I guess the question we Buc fans need to ask now is why the other state schools in Tennesse under the exact same system have so much more money than ETSU does and are able to have things like 1AA football. If we can get that answered then we can really start getting somewhere.

(06-18-2010 10:59 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(06-18-2010 08:55 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(06-18-2010 08:09 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(06-18-2010 04:50 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(06-18-2010 10:50 AM)Mister Jennings Wrote:  Apples to apples when comparing ETSU to it's Tennessee competition. If the executive office decision makers would operate in a transparent way and explain their reasoning...perhaps they would not face so much criticism over dropping football. My guess is low attendance was embarrassing...it wasn't about the money. Did anyone notice the president's box high above the field in the dome during the last season? It was not full...(not surprising when those are some of the worst seats in the Dome). The President was always there probably wishing he had better seats.

If you pulled the budgets from the UTC, Tennessee Techs, MTSUs of the world, it easy to see how they do it. Problem is...we are left to presume the decision makers don't want to do it. The decision makers have not been held into account for the promises they made when terminating football. One decision is easy to observe...ASun vs. Southern. How 'bout basketball attendance? How 'bout the rest of the athletic program. Objectively, the change has been a disaster for which most leaders at evaluation time would be terminated themselves.

There ought to be protests in front of Dossett Hall. Burgin would be most disappointed. ETSU was a test market for TBR. Have you noticed after observation all of ETSUs peers have kept their football programs...in the middle of budget madness.

The good Doctor has lead ETSU well in many ways...but apparently can't admit the football termination mistake. He needs too....otherwise his leadership will be noted not for any good that he has performed...only the dumb mistake of getting rid of football. Most of us think football can work at ETSU...but it takes excellent management. ETSU had it under Les Robinson where basketball attendance was excellent. New management has fouled that up. ETSU is back in the dumper with no hope in site to rise again.

Please do something to get ETSU back to where it needs to be in the athletic department. The status quo is not getting it. The easiest thing to fix is to change conferences by getting football back. Restore Buc Pride and end Buc embarrassment.

That is why we have to keep up the drum beat to reinstate football. We still cannot explan why EVERY other school can play football and we "cannot". 1AA football is cheap, affordable football for schools like ETSU. The revenue streams from football cannot be denied. ETSU could easily draw the numbers to support 1AA. The walk on paying their own way could produce many extra dollars. The 1A game can easily produce 0.5 million dollars. All this plus getting back into a better more naturally fitting conference is well, well worth the sixty schlorarships it takes to make the team. All the other TN schools have NOT dropped football for these obvious reasons. Keep the faith.

Nothing against football, but this is just untrue. FCS (I-AA) football is not cheap. Yes, it's considerably less than the top FBS programs, but that does not mean it is cheap. When you say the revenue streams cannot be denied, where do you get that from? The revenue stream of the majority of FCS football programs is a small percentage of the total cost to field a team. There is no way ETSU can restore football and actually have that football program even come close to paying for itself. It will take considerable institutional support/student fees to make it happen.

I'm not saying don't bring it back, but people need to understand it will be a hefty outlay of cash from the athletic dept. and will in no way come close to paying for itself.

Can you then please please please please please tell us why evey other school in Tennessee has no trouble playing 1AA football? It is indeed relatively cheap and brings in more money than most sports. Man we are tired of these false arguments.

You are correct, it does bring in more than most sports. It also spends considerably more than most sports. This is not false, this is indisputable fact. FCS football is a money loser, as a general rule, not a profitable enterprise. That said, the way schools fund these programs is just what I said - institutional support and student fees as well as private donations. Simply relying on ticket revenue, sponsorships, and TV money will not get the job done at the FCS level.

Again, focus on the facts. I never addressed the merits of FCS football. I simply said that it will not generate enough revenue to cover the costs that it creates. That is a factual, true statement.

Some references for you.

This is from Ga State who is just adding football.

"How will the football program be financed?

The student fee increase approved by the Board of Regents on April 15 will generate an additional $5.5 million per year, a figure that will increase as enrollment grows. Those monies will go toward annual operating costs for football and additional women’s sports, including scholarships, personnel, equipment and travel. Additionally, we look to continue to grow annual giving, corporate sponsorship and gate revenues to help fund operating costs.

Will the football program be self-sustaining?

Generally football programs on the Football Championship Subdivision level, and even most programs at the Football Bowl Subdivision level, are not self-sustaining. They typically must be funded through student fees, donations, and sponsorships. But Georgia State University believes that football adds tremendous value in terms of school spirit, identity and media exposure."

Here's some research for you that you may or may not want to read over so I'll give you some highlights.

This is a report that looked at institutional support for athletic depts. at the FBS level. As you can see (if you jump to page 5), the big conferences rely on little to no institutional support. Contrast that to the MWC, C-USA, WAC, Sunbelt, and MAC who all relied on institutional support for at least 43% of their operating revenue. The high end is the MAC who averaged 72.3% of their operating revenue from institutional support. These are FBS schools and they can't generate anywhere close to enough revenue to support their athletic depts.

http://www.centerforcollegeaffordability...iveTax.pdf

This is from Daniel Fulks, an accounting professor at Transylvania University who is very well known for his study of the economics of intercollegiate sport. This is a report he compiled for the NCAA. Starting on pg. 50 is the data for FCS (I-AA at that time) schools. You can look through the different charts and figures, but you'll see on pg. 69 that the average revenue for an FCS football program was 1,070,000 and the average expenses were 1,483,000. Now this is from 2003. Expenses have increased dramatically, particularly because of coaching salaries as well as issues like academic reform and the APR which have caused programs to spend more on auxiliary services for their football teams. However, revenues have not increased at nearly the same pace. So, on average an FCS football program is not even a break even proposition.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...ONLINE.pdf

Now, all other sports lose money besides basketball generally as well at the FCS level, so a sports worth should not be determined by its ability to generate positive revenue, or college athletics would be drastically altered or eliminated.

