- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
johnnylightnin
| Favorite team: | Louisiana Tech  |
| Location: | Georgia |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | Student |
| Number of Posts: | 105 |
| Registered on: | 6/17/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Both games over compare Boise and LSU performance vs Tech
Posted by johnnylightnin on 11/17/09 at 3:45 pm to tandyman
quote:
Boise has a good team and probably could be competitive with anyone in a bowl game, but to play in the SEC they would have to have a lot more than they have year in and year out. Anyone that knows anything about college football would agree, and infact have agreed. Thats why its so hard for Boise or any other non-BCS school to bust the BCS. Those are facts, not rants.
Does Boise get the yearly BCS cash and ESPN/CBS dough to recruit with too? Why don't you compare the two athletic budgets of the two and then get back with me about who does more with what they've got.
This "if they played int he SEC" argument is weak because it never takes the full benefits of a conference like the SEC into consideration.
0
re: Official Prediction Thread - Louisiana Tech
Posted by johnnylightnin on 11/13/09 at 10:44 am to GeauxTigahs1
It's gonna be bad.
38-3 LSU
If we were healthy and Lee was playing the whole game, we might could make it interesting for a little while. As it is, this is going to be rough from whistle to whistle.
38-3 LSU
If we were healthy and Lee was playing the whole game, we might could make it interesting for a little while. As it is, this is going to be rough from whistle to whistle.
re: Tech to be without 3 starters, possibly 9 more
Posted by johnnylightnin on 11/11/09 at 10:40 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
What was the deal with a couple of guys quitting?
The word out of the locker room is that neither of those guys were team guys and that when things got tough (because our offense has been the definition of pathetic), they bailed. Tuminello quit after a big win against Hawaii and Linwood quit after his break-out game. PT wasn't the issue.
I was concerned that it was a major problem and that the team might be quitting on the coach, but that hasn't happened. We've fought really hard that last 3 games...just don't have the horses to get it done.
I've never seen a Tech team as thin as this one is and I've been watching for a while.
re: Tech to be without 3 starters, possibly 9 more
Posted by johnnylightnin on 11/11/09 at 10:22 am to thelawisafterme
No suspensions or anything like that...it's all injuries. We're just real beat-up. We've pulled RS's off of 3 guys in the secondary. We could use some more receivers, but Dooley doesn't want to pull those shirts unless he absolutely has to.
NO WAY Miles should play JJ this game. No need to. Our thinnest spot is the secondary and it'll be full of freshmen who couldn't keep up with your WR's even if they knew exactly where they were going.
NO WAY Miles should play JJ this game. No need to. Our thinnest spot is the secondary and it'll be full of freshmen who couldn't keep up with your WR's even if they knew exactly where they were going.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 8:10 pm to xiv
quote:
shitty wit
That's a funny way to put it...since I demolished your lame argument.
read up on ad hominem and red herring. You're great at those, but they aren't good arguments.
I'll leave you alone with your hate.
Oh, and are fans of prestigious and historic athletic programs supposed to hate little ole programs like Tech? A tad unhealthy some might say...that is if anybody cared.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 4:47 pm to xiv
quote:
k, I'll continue the onslaught because frick Tech.
Oh no, don't bring up beatings by LSU. It hurts so bad.
:lol:
Have fun with that Tech hate. It's real big of ya.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 4:44 pm to xiv
quote:
When your coach is bigger than your program, and he's not even the best coach in his family, you shouldn't be allowed to talk smack to anyone ever.
A little drinking at lunch today? I made 13 posts in this thread before I made one that mentioned Dooley. In fact, YOU bought him up before I did.
Nice try though.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 4:35 pm to xiv
quote:
Some of you bastards make him out to be some big brother who just learned karate or something. "Things are gonna be different now that Dooley is here."
Yeah...since we played ULM right up until he got here.
