(07-02-2010 12:08 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  More than one winning season combined between softball, volleyball and women's soccer would be a start. I get it, they're non-revenue, Title IX requirements. As I've said on here ad nauseum women's basketball has done what they should since the move to the Pedestrian Sun Conference. They've won conference titles, made NCAA Tournament appearances, as has women's tennis. Are they making money? No, but they are winning, and graduating, proving that both can be done. Wanna know how many NCAA appearances my three whipping post programs have had in the last ten years? ZERO! Zip, zilch, nada, not a single apparance between any of them. Now Devine's ONE regular season title was nice with the beach girls a few years back, but what's happened since then? Losing records, and last season it was so bad NONE of those three even made the conference tournament, meanwhile atleast one team that transitioned from Division II has made the conference tournament, including KSU who won women's communist kickball. Bottom line is, we were promised RESULTS IN ALL SPORTS when football was dropped, and ultimately ETSU has carried the A-Sun banner off of basketball, golf and tennis. Even track has been suffering.

So winning seasons and NCAA appearances are necessary for a program to be viable? That's what I understand from your statement.

So, with those requirements you should be ecstatic that we eliminated a football program that failed to live up to your own measure of success, at a much higher cost.

Looking at the Buc Football record book on the BFF web-site, the football program had 17 winning seasons from 1958-2003 (I counted a .500 record as a winning season in that number). So in a 45 year span they had winning seasons 38% of the time. As far as winning the conference, they won the OVC outright in 1969 and shared the title in 1962. They won the SoCon exactly zero times (Zilch, zip, nada as you like to say). They did finish second in the conference in 1996. There are only three coaches in ETSU history with a winning record here and only one of those was after 1965. In the section on the post-season for the team, there are only two mentions - 1996 and the bowl game in 69. So I'm assuming that in a 45 year span, we only made the post-season twice. There is also a little blip pointing out that the Bucs had 3 consecutive winning seasons from 1999-2001 under Paul Hamilton and that was the first back-to-back-to-back winning seasons for the Bucs since 1956. It also points out that Hamilton's 33 wins were the most after six years of any coach in ETSU history. That's an average of just 5.5 wins a season.

So it seems that the medicority of the football program far "outshines" any failures of the three programs you have mentioned. So, judging the football program by your own definition, it was a failure.

Hey Let's Go, you're treading in very dangerous waters: You're bringing up facts. Don't do that, unless you want to be told that you've 'lost credibility on the board' by stating so.

I think one poster said once that 'mediocre teams are needed in football.'

I'm all for football coming back. But you better bring it back & make it a hell of a lot better than it was in its previous incarnation.

So winning seasons and NCAA appearances are necessary for a program to be viable? That's what I understand from your statement.

So, with those requirements you should be ecstatic that we eliminated a football program that failed to live up to your own measure of success, at a much higher cost.

Looking at the Buc Football record book on the BFF web-site, the football program had 17 winning seasons from 1958-2003 (I counted a .500 record as a winning season in that number). So in a 45 year span they had winning seasons 38% of the time. As far as winning the conference, they won the OVC outright in 1969 and shared the title in 1962. They won the SoCon exactly zero times (Zilch, zip, nada as you like to say). They did finish second in the conference in 1996. There are only three coaches in ETSU history with a winning record here and only one of those was after 1965. In the section on the post-season for the team, there are only two mentions - 1996 and the bowl game in 69. So I'm assuming that in a 45 year span, we only made the post-season twice. There is also a little blip pointing out that the Bucs had 3 consecutive winning seasons from 1999-2001 under Paul Hamilton and that was the first back-to-back-to-back winning seasons for the Bucs since 1956. It also points out that Hamilton's 33 wins were the most after six years of any coach in ETSU history. That's an average of just 5.5 wins a season.

So it seems that the medicority of the football program far "outshines" any failures of the three programs you have mentioned. So, judging the football program by your own definition, it was a failure.
[/quote]

I think the "promise" was PREMIERE men's and women's teams... appearances are so sweet but if they aren't moving forward in the tournament with higher seeds and WINS in the Dance... we aren't getting what was "promised"

As for football... you get what you pay for and the struggles of football points directly to the funding malfunctions and lack of vision from past and current Presidents.

Given that ALL of ETSU's athletics budgets have increased significantly since the destruction of football, I'd HOPE there would be some sign of a correlation in the WIN column...

You are just so much fun, somebody should give you a job discrediting people and writing good, glossy pieces of fluff.

(07-04-2010 02:22 PM)straightfromthehorsesmouth Wrote:  So winning seasons and NCAA appearances are necessary for a program to be viable? That's what I understand from your statement.

So, with those requirements you should be ecstatic that we eliminated a football program that failed to live up to your own measure of success, at a much higher cost.

