(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 01:10 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 12:34 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 10:14 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  http://johnsoncitypress.com/Living/article.php?id=97326

Dear Dr. Stanton,
Since you have reintroduced your reason for eliminating football in 2003 in the recent Johnson City Press interview, I respectfully request that you issue additional financial information regarding your strategic business decision then and how that has played out these past eight years. You state that $500,000.00 was coming from both academics and the Pirate Club to cover football expenses in 2003, thus the program was losing $1 million annually. The JC Press reported at the time that the annual athletic budget for ETSU in 2003-04 was some $6.7 million. The USA Today college athletics finance database shows that ETSU's athletic budget was around $7.2 million in 2004-05. So, instead of decreasing athletic spending by the $1 million football was losing, you actually increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 this next year after football. And, according to USA Today, this increase in total athletic spending has been on a steady upward trajectory ever since, reaching some $11 million annually today. The 2009-10 data for ETSU, the most recent available, shows that over $4.1 million of the athletic budget came from direct state or other government support. Another $1.5 million came from indirect facilities and administrative support. It would be very helpful if you would explain these budget categories and how they are monies that are not available to academics. In addition, these funds coupled with student athletic fees made up over 77% of ETSU"s athletic budget in 2004-05. And, with reference to your assessment regarding football that it just wasn't working, it would also be helpful if you would distinguish the difference between losing and subsidizing when speaking of intercollegiate athletic budgets and spending.

Of course, if this USA Today data is inaccurate, you could point out their inaccuracies, thus eliminating a significant distraction to your explanation of your decision to eliminate football in 2003.

Sincerely,
ETSU Alumnae

great letter with lots of numbers...even if it is irrelevant to the current situation and will have absolutely no bearing on reinstating football to etsu.

Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

back in 2000, stanton had an orchard of money trees planted up by the railroad tracks behind the university. about 2004, they started bearing fruit (money) and he then started sending his minions out to harvest them.

you didnt know?

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 01:10 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 12:34 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 10:14 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  http://johnsoncitypress.com/Living/article.php?id=97326

Dear Dr. Stanton,
Since you have reintroduced your reason for eliminating football in 2003 in the recent Johnson City Press interview, I respectfully request that you issue additional financial information regarding your strategic business decision then and how that has played out these past eight years. You state that $500,000.00 was coming from both academics and the Pirate Club to cover football expenses in 2003, thus the program was losing $1 million annually. The JC Press reported at the time that the annual athletic budget for ETSU in 2003-04 was some $6.7 million. The USA Today college athletics finance database shows that ETSU's athletic budget was around $7.2 million in 2004-05. So, instead of decreasing athletic spending by the $1 million football was losing, you actually increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 this next year after football. And, according to USA Today, this increase in total athletic spending has been on a steady upward trajectory ever since, reaching some $11 million annually today. The 2009-10 data for ETSU, the most recent available, shows that over $4.1 million of the athletic budget came from direct state or other government support. Another $1.5 million came from indirect facilities and administrative support. It would be very helpful if you would explain these budget categories and how they are monies that are not available to academics. In addition, these funds coupled with student athletic fees made up over 77% of ETSU"s athletic budget in 2004-05. And, with reference to your assessment regarding football that it just wasn't working, it would also be helpful if you would distinguish the difference between losing and subsidizing when speaking of intercollegiate athletic budgets and spending.

Of course, if this USA Today data is inaccurate, you could point out their inaccuracies, thus eliminating a significant distraction to your explanation of your decision to eliminate football in 2003.

Sincerely,
ETSU Alumnae

great letter with lots of numbers...even if it is irrelevant to the current situation and will have absolutely no bearing on reinstating football to etsu.

Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

you should take your message straight to noland and tell him this in those exact words with emphisis in the same areas you bolded....

he will then reinstate football on the spot...

or call for security and the psychology dept

(01-09-2012 10:34 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 01:10 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 12:34 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Dear Dr. Stanton,
Since you have reintroduced your reason for eliminating football in 2003 in the recent Johnson City Press interview, I respectfully request that you issue additional financial information regarding your strategic business decision then and how that has played out these past eight years. You state that $500,000.00 was coming from both academics and the Pirate Club to cover football expenses in 2003, thus the program was losing $1 million annually. The JC Press reported at the time that the annual athletic budget for ETSU in 2003-04 was some $6.7 million. The USA Today college athletics finance database shows that ETSU's athletic budget was around $7.2 million in 2004-05. So, instead of decreasing athletic spending by the $1 million football was losing, you actually increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 this next year after football. And, according to USA Today, this increase in total athletic spending has been on a steady upward trajectory ever since, reaching some $11 million annually today. The 2009-10 data for ETSU, the most recent available, shows that over $4.1 million of the athletic budget came from direct state or other government support. Another $1.5 million came from indirect facilities and administrative support. It would be very helpful if you would explain these budget categories and how they are monies that are not available to academics. In addition, these funds coupled with student athletic fees made up over 77% of ETSU"s athletic budget in 2004-05. And, with reference to your assessment regarding football that it just wasn't working, it would also be helpful if you would distinguish the difference between losing and subsidizing when speaking of intercollegiate athletic budgets and spending.

Of course, if this USA Today data is inaccurate, you could point out their inaccuracies, thus eliminating a significant distraction to your explanation of your decision to eliminate football in 2003.

Sincerely,
ETSU Alumnae

great letter with lots of numbers...even if it is irrelevant to the current situation and will have absolutely no bearing on reinstating football to etsu.

Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

Don't know anything about soccer, so this is a guess.

* One of those big vans to transport the team.
* T-shirt, shorts, cleats for each player, do they even need jocks?
* Grass field

Comparing the costs of football to soccer, is crazy. One of the reasons it is the worlds most poplar sport is it doesn't cost much to play.

Sadly we have one of the few programs with scholarship soccer, meaning it DOES cost much to play. It also cost much when you build a stadium and practice fields for it.

Comparing the cost of football to soccer is in fact NOT crazy. One has the ability to improve the other athletic programs and the University as a whole, the other does not.

That of course is a cost comparison that few want to talk about.

(01-09-2012 11:52 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:34 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 01:10 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  great letter with lots of numbers...even if it is irrelevant to the current situation and will have absolutely no bearing on reinstating football to etsu.

Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

Don't know anything about soccer, so this is a guess.

* One of those big vans to transport the team.
* T-shirt, shorts, cleats for each player, do they even need jocks?
* Grass field

Comparing the costs of football to soccer, is crazy. One of the reasons it is the worlds most poplar sport is it doesn't cost much to play.

Sadly we have one of the few programs with scholarship soccer, meaning it DOES cost much to play. It also cost much when you build a stadium and practice fields for it.

Comparing the cost of football to soccer is in fact NOT crazy. One has the ability to improve the other athletic programs and the University as a whole, the other does not.

That of course is a cost comparison that few want to talk about.

Let's talk scholarships then:

Soccer, I'm guessing less than 20.
Football, I'm guessing more than 60?

Equipment costs less per player not to mention has less players.

Soccer stadium, I'm sure costs a fraction of what a football stadium would cost.

Coaching, I'm guessing soccer only has a couple, well see where that is going with football.

So we see that much more money is going out for football, i.e. expenditures.

What about the revenues, well neither bring in money.

Again don't have access to any figures.....but it would probably be something like this.

Soccer
Revenues 10,000
Expenditures 150,000
Net loss (140,000)

Football
Revenues 1,000,000
Expenditures 2,000,000
Net loss (1,000,000)

See the problem????

Football didn't help our other athletic programs when we had it, why would it help them now?

End soccer I don't care, but because it is fairly low cost and only growing in popularity, the school will eventually have it in the future.

So the question isn't the start up of soccer, since it impacts very little, it is the existence of football that impacts very much, and not in a positive way, at least not at ETSU.

(01-10-2012 12:22 AM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 11:52 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:34 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

Don't know anything about soccer, so this is a guess.

* One of those big vans to transport the team.
* T-shirt, shorts, cleats for each player, do they even need jocks?
* Grass field

Comparing the costs of football to soccer, is crazy. One of the reasons it is the worlds most poplar sport is it doesn't cost much to play.

Sadly we have one of the few programs with scholarship soccer, meaning it DOES cost much to play. It also cost much when you build a stadium and practice fields for it.

