Louisiana Tech's big plans take big money

Published July 25, 2010 By Ethan Conley etconley@thenewsstar.com RUSTON — It'd be nice to believe that all it takes to win championships in the modern era of college athletics is a few buckets of sweat and a some good plays drawn up in the dirt. The reality is that championships come with a price tag, and for the better part of the decade, consistently contending for championships has been out of Louisiana Tech's price range. According to a U.S. Department of Education database of athletics budgets, the Tech athletic department spent $9.02 million in 2003-04, ranking 117th out of the 120 schools that are currently Football Bowl Subdivision members. Only Troy ($8 million), Louisiana-Lafayette ($7.3 million), and Louisiana-Monroe ($5.4 million) spent less. Tech's athletics funding lagged well behind its fellow members of the Western Athletic Conference. Fresno State and Hawaii both exceeded $20 million in athletics spending, while Boise State was at $13.8 million and gaining steam: The Broncos currently exceed $20 million. Perhaps even worse, Tech's athletics spending was dwarfed by its recruiting competitors in Conference USA. Houston, SMU, and Memphis all had budgets that exceeded $20 million in 2003-04, and Southern Miss and Tulsa both topped $15 million. With expenses like travel and scholarships being mostly inflexible, Tech had little cash left for the things that could help it land the best players and improve the on-field product — like coaching, equipment, recruiting, and facilities. But that's changing. The university has made a concerted effort in the last few years to become a force in athletics, and the results are already evident. "We were becoming stagnant and so-so," Louisiana Tech President Dan Reneau said. "We've made the decision to do our best to be outstanding." MIRED IN MEDIOCRITY

The most visible effects of Tech's lack of funding are in the football program. Football is typically the money maker for an athletic department. The LSU football program, for instance, finished $38 million in the black in 2008-09. Ticket sales alone ($29.5 million) paid for the program's operating costs ($22.9 million) for the year.

Tech's football program was losing money — it was more than $1 million in the red in 2005 alone — and the safest way for former Athletics Director Jim Oakes to keep the program afloat was to load the team's schedule with guarantee games. The team was sent on the road for practically unwinnable games in return for big checks from big programs. Big money games "have helped us build the program and gain acceptance into the WAC," Oakes said in 2000. "You've got to play tough competition and win a few to gain credibility. The only way to win big games is to play big games." Oakes' scheduling philosophy helped Tech climb out of the red and triple its budget during the mid-'90s, but the program was stuck in mediocrity a decade later. From 2004-07, Tech played 11 guarantee games and lost them all: at Miami, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Clemson, Cal, Ole Miss, and LSU. Guarantees from those 11 games brought in an average of $1.5 million in revenue each year. The yearly revenue from home game ticket sales didn't come close to matching the guarantees. Tech averaged $552,000 in ticket sales in that same span. Subtract the going rate of $100,000 to bring an FCS opponent (like Central Arkansas or Southeastern Louisiana) to Joe Aillet Stadium once a year and the gap widens even more. It's a tough cycle to break: Guarantee games are a safer bet for funding than home games when fan interest is lagging. But loading a schedule with guarantee games is a recipe for injuries, a losing season, and being left out of postseason bowls, so fan interest only continues to wane. Ticket sales and private giving weren't going to recover unless the department went in a new direction. A CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY

Tech began its turnaround in December 2006, deciding it was time to stop pinching pennies and make some investments in athletics. Head football coach Jack Bicknell was fired following a 3-10 campaign that included eight blowout losses. He was replaced by first-time head coach Derek Dooley, who signed a five-year deal worth $1,725,000 in guaranteed salary, making him the highest-paid coach in school history. Around the same time, American Management Strategy Group was hired to develop a five-year plan for the university that included a goal of strengthening the athletics department. AMSG's recommendations were eventually included in the "Tech 2020 Athletics" plan.

