(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.