(01-06-2010 02:02 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  We do not harp on these sports because frankly, they are not as popular on the college level as men's basketball and football.

And this again shows you the flaws of the ETSU athletic department, and how far they have fallen, when you get these people in the administration who seemingly think they can stuff soccer down our throat and we'll just happily swallow it and the interest will be there on a par to the men's basketball team.

If you can't understand the flaw in that, you might as well just go home because you're not going to have any credibility outside of the offices in The Vault of Victory.

Again, Pitt you just don't get it. Just because the fans place a premium on the basketball program doesn't mean the AD ignores other sports. The athletic dept. is part of the University. Every student athlete is of equal value to the dept. All team's successes are equally worthy. You don't have to appreciate it, but Mullins does. It is his job to administrate the entire program not just basketball. I fully understand fan interest, but that has no bearing on an AD's role. Athletic administration all across the country will agree with me, not you. Mullins cannot focus solely on basketball even if that would make you happy. He must focus on the dept. as a whole and celebrate the totality of successes and not single out individual teams as better than others. Just because something is popular does not prove it is of greater value.

Pitt, I also think it's a bold statement to say that the SoCon is clearly a better conference overall. Debating which is the better basketball conference has been beaten to death on this board, but that's a bold claim to say across the board in all sports the SoCon is better. Our bottom dwellers in basketball are quite good at some other sports. (Currently for instance - FGCU ->baseball, softball, volleyball. UNF -> baseball Stetson - > soccer) It's an entirely new debate if you want to discuss which conference is better across the board. I don't think you can easily say the SoCon is superior.

There's one critical issue that stands equal between the SoCon & ASun: 1 bid to the NCAA tournament.

All this other arguing between which league is better is irrelevant.

(01-06-2010 04:49 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  There's one critical issue that stands equal between the SoCon & ASun: 1 bid to the NCAA tournament.

All this other arguing between which league is better is irrelevant.

BS, there are only so many multiple bid leagues in the entire NCAA. You can't just say "they're all the same" just because each only receives 1 bid. All 1 bid conferences aren't equal. By your definition Conference USA is on the same standing as the So Con and A-Sun which is ridiculous.

(01-06-2010 04:11 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  I thought you mentioned that ETSU was THE weakest NCAA team. Now, it's the weakest team since 1990, so therefore it's not THE weakest.

I guess at least one member of the SoCon was good in a couple of sports in 1983, but obviously not good enough in anything else to win the all sports trophy. That proves nothing.

The logic is still flawed that just because ETSU is in a weaker league (slightly weaker at that) that the athletic program is in worse shape. Why are the Bucs 5-2 vs. the SoCon in the last 3 years? If the team had really gone down hill, wouldn't the Bucs be 0-7?

That's not what I wrote, Go. Your attempt at trying to spin things is very transparent. I said last year was the worst showing in the NCAAs since 1990- and it was.

If the Tennessee Vols went to Conference USA from the SEC, you really think they wouldn't have taken a turn for the worse?

Even if they were 5-2 against the SEC.

Final point-

How could you, or David Mullins, possibly believe winning a football conference's all-sports trophy be worse, or even comparable, than winning a non-football conference's all-sports trophy?

And why would winning an all-sports trophy be so cherished, anyway? If Pitt wins the All-Sports Trophy in the Big East this year, do you honestly think it will be a better year for Panthers athletics than 1976, when the football team won the National Championship?

(01-06-2010 05:53 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  [quote='GoBucsGo' pid='5026137' dateline='1262812313']

How could you, or David Mullins, possibly believe winning a football conference's all-sports trophy be worse, or even comparable, than winning a non-football conference's all-sports trophy?

And why would winning an all-sports trophy be so cherished, anyway? If Pitt wins the All-Sports Trophy in the Big East this year, do you honestly think it will be a better year for Panthers athletics than 1976, when the football team won the National Championship?

A football conference doesn't make it a better conference. We weren't very good at football historically so it didn't really help us win an All-Conferene trophy.

No I don't think a football national championship would be a better year for Pitt than an all around trophy. There is no better judge as to the quality of your overall dept. than the all-sports race.

Go, you are right. Arguing is pointless over which conference is better because all that matters is winning your conference tourney and getting that coveted NCAA tourney bid.

Well, let's take the Missouri Valley Conference: Non-football conference. That's a pretty strong multi-bid league I would say, known nationally as a basketball power. How about the Atlantic 10? Non-football, pretty prestigious. How about the West Coast Conference? Oh, and realize that the Missouri Valley Football Conference (which contains 5 of the 10 teams in the MVC) is a different conference from an admin standpoint.