The plan outlined an overhaul of the athletic department, including rebranding of Tech's athletics logos and fonts, creating new positions within the department, improving facilities, and raising the athletics budget to $16.5 million by 2012. At the time Tech's budget was roughly $12 million. An increase of $4.5 million meant overcoming the natural challenges faced by the university. Because Ruston is a small corporate and media market, external fund-raising potential in the area surrounding the university is limited compared to many of Tech's athletics competitors. In addition, the amount of money athletics can receive directly from university funds is limited by the state of Louisiana. "There's a formula, and it's generally 3 or 3.5 percent of our total budget, which is roughly $150 million," Reneau said. "It's much less than most states allow. Our philosophy is that stimulus money is needed in order to have a good athletics program, but we're still under-budgeted compared to other schools." Reneau worked to squeeze some extra percentage points out the state, giving the athletic department a boost in direct institutional support. In 2006-07, that meant $4.4 million; in 2007-08, it was $5.9 million. By 2008-09, the figure had increased to $6.4 million. Part of that stimulus went toward goals of increasing corporate sponsorships by $750,000 (bringing the total to $1 million), increasing ticket sales by $2 million (to $3 million total), and increasing individual donations to $2 million. Tech spent $120,000 on fund raising and marketing in the 2006-7 fiscal year, and in 2008-9 that amount had increased to $205,000. Oakes stepped down as athletics director in January 2008, and Dooley was appointed as his successor in the next March, giving the department a boost of energy. That spring, he scheduled a series of speaking engagements throughout the Tech footprint to drive a point home: If Louisiana Tech was going to get serious about winning the athletic department needed more money. At the time, nearly 50 percent of Tech's athletics budget came directly from the university. Not enough fans were attending Tech's games, and not enough fans were opening their checkbooks and making donations. In July 2008, under Dooley's direction, Tech signed a 10-year multimedia rights deal with Learfield Sports, adding Learfield-staffed employees that further increasing Tech's marketing and fund-raising abilities.

The first big payoff came in the 2008 football season. Tech played just one guarantee game, taking $825,000 for visit to Kansas. The rest of the schedule was far more manageable – a season-opening home game against Mississippi State, a visit to Army (the front end of a one-for-one deal that will send the Army to Ruston in 2013), and home game against Southeastern Louisiana. Tech went 2-2 in non-conference play with wins against Mississippi State and Southeastern, went 5-3 in the WAC, and earned a trip to the Independence Bowl, where it beat Northern Illinois 17-10. Tech brought in $1.4 million in ticket sales that season after taking in $556,000 the previous year. Overall, the department's ticket sales increased from $865,000 to $1.65 million. There was also a major increase in private contributions: • 2006-7: $542,000 • 2007-8: $2.06 million • 2008-9: $2.7 million With the extra funding at its disposal, Tech spent just short of $16 million on athletics in 2008-09, nearing its goal of $16.5 million well ahead of schedule (data for the 2009-10 fiscal year is not available yet). THE EFFECTS

Aside from the football team's breakout season, Tech's increased athletics spending is most evident when comparing its football coaching hires. Dooley's original contract — his pay increased when he became athletics director — called for him to make $350,000 in his first year. His salary increased to $375,000 in his second year and $400,000 in his final three years. When Tech hired Sonny Dykes as Dooley's successor in January, Dykes signed a five-year deal worth $2,250,000 in guaranteed money — $525,000 more than Dooley's original deal. Dykes will make $450,000 each season, exceeding any yearly salary from Dooley's contract. When comparing Dykes and Dooley on paper, Dykes is a more qualified candidate as a first-time head coach and in turn warranted a better salary. Dooley was a recruiting coordinator and position coach before he came to Tech, and had never been an offensive or defensive coordinator. Dykes had put in several years as the coordinator of prolific offenses at Texas Tech and Arizona. "I think what's happened in the past 10 years is that our head coaching jobs have become better jobs," said Steve Davison, a Tech alumnus and

influential booster. Davison is a member of Tech's athletics council, and was part of the team that conducted the search that eventually landed Dykes in Ruston. "The thing that is attractive here is the talent pool that you have to recruit from — that's one thing. And then to give coaches the necessary resources they need, I think that's No. 2. In both of our recent searches our pool of candidates was quite a bit larger than in the past, and we received quite a bit of interest from folks that wouldn't have thought of us before." Totaling all athletic department salaries, benefits, and bonuses together — coaches, administrators, and support staff across all sports — Tech has gone from spending $2.75 million on coaches in 2003-4 to $4.61 million in 2008-9. Other major spending increases include: Recruiting • 2003-4: $193,000 • 2009-8: $297,000 Equipment • 2003-4: $11,242 • 2008-9: $1.6 million Professional services: • 2003-4: $325,000 • 2008-9: $2.12 million BETTER STUFF

Yearly revenues and operating expenses only tell a small portion of the story when it comes to Tech's increased athletics spending. The university may be spending more on coaches, marketing, recruiting, and equipment, but it doesn't mean much if facilities are — for lack of a better word — a dump, especially compared to recruiting competitors Tulsa, SMU, TCU and Southern Miss, all of which have upgraded their facilities in the last decade. "We were on our way to having an unbelievable recruiting effort in football this year until we lost four or five guys late," Dooley said at one of his 2008 speaking engagements. "I asked those guys why they changed their minds, when their families wanted them to come to Tech and their supporters wanted them at Tech. What they said was, 'Coach, they've got some good stuff over there.'" Tech has since spent millions of dollars on facilities upgrades, which aren't necessarily included in the year-to-year budget reports. Almost all of the upgrades were paid for with self-generated funds.

