Several weeks ago I wrote Dr. Manning, Chancellor of the Tennessee Board of Regents (as well as Mr. Montgomery of Kingsport) about the desire of many ETSU alumni to see football return to ETSU. Several days ago I received a written response from Dr. Manning. Unfortunately, I do not have the letter in front of me now. Basically, Dr. Manning repeated in my IMHO the same old propaganda from Dr. Stanton and the ETSU administration that football at ETSU no longer exists because of financial considerations. That the incoming president would make the decision on reviving football not on improving conference affiliation, improving campus life or raising public awareness of ETSU with a football program. No, strictly dollars and cents.
It makes me wonder how can TTU, UTC, UTM afford football? Also, since ETSU dropped football. Did not Austin Peay bring back scholarship football? How can every public university in the state of Tennessee get it so wrong?
Perhaps someone on this knows the answer to this question. Why does the men’s soccer program have only 3.5 scholarships to hand out? I am not sure the limit of scholarships available for a college soccer program, but with no football why only 3.5? Where does the money go?
I got the same letter from Dr. Manning, by the way.
This is why I say we cannot let the message of "Paul Stanton may have dropped football but he was real good for the education side! PHARMACY SCHOOL! PHARMACY SCHOOL! PHARMACY SCHOOL!" prevail.
This is a college. If this arguement is turned into a misleading "Football vs. Education" debate, football doesn't return. Ever.
And the thing is, that's pretty much the prevailing attitude. I've heard Kenny Hawkins echo it to his audience on the Morning Monster. I've heard Bill Meade put the lid on ETSU football discussion because, well, the real reason is he'd rather talk Vols and doesn't want to get into any trouble with ETSU.
Has even the BHC and the Sainted Brian T. Smith (now assistant sports editor, by the way) really criticized Stanton?
No.
When Cleveland wanted the NFL back, they didn't speak of the television accomplishments Art Modell acheived for the NFL.
I could even make a counterarguement the revenue sharing plan Modell came up with eventually caused the Browns to move. The TV plan, theoretically, made stadium revenues less important, thus causing the Browns to stay at Cleveland Stadium long after the yard was obsolete.
And so, while the Cavaliers and Indians were getting their new facilities, the Browns were put on the backburner.
At which point they said- "Hey! What about us?"
Now, the arguement that needs to be made- immediately- is that while Stanton put forth a pharmacy school, he did so at the cost of other programs- both athletically and educationally.
And so, ETSU now has the feel of being medicine first and everything else third.
Unfortunately, that seems to be the way the TBR wants it.
Write them back and ask them if its strictly dollars in cents, how does every other state school in Tennessee have football? Maybe ETSU is grossly mismanaging their money.
I'm pretty sure that almost every sport at ETSU is close to maximum scholarships. Men's soccer may be the only one since it is a new team but it will get to the max soon. Basically, ETSU's model is to fully fund (scholarships) which is hardly done by anyone especially if you play football. To do so, they had to drop football. This crap about it costing too much money is hogwash since they eliminated 50+ scholarships and used them to get the other teams closer to the NCAA limit.
ETSU doesn't seem to care that they are fully supporting sports that draw 132 free vistors to an exhibition soccer game. Even that number was probably overstated. As bad as the attendance was for football (keep in mind that most were paying customers), how many soccer games will it take to equal the attendance of one football game.
Buc Wrote:As bad as the attendance was for football (keep in mind that most were paying customers), how many soccer games will it take to equal the attendance of one football game.
That's a great question. Problem is we don't know the answer yet. It all depends on if they win or not. I am not saying that there are going to be 5,000 people watching an ETSU soccer game. But if they are successful, then they may very well have decent attendance. That goes for the men's team too. Who knows, only time will tell. People follow and support winners.
This mindset just isn't at ETSU, Johnson City, or the Tri-Cities. This is everywhere and in every sport. All you have to do is look at UT's basketball program. For years everyone around Knoxville was talking about how TB arena is terrible place to play basketball, no one comes, etc. Why was that? They weren't winning! That kind of talk is now nonexistent.
Look at UK football. Setting attendance records and ticket orders because they are slowly becoming successful. What about ETSU football? The attendance was down because they were not winning with consistancy. You have them go 10+ wins and go deep into the playoffs each year, then see how many show up.
Look at Duke basketball. They wanted to fire Coach K after his second year because they weren't winning. Did they even have a decent basketball team before they started winning?
People love to talk about the ETSU basketball attendance in the late 80s and early 90s. And why was that? They were winning and going to the NCAA tournament. There are true fans and there and there are fair weather fans. Again, this is not just in upper East TN. This is everywhere. Winning cures all ills. It's fun to follow a team or program that's winning. A while back I came across a NCAA women's field hockey championship match (or is it game???) on TV. The home team's place was packed! FOR FIELD HOCKEY for heaven's sake!
Let's face it, sports fans are fickle. People follow winners. In sports, it's not "if you build it they will come", it's "if you build it AND you WIN, they will come."
88 is not wrong when it comes to the matter of people responding to winning. The fact is that Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. That's why Americans have never and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed.