Having football doesn't it make it more prestigious, and especially I-AA football. Having a full slate of winning teams on the national stage (which is I-A) certainly helps. All the leagues mentioned above have that. Although Charleston beat UNC and Western beat Louisville, I'll bet most casual and even many serious college sports fans across the country couldn't tell you what league they play in.

Back to the main point: We beat Charleston & that will help our RPI. I never said it meant we could beat UNC, ONLY that it would help our RPI, which it will of course. But you can claim I said whatever you want to dream up, I'm done.

LetsGo, you simply can't compare a conference championship(s) with a national title. Pitt fans would not trade their 1976 National Championship in football for a few more victories in less popular sports that year to say "we have a great overall program" any more than ETSU fans would trade last year's A-Sun Tournament Final victory against Jacksonville for a few more victories for the baseball team.

Even by the "All Sports Are Equal" philosophy, I would have to say that, say, 1996 would be a better season. The football team finished in the Top Eight in Division I-AA and the golf team was No. 3 nationally.

Regardless, here's one main point. What the greatest season was in ETSU history is a subjective arguement.

For instance, an arguement can be made the 1996 ETSU football team was the greatest in their history. Personally I'd go with 1969, but there's always the idea that competition was better and such, the linemen are bigger, that sort of thing.

But how would it look if Keener Fry had come out in 1996 and said as such?

He would look like he was trying to push an agenda. Fans could have easily said- "Yeah, but our basketball team is struggling, and that's the main sport at ETSU, and aren't you really trying to make ETSU into a football school at the expense of other sports, and, by the way, the 1969 team is insulted and it had a better record. What are you trying to advance with this subjective arguement?"

That's what Mullins looks like.

ETSU's never won a national title, but ask Fred Warren if he'd trade that No. 3 finish for a couple of extra conference titles with No. 45 rankings or so. He wouldn't have the reputation he has, the program wouldn't be looked at as nationally prominent, THERE'S NO WAY HE'D DO IT!

So for an athletic director to say, in a lesser conference, that an NIT berth and a few conference titles playing a bunch of schools that are just off Division II exceeds seasons with past national rankings in whatever sport is simply that- trying to pat himself on the back.

You know, in 2002 the football team began the season ranked No. 8 in Division I-AA. In the 7-8 years since, has ANY sport at ETSU been ranked as high?

But in 2002-03, the basketball team exceeded what the 2007 team did by winning the Southern Conference Tournament and going to the NCAAs.

So why isn't 2002-03 a greater season than 2006-07? Please explain that one to me.

Go- I would say that what conference you're in equals prestige.

Vanderbilt is not known for having great athletic programs. But why, when ETSU and Vandy played each other in basketball every year, would an ETSU victory against the Commodores be considered prestigious by the Bucs fanbase?

Because they are in the SEC! Granted, compared to the rest of the SEC, Vandy seems like small potatoes. But compared to the majority of athletic programs in the country, Vandy plays at a rather high level because of the standards of the conference.

Now, as far as the other conferences you name, apples and oranges. Half the MVC has football, and that gives those schools exposure, prestige, etc. I know of the Southern Illinois Salukis because I usually see their score and ranking flashed at the bottom of my screen when watching college football on TV, and I also remember them winning the Division I-AA National Football Championship in 1983.

Creighton? Not so much. And they draw 16,000 fans a basketball game.

In fact, the first time I ever heard about Creighton was in 1983 when someone came up with a mock championship football season for the Bluejays that was featured in a Sporting News article.

And I just had to look up what Creighton's nickname was to refresh my memory.

My final point- getting a couple of RPI points still doesn't change the fact that you, as an ETSU fan, are living vicariously through the Cougars to defend the current status of ETSU sports.

(01-06-2010 02:59 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  ...The SoCon in 1983 featured Western Carolina, which played for a national championship in football...

Interesting point in the context of comparing over 25 years ago with today. Yes, WCU played for a national championship in football in 1983. But this year they won, what, 2 games? Now their BASKETBALL team this year, that's something for them to be proud of. Fortunes change both ways. Certainly for institutions, probably even for conferences. Granted, changing the status of a whole conference is more like turning a battle ship around. Yeah, the ASUN isn't what most of us would like it to be. I dunno, maybe it could be.

(01-06-2010 10:15 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Go- I would say that what conference you're in equals prestige.

Vanderbilt is not known for having great athletic programs. But why, when ETSU and Vandy played each other in basketball every year, would an ETSU victory against the Commodores be considered prestigious by the Bucs fanbase?

Because they are in the SEC! Granted, compared to the rest of the SEC, Vandy seems like small potatoes. But compared to the majority of athletic programs in the country, Vandy plays at a rather high level because of the standards of the conference.

