I was just told that there was no grey area in my posts by another guy, and they might be right.

Then again, who likes grey area? Say what you mean and mean what you say!

That said, one man's negativity is another man's honesty. Let me give you an example.

Dear Dr. Noland-

Welcome to ETSU! I wish you the the best in having a productive presidency at my alma mater.

However, nine years ago I was desperately saddened by the decision of your predecessor to drop football at ETSU. I feel football is needed to raise the profile of both the school and community and to rally support and unity around these two entities.

Furthermore, the demise of the football program has resulted in what I believe is the demise of the athletic department from the Southern Conference to the Atlantic Sun. As someone who believes ETSU can and should be more of a major player in the field of athletics, I view this move as a step backwards, not forwards, despite claims of the current athletic director to the contrary.

Even the academic side of ETSU would be benefitted from having football and higher profile athletics. Sports medicine would have more athletes to train and heal. ETSU's coaching courses would clearly benefit from having football than not. And with the attention higher profile athletic teams give a university, more applicants and a better quality of student will attend ETSU. Please note, for instance, how freshman applications went down by 12 percent the year after football was dropped, and how freshmen applications peaked at ETSU during the Buccaneeers' run as a nationally ranked men's basketball program.

Do the right thing, Dr. Noland. Restore football at ETSU!

Signed,

PittsburghBucs



Now, I don't know. Is that such a bad thing? Wouldn't that do more than just "Welcome Dr. Noland. Sure you'll love it here! All the best!"

To be honest, I think a few "Hey, Noland. Get rid of that scumbag AD and bring back football or we'll run you out of town like we did Stanton! Signed, Esptien's Mother" might not be such a bad idea, either. Shows there's anger in the community and a sense of loss and need and kind of keeps the guy's feet to the fire.

Now, assuming Slappy's credible (that's a rather big assumption), they are laughing internally at negative letters he is receiving (what, you mean they're not calling the FBI?).

If that is so, the fiddler is playing as the town burns.

(01-30-2012 01:58 PM)buc-wild Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:12 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:06 PM)buc-wild Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 12:29 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Okay. So if everyone just sits on their hands and let's Brian Noland do his job with no feedback, then utopia will follow?

Anyone else see the flaws with that one?

I think people should write about what they see as opportunities and give some ideas as to how ETSU should go in the future. The BFFF crowd really do alienate a lot of the community with whining and arguing that we should not have cut football for some sinister reason. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong, but that was ten years ago. Time to get future oriented. Is football worth having? Is it worth a major commitment of time, energy and money? Should ETSU and the community make the sacrifices necessary to establish a high quality team? Nothing is made better by this never ending autopsy of ten year old decision.

I'd like for you to give me one example of someone you've met- not a plant here on the board like Slappy but someone you've met- that says the BFFF alienate the community with whining and arguing.

Because that has never been the strategy of Jerry Robertson and/or CM Boggs and I want to know who thinks it is the strategy of the organization.

I sit at home games with a number of long time basketball season ticket holder fans who are not employed by the university. They have made a point of pointing out the few folks who wear the football t-shirts and point out how pathetic it is that only four or five do this, and assert that "it is time to move on". I like Robertson and Boggs, but BFFF has really polarized itself into a small group that is perceived as bitter and ineffectual. Negative emails just support this impression.

Point taken, but you must admit even four or five t-shirts keep the idea of bringing back football alive.

I might say your basketball fans are actually the ones who are counterproductive. One of the more frustrating things about ETSU fans, and perhaps sports fans in the area, is that they believe any criticism, even constructive, is somehow akin to rooting for the other team.

If ETSU had become an athletic powerhouse in basketball, with membership in the CAA or C-USA and a national ranking, I might agree with the "move on" sentiments of your friends.

But when the people who orchestrated the demise of the football program have only served to get ETSU kicked out of a respectable conference into one that isn't, have built useless facilities at the expense of ones that would serve the community, have seen no real improvement in the athletic department, etc. etc. etc. then I think some dissent is in order.

Don't you think?

"I might say your basketball fans are actually the ones who are counterproductive"

Exactly my point. Many of them would like to see football come back, but do not want to identify themselves with an idea that to do so requires a "purge". They do realistically see it coming back as a major commitment of time, energy and money from the community and students. Any real effort to do so requires a coming together of all stakeholders. BFFF hasnt' done this and I think is a stumbling block to this happening.

Maybe I'm wrong..but that's the way I see it.

The four guys who said its time to move on, if they exist, do not represent the mainstream of the fan base and any attempt to say otherwise is laughable.