Looking at the Buc Football record book on the BFF web-site, the football program had 17 winning seasons from 1958-2003 (I counted a .500 record as a winning season in that number). So in a 45 year span they had winning seasons 38% of the time. As far as winning the conference, they won the OVC outright in 1969 and shared the title in 1962. They won the SoCon exactly zero times (Zilch, zip, nada as you like to say). They did finish second in the conference in 1996. There are only three coaches in ETSU history with a winning record here and only one of those was after 1965. In the section on the post-season for the team, there are only two mentions - 1996 and the bowl game in 69. So I'm assuming that in a 45 year span, we only made the post-season twice. There is also a little blip pointing out that the Bucs had 3 consecutive winning seasons from 1999-2001 under Paul Hamilton and that was the first back-to-back-to-back winning seasons for the Bucs since 1956. It also points out that Hamilton's 33 wins were the most after six years of any coach in ETSU history. That's an average of just 5.5 wins a season.

So it seems that the medicority of the football program far "outshines" any failures of the three programs you have mentioned. So, judging the football program by your own definition, it was a failure.

I think the "promise" was PREMIERE men's and women's teams... appearances are so sweet but if they aren't moving forward in the tournament with higher seeds and WINS in the Dance... we aren't getting what was "promised"

As for football... you get what you pay for and the struggles of football points directly to the funding malfunctions and lack of vision from past and current Presidents.

Given that ALL of ETSU's athletics budgets have increased significantly since the destruction of football, I'd HOPE there would be some sign of a correlation in the WIN column...

You are just so much fun, somebody should give you a job discrediting people and writing good, glossy pieces of fluff.
[/quote]

Would you mind pointing out my "fluff" so I can correct any factual errors? I will gladly recant and apologize if any of those stats I posted are incorrect.

You are right, in that it is completely reasonable to expect more from our non-revenue sports. You are a little off in your timeline of their institutional support though. It's just in the past two or three years where scholarships have increased to a fully funded level in all sports, as well as the increase in coaching staffs. In the cases of women's soccer and softball, I'll use your football line back at you, you get what you pay for. Their facilities were atrocious. Volleyball, while not as bad, does have the worst gym in the conference. That has changed for softball and soccer, who now have some of the best facilities in the conference. I think it takes about 2 or 3 years to see the impact of those facilities on recruiting though. It will not happen immediately. We're at that point now. They also did not have enough scholarships either to compete on a higher level. Same goes for volleyball. That has changed though. Again, it takes a couple of years for these changes to make an impact. I think this season should be make or break for women's soccer and volleyball. It clearly already was for softball. So I agree with you, those sports should be better. It also appears from some recent personnel decisions, that the administration agrees with you. Let's see what happens after this fall.

Also, the only reason I brought up the football teams performance was because of the way you defined value. Let me make it clear I was simply using your definition to make a point of your double standard. That is not my own valuation of our programs.

Ordered mine today.

We were promised winning records, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY RESULTS. We dropped football because it was costing the university and wasn't winning. Well what's softball doing? Women's soccer? volleyball?
I've been on here numerous times and said the mentality of football needed to change when brought back to be successful. No more half-a$$ing around. Graduate players, win championships, get into a premiere conference, like Conference USA, who LAUGHED IN OUR FACE! No football, no million dollars a year to pay the conference dues, and no on campus facilities. Since then, we've gotten two half finished fields that don't have lights, and softball doesn't have a damn pressbox! Guess what, it's still the same half-a$$ed things that have been going on for YEARS. Yet there's Dave, Barbie and the rest of the morons patting you on the head and telling you not to believe what's being said here, don't believe that all these other peer institutions in the southeast are ADDING a sport that our esteemed leaders swore would be dropped by the likes of Western Carolina, UT-C, Tennessee Tech, TSU, just name a few.
And as for those shirts, they're nice, but I have a football shirt, and the money went to the football foundation, not mediocre programs that compete in a children's table conference of D-2 upstarts who are ALL looking at adding football and getting the hell out of town.

Anywayys...back to the topic.

Fanatics 101 has a new order of shirts in. I got one last night.

I'm not sure if the owner of Fanatics still comes on this board, but if so my question is, will the success of the football shirt inspire you to carry more ETSU merchandise? It's not easy to get Buccaneer stuff outside of the campus bookstore and I always look for shirts when I go to the mall. And since you're in the retail business, why is it so hard to find stuff? The bookstore doesn't have the best hours, I would think that carrying some stuff would do well. I still haven't purchased my shirt yet though, I've been stocking up on Gamecock National Championship gear, I'll get one though. I really like your store, any store that sells gamecock toothbrushes is alright with me.

It has to do with licensing, capital, and actually being able to sell the product. There are several on here who could further answer your question... 02, LetsGoBucs? Wanna give a detailed answer?

Hmmm, so we complain when there's very little ETSU gear in local stores. Now, there are complaints that there is.

Got mine today. I'll wear it with pride!