That is all.
boys - we will get football as soon as we can come up with a way to provide $1.5 million a year in new revenue, and build a stadium. any ideas
You're right, we don't know the answer. However, let's look at some other school's stats. Jacksonville I believe had the best ASun soccer team last year. They went 11-7-2 overall with a 7-2 conference record. Their reported total (home and away) attendance was 5,238 not counting a game versus Lipscomb which was not reported. Therefore the best soccer team in the ASun conference had an average attendance of 275 people. No football in the ASun last year so I went to the worst team in the Southern Conference. Western Carolina was 1-10 last year with a conference record of 0-7. Their average attendance home and away (I excluded the two SEC games they played) was 7,366. Their last home game after a terrible season drew over 5,000 fans. By the way, Furman which had the best soccer team in the Southern conference average 869 people. We won't go into what the best football team in the conference averaged for attendance.
dogood, why don't we ask the students how they want the student athletic fee to be used? Football or the combination of soccer, tennis, golf, track, etc.
Buc....that's not a very good point because you also have to consider what is the cost of maintaining a football team vs the cost of maintaining a soccer team. Soccer will never turn a profit, that's true...but are its losses as big as footballs? But even at that...I am not sold that ETSU dropped football entirely for financial reasons. If you had enough money to maintain football for five straight seasons in a bank account right now ready to blindly hand over to ETSU...I'm still not so sure football would come back. I am just not convinced that money was the sole agenda. I am also not convinced that a new President will come in and restore the football program. I don't see it happening...I really don't.
- we will get football as soon as we can come up with a way to provide $1.5 million a year in new revenue, and build a stadium. any ideas
Kenny Chesney Annual Football Benefit Concert
Yes.
15,000 season tickets at $100 a piece equals $1.5 million.
A new stadium can be built with a joint venture for one with the City for Science Hill.
If ETSU can draw only 7000 paying fans(a reasonable figure I believe) and the cost is say, $20 a ticket and if they play 6 home games then that is about $840,000. From what I understand the IA game(or money game) made about $300,000. That alone is over $1,000,000 a year without any outside fundraising(BASA) or student fees. The school could easily(and should) be playing football right now.
I'll say it again....I don't think it's about money.
Gold, I don't think it is either.
If you look at the agendas of the powers that be- Stanton- make it a medical school above everything else- complete with promotion of the sports that doctors like (golf and tennis)- while getting rid of that bad ol' sport that breaks bodies instead of builds them . . . .
If it was about money, surely we'd have to hold Stanton responsible for his comment in 2003 that around this time Division I-AA teams would be falling left and right.
They haven't.
For him to mold the athletic program the way he has, on such a shortsighted vision, makes one wonder how he could enjoy the reputation he has in other circles.
Answer- his positive reputation stems fully from the medical school.
Mother- you could really make a lot of brownie points here with an "OOOOOHHH PHARMACY SCHOOL!" here.
Ducker! Paging Ducker!
Gold,
My last post addressed two issues.
1) How many soccer games would it take to equal the attendance of even a bad football team. That post has nothing to with costs to run a program
2) The second part was to address dogood's suggestion for us to come up with the $1.5 million. You're right football is more expensive than soccer but is it more expensive than track, soccer, baseball, golf and whatever else I listed combined.
Since you bring up costs, let me ask you this... divide 1.5 million by whatever number you want to use for the number of student-athletes that are a part of the football team. I wonder how that compares with the average cost per student athlete in the other sports.
What is the goal of our collegiate sports program?
1) to bring recognition to the school - football wins
2) to bring enjoyment to the student body - football wins
3) to benefit more student athletes - I think football wins. Most schools fully fund their football teams which is why the costs are so high. I believe that equals 60+ scholarships plus whatever number of walk ons. How many other teams at ETSU does it take to equal the number of people on the football team? I'm guessing quite a few and yes I am guessing that the costs of those teams combined come close to the $1.5 million.
4) to bring more opportunities to underpriviliged kids - I am guessing that football has a higher percentage of needs based scholarships than tennis, golf or soccer combined
5) to increase diversity - football wins
6) to get the community involved - football wins
Good points and don't forget we also lost the band. I was at a Bands of America competition in the dome a few years ago watching a family member preform and the ETSU band came out. I guess at football games I was out at halftime because I was not familar with the band. They were great! Everyone from SC, KY, GA wherever stood and cheered. They were the talk of the day.
We lost college football, the college band, the Bands of America competition (this brought a lot of people to JC), and most importantly the trust of many alumni and supporters.
They are forgetting about the private dollars that aren't, and won't be coming in until football comes back. Dr. Manning wants to talk dollars and cents, then let's talk it. UGA funds ALL of its' non-revenue sports off of its' football revenue. Now I'm not saying ETSU could or ever will be able to do something like that, but I'm damn sure that done the right way it could help take care of a couple of them, and the rest of it can be covered the same way everyone else does, student fees.
Buc,
Point one is irrelevant without consideration and comparison of the cost that would be required to run both programs. That is the point.
Point two...I would be in favor of dropping every single sport, minus mens basketball, if it meant having a football team...but alas such things would never fly in the world we live in....so again the point isn't a valid one.
I do not think we dropped football because of money. I just don't buy that.
What a pathetic list. At this time, not one significate university person has applied.