The bfff is the stumbling block? We point the bfff as the stumbling block and no mention of the name Mullins. This is why i can't take these etsu types seriously, folks.

Good point Gold.

(01-30-2012 09:38 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  this is not a judgement on whether or not letters/emails should or should not be encouraged to be sent to the new president, but its working against you right now. the only ones being discussed are the negative ones, and thats not a good thing. railing about the administration and the calling for the firing of this person or that person is counterproductive and they are being viewed as such. as expected, they are overshadowing any positives of the campaign at ths point and are being dismissed immediatly (other than being talked about jokingly). try to keep yours positive if you want it to get any traction.

Do you not think that it's possible that the "negative" tone to any letters might just be because people are fed up? There are many more people who just plain out don't like what's going on at ETSU than than are connected to the Football Foundation's official membership. I'd be really skeptical to think that "negative" letters should be giggled at or dismissed. The thread on "losing interest" is a prime indicator of most of the TRI with regard to ETSU, not just about football elimination.

I can tell you there's not one mention of the Football Foundation promoting "NEGATIVE" letters, in fact, the encouragement sent out was to tell Dr. Noland what football and marching band had meant to their own particular story of ETSU. I appreciate your encouragement for POSITIVE notes, which is all you'll ever hear the Foundation hoping to see.

I agree with Pitt, there's a huge difference in degrading a person simply because you don't like him and a "fan" or alumni pointing out what they feel are major gaps and gaffes along the way. Maybe Noland needs some historical context as he proceeds to finding his way in the world of University President's status.

(01-31-2012 04:30 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 09:38 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  this is not a judgement on whether or not letters/emails should or should not be encouraged to be sent to the new president, but its working against you right now. the only ones being discussed are the negative ones, and thats not a good thing. railing about the administration and the calling for the firing of this person or that person is counterproductive and they are being viewed as such. as expected, they are overshadowing any positives of the campaign at ths point and are being dismissed immediatly (other than being talked about jokingly). try to keep yours positive if you want it to get any traction.

Do you not think that it's possible that the "negative" tone to any letters might just be because people are fed up? There are many more people who just plain out don't like what's going on at ETSU than than are connected to the Football Foundation's official membership. I'd be really skeptical to think that "negative" letters should be giggled at or dismissed. The thread on "losing interest" is a prime indicator of most of the TRI with regard to ETSU, not just about football elimination.

I can tell you there's not one mention of the Football Foundation promoting "NEGATIVE" letters, in fact, the encouragement sent out was to tell Dr. Noland what football and marching band had meant to their own particular story of ETSU. I appreciate your encouragement for POSITIVE notes, which is all you'll ever hear the Foundation hoping to see.

I agree with Pitt, there's a huge difference in degrading a person simply because you don't like him and a "fan" or alumni pointing out what they feel are major gaps and gaffes along the way. Maybe Noland needs some historical context as he proceeds to finding his way in the world of University President's status.

Agree

yes...historical context is just what is needed. What better way to start fresh, than to bring up the past.

you guys have it...i tried to help you

And with help like yours, we'll never need an enemy!!!!!!













You've been a great audience, folks! Be here all week!

(01-31-2012 10:44 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  yes...historical context is just what is needed. What better way to start fresh, than to bring up the past.

you guys have it...i tried to help you

Yes, context is needed.

A full discussion of attendance cannot be had without discussing past attendance. A full discussion over the sad state of affairs regarding Buc Wild cannot be had without discussing how Buc Wild use to be. A full discussion over the importance and need for strong rivalries cannot be had without discussing the nature of past rivalries. A full discussion of the Bucs/A-Sun NCAA tournament seeding cannot be had without a discussing past seeds.

Believe me, I understand why you don't want historical context to be included. A clear and noticeable regression in the state of athletic affairs is not something I would want discussed were I in your shoes either.

Whether you like it or not, context matters.

Noland should be given the full history of the last decade. What he does with it is on him and his reputation. I personally believe many in athletics are nervous and it shows on this this very thread.

hilarious...put away the grainy magruder film...you guys are getting bad advice/information. i dont have anything to do with athletics. not now. not 10 years ago. it does not suprise me though. its standard operation for those who dont like to have their posts scutinized for accuracy. they want thier message believed 100%, anything/anyone to the contrary is deemed athletics administration or anti football. i get it.

that being said...why would i be nervous or feeling uncomfortable?

22, i was not referring to context as you stated. i simply want the message to stay positive. imo, it will get more consideration than going negetive. but again..do as you like. rest assured...it wont effect me either way.