Comparing the cost of football to soccer is in fact NOT crazy. One has the ability to improve the other athletic programs and the University as a whole, the other does not.

That of course is a cost comparison that few want to talk about.

Let's talk scholarships then:

Soccer, I'm guessing less than 20.
Football, I'm guessing more than 60?

Equipment costs less per player not to mention has less players.

Soccer stadium, I'm sure costs a fraction of what a football stadium would cost.

Coaching, I'm guessing soccer only has a couple, well see where that is going with football.

So we see that much more money is going out for football, i.e. expenditures.

What about the revenues, well neither bring in money.

Again don't have access to any figures.....but it would probably be something like this.

Soccer
Revenues 10,000
Expenditures 150,000
Net loss (140,000)

Football
Revenues 1,000,000
Expenditures 2,000,000
Net loss (1,000,000)

See the problem????

Football didn't help our other athletic programs when we had it, why would it help them now?

End soccer I don't care, but because it is fairly low cost and only growing in popularity, the school will eventually have it in the future.

So the question isn't the start up of soccer, since it impacts very little, it is the existence of football that impacts very much, and not in a positive way, at least not at ETSU.

It helped in ways that you sadly don't understand.

Now if you`ll excuse me I have to go celebrate the Bucs BIG rivalry victory over Kennesaw State

(01-10-2012 12:45 AM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 12:22 AM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 11:52 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:34 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

Don't know anything about soccer, so this is a guess.

* One of those big vans to transport the team.
* T-shirt, shorts, cleats for each player, do they even need jocks?
* Grass field

Comparing the costs of football to soccer, is crazy. One of the reasons it is the worlds most poplar sport is it doesn't cost much to play.

Sadly we have one of the few programs with scholarship soccer, meaning it DOES cost much to play. It also cost much when you build a stadium and practice fields for it.

Comparing the cost of football to soccer is in fact NOT crazy. One has the ability to improve the other athletic programs and the University as a whole, the other does not.

That of course is a cost comparison that few want to talk about.

Let's talk scholarships then:

Soccer, I'm guessing less than 20.
Football, I'm guessing more than 60?

Equipment costs less per player not to mention has less players.

Soccer stadium, I'm sure costs a fraction of what a football stadium would cost.

Coaching, I'm guessing soccer only has a couple, well see where that is going with football.

So we see that much more money is going out for football, i.e. expenditures.

What about the revenues, well neither bring in money.

Again don't have access to any figures.....but it would probably be something like this.

Soccer
Revenues 10,000
Expenditures 150,000
Net loss (140,000)

Football
Revenues 1,000,000
Expenditures 2,000,000
Net loss (1,000,000)

See the problem????

Football didn't help our other athletic programs when we had it, why would it help them now?

End soccer I don't care, but because it is fairly low cost and only growing in popularity, the school will eventually have it in the future.

So the question isn't the start up of soccer, since it impacts very little, it is the existence of football that impacts very much, and not in a positive way, at least not at ETSU.

It helped in ways that you sadly don't understand.

Now if you`ll excuse me I have to go celebrate the Bucs BIG rivalry victory over Kennesaw State

As a source for jokes for all of the UT fans in the area?

We could have refused to play Kennesaw State, and gave them the win.
By the way they are a much larger school and from Atlanta, I don't see how playing Furman (rich kid school) from SC would be any better.

(01-09-2012 11:13 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 01:10 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 12:34 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-08-2012 10:14 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  http://johnsoncitypress.com/Living/article.php?id=97326