The football program alone has seen $5 million in facilities improvements. The most obvious expenditure is the addition of a $2 million Daktronics video board display board and sound system at Joe Aillet Stadium, which debuted at the beginning of the 2009 season. The addition of the video board was part of Tech's deal with Learfield. In the first year of operation, advertisement sales on the video board increased Tech's corporate sponsorship revenue by $300,000. Other recent improvements include new Fieldturf ($845,000), locker room renovations ($500,000), new stadium lighting ($450,000), field house renovations ($339,000), and power lifting equipment ($75,000). The men's and women's basketball programs have benefited from $1.74 million in facilities upgrades: infrastructure improvements ($1.05 million), new locker rooms ($400,000), a men's film and weight room ($25,000), and a new floor at the Thomas Assembly Center ($260,000). Other athletics facilities upgrades include $1 million for a new track and field complex, more than $350,000 in upgrades at the baseball team's J.C. Love Field — including a new press box and scoreboard — $100,000 in soccer complex improvements, $813,622 for a new tennis complex, and $529,471 for new bowling lanes. The total cost of Tech's recent facilities improvements is about $9.76 million. That doesn't include the men's golf team's home course — Squire Creek in Choudrant — which is valued at $15 million. It also doesn't include the $27 million Tech has spent on new apartment-style dorms, $13.5 million for a new swimming pool and aquatic center, or the 90,000-plus square-foot multipurpose facility that Tech intends to build in the south end of Joe Aillet Stadium at an estimated cost of $20 million. "This entire university has grown," Dykes said. "Academically, from a fund-raising standpoint, from a facilities standpoint — there are a lot of people that deserve credit for that happening, but ultimately it's Dr. Reneau who is the one responsible for all that happening." 'THE RIGHT PEOPLE'

While Tech has made major strides to improve its athletics spending and upgrade its facilities, the school is still behind the pack. It appears that Tech will easily meet its goal of a $16.5 million budget by 2012, but it would still have a smaller budget than any Conference USA school and would still fall in the bottom half of the WAC.

With the current instability of the WAC — Boise State is leaving the conference next year — and shifts in conference alignment creating opportunities that may not reopen for a long time, supporters say Tech needs to continue to increase its athletics spending and become an attractive candidate to several conferences — whether that means staying in the WAC, aggressively marketing itself to Conference USA, or exploring other options. "I think that our stated goal is to take care of the things that we have control over," Davison said. "Our athletic budget is something that we have control over — in how aggressively we sell tickets, in how we market our program. "Conference affiliation is important, but I think if you focus on things you have control over and become the best that you can become, the conference affiliation is kind of a byproduct of that." Reneau said Tech "gambled" when it made a move to increase spending in late 2006, and will continue to take calculated risks for the betterment of athletics. And he seems to think Tech has the staff in place to continue to improve. "I've always believed — whether in academics, athletics, or wherever — that to make things go well you need the right amount of people, and the right amount of money," he said. "I've never had both. But if I and to choose one of the other, I'd choose the right amount of people." Note: The following was included as an infographic with the above story. UPGRADES

FOOTBALL Daktronics Video Board and Sound System: $2 million FieldTurf: $845,000 Locker room renovation: $500,000 New stadium lighting: $450,396 Field house improvements: $336,140 Infrastructure improvements: $336,140 Argent tailgating pavilion: $247,466 MEN'S AND WOMEN'S BASKETBALL Infrastructure: $1.06 million New locker rooms: $400,000 Thomas Assembly Center floor: $260,000 OTHER New track and field complex: $1.02 million J.C. Love Field press box: $113,595

Soccer complex: $100,000 Tennis complex: $813,622 New bowling lanes and center: $529,471 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $9.76 million (includes other upgrades not listed) FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Multi-purpose facility in South End of Joe Aillet Stadium: $20 million

Datestamp: 07/26/2010

Louisiana Tech's big plans take big money

RUSTON ? It'd be nice to believe that all it takes to win championships in the modern era of college athleticsis a few buckets of sweat and a some good plays drawn up in the dirt.