U

(01-31-2012 10:44 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  yes...historical context is just what is needed. What better way to start fresh, than to bring up the past.

you guys have it...i tried to help you

I think that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I received a letter response from Dr. Noland in the mail yesterday. It was short and sweet, but he did acknowledge reading my letter, thanked me for "passion" of ETSU athletics and would consider my thoughts. Anyone else get something back yet?

I wrote President Noland a few days ago. I outlined our previous success dating back to the late 80's early 90's, and mid 2000's. I also stressed the fact that we turned down C-USA when they were founded in 1995, and turning down the OVC in 2008. And of course, I complained about the dome and how the general public, fans, and students want a new arena. I suggested that these factors are key influences on community support and recruiting.

I recieved the same type of response as etsuBucFan1988. It was short and sweet, but stated that he was appreciative of my "dedication and desire to promote our Athletic program and will certainly consider your suggestions."

(03-16-2012 10:58 AM)Buced_Up Wrote:  I also stressed the fact that we turned down C-USA when they were founded in 1995

We turned down CUSA in 1995? Really?

(03-16-2012 11:08 AM)Bucster Wrote:  

(03-16-2012 10:58 AM)Buced_Up Wrote:  I also stressed the fact that we turned down C-USA when they were founded in 1995

We turned down CUSA in 1995? Really?

I don't have definitive proof that we were invited, but from what I've been told, we were in the running to be one of the founding teams. However, our athletic department showed no interest in joining, therefore nothing ever came of it.

The original members of C-USA in 1995 were Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette, Charlotte, St. Louis, South Florida, UAB, Memphis, Southern Mississippi, and Tulane.

Houston, after the SWC dissolved, joined the next year and I would imagine that was a done deal, they just had to play out the string in the SWC for a year. That made an even dozen. East Carolina and Army joined as football-only members two years later to bring the amount of football playing schools to 10.

This sounds to me like another Tennessee urban legend (like Jim Valvano and Bill Cowher are going to coach the Vols).

What I could imagine that if ETSU was contacted, the C-USA was sending out feelers to many colleges. But where would ETSU fit in there?

In fact, in 1995, why would ETSU have been more desirable than Chattanooga or Marshall out of the SoCon? Marshall would have jumped at the chance- why would they have gone to the MAC if they could have gotten in on the ground floor of this conference? Marshall was drawing lots of fans, was expanding their stadium to Division I-A capacity, and, coached by Billy Donovan, was a much better basketball program than ETSU at the time.

Chattanooga would have presented a football facility that, unlike Memorial Center, would have been able to hold 15,000 fans a game, the minimum needed to stay in Division I-A. It also is a larger TV market and dare I say, even the name "Chattanooga" sounds a bit more big time than "East Tennessee State."

ETSU was 7-20 at the time in basketball and playing in a facility that only sat 12,000 for football. Now, could C-USA have approached them as a secondary target for the conference and inquired if they would be willing to move their football program up? Sure. But that would have required building a new stadium for a football program that even back then there were grumblings about long term viability. And ETSU would not have been a primary target for the conference.

By the way, before you begin "we would have had football and four of those schools don't," come on. Would you rather have a prestigious traditional basketball power from Chicago or ETSU in market No. 92 or whatever it was back then and a timetable to advance football to Division 1-A, especially when the league broke down so perfectly with eight football schools and 12 basketball schools?

Again, Marshall would have been a far more attractive catch back then and eventually did join the C-USA in 2005.

Can you see where a inquiry from C-USA as a fallback plan, if it did happen, in 17 years could be turned into the urban legend "C-USA offered but ETSU turned them down?"

Even if ETSU had given the green light to such a project they would have been behind those two other SoCon schools on the pecking order, if not Appalachian State, and certainly South Florida, which started their football program in 1997 and had the luxury of a much larger enrollment, talent pool, television market, athletic director in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (not a knock against Keener Fry, but if you're going to choose Keener Fry or Lee Roy Selmon to emphasize building a football program who are you going to choose?) and a major league facility in Tampa Stadium to play in.

I have heard when ETSU dropped football and in need of a new conference they did call the C-USA up and they came down here and told ETSU their facilities were substandard. That's what started the facilities boom.

(03-16-2012 06:30 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  I have heard when ETSU dropped football and in need of a new conference they did call the C-USA up and they came down here and told ETSU their facilities were substandard. That's what started the facilities boom.

The above is what I've been told from several others. It may actually be published fact, not sure. As for the 1995 story, it may be true as well, but this is the first time I've heard it. I'm sure some insiders here can weigh in.