12-20-2009, 03:42 PM
12-21-2009, 02:59 AM
It is interesting, but a few things I'd point out-
A- About the Rutgers board member who says he has season tickets but doesn't like the money spent on the program, I would point out that Paul Stanton went to all the ETSU football games, too.
It got me to thinking; Rutgers IS the birthplace of college football and there is a lot of talent in their backyard. If any place SHOULD be a bigger winner in college football, it's Rutgers. I would say spending money on football is a great marketing ploy for the university, and perhaps more important at Rutgers than at many, many other schools.
Second, if you're saying that they've spent too much money on football at the expense of eduation, I thought immediately about ETSU and not their athletic programs, but their medical department. ETSU has put so much into medicine, and the same things that have gone on at Rutgers, professors not getting raises, for instance, has happened at ETSU.
So the question needs to be asked- has too much been spent on the medical department at ETSU?
A common arguement in the football debate has been "It's more important to have a pharmacy school!" But why must this be an either/or thing?
And for everyone who says that ETSU will never be a major player in athletics, couldn't the same cynical arguement be made that ETSU will never be John Hopkins?
I would submit that ETSU has sacrificed more in the name of their medical department than Rutgers has in the name of being a better football school.
A- About the Rutgers board member who says he has season tickets but doesn't like the money spent on the program, I would point out that Paul Stanton went to all the ETSU football games, too.
It got me to thinking; Rutgers IS the birthplace of college football and there is a lot of talent in their backyard. If any place SHOULD be a bigger winner in college football, it's Rutgers. I would say spending money on football is a great marketing ploy for the university, and perhaps more important at Rutgers than at many, many other schools.
Second, if you're saying that they've spent too much money on football at the expense of eduation, I thought immediately about ETSU and not their athletic programs, but their medical department. ETSU has put so much into medicine, and the same things that have gone on at Rutgers, professors not getting raises, for instance, has happened at ETSU.
So the question needs to be asked- has too much been spent on the medical department at ETSU?
A common arguement in the football debate has been "It's more important to have a pharmacy school!" But why must this be an either/or thing?
And for everyone who says that ETSU will never be a major player in athletics, couldn't the same cynical arguement be made that ETSU will never be John Hopkins?
I would submit that ETSU has sacrificed more in the name of their medical department than Rutgers has in the name of being a better football school.