Dooley has gotten home and home deals that his predecessor couldn't get. That doesn't mean Dooley is some sort of miracle worker, his predecessor was really bad. Those home and home deals with regional CUSA schools more or less guarantee that we won't be playing ULM.
Nice assumptions though...
I thought LSU men could think better than this. Most of the ones I know do. Must be that West Monroe air.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 4:28 pm to xiv
quote:
frick Dooley.
Tough to argue with that.
It is sweet for you to stick up ULM though.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/23/09 at 4:03 pm to twoliter
quote:
So it's better financially to have thousands less fans AND have to pay the other team to pay you than to have thousands more fans and not pay the other team?
Yes, because the next year, Tech would have to travel to ULM and wouldn't get paid or get ticket revenue. The Nicholls game isn't better than a one and done game with ULM, it's the second year where Tech would lose money.
Equitable deals had been discussed where each school could get paid off the tickets they sold to their fans, but ULM rejected that deal. Now that Dooley is here, a game against ULM will not happen until he's gone.
Word is that a deal is in the works with ULL for 2013 or later.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 3:49 pm to CalBengal
quote:
houldn't any Louisiana taxpayer have a say in La Tech athletics? Especially with those athletic endeavors are underwritten by that hardworking taxpayer?
We've got the government we deserve. If you don't like how they run things, vote them out. Good luck.
For the record, every athletic program in this state (probably except Tulane) has taken money from the state. Of course LSU doesn't now, but that doesn't mean they never have...look it up.
You really think the taxpayer cares whether or not Tech and ULM play? If you do, you'll need to show them how playing ULM would help ease the taxpayer burden.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 3:33 pm to CalBengal
quote:
Still waiting for some solid info on net revenue/loss from the I-Bowl. Did the bowl give Tech a higher payout than they did to Northern Illinois? According to that article, both got $750K before expenses. Did Tech bus over the day of the game to minimize costs or stay in Shreveport? The true cost (or profit) would be useful to know. A lot of minor bowls are losses for the teams but done for exposure and to reward the players.
Tech got a higher pay-out. It was 900K. We stayed in Shreveport the night before. Not sure what the net was and pretty sure the 900K isn't documented.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 2:02 pm to JJ27
quote:
What's a touch issue? I didn't go to ULM either.
You win the typo debate. Congrats.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 1:57 pm to JJ27
quote:
Atleast we listened in English class. Then again we didn't go to Tech.
It's good to see that ULM is tackling the touch issues of spelling and homophones in their English classes.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 1:52 pm to JJ27
Man, avatars and spelling...
I'm gonna start calling you two the great debaters.
I'm gonna start calling you two the great debaters.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 1:31 pm to xiv
quote:
Seriously. And when your avatar is a picture of your fricking ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, that means you've got nothing.
I see you've given up on your week argument and you've moved on to avatar smack.
thanks for playing
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 12:26 pm to xiv
quote:
Why not both?
(Fear.)
Because we've also got home and home contracts with Navy and Army. You throw in a "money" game and a rent-a-win and there's just no room for a ULM game that would benefit them more than Tech.
I do find it funny that someone could think ANYONE would be scared of ULM.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 12:23 pm to xiv
quote:
Maybe 20k each game. ULM gives you maybe 30k as long as the teams aren't god-awful (even for their own standards).
No they don't. Look at the history.
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 12:18 pm to xiv
quote:
quote:
96. La.-Monroe 6 117,116 19,519
105. Louisiana Tech 6 108,121 18,020
Take out the 55K from Little Rock and what've you got?
12,412
re: Tech/ULM football series
Posted by johnnylightnin on 8/22/09 at 12:16 pm to arrakis
quote:
Can't locate 2008, but Northeast's 2007 home attendance avg. was 16651
You take the "home" game against Arkansas out of the equation and ULM is getting a letter from the NCAA. They need the Little Rock game to meet the requirements (but apparently that's all tech's fault).
Popular
32
