Just a question for clarification?

I know that soccer keeps getting called communist kickball. But outside of Cuba, do any communist countries play soccer?

Seems like to me that soccer is big in Europe, Africa and South America.

I mean do they play soccer in China?

(11-22-2009 06:23 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 02:33 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

Quote:It comes down to money. If you don't have a large fan base in basketball (sometimes football) to create money then you have to have one or more suggar daddys to fund football.

Show me the money! In other words whose your daddy?

I don't care how many fans you have coming to the games, if you don't have the financial support from as you call them sugar daddy's you'll never have any kind of decent athletic department, let alone football program. College athletic departments as a whole run on money donated by boosters. It sure isn't the ave of 2059 people per game that attended Tusculum home games this year that paid for their facilities alone.

I agree for the most part, but if ETSU basketball had a real arena and were drawing say 7K a game. It may be able to fund everything but football?

Hate to bring up Memphis, but the current savior of Memphis football is susposed to be uncle Fred (Fed EX). Granted he is beyond rich, but the guy isn't even an alumni? Maybe he will? Who knows.

On a side note one of my classmates from when I went to school in Memphis has donated over a half million to basketball along with another half million to the school for academic programs. I'm pretty sure he's doing better than I.

you're living in a dream world if you think that money brought in by attendance alone would pay for every expense of every sport in the athletic department, even without football. You're talking about coaching salaries, recruiting expenses, travel expenses for the teams, including buses, hotels and food, facilities, up keep on those facilities, game day staff, equipment, uniforms, and I'm probably missing some things. All it all up for all of the sports, there's a whole lot more that goes into it than you realize.

Not only that, but he's so far off on so many of his comments its not even funny.

Ole Miss only draws 30,000? Did you even see the game last night?

Also, regarding what Memphis football would be if they had an NFL team- did Tigers football attendance go down in 1997 when Memphis had the Oilers?

Did UCLA and Southern California suddenly see their attendance rise when the NFL left LA?

There's absolutely no evidence of what you say.

(11-22-2009 07:56 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 06:23 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 02:33 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

Quote:It comes down to money. If you don't have a large fan base in basketball (sometimes football) to create money then you have to have one or more suggar daddys to fund football.

Show me the money! In other words whose your daddy?

I don't care how many fans you have coming to the games, if you don't have the financial support from as you call them sugar daddy's you'll never have any kind of decent athletic department, let alone football program. College athletic departments as a whole run on money donated by boosters. It sure isn't the ave of 2059 people per game that attended Tusculum home games this year that paid for their facilities alone.

I agree for the most part, but if ETSU basketball had a real arena and were drawing say 7K a game. It may be able to fund everything but football?

Hate to bring up Memphis, but the current savior of Memphis football is susposed to be uncle Fred (Fed EX). Granted he is beyond rich, but the guy isn't even an alumni? Maybe he will? Who knows.

On a side note one of my classmates from when I went to school in Memphis has donated over a half million to basketball along with another half million to the school for academic programs. I'm pretty sure he's doing better than I.

you're living in a dream world if you think that money brought in by attendance alone would pay for every expense of every sport in the athletic department, even without football. You're talking about coaching salaries, recruiting expenses, travel expenses for the teams, including buses, hotels and food, facilities, up keep on those facilities, game day staff, equipment, uniforms, and I'm probably missing some things. All it all up for all of the sports, there's a whole lot more that goes into it than you realize.

Not really trying to argue with you. Most sports will never have the ability to pay for themselves. Most sports except for football don't lose millions. Very sucessful basketball operations can make millions. Those millions can be funneled into other sports.

(11-22-2009 08:24 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Not only that, but he's so far off on so many of his comments its not even funny.

Ole Miss only draws 30,000? Did you even see the game last night?

Also, regarding what Memphis football would be if they had an NFL team- did Tigers football attendance go down in 1997 when Memphis had the Oilers?

Did UCLA and Southern California suddenly see their attendance rise when the NFL left LA?

There's absolutely no evidence of what you say.

Where did you get that Ole Miss draws only 30K? I have no idea what Ole Miss draws. I have only been to Oxford once and it wasn't for a football game. I actually think I was lost, I heard banjos and got out of there.

Dude, the population of southern California is large enough that you could get 30K for bug wrestling.

(11-22-2009 09:09 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 07:56 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 06:23 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 02:33 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

Quote:It comes down to money. If you don't have a large fan base in basketball (sometimes football) to create money then you have to have one or more suggar daddys to fund football.

Show me the money! In other words whose your daddy?

I don't care how many fans you have coming to the games, if you don't have the financial support from as you call them sugar daddy's you'll never have any kind of decent athletic department, let alone football program. College athletic departments as a whole run on money donated by boosters. It sure isn't the ave of 2059 people per game that attended Tusculum home games this year that paid for their facilities alone.

I agree for the most part, but if ETSU basketball had a real arena and were drawing say 7K a game. It may be able to fund everything but football?

Hate to bring up Memphis, but the current savior of Memphis football is susposed to be uncle Fred (Fed EX). Granted he is beyond rich, but the guy isn't even an alumni? Maybe he will? Who knows.

On a side note one of my classmates from when I went to school in Memphis has donated over a half million to basketball along with another half million to the school for academic programs. I'm pretty