(10-29-2015 01:10 PM)shampoo Wrote:  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.

Geez...you keep saying the same stuff over and over. Rinse and repeat.....hey I get where your username comes from now!

(10-29-2015 01:10 PM)shampoo Wrote:  .

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 understand that, I am sure everyone does. But what I found funny is that the year AFTER dropping football, the program losing 1 million a year according to Stanton, the budget went up, where was that million dollar savings? So they not only spent all the money football was losing they added to it and lost what revenue football was generating. Smart business plan.

(10-29-2015 01:35 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 01:10 PM)shampoo Wrote:  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.

Geez...you keep saying the same stuff over and over. Rinse and repeat.....hey I get where your username comes from now!

And you all do the same from the fervent football angle. The difference is color of glasses and audience.

I'm actually very happy that basketball is being realigned as the realistic national visibility / flagship program. And I'm happy that ETSU is trying football again, just not going to blindly accept everything the new regime says. Yes, we are talking the old regime vs. new. This board like's Noland's agenda better than Stanton's (and I tend to agree) but the fact of agendas remains.

(10-29-2015 01:42 PM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 01:10 PM)shampoo Wrote:  .

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 understand that, I am sure everyone does. But what I found funny is that the year AFTER dropping football, the program losing 1 million a year according to Stanton, the budget went up, where was that million dollar savings? So they not only spent all the money football was losing they added to it and lost what revenue football was generating. Smart business plan.

Completely fair point. Where the hell did the money go that year?!

(10-29-2015 02:02 PM)shampoo Wrote:  And you all do the same from the fervent football angle. The difference is color of glasses and audience.

I'm actually very happy that basketball is being realigned as the realistic national visibility / flagship program. And I'm happy that ETSU is trying football again, just not going to blindly accept everything the new regime says. Yes, we are talking the old regime vs. new. This board like's Noland's agenda better than Stanton's (and I tend to agree) but the fact of agendas remains.

I am actually a basketball guy myself but a university the size of ETSU needs football. ETSU was less of a university without it. You can argue it wasn't but I experienced it too many times how people thought less of the school because it didn't have football.

This isn't a Stanton vs Noland model; its a Stanton model vs EVERY DIVISION 1 ATHLETICS PROGRAM IN THE PAST 80 YEARS MODEL. Only 3 sports matter; football, mens and womens basketball. And at the FCS level I also think basketball is where ETSU can make its brand nationally. If ETSU would have followed through with the plan Stansbury had 13 years ago there is a chance we would already achieved national success in bball and moved to a better conference.

(10-29-2015 02:06 PM)shampoo Wrote:  Completely fair point. Where the hell did the money go that year?!

Tennis anyone?

(10-29-2015 03:25 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 02:02 PM)shampoo Wrote:  And you all do the same from the fervent football angle. The difference is color of glasses and audience.

I'm actually very happy that basketball is being realigned as the realistic national visibility / flagship program. And I'm happy that ETSU is trying football again, just not going to blindly accept everything the new regime says. Yes, we are talking the old regime vs. new. This board like's Noland's agenda better than Stanton's (and I tend to agree) but the fact of agendas remains.

I am actually a basketball guy myself but a university the size of ETSU needs football. ETSU was less of a university without it. You can argue it wasn't but I experienced it too many times how people thought less of the school because it didn't have football.

This isn't a Stanton vs Noland model; its a Stanton model vs EVERY DIVISION 1 ATHLETICS PROGRAM IN THE PAST 80 YEARS MODEL. Only 3 sports matter; football, mens and womens basketball. And at the FCS level I also think basketball is where ETSU can make its brand nationally. If ETSU would have followed through with the plan Stansbury had 13 years ago there is a chance we would already achieved national success in bball and moved to a better conference.

Yep, even if Basketball is the flagship sport, most conferences that we'd like to be part of have Football as a requirement. I think even if we have a bottom tier football program (I don't expect it to stay this bad all that long), it's a necessary sport for the others to have the visibility they need.

(10-29-2015 01:42 PM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 01:10 PM)shampoo Wrote:  .

