It's not a football base larger than six thousand fans. That's for certain.

Well, Samford is averaging 5,166 fans this year and the SoCon just admitted them, so it couldn't be the attendance.

Avg. ETSU home football attendance

1998 Avg. attendance: 5,961
1999 Avg. attendance: 6,169
2000 Avg. attendance: 6,277
2001 Avg. attendance: 5,881

If I got one of these wrong I'm sorry.
Source

My point was no one came to the games. The fan base is almost non-existant, they are too busy planning their trip to Knoxville.

Football will not be sucessful at ETSU anytime soon. There isn't enough money to prop it up. If it is reinstated it will doom all other sports to the bottom.

(10-27-2009 08:35 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  Well, Samford is averaging 5,166 fans this year and the SoCon just admitted them, so it couldn't be the attendance.

Samford's endowment is 301 million with just about 3,500 students

ETSU's endowment is 74.3 million with about 14,000 students

Samford seems to have plenty of money to prop up a team.

It is all about money and ETSU's lack there of. If Samford didn't have money then attendance would be a factor.

That's a good point, Tiger.

This has to be the oldest, tiredest (I know - not a word), dustiest, smelliest old thread in the history of all threads of all message boards of all time.

The SoCon. The SEC of the mid-major conferences. Yet, they only have one NCAA bid. What a travesty.

(10-27-2009 09:17 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  Football will not be sucessful at ETSU anytime soon. There isn't enough money to prop it up. If it is reinstated it will doom all other sports to the bottom.

This is fraudulent rhetoric that a very vocal minority likes to spew our way in a doomed attempt to depress us into believing we are better off without football. Nothing could be further from the truth. Does anyone seriously believe men's basketball is better off today than it was six years ago? What about twenty years ago? All of our major successes came during a time when ETSU had football.

Consider that we have played four seasons in A-sun basketball. In this time we have gradually though steadily lessened in talent level going from season to season. It wasn't until a very small team with limited numbers came together and showed mental toughness that we won the A-sun tournament. Although we are proud of the players, rightfully so, this does not represent progress. We came to the A-sun fully loaded with a team that didn't like each other very much. Imagine if they did.

Anyway, the idea that we are better off without football is just piss and wind.

6,000 fan base. So what! What is the fan base for men's soccer? How about golf and tennis at ETSU?
Tiger, I wish you stop repeating the Stanton/Mullins lies that football loss 2 million a year. Stick the facts.

Not only that, but let's put these numbers in perspective.

In 2001 ETSU finished 73rd out of 123 Division I-AA football schools in attendance. Not great, but by this token, every school beneath them should drop football.

Portland State, which is now Division I-A and coached by Jerry Glanville, did not draw as well as ETSU.

Duquesne, Robert Morris, and Austin Peay, now scholarship programs, drew less than ETSU.

Maine, which is a contender in Division I-AA and doesn't have a whole lot else going on in the sports world up there, drew less than ETSU.

The arguement Northeast is making is akin to saying Washington doesn't deserve major league baseball because the Senators only drew 1,000,000 fans once. But so much has changed in DC since the Senators left in 1971.

Look at these figures from 2001, and you'll see Appalachian State only drew 10,000 a game. We champion ASU as the program that draws 24,000 to games now.

Go here- http://ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/...dance.html and see for yourself. You can do some investigation of the other years as well.

But, then again, Memphis football sucks despite the fact they have made bowls in five of the past six years.

Northeast- We've been jawing- but let me ask you something here to open your mind.

This "football will draw the other sports to the bottom" nonsense. If it was true, then ETSU would suddenly have taken off athletically.

That hasn't happened, and what successes have occurred, such as the basketball teams' NCAA berths, seem to be the result of the new conference, not significant improvement to the programs.

If you would like to know the sport that actually brings down the others at ETSU, it's golf.

If football was to come back, how are you going to KEEP it from bringing other sports down? Newsflash: Football's expensive. It will cost a lot of money. Where's the money going to come from? How will you sustain it? How will you keep it from bringing the entire athletic program down?

Sure, certain other athletic programs have kept that from happening (and some haven't), at least somewhat. But now that you don't have football, and you're suddenly putting in a $15 million expense on the athletic program, how do you keep that from happening? I'm playing devil's advocate here, because this is the type of question you're going to get not only from those lowly administrators, but community leaders as well. I have not heard one decent sound argument on here for the 2 years I've been on here.

Here's another thing: Look at the mid-majors that have had the most success in the NCAA tournament in recent years: Gonzaga, George Mason, Butler, Davidson. Which of those programs plays DI-AA scholarship football? None.

I tell you what - with the negative attitude that constantly consumes this board, talking about firing of the AD and the Prez, talking about the lowering of the athletic program and downplaying any of the current athletic accomplishments -- I don't see it. We need a new leadership from the BFFF that can do a better job of marketing football -- not 'I can't believe Stanton killed football when it was losing money hand over fist and budget times were bad, so let's fire that guy. And Mullins too!'

Yeah, Pitt, golf is killing athletics at ETSU. They're the only one nationally ranked in the top 25 (or have been). Those bastards!

(10-28-2009 08:04 AM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  If football was to come back, how are you going to KEEP it from bringing other sports down? Newsflash: Football's expensive. It will cost a lot of money. Where's the money going to come from? How will you sustain it? How will you keep it from bringing the entire athletic program down?

Sure, certain other athletic programs have kept that from happening (and some haven't), at least somewhat. But now that you don't have football, and you're suddenly putting in a $15 million expense on the athletic program, how do you keep that from happening? I'm playing devil's advocate here, because this is the type of question you're going to get not only from those lowly administrators, but community leaders as well. I have not heard one decent sound argument on here for the 2 years I've been on here.

Here's another thing: Look at the mid-majors that have had the most success in the NCAA tournament in recent years: Gonzaga, George Mason, Butler, Davidson. Which of those programs plays DI-AA scholarship football? None.

I tell you what - with the negative attitude that constantly consumes this board, talking about firing of the AD and the Prez, talking about the lowering of the athletic program and downplaying any of the current athletic accomplishments -- I don't see it. We need a new leadership from the BFFF that can do a better job of marketing football -- not 'I can't believe Stanton killed football when it was losing money hand over fist and budget times were bad, so let's fire that guy. And Mullins too!'

Yeah, Pitt, golf is killing athletics at ETSU. They're the only one nationally ranked in the top 25 (or have been). Those bastards!

Then why don’t the TTU, WCU, UTC and APSU of the world drop football? If football is such a drain on the entire athletic department the campus presidents would surely drop football at their schools. How is football a bigger drain of ETSU’s athletic department then soccer? Or tennis? Seriously answer the question.

(10-28-2009 08:04 AM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  If football was to come back, how are you going to KEEP it from bringing other sports down? Newsflash: Football's expensive. It will cost a lot of money. Where's the money going to come from? How will you sustain it? How will you keep it from bringing the entire athletic program down?

Sure, certain other athletic programs have kept that from happening (and some haven't), at least somewhat. But now that you don't have football, and you're suddenly putting in a $15 million expense on the athletic program, how do you keep that from happening? I'm playing devil's advocate here, because this is the type of question you're going to get not only from those lowly administrators, but community leaders as well. I have not heard one decent sound argument on here for the 2 years I've been on here.

Here's another thing: Look at the mid-majors that have had the most success in the NCAA tournament in recent years: Gonzaga, George Mason, Butler, Davidson. Which of those programs plays DI-AA scholarship football? None.

I tell you what - with the negative attitude that constantly consumes this board, talking about firing of the AD and the Prez, talking about the lowering of the athletic program and downplaying any of the current athletic accomplishments -- I don't see it. We need a new leadership from the BFFF that can do a better job of marketing football -- not 'I can't believe Stanton killed football when it was losing money hand over fist and budget times were bad, so let's fire that guy. And Mullins too!'

Yeah, Pitt, golf is killing athletics at ETSU. They're the only one nationally ranked in the top 25 (or have been). Those bastards!

Assuming Stanton killed football when it was losing money hand over fist and budget times were bad: what is the intrinsic difference between a school like ETSU and one like Austin Peay, Chattanooga, TN Tech, UT-Martin, or MTSU that, during the same time frame when ETSU chose to drop football, those schools all either did not chose to drop football, or in some cases, increase the emphasis on football (e.g., APSU becoming scholarship, and MTSU moving to IA)?

Same post at the same time buc1997. :)

Because, 97, it costs more money. More scholarships. More coaches. Bigger travel budget. Bigger stadium. More equipment. More facilities. And on top of that Title IX requirements.

Where does the money to support the program coming from? That's a lot of money.

I'm not saying I'm against it - I'm saying you have to defend your position, and I want to hear a strong argument to defend it. I have yet to hear that in this forum.

Why don't the others drop football? Probably because they are using student fees to prop it up, so to speak, and Stanton and the admin are unwilling to. Do you send your child to ETSU? Do you pay their tuition? If so, are you willing to fork over what, $200+ more dollars per semester (that's $400 more per year) to help pay for a football team that in 80 years won one conference title? Yes I know they increased the student fee recently -- but by what, $25?

I know parents who do send their kids here - not one of them have said to me that football should come back & they (or their offspring) should pay for it.

And if it doesn't come from student fees, where does it come from? Donors? Where are they?

What I'm saying you can make all the arguments you want about school spirit, about being a better conference, about how much you miss the marching band. But the bottom line is in the current economic climate is: How do we pay for it?

Island: There are a lot of differences between ETSU and those schools, namely academics. We have a Pharmacy School & a Medical School. We have PhD programs (Public Health, Psychology, Sport Science, 8 total right now and others on the way) that cost money and investment from the admin. None of those other schools have those professional schools. None of those schools offer many, if any, doctoral degrees. Those institutions are primarily teaching-oriented institutions; ETSU is both teaching & research-oriented & is oriented towards serving the rural health needs of east TN. That costs a money -- a lot of money.

I bet if ETSU could move to IA it may spark interest. But can ETSU average over 15,000 a game?

(10-28-2009 09:56 AM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  Island: There are a lot of differences between ETSU and those schools, namely academics. We have a Pharmacy School & a Medical School. We have PhD programs (Public Health, Psychology, Sport Science, 8 total right now and others on the way) that cost money and investment from the admin. None of those other schools have those professional schools. None of those schools offer many, if any, doctoral degrees. Those institutions are primarily teaching-oriented institutions; ETSU is both teaching & research-oriented & is oriented towards serving the rural health needs of east TN. That costs a money -- a lot of money.

I bet if ETSU could move to IA it may spark interest. But can ETSU average over 15,000 a game?

Which is simply what ETSU should be playing 1AA football like the rest. It is AT LEAST as good as school as the rest. Either Tenn Tech, Austin Peay, UT-Martin, UTC, and Tenn State have ADs that are dumb and do not know they are losing millions of dollars and we have the one genius at ETSU that dropped football OR it is the other way around. I believe it is the other way around. Pretty obvious.

81 - you missed the point. The measure of a good school is not it's football program. Maybe it is for you and others in this forum, but it really isn't the measure of a good academic institution. So are we as good of a school as Tech, Peay, Martin, Chattanooga? Of course. We're better. We offer more programs, and are able to recruit better faculty because of the resources for research here @ ETSU.

I don't know what you're talking about re: the AD's being dumb - I never said that.

How do the other schools pay for it? Increased student activity fees, unless they have great community support (like App). We didn't have great community support, so where does the money come from and how do you convince the community to support the team like they do in Boone? And how do you convince the admin things will be different this time around?

(10-28-2009 10:51 AM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  81 - you missed the point. The measure of a good school is not it's football program. Maybe it is for you and others in this forum, but it really isn't the measure of a good academic institution. So are we as good of a school as Tech, Peay, Martin, Chattanooga? Of course. We're better. We offer more programs, and are able to recruit better faculty because of the resources for research here @ ETSU.

I don't know what you're talking about re: the AD's being dumb - I never said that.

How do the other schools pay for it? Increased student activity fees, unless they have great community support (like App). We didn't have great community support, so where does the money come from and how do you convince the community to support the team like they do in Boone? And how do you convince the admin things will be different this time around?

Whether we're able to recruit better faculty is kind of subjective, so you've set up a good argument there that can't really be combatted objectively, so good on you for that I guess.

Are we really better? I don't know how much we should be buying into US News, but that publication is perceived by a lot of people as the definitive source for college rankings. So let's just see what they have to say about, to use your choice of comparables: "Tech, Peay, Martin, Chattanooga":

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...+3529+3531

If you mean we're better because we have more students and a lower tuition than all of them, I can't argue with that. But if we're better because we're ranked higher? Look at the rankings and tiers of schools. Out of those 5, only 1 is a tier 4 school, and it's not Tech, Peay, Martin, or Chattanooga. Only Peay is in the same neighborhood, as a tier 3 school, and they just decided to go to scholarship football.

ETSU does have a medical school (that existed just fine thank you very much when football was around), and a new pharmacy school that is almost accredited. As far as other programs, is there really a major difference among any of the schools cited as our peers? And did they exist when football was around? Because it seems to me we just traded a football team for a pharmacy school. That might sound OK in the abstract, but what benefits does ETSU get (or not get) by having a pharmacy school and no football that our peers do not get (or get) by having football instead of a pharmacy school?

I'm not against a pharmacy school. We as a society need pharmacists, and there are plenty of folks in the TRI that had to pack up and go to Memphis for 4 years even though they would rather have stayed home for school, and now that ETSU has a pharmacy school, we can capture that market. I'm just saying that it LOOKS like a straight-up trade: football for pharmacy, and questioning whether that was the right decision, given that none of what I think we would agree are our peers went in a similar direction, and schools like Belmont, Lipscomb, and Union did the same thing we did (i.e., instituted pharmacy and do not have football).

I guess it's a question of what does ETSU want to be, and how successfully are we doing it? We do not compete with Belmont and Lipscomb academically at the moment:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...+3487+3528

I would say we're not competing for a lot of the same students with those schools. If we're competing with anybody for students, it's for Tech's students, or Peay's, or Chattanooga's. We've effectively decided that we'll try to sell a Chevy to the Cadillac crowd, instead of building a better Chevy to sell to the people that want to buy a Chevy. And you're trying to tell the board that that's a good business model - not just for running and athletic department - but for running a university? Sorry if I'm skeptical...

BucIsland, don't make me hold class on these ranking classifications. ETSU and Belmont/David Lipscomb aren't in the same ranking classification and you are comparing apples and oranges.

Same to be said with Peay, Tech and Chattanooga, different Carnegie Classifications.

Just as a primer, that little 1 you see means the comparison is only within the schools own region. ETSU is classified as a NATIONAL university, compared with UVa, UNC, etc. QUITE a different league.

(10-28-2009 10:51 AM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  81 - you missed the point. The measure of a good school is not it's football program. Maybe it is for you and others in this forum, but it really isn't the measure of a good academic institution. So are we as good of a school as Tech, Peay, Martin, Chattanooga? Of course. We're better. We offer more programs, and are able to recruit better faculty because of the resources for research here @ ETSU.

I don't know what you're talking about re: the AD's being dumb - I never said that.

How do the other schools pay for it? Increased student activity fees, unless they have great community support (like App). We didn't have great community support, so where does the money come from and how do you convince the community to support the team like they do in Boone? And how do you convince the admin things will be different this time around?

Go, you are missing the point. That is that ETSU is a state university like all the rest. Some try to argue that ETSU is "different" and cannot have the same things as other institutions in Tennessee. That simply is insulting and incorrect. We are all proud of our school and want it to be more than it is and will never accept any argument that because it is "different" it cannot be a state school like all the rest. There are reasons every other state university in Tennessee plays football on some level. It does not take a mountain of money to play 1AA football:that is what they created the divsion for, universities that did not want to spend grand sums of money on football. Ergo, FCS football.