considering the academic and facility restrictions at the time and had some major wins vs Arkansas, A&M OSU & OU. His best season was near historically good for TU. Tough to compare that with the nice stadium, good facilities and "athlete degree" options that current coaches have (which are standard in the conference now, but did give TU a boost in the late 2000's).
TU has, what, 2 guys in the NFL now? Talent levels have fallen off a cliff compared to the lowly 90s!
At one time, we did have a couple of basketball-only fans here that thought football was a big waste of time but I believe they're long gone.
I know that. I saw that people think it's a stupid outlandish idea when TU having football at all is quite ridiculous in the first place (in a good way). TU has always been the little engine that could and they've outperformed the size/facilities/etc throughout its history and even landed the ultimate hail mary getting into the AAC (And $7MM/yr TV revenue on the horizon). That's all great, but it will come at the price of a much higher number of losing seasons.
When TCU joined the Big 12, Gary Patterson gave a warning to fans to temper expectations that they wouldn't have 10-win seasons every year any more. He was right. TU should like-wise temper expectations. We won't have winning seasons every year and we can't expect to go bowling every year. Doing that a few times a decade in the AAC is still far out-playing where TU should be. Don't blame Montgomery who will probably be proven to be a great coach (in hind-sight). This is just the reality of the situation.
I like your posts and your comments about TCU are accurate. I went there for undergrad, so I'm well aware of the lack of enthusiasm that was present for TCU football before they joined the BIG 12.
Montgomery has already proven he is an inferior coach in all manner of perspective and analysis: play calling, courage, strategy, mid-game adjustments, recruiting, community involvement, comportment, polish, and most importantly WINNING.
The presence of an African-American athletic director also played a role I am told. Just as it did for USF joining the Big East back in the day.
That's the best response you have? You know you've won an argument when the only thing they can do is ad hominem attack like an ape.
Sort of like all the idiots calling Greta Thunberg a childish idiot rather than respond to the dire and very real facts about climate change.
Similar threads