The reality is that championships come with a price tag, and for the better part of the decade, consistentlycontending for championships has been out of Louisiana Tech's price range.

According to a U.S. Department of Education database of athletics budgets, the Tech athletic departmentspent $9.02 million in 2003−04, ranking 117th out of the 120 schools that are currently Football BowlSubdivision members. Only Troy ($8 million), Louisiana−Lafayette ($7.3 million), and Louisiana−Monroe($5.4 million) spent less.

Tech's athletics funding lagged well behind its fellow members of the Western Athletic Conference. FresnoState and Hawaii both exceeded $20 million in athletics spending, while Boise State was at $13.8 million andgaining steam: The Broncos currently exceed $20 million.

Perhaps even worse, Tech's athletics spending was dwarfed by its recruiting competitors in Conference USA.Houston, SMU, and Memphis all had budgets that exceeded $20 million in 2003−04, and Southern Miss andTulsa both topped $15 million.

With expenses like travel and scholarships being mostly inflexible, Tech had little cash left for the things thatcould help it land the best players and improve the on−field product ? like coaching, equipment, recruiting,and facilities.

But that's changing. The university has made a concerted effort in the last few years to become a force inathletics, and the results are already evident.

"We were becoming stagnant and so−so," Louisiana Tech President Dan Reneau said. "We've made thedecision to do our best to be outstanding."

MIRED IN MEDIOCRITY

The most visible effects of Tech's lack of funding are in the football program.

Football is typically the money maker for an athletic department. The LSU football program, for instance,finished $38 million in the black in 2008−09. Ticket sales alone ($29.5 million) paid for the program'soperating costs ($22.9 million) for the year.

Tech's football program was losing money ? it was more than $1 million in the red in 2005 alone ? and the

1

safest way for former Athletics Director Jim Oakes to keep the program afloat was to load the team'sschedule with guarantee games. The team was sent on the road for practically unwinnable games in return forbig checks from big programs.

Big money games "have helped us build the program and gain acceptance into the WAC," Oakes said in2000. "You've got to play tough competition and win a few to gain credibility. The only way to win biggames is to play big games."

Oakes' scheduling philosophy helped Tech climb out of the red and triple its budget during the mid−'90s, butthe program was stuck in mediocrity a decade later. From 2004−07, Tech played 11 guarantee games and lostthem all: at Miami, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Clemson, Cal, OleMiss, and LSU. Guarantees from those 11 games brought in an average of $1.5 million in revenue each year

The yearly revenue from home game ticket sales didn't come close to matching the guarantees. Techaveraged $552,000 in ticket sales in that same span.

Subtract the going rate of $100,000 to bring an FCS opponent (like Central Arkansas or SoutheasternLouisiana) to Joe Aillet Stadium once a year and the gap widens even more.

It's a tough cycle to break: Guarantee games are a safer bet for funding than home games when fan interest islagging. But loading a schedule with guarantee games is a recipe for injuries, a losing season, and being leftout of postseason bowls, so fan interest only continues to wane.

Ticket sales and private giving weren't going to recover unless the department went in a new direction.

A CHANGE IN PHILOSOPHY

Tech began its turnaround in December 2006, deciding it was time to stop pinching pennies and make someinvestments in athletics.

Head football coach Jack Bicknell was fired following a 3−10 campaign that included eight blowout losses.He was replaced by first−time head coach Derek Dooley, who signed a five−year deal worth $1,725,000 inguaranteed salary, making him the highest−paid coach in school history.

Around the same time, American Management Strategy Group was hired to develop a five−year plan for theuniversity that included a goal of strengthening the athletics department. AMSG's recommendations wereeventually included in the "Tech 2020 Athletics" plan.

The plan outlined an overhaul of the athletic department, including rebranding of Tech's athletics logos andfonts, creating new positions within the department, improving facilities, and raising the athletics budget to$16.5 million by 2012.

At the time Tech's budget was roughly $12 million. An increase of $4.5 million meant overcoming thenatural challenges faced by the university. Because Ruston is a small corporate and media market, externalfund−raising potential in the area surrounding the university is limited compared to many of Tech's athleticscompetitors.

In addition, the amount of money athletics can receive directly from university funds is limited by the state ofLouisiana.

2

"There's a formula, and it's generally 3 or 3.5 percent of our total budget, which is roughly $150 million,"Reneau said. "It's much less than most states allow. Our philosophy is that stimulus money is needed in orderto have a good athletics program, but we're still under−budgeted compared to other schools."