Now, as far as the other conferences you name, apples and oranges. Half the MVC has football, and that gives those schools exposure, prestige, etc. I know of the Southern Illinois Salukis because I usually see their score and ranking flashed at the bottom of my screen when watching college football on TV, and I also remember them winning the Division I-AA National Football Championship in 1983.

Creighton? Not so much. And they draw 16,000 fans a basketball game.

In fact, the first time I ever heard about Creighton was in 1983 when someone came up with a mock championship football season for the Bluejays that was featured in a Sporting News article.

And I just had to look up what Creighton's nickname was to refresh my memory.

My final point- getting a couple of RPI points still doesn't change the fact that you, as an ETSU fan, are living vicariously through the Cougars to defend the current status of ETSU sports.

I think you missed his point Pitt. We all know that conference equals prestige. I don't want to speak for him, but I think Go was saying that football does not necessarily give you prestige. He cited some strong examples of conferences without football that are well known basketball conferences nationally. I think he is completely right. The SEC is a powerhouse BCS conference. That is a big difference than a small D-IAA conference with football.

I disagree that the 5 MVC football teams give their schools prestige and exposure that they wouldn't get with just basketball. I think it is the other way around. I have a completely different take on SIU. I know about the Salukis because of their basketball team. I didn't even know they had football until Go said that. I also am aware of Creighton because of their basketball team. Honestly, as someone not from the area I knew of Creighton before I knew of ETSU, even though we had football at the time. Basketball gives a mid-major a better chance at national exposure than football because of the opportunity to play in the NCAA tourney and get millions of people to watch you play the big boys. Even though the FCS playoffs are on TV, they don't get near the ratings of the NCAA bball tourney. I have never watched more than one-half of an FCS national championship game on TV and I am not alone. The reason is people don't watch mid-majors play each other in any sport (like the football playoffs). They watch us in basketball because we are playing a known schoola nd people like to root for the underdog. Basketball is the answer for prestige and recognition nationally for a mid-major. That's my opinion though based on my experience.

Let's Go: Your post was precisely what I was saying. But you're not going to convince Pitt of this argument. My argument is more aimed at people reading the board and to demonstrate to other folks that Pitt's arguments are often illogical on this issue - it's really fruitless. He'll never concede that, which is fine. He's not illogical on everything, but he's been way off on this since I've been reading the board, which is much longer than I've been posting on it.

Okay, no, I'll agree.

ETSU is better off without football.

Happy now?

(01-05-2010 11:43 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  This thread starting as discussing a big win for a team that we BEAT this year. Somehow, it's degraded to 'ETSU athletics sucks.'

It is amazing how our own so-called fans can tear down something that actually is a big positive for this basketball team.

No matter how much you guys scream & yell about the great mighty Southern Conference, it still gets one bid.

And by the way, the team behind Western in the SoCon North, App State, got drilled by Campbell the other night. If you're going to talk about how great the league is, then you gotta take the good w/ the supposedly horrible performances.

Is this a seminar Gold? Sorry man....

It's not so much that the thread devolved into an "ETSU athletics sucks" thread, it's just that somebody who doesn't care about anything that happened more than 5 minutes ago said that Belmont is a better rivalry than UTC.

If we miraculously left the ASun and scheduled Belmont out of conference, would anyone care? No. But even this year we scheduled our "homecoming" around UTC. Would you come home to see an out of conference Belmont game?

(01-07-2010 01:11 PM)Buc Island Wrote:  

(01-05-2010 11:43 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  This thread starting as discussing a big win for a team that we BEAT this year. Somehow, it's degraded to 'ETSU athletics sucks.'

It is amazing how our own so-called fans can tear down something that actually is a big positive for this basketball team.

No matter how much you guys scream & yell about the great mighty Southern Conference, it still gets one bid.

And by the way, the team behind Western in the SoCon North, App State, got drilled by Campbell the other night. If you're going to talk about how great the league is, then you gotta take the good w/ the supposedly horrible performances.

Is this a seminar Gold? Sorry man....

It's not so much that the thread devolved into an "ETSU athletics sucks" thread, it's just that somebody who doesn't care about anything that happened more than 5 minutes ago said that Belmont is a better rivalry than UTC.

If we miraculously left the ASun and scheduled Belmont out of conference, would anyone care? No. But even this year we scheduled our "homecoming" around UTC. Would you come home to see an out of conference Belmont game?

Ok. I will admit that UT Chatt/ETSU is a better atmosphere historically than ETSU/Belmont. I get annoyed at the constant SoCon, SoCon, SoCon talk and so I made a pretty rash statement. I've thought on it since then and it's not fair to discount the history of a rivalry. I wish I was here when the battles between ETSU/Chatt were heated dogfights. I've only been here a few years though. While I've been here I just haven't felt like anyone got too excited for Chatt. That is my personal observation. I do feel like there was a level of intensity when we've played Belmont that was greater than our games against Chatt.