Dear Dr. Stanton,
Since you have reintroduced your reason for eliminating football in 2003 in the recent Johnson City Press interview, I respectfully request that you issue additional financial information regarding your strategic business decision then and how that has played out these past eight years. You state that $500,000.00 was coming from both academics and the Pirate Club to cover football expenses in 2003, thus the program was losing $1 million annually. The JC Press reported at the time that the annual athletic budget for ETSU in 2003-04 was some $6.7 million. The USA Today college athletics finance database shows that ETSU's athletic budget was around $7.2 million in 2004-05. So, instead of decreasing athletic spending by the $1 million football was losing, you actually increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 this next year after football. And, according to USA Today, this increase in total athletic spending has been on a steady upward trajectory ever since, reaching some $11 million annually today. The 2009-10 data for ETSU, the most recent available, shows that over $4.1 million of the athletic budget came from direct state or other government support. Another $1.5 million came from indirect facilities and administrative support. It would be very helpful if you would explain these budget categories and how they are monies that are not available to academics. In addition, these funds coupled with student athletic fees made up over 77% of ETSU"s athletic budget in 2004-05. And, with reference to your assessment regarding football that it just wasn't working, it would also be helpful if you would distinguish the difference between losing and subsidizing when speaking of intercollegiate athletic budgets and spending.

Of course, if this USA Today data is inaccurate, you could point out their inaccuracies, thus eliminating a significant distraction to your explanation of your decision to eliminate football in 2003.

Sincerely,
ETSU Alumnae

great letter with lots of numbers...even if it is irrelevant to the current situation and will have absolutely no bearing on reinstating football to etsu.

Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

you should take your message straight to noland and tell him this in those exact words with emphisis in the same areas you bolded....

he will then reinstate football on the spot...

or call for security and the psychology dept

As usual, you divert, duck, and dive - and get nasty when you can't respond. Be adult, respond to my above statement with factual information.

(01-10-2012 12:22 AM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 11:52 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 10:34 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 08:54 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(01-09-2012 04:25 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Irrelevant to the current situation? And what exactly is that current situation, Slappy? They're spending $11 million today without football - which is a 64% increase since football was dropped? Irrelevant? There's nothing more relevant than a look at ETSU athletic spending since the end of football and where that spending is TODAY. It's the exact starting point to any effort to reinstate football in order to determine the fund raising needed to supplement the already existing athletic revenue. Real simple accounting and basic 101 budget planning. But again, perhaps Stanton, you, or Mullins can refute these USA Today numbers to show their irrelevance to the reinstatement of ETSU football. Prove that money is now not being lifted from the general university budget, money that could be going to academics, to supplement athletics since we no longer have football. If you will, then you'll have your wish with me - I'll forever shut up about the return of ETSU football and declare Dr. Stanton a hero.

To this day I have not had it explained to me how a "financially strapped" school like ETSU obtained money to start an NCAA Division One soccer program from scratch? Something we did not ask for. Something we did not want but the leaders found plenty of money somewhere to start the program. I wonder where that money came from? We will never get an answer to that.

Don't know anything about soccer, so this is a guess.

* One of those big vans to transport the team.
* T-shirt, shorts, cleats for each player, do they even need jocks?
* Grass field

Comparing the costs of football to soccer, is crazy. One of the reasons it is the worlds most poplar sport is it doesn't cost much to play.

Sadly we have one of the few programs with scholarship soccer, meaning it DOES cost much to play. It also cost much when you build a stadium and practice fields for it.

Comparing the cost of football to soccer is in fact NOT crazy. One has the ability to improve the other athletic programs and the University as a whole, the other does not.

That of course is a cost comparison that few want to talk about.

Let's talk scholarships then:

Soccer, I'm guessing less than 20.
Football, I'm guessing more than 60?

Equipment costs less per player not to mention has less players.

Soccer stadium, I'm sure costs a fraction of what a football stadium would cost.

Coaching, I'm guessing soccer only has a couple, well see where that is going with football.

So we see that much more money is going out for football, i.e. expenditures.

What about the revenues, well neither bring in money.

Again don't have access to any figures.....but it would probably be something like this.

Soccer
Revenues 10,000
Expenditures 150,000
Net loss (140,000)

Football
Revenues 1,000,000
Expenditures 2,000,000
Net loss (1,000,000)

See the problem????

Football didn't help our other athletic programs when we had it, why would it help them now?

End soccer I don't care, but because it is fairly low cost and only growing in popularity, the school will eventually have it in the future.