Reneau worked to squeeze some extra percentage points out the state, giving the athletic department a boostin direct institutional support. In 2006−07, that meant $4.4 million; in 2007−08, it was $5.9 million. By2008−09, the figure had increased to $6.4 million.

Part of that stimulus went toward goals of increasing corporate sponsorships by $750,000 (bringing the totalto $1 million), increasing ticket sales by $2 million (to $3 million total), and increasing individual donationsto $2 million. Tech spent $120,000 on fund raising and marketing in the 2006−7 fiscal year, and in 2008−9that amount had increased to $205,000.

Oakes stepped down as athletics director in January 2008, and Dooley was appointed as his successor in thenext March, giving the department a boost of energy.

That spring, he scheduled a series of speaking engagements throughout the Tech footprint to drive a pointhome: If Louisiana Tech was going to get serious about winning the athletic department needed more money.

At the time, nearly 50 percent of Tech's athletics budget came directly from the university. Not enough fanswere attending Tech's games, and not enough fans were opening their checkbooks and making donations.

In July 2008, under Dooley's direction, Tech signed a 10−year multimedia rights deal with Learfield Sports,adding Learfield−staffed employees that further increasing Tech's marketing and fund−raising abilities.

The first big payoff came in the 2008 football season.

Tech played just one guarantee game, taking $825,000 for visit to Kansas. But the rest of the schedule was farmore manageable ? a season−opening home game against Mississippi State, a visit to Army (the front end ofa one−for−one deal that will send the Army to Ruston in 2013), and home game against SoutheasternLouisiana. Tech went 2−2 in non−conference play with wins against Mississippi State and Southeastern, went5−3 in the WAC, and earned a trip to the Independence Bowl, where it beat Northern Illinois 17−10.

Tech brought in $1.4 million in ticket sales that season after taking in $556,000 the previous year. Overall,the department's ticket sales increased from $865,000 to $1.65 million.

There was also a major increase in private contributions:

? 2006−7: $542,000

? 2007−8: $2.06 million

? 2008−9: $2.7 million

With the extra funding at its disposal, Tech spent just short of $16 million on athletics in 2008−09, nearing itsgoal of $16.5 million well ahead of schedule (data for the 2009−10 fiscal year is not available yet).

THE EFFECTS

Aside from the football team's breakout season, Tech's increased athletics spending is most evident when

3

comparing its football coaching hires.

Dooley's original contract ? his pay increased when he became athletics director ? called for him to make$350,000 in his first year. His salary increased to $375,000 in his second year and $400,000 in his final threeyears.

When Tech hired Sonny Dykes as Dooley's successor in January, Dykes signed a five−year deal worth$2,250,000 in guaranteed money ? $525,000 more than Dooley's original deal. Dykes will make $450,000each season, exceeding any yearly salary from Dooley's contract.

When comparing Dykes and Dooley on paper, Dykes is a more qualified candidate as a first−time head coachand in turn warranted a better salary. Dooley was a recruiting coordinator and position coach before he cameto Tech, and had never been an offensive or defensive coordinator. Dykes had put in several years as thecoordinator of prolific offenses at Texas Tech and Arizona.

"I think what's happened in the past 10 years is that our head coaching jobs have become better jobs," saidSteve Davison, a Tech alumnus and influential booster. Davison is a member of Tech's athletics council, andwas part of the team that conducted the search that eventually landed Dykes in Ruston.

"The thing that is attractive here is the talent pool that you have to recruit from ? that's one thing. And then togive coaches the necessary resources they need, I think that's No. 2. In both of our recent searches our pool ofcandidates was quite a bit larger than in the past, and we received quite a bit of interest from folks thatwouldn't have thought of us before."

Totaling all athletic department salaries, benefits, and bonuses together ? coaches, administrators, and supportstaff across all sports ? Tech has gone from spending $2.75 million on coaches in 2003−4 to $4.61 million in2008−9.

Other major spending increases include:

Recruiting

? 2004−5: $193,000

? 2009−8: $297,000

Equipment

? 2003−4: $11,242

? 2008−9: $1.6 million

Professional services:

? 2003−4: $325,000

? 2008−9: $2.12 million

BETTER STUFF

4

Yearly revenues and operating expenses only tell a small portion of the story when it comes to Tech'sincreased athletics spending.

The university may be spending more on coaches, marketing, recruiting, and equipment, but it doesn't meanmuch if facilities are ? for lack of a better word ? a dump, especially compared to recruiting competitorsTulsa, SMU, TCU and Southern Miss, all of which have upgraded their facilities in the last decade.