The main reason I said that though, is I feel that in the recent past (5 years or so) Belmont has been a better team than Chatt. So when I said that it was a better rivalry, my mindset was that Belmont is a better team. I still think that is true. However, a rivalry is about more than just the quality of the opponent. It is about history, tradition, and proximity. I think Belmont is a good rivalry. I enjoy our games and battles against them. I will concede it is not the same as battles against Chatt in the past, based on what I've heard from those who were here then as well as the testaments on this board.

My main thing is, playing Belmont isn't that bad. Being in the ASun is not ideal, but it's not the worst situation either. We have the opportunity to make some noise by getting into the NCAA tourney and playing well on that big stage. That is simply my opinion though with my own experience as someone who wasn't around for the ETSU/SoCon basketball heydays.

That's my attempt at burying the hatchet and trying to get away from meaningless bickering, so we can get back to talking about our Bucs.

C of C beating Carolina does nothing but help us so I'm glad they won. Go Bucs!

Island: Absolutely. Belmont has proven themselves as worthy opponent, and if you don't recognize that then you're not watching these games very closely. They're well-coached and play an exciting style of basketball, in that if they're hitting their shots, they can beat anyone on any night. That's why if ETSU guards the perimeter, we can beat them badly.

For me, Belmont is much more interesting than say, Furman or Wofford.

Do you mean Furman right now? Or Furman from a historical perspective?



Wofford...okay I give you that one.

I'm going to comment on the whole UTC/Belmont rivalry later tonight after the Kennesaw game....I have much to say and too much going on to form a cohesive thought on the subject.

The ONLY reason Belmont is even close to a rivalry is because they got what rightfully belonged to us when we first joined. Had we been smart enough to put Wagers in charge of the defense and play exclusive man to man before the 07 A-Sun tourney Belmont would be just another game on the schedule. There is no hate between us and Belmont, there is no history between us and Belmont(beyond the last few years anyway), we seldom go after the same recruits. There are only two factors that traditionally make for a rivalry between two schools. ETSU and Belmont are both in Tennessee and the conference tourney games between the two schools decide the champion. In actuality the only factor that SHOULD apply is both schools being instate. Had we taken care of business like we should the thought wouldn't exist of competing with Belmont for championships.

First of all, I don't think that it is meaningless bickering to complain about the A-Sun.

The A-Sun is one of the worst conferences in college basketball. That's not debatable. So I would either like-

A- The A-Sun to improve dramatically

B- ETSU administration, either current or future, to realize this and to see what ETSU athletics has the potential to be.

Notre Dame? Okay, probably not. But could ETSU be a college with a football program in a significantly higher conference?

And could ETSU athletics be the avenue that puts the area on the map, or at least makes the area more cosmopolitan, with a new arena and what not?

I think so.

Yeah, I do like the SoCon. I think there is greater chance for growth as a conference and as a member of the SoCon there than there is in many mid-major conferences.

That said, I would like to see ETSU in an even BETTER conference than the SoCon. And I do think it is possible. I do think that if a new arena was built, and the right campaign was implemented, ETSU could be a member of C-USA. If Marshall can, and West Virginia doesn't fund higher eduation with any significance greater than Tennessee, then why not ETSU?

We complain on this board because complacency spells doom. Also, it seems as if the current administration wants to tell us things are better than ever.

Well, they aren't. ETSU used to have football. ETSU used to be a nationally ranked basketball program. ETSU used to have a national championship contender in rifle, if you feel the non-revenue sports are important for infrastructure (whatever that's supposed to mean).

I'll give you an example of just how out of touch ETSU is with their history. In 1955, ETSU beat Belmont in something called the VSAC Tournament.

I don't know what the VSAC Tournament was, but this was an era when ETSU was an NAIA power. The Bucs went to the NAIA National Tournament the next season and were in the NCAA in 1957.

So I am theorizing that the victory against Belmont in 1955 helped make ETSU an NCAA team, and helped the athletic program emerge locally from the Milligans, Kings, and Tusculums.

BUT HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THAT? I wonder if they even know it at ETSU.

Since Belmont has enjoyed a significant advantage in head-to-head play in recent seasons, wouldn't this be a nice note? Wouldn't it be wise to remind everyone that ETSU was able to emerge, in part due to a head-to-head meeting (I assume), as an NCAA team 40 years before Belmont was?

But ETSU is so busy telling us that an NIT berth and a cross country conference championship is as good as it's ever been that they don't know how it has ever been.

Hence, our complaints.