So the question isn't the start up of soccer, since it impacts very little, it is the existence of football that impacts very much, and not in a positive way, at least not at ETSU.

all correct +1

ok 66, here we go...again. Please dont go back to the old "minor sport" staple as you usually do. I am just answering your question. Oh, and i dont think my response to you was nasty at all.

the federal budget in 2000 was 1.8 trillion. in 2010 it was 3.6 trillion. a 100% increase
the tn state budget in 2000 was 16.6 billion. in 2010 it was 29.6 billion. a 75% increase

i tell you this because from my budget 101 class, i gather the assumption that budgets do change over time. in a 10 year period it can change significantly and it usually increases rather than decreases.

now etsu being a state university, i would think their budget would increase as well. athletics being a part of the university...again...increases along with it.

it looks like in comparison, at 65%, etsu athletics is a bargain over that same amount of time. the athletics budget could very well have increased 75-100% during that time WITH FOOTBALL...who knows.


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

Now if football were garnering etsu national exposure, as is claimed on this board, it may not have been worthwhile to cut it. But it was not, not even close to that. so the university made a decission to try a different tact.

here is where these numbers you tout become irrelevant...budgets change. etsu is not overspending. far from it. can football be added with a budget of 11 mil? sure it can, but it will come from the other sports, as well as cost more to operate than is currently budgeted. Is the new pres willing to do that? maybe, maybe not. the other sports as a whole, are doing pretty well on this current arrangement as i have pointed out. They certainly, dont deserve to have their funding cut to add a football program that has struggled for many many years. Thats not to say we dont need football. Thats been my stance all along. etsu is not in a position financially nor support wise to reinstate football at this time. etsu athletics have bigger problems that need attending to first, then football.

this is not an endorsement for etsu, athletics, dave, stanton or anyone else that has taken steps to make your life more difficult. if/when you come back with the same, old, tired, song and dance and i respond with either "ok or go bucs", im not ducking, diverting or diving...im just not beating this poor horse any more. he has suffered enuff.

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.
Stanton said it was taking 500,000 away from academics to support football so does that mean it was/is okay to have
taken at least that much away to NOT support football year?
I am not talking about increases in budgets over an 8 year period and how they have grown. I am talking 1 year to the next.
1 year with football(losing a million a year) to the next spending 500k more without football.
We can't afford football, it is losing to much money!! Great now we can spend even MORE money without it. WTF?

(01-10-2012 10:39 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.

the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, all this subpar food and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

And where did all the money suddenly come from to start a division one soccer program from scratch? I do not remember any fund raising done for soccer. I do not remember being asked for money to fund soccer. I do not remember asking for a soccer program. I do not remember wanting a soccer program. I do not remember needing a soccer program. Where did all the beaucoups money come from? I guess we will never get an answer. And I was led to believe the university was "financially strapped" during the origin of the soccer program. Somebody lied.

Think of losing money like a ship taking on water (we are the Buccaneers after all)...

If your ship springs a leak, the first thing you have to do is plug the leak. Then you bail the water out.

By cutting football, they don't gain $1 million, they simply don't lose it -- there is a difference. The football budget is simply re-allocated to other sports. You still have all the water in the boat that you have to then pump out of the boat before you are back to 100%.

Apparently, the powers that be felt that it was better to the use the additional funding (you mentioned $500k, I don't know where that number comes from but I will just use that) to "bail the water" and get the other sports afloat first because they felt that $500k would be better served after the leak had been fixed.

According to the NCAA website, the team only averaged 5,400 fans its last year, down 886 from the previous year, and only 38% of the then-14,000 seat capacity of the Dome.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf Thats a big leak to be fixed...apparently a little drydock time.

I have no problem with cutting football then, however the subsequent rift in the fanbase, bashing of individuals, and condecending/deameaning tone on both sides troubles me. Its also troubling that the current issue of growing fan apathy (for a myriad of reasons) is being met with a 'head in the sand attitude' by officials.

The leak is fixed. The water is bailed. It is time to crank the engine and get a rudder back on this ship before it drifts into some rocks.

(Apologies for the over-use of nautical terms and cheesy analogy...but I thought it fit fairly well)

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:39 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.

the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

Well you anaology might work.. but in the article Stanton clearly states where that 1 million was coming from, 500k from the Pirate club and 500k from academics. So at most those other sports should have an extra 500k to divy up (Pirate club money) not an extra 1.5 million.

