http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Football...m&lp=2&p=1

Good article. The plan by the administration is to be competitive to win the conference in 2018, not 2016. We have to build this thing from the ground.

The article also reinforced my concern with the stadium. It sounds like we are getting behind schedule before we even start, and do not have the funding to build what we want to build. Personally, I think the 7,000 seat stadium (take off the end-zone seating) would be a better plan anyway. We can sell out 7,000 seats, I have never envisioned a time that we can sell out 10,000 seats on a regular basis. Lets just get started!

This is what happens when you have a real AD instead of a tennis coach. Emphasizing the big 3 sports is exactly as it should be. It's what everybody else does around the country. Even with the present leadership it's going to take a long time to dig out of the hole that fully funding Olympic sports instead of prioritizing the visible sports put us in. This is a big step in that direction.

(10-25-2015 10:32 AM)ETSU-07 Wrote:  This is what happens when you have a real AD instead of a tennis coach. Emphasizing the big 3 sports is exactly as it should be. It's what everybody else does around the country. Even with the present leadership it's going to take a long time to dig out of the hole that fully funding Olympic sports instead of prioritizing the visible sports put us in. This is a big step in that direction.

Dittos! We are finally headed in the right direction. Digging out of a hole, yes, but heading upward.

See what I get for not reading the article before commenting on it. I read the article below on the JC Press website early this morning and thought it was the same article that brock20 posted. Obviously, it is not. My comments related to this article which describes the low expectations for this football season and the stadium issues:

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Football...tball.html

Lots of things from the couple of articles that got posted:

Glad we are finally acknowledging that it is time to fund the big 3 sports (football, mens and womens bball) like they should be instead of putting an emphasis on the olympic sports.

Disappointed to hear that the stadium isnt going to be 100% complete in the first phase but if they can get a 7k stadium built in 2017 that looks nice and has a nice grassy area in the end zone then I would call it a success. That area would be nice for like 5 dollar tickets.

Does this (below) indicate that we should be a competitive FCS program (eventually)
if money has anything to do with it? The department shows a $14.4 mil budget for this year. If my memory serves me, that is a decent FCS budget in comparison to others.


http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Basketba...m&lp=2&p=1

Another good article. Spells out how basketball is our best opportunity for national exposure.

(10-25-2015 06:31 PM)brock20 Wrote:  http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Basketba...m&lp=2&p=1

Another good article. Spells out how basketball is our best opportunity for national exposure.

Now, we heard this talk in 2003. Of course, it was only talk (part of the big lie). Question now is, where will ETSU athletics be ten years hence?

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Sports/2...-plan.html

FINALLY

(10-26-2015 06:41 PM)brock20 Wrote:  http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Sports/2...-plan.html

FINALLY

This is by far the most sensible ETSU athletics position/plan that I have EVER seen. If athletics is to be funded as an investment in the branding of ETSU, the front porch on the university, then this is the ONLY way it should be done. In addition, mid-major schools/conferences should push for NCAA legislation that reduces the number of sports required for Division I membership and allow member schools/conferences more discretion in athletic financial allocation.

Yes, FINALLY!!

This is exactly what Sander was brought in to do. ETSU has for probably the first time in its history an athletics department that's structured like a legitimate D1 program. I'm really trying not to dwell much on the past but it's really amazing to consider just how much of a disaster Dave Mullins was. Overcoming the madness that was the Stanton/Mullins dark ages will be Dr. Sander's legacy. Even if the Torbush hire ultimately proves a bad one I think Sander's tenure will be a total homerun, especially considering what he inherited.

Which leads to the question- how much longer is Sander going to stick around? He seems to have cleaned house in the areas that needed it (except baseball) and structured the department for the future. His job seems to be nearly done.

We have so much to be thankful for and it all starts at the top. I never thought we'd get here.

(10-26-2015 08:53 PM)etsubuc Wrote:  Which leads to the question- how much longer is Sander going to stick around? He seems to have cleaned house in the areas that needed it (except baseball) and structured the department for the future. His job seems to be nearly done.

I give him 2-4 more years. I think at a minimum, he will stick around for the first season in the new stadium. It seems like that would be an appropriate legacy for him.

The comments on that article make me roll my eyes. Even the little tech school my son is going to figured out sports make a difference in getting kids in the door. They brought back athletics a few years ago, after a 50+ year absence. It caused a huge uproar apparently, but it's been one of the best decisions for them.

For some students, the difference between the same degree at two schools is the sports offered. Even I would have had a tough time attending a school that didn't have at a minimum a competitive basketball program and I didn't even play! The athletic department does double duty as a marketing tool for the school. Like it or not, that's just how the world works people.

(10-27-2015 08:37 AM)queenladybug817 Wrote:  The comments on that article make me roll my eyes. Even the little tech school my son is going to figured out sports make a difference in getting kids in the door. They brought back athletics a few years ago, after a 50+ year absence. It caused a huge uproar apparently, but it's been one of the best decisions for them.

For some students, the difference between the same degree at two schools is the sports offered. Even I would have had a tough time attending a school that didn't have at a minimum a competitive basketball program and I didn't even play! The athletic department does double duty as a marketing tool for the school. Like it or not, that's just how the world works people.

It's the same handful of bitter people repeating the same moronic ideas. Let them wallow in their misery. I realized that reading those comments was just bringing my joy down. The people that matter know that good things are happening and that our beloved university only stands to benefit from them.

(10-27-2015 08:52 AM)ETSU-07 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 08:37 AM)queenladybug817 Wrote:  The comments on that article make me roll my eyes. Even the little tech school my son is going to figured out sports make a difference in getting kids in the door. They brought back athletics a few years ago, after a 50+ year absence. It caused a huge uproar apparently, but it's been one of the best decisions for them.

For some students, the difference between the same degree at two schools is the sports offered. Even I would have had a tough time attending a school that didn't have at a minimum a competitive basketball program and I didn't even play! The athletic department does double duty as a marketing tool for the school. Like it or not, that's just how the world works people.

It's the same handful of bitter people repeating the same moronic ideas.

Yes! This X 50.

Boo hoo we liked the Dome better. (Move on to the future, folks).

Boo hoo we should have hired Mister Jennings. (We all LOVE him...but just no).

Boo hoo we should hire George Pitts. (Nope).

And this list goes on and on. The success we had A QUARTER CENTURY ago has caused more problems in the last 15 years than most realize. It's a local sports culture rife with mediocrity and mired in the past.

The only reason we have moved on is because of our leadership. And I find it significant that they came from somewhere else, and are not shackled by a single game in 1992.

The strategic plan document:

http://cdn.streamlinetechnologies.com/et...15-16).pdf

Grain of salt moment for you diehard football people: I'm still skeptical of the purported enrollment and financial impacts of football; 1st season of play isn't helping currently. Students not involved with band or the team itself are going to go to UT if football and sports is truly that significant to them, let's be realistic about this. But there has to be some impact to ETSU enrollment, at the very least.

People bemoaning AD budget increases in the absence of football: costs have ballooned at every school sonce 2000. Granted that certain sports have likely been over funded by ETSU in that time while others, like basketball, didn't see the kind of increase that was needed.

I think basketball, Men's specifically, is the flagship program and only real opportunity for any real national viability. Nonetheless, if we're going to have football, we've got to fund it as an athletics priority. Win us a game Saturday, Torbush. I do want football to be successful. I want anything ETSU does to be a top tier effort, including the FPAC that has been delayed for so long.

P.S. I'm all for the cultural aspects of football. The money debates have been inane and overly political. I don't trust economic impact studies when it comes to sports.