"We were on our way to having an unbelievable recruiting effort in football this year until we lost four or fiveguys late," Dooley said at one of his 2008 speaking engagements. "I asked those guys why they changed theirminds, when their families wanted them to come to Tech and their supporters wanted them at Tech. Whatthey said was, 'Coach, they've got some good stuff over there.'"

Tech has since spent millions of dollars on facilities upgrades, which aren't necessarily included in theyear−to−year budget reports. Almost all of the upgrades were paid for with self−generated funds.

The football program alone has seen $5 million in facilities improvements.

The most obvious expenditure is the addition of a $2 million Daktronics video board display board and soundsystem at Joe Aillet Stadium, which debuted at the beginning of the 2009 season. The addition of the videoboard was part of Tech's deal with Learfield. In the first year of operation, advertisement sales on the videoboard increased Tech's corporate sponsorship revenue by $300,000.

Other recent improvements include new Fieldturf ($845,000), locker room renovations ($500,000), newstadium lighting ($450,000), field house renovations ($339,000), and power lifting equipment ($75,000).

The men's and women's basketball programs have benefited from $1.74 million in facilities upgrades:infrastructure improvements ($1.05 million), new locker rooms ($400,000), a men's film and weight room($25,000), and a new floor at the Thomas Assembly Center ($260,000).

Other athletics facilities upgrades include $1 million for a new track and field complex, more than $350,000in upgrades at the baseball team's J.C. Love Field ? including a new press box and scoreboard ? $100,000 insoccer complex improvements, $813,622 for a new tennis complex, and $529,471 for new bowling lanes.

The total cost of Tech's recent facilities improvements is about $9.76 million.

That doesn't include the men's golf team's home course ? Squire Creek in Choudrant ? which is valued at $15million. It also doesn't include the $27 million Tech has spent on new apartment−style dorms, $13.5 millionfor a new swimming pool and aquatic center, or the 90,000−plus square−foot multipurpose facility that Techintends to build in the south end of Joe Aillet Stadium at an estimated cost of $20 million.

"This entire university has grown," Dykes said. "Academically, from a fund−raising standpoint, from afacilities standpoint ? there are a lot of people that deserve credit for that happening, but ultimately it's Dr.Reneau who is the one responsible for all that happening."

'THE RIGHT PEOPLE'

While Tech has made major strides to improve its athletics spending and upgrade its facilities, the school isstill behind the pack.

It appears that Tech will easily meet its goal of a $16.5 million budget by 2012, but it would still have a

5

smaller budget than any Conference USA school and would still fall in the bottom half of the WAC.

With the current instability of the WAC ? Boise State is leaving the conference next year ? and shifts inconference alignment creating opportunities that may not reopen for a long time, supporters say Tech needsto continue to increase its athletics spending and become an attractive candidate to several conferences ?whether that means staying in the WAC, aggressively marketing itself to Conference USA, or exploring otheroptions

"I think that our stated goal is to take care of the things that we have control over," Davison said. "Ourathletic budget is something that we have control over ? in how aggressively we sell tickets, in how wemarket our program.

"Conference affiliation is important, but I think if you focus on things you have control over and become thebest that you can become, the conference affiliation is kind of a byproduct of that."

Reneau said Tech "gambled" when it made a move to increase spending in late 2006, and will continue totake calculated risks for the betterment of athletics. And he seems to think Tech has the staff in place tocontinue to improve.

"I've always believed ? whether in academics, athletics, or wherever ? that to make things go well you needthe right amount of people, and the right amount of money," he said.

"I've never had both. But if I and to choose one of the other, I'd choose the right amount of people."

TECH'S FACILITIES UPGRADES

FOOTBALL

Daktronics Video Board and Sound System: $2 million

FieldTurf: $845,000

Locker room renovation: $500,000

New stadium lighting: $450,396

Field house improvements: $336,140

Infrastructure improvements: $336,140

Argent tailgating pavilion: $247,466

MEN'S AND WOMEN'S BASKETBALL

Infrastructure: $1.06 million

New locker rooms: $400,000

Thomas Assembly Center floor: $260,000

6

OTHER

New track and field complex: $1.02 million

J.C. Love Field press box: $113,595

Soccer complex: $100,000

Tennis complex: $813,622

New bowling lanes and center: $529,471

TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS: $9.76 million

(includes other upgrades not listed)

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

Multi−purpose facility in South End of Joe Aillet Stadium: $20 million

7