Besides saying football was being subsided implies those other sports had money Stanton could take from them and give to football. They didn't/they still don't. You may think those other sports should have had a bigger piece of the pie but the truth is football couldn't take something those sports never had, Football was the only sport that brought in any real money (money games)

Finally even if ETSU got a "cost of living raise". If you are starting in debt making more money means you use it to reduce the debt, not spend more.

(01-10-2012 11:41 AM)TheShadow Wrote:  Think of losing money like a ship taking on water (we are the Buccaneers after all)...

If your ship springs a leak, the first thing you have to do is plug the leak. Then you bail the water out.

By cutting football, they don't gain $1 million, they simply don't lose it -- there is a difference. The football budget is simply re-allocated to other sports. You still have all the water in the boat that you have to then pump out of the boat before you are back to 100%.

Apparently, the powers that be felt that it was better to the use the additional funding (you mentioned $500k, I don't know where that number comes from but I will just use that) to "bail the water" and get the other sports afloat first because they felt that $500k would be better served after the leak had been fixed.

According to the NCAA website, the team only averaged 5,400 fans its last year, down 886 from the previous year, and only 38% of the then-14,000 seat capacity of the Dome.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf Thats a big leak to be fixed...apparently a little drydock time.

I have no problem with cutting football then, however the subsequent rift in the fanbase, bashing of individuals, and condecending/deameaning tone on both sides troubles me. Its also troubling that the current issue of growing fan apathy (for a myriad of reasons) is being met with a 'head in the sand attitude' by officials.

The leak is fixed. The water is bailed. It is time to crank the engine and get a rudder back on this ship before it drifts into some rocks.

(Apologies for the over-use of nautical terms and cheesy analogy...but I thought it fit fairly well)

+5 shadow
perfectly stated (and much more eloquently than me)

(01-10-2012 11:42 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:39 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.

the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

Well you anaology might work.. but in the article Stanton clearly states where that 1 million was coming from, 500k from the Pirate club and 500k from academics. So at most those other sports should have an extra 500k to divy up (Pirate club money) not an extra 1.5 million.

Besides saying football was being subsided implies those other sports had money Stanton could take from them and give to football. They didn't/they still don't. You may think those other sports should have had a bigger piece of the pie but the truth is football couldn't take something those sports never had, Football was the only sport that brought in any real money (money games)

Finally even if ETSU got a "cost of living raise". If you are starting in debt making more money means you use it to reduce the debt, not spend more.

ok rod..go bucs

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  nasty stripper = tennis

(01-10-2012 11:44 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  +5 shadow
perfectly stated (and much more eloquently than me)

Thanks, but I kinda like the party one...didn't read that before I posted. Gotta have a hot stripper though...or at least an awesome HDTV w/surround sound to watch football.

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, all this subpar food and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

Hilarious....one of the best posts of the new year

(01-10-2012 11:41 AM)TheShadow Wrote:  Think of losing money like a ship taking on water (we are the Buccaneers after all)...

If your ship springs a leak, the first thing you have to do is plug the leak. Then you bail the water out.

By cutting football, they don't gain $1 million, they simply don't lose it -- there is a difference. The football budget is simply re-allocated to other sports. You still have all the water in the boat that you have to then pump out of the boat before you are back to 100%.

Apparently, the powers that be felt that it was better to the use the additional funding (you mentioned $500k, I don't know where that number comes from but I will just use that) to "bail the water" and get the other sports afloat first because they felt that $500k would be better served after the leak had been fixed.

According to the NCAA website, the team only averaged 5,400 fans its last year, down 886 from the previous year, and only 38% of the then-14,000 seat capacity of the Dome.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf Thats a big leak to be fixed...apparently a little drydock time.

I have no problem with cutting football then, however the subsequent rift in the fanbase, bashing of individuals, and condecending/deameaning tone on both sides troubles me. Its also troubling that the current issue of growing fan apathy (for a myriad of reasons) is being met with a 'head in the sand attitude' by officials.

The leak is fixed. The water is bailed. It is time to crank the engine and get a rudder back on this ship before it drifts into some rocks.

(Apologies for the over-use of nautical terms and cheesy analogy...but I thought it fit fairly well)

Second best post of the new year