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 understand that, I am sure everyone does. But what I found funny is that the year AFTER dropping football, the program losing 1 million a year according to Stanton, the budget went up, where was that million dollar savings? So they not only spent all the money football was losing they added to it and lost what revenue football was generating. Smart business plan.

Rod, I beat that drum for years. Again, that $1 million thing was a big lie from the get go -- and the local yokels bought it hook line and sinker. The JC Press pushed that football losing $1 million a year crap every chance they got for years. They never seemed to figure out what was going on, or was just one of Stanron's mouthpieces. Anyway, it is a dead horse, of course, but that Stanton-Mullins athletic model (that Stanton predicted many other I-AA schools would adopt) hurt ETSU more than can ever be known. Trying to correct that money wasting experiement is like digging out of a grave now.

(10-29-2015 03:25 PM)brock20 Wrote:  

(10-29-2015 02:06 PM)shampoo Wrote:  Completely fair point. Where the hell did the money go that year?!

Tennis anyone?

TennisAnyone was a legendary poster of the mid 2000's.
Football is here, it's here to stay. It's going to be funded properly. The key is getting this damn stadium built and built right.

Attendance: 200 = Tier 5

http://www.etsubucs.com/msoccer/news/201...ior-night/

Plus, there is no charge for admission for soccer or softball.

I feel Men's soccer needs to be higher, they have had a lot of success in the programs short life and people actually attend the games, its should be tier 2 or 3

Give Men's soccer a couple more years of success and I think they may get bumped to higher level. I think part of the issue is balancing men's and women's sports overall for Title 9 reasons, not just visibility and profitability.

(11-14-2015 12:33 PM)queenladybug817 Wrote:  Give Men's soccer a couple more years of success and I think they may get bumped to higher level. I think part of the issue is balancing men's and women's sports overall for Title 9 reasons, not just visibility and profitability.

How much revenue does men's soccer generate? What are the ticket prices for soccer matches?

(11-15-2015 04:33 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(11-14-2015 12:33 PM)queenladybug817 Wrote:  Give Men's soccer a couple more years of success and I think they may get bumped to higher level. I think part of the issue is balancing men's and women's sports overall for Title 9 reasons, not just visibility and profitability.

How much revenue does men's soccer generate? What are the ticket prices for soccer matches?

They had a total attendance this regular season of a little under 3500. I think that comes to around 300-400 average. I may be wrong but I don't think they charge for admission (don't know that for sure).

I wish the soccer team continued success but they don't move the needle for university exposure, alumni support or fan interest. I believe our current tiers are exactly where they need to be. Only way soccer moves up would be for baseball to move down and I just don't see that happening.

Again, no charge for soccer or softball

(11-16-2015 03:48 PM)buc73 Wrote:  Again, no charge for soccer or softball

There you have it, 100% subsidized. Softball for Title IX. Men's soccer for what? Drop men's soccer for obvious reasons, keep softball for obvious reasons.

(11-16-2015 04:35 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:48 PM)buc73 Wrote:  Again, no charge for soccer or softball

There you have it, 100% subsidized. Softball for Title IX. Men's soccer for what? Drop men's soccer for obvious reasons, keep softball for obvious reasons.

And do what with that nice Stadium? and piss off the folks at Summer-Taylors, smart plan.

(11-16-2015 04:35 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:48 PM)buc73 Wrote:  Again, no charge for soccer or softball

There you have it, 100% subsidized. Softball for Title IX. Men's soccer for what? Drop men's soccer for obvious reasons, keep softball for obvious reasons.

Why drop it? It does have a purpose, just not as big of one as other sports. Also, there is likely some big donors that would pull all support if men's soccer was dropped.

Do you have a specific grudge with soccer?

(11-16-2015 04:51 PM)queenladybug817 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 04:35 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 03:48 PM)buc73 Wrote:  Again, no charge for soccer or softball

There you have it, 100% subsidized. Softball for Title IX. Men's soccer for what? Drop men's soccer for obvious reasons, keep softball for obvious reasons.

Why drop it? It does have a purpose, just not as big of one as other sports. Also, there is likely some big donors that would pull all support if men's soccer was dropped.

Do you have a specific grudge with soccer?

lol posted at the same time, Maybe he can come up with away to make General Shale mad as well, not like either one will come in handy building a Football Stadium.