So, again, I'm not in any way arguing the merits of football at the FCS level, or saying that it has no value. What I am saying, is that if adding football back is proposed, using the ability to generate positive revenue as a justification for the sport would simply not be true.

:clap2:

(06-19-2010 01:55 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(06-19-2010 10:23 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  We all want sports to do well at ETSU. We are all fans and have a great interest in the University and I just wish the administrators would get together and find out why EVERY other state school is still playing 1AA football and we "cannot". This question needs to be answered and has not been up to this point. Now if Tenn Tech, TSU, APSU had all dropped their football programs then I think that would be different. Still we have to get together and find out why we are the loners in the state that cannot "afford" 1AA. My opinion.

I think it is important to look at other schools. I think to be fair, we should compare ourselves to other TBR schools. When you do that, we have the lowest operating budget (according to http://www.bbstate.com) of all of the TBR schools. It lists our 09 operating budget as just under $6 million. Austin Peay is at 7.3, Tenn Tech was around $9 million, and Memphis is in an entirely different league at over $33 million. I don't recall Tn State's. So to me our closest peer is Austin Peay. They still have a sizeably larger budget than we do. They also won 2 total conference championships this year.

So, a simple answer as to why other schools have football and we don't, is the other schools have more money than we do. Now, you can see that without football, improvements have been made to the rest of the programs in the way of additional scholarships, new facilities, and improved salaries for coaches. (Whether or not you believe those were the right decisions is a different discussion) It is fair to say that with football, none of these things would have occurred, and the non-revenue sports would never become successful and a new basketball arena would be even farther away, as all "extra" funds would have to be funneled to a football program that was never very successful or well attended. I think with the personnel changes this spring, the administration seems to be holding these programs who have benefited from extra resources accountable to utilize them to be successful. This is a good thing. Overall, we have been very successful in the ASun. It's a big fish/small pond situation, since our spending levels are more on par with the ASun than the Southern.

Now I don't think any Buc fan should be satisfied with staying where we are. To move to a better conference though, the financial situation will have to be improved. We cannot compete in a better conference with our current revenues/expenses. So, the question I think for the administration, is how are we going to increase revenue? I personally don't think football will do that. If we can increase revenue to a point where we could actually be competitive in football in a better league as well as our non-revenue sports, then that's when we should bring back football.

:clap2:

So what is the "student athletic fee" (the specific fee per semester) at ETSU as compared to the other TBR schools? I can't find it listed specifically on either the TBR site or the ETSU site.

Last time I heard, ETSU was at $100 per semester WITHOUT FOOTBALL and was more than most of the other FCS schools in Tennessee. I think it went up without any notice again in June 2009, but I can't find any documentation to show me anything!

It's like trying to get oil off a pelican's hindend to get a straight answer from these people.

First off, why is the student activity fee being raised yet again? One of the primary reasons Stanton gave in 2003 for dropping football was the necessarily of upping student fee to keep football competitive in the SoCon.
Since 2003 student fees have been raised at least three times with no football. Yet, the school officials still moan and groan about the lack of funding.
Since when is every department at a university required to generate more revenue then expenses? Is so how can anyone who is at ETSU justify starting a men's soccer program?
Just curious. Does the drama department turn a profit?
I am sick and tired of my Alma mater athletic department being hijack by a hand full of people. Who insist that against all logic golf and tennis should be the premier programs at ETSU.
Stanton needs to be held accountable.

(06-21-2010 11:00 AM)buc1997 Wrote:  First off, why is the student activity fee being raised yet again? One of the primary reasons Stanton gave in 2003 for dropping football was the necessarily of upping student fee to keep football competitive in the SoCon.
Since 2003 student fees have been raised at least three times with no football. Yet, the school officials still moan and groan about the lack of funding.
Since when is every department at a university required to generate more revenue then expenses? Is so how can anyone who is at ETSU justify starting a men's soccer program?
Just curious. Does the drama department turn a profit?
I am sick and tired of my Alma mater athletic department being hijack by a hand full of people. Who insist that against all logic golf and tennis should be the premier programs at ETSU.
Stanton needs to be held accountable.

Stanton is a Czar. He had no one to answer to and doesn't have to apologize for being an omnipotent seersayer of college football forecasting.

He will never be held accountable because people are and were too afraid to rock the boat. People who rocked the boat got the shaft. People who kept their mouths shut got rewarded.

Had a conversation with two former professors on Friday. They hate Stanton and feel that there are a majority of people outside the "medical sciences" that feel that his one track minded mission for ETSU has caused irreparable damage to many areas of campus. I posed the question "But isn't medical sciences the way to go for educating your students?" and the response was "that wasn't the mission of our school before he came, the mission was to educate the Northeast Tennessee region and to prepare students for life outside the University"... they just don't think that "regular" students are getting the same treatment that the medical science area students are getting and are having to go else where to have a regular college experience. As long as the med school and their surrounding programs get the focus, other areas of campus will suffer including Athletics.

Stanton will only do the minimum to keep the handful of athletic donors happy so they won't bad mouth him at the country club. He's not interested in seeing Athletics climb any higher or be any better, it's just not his "mission."

The last thing one of them said: "...and he's the bastard that got us kicked out of the SoCon" (direct quote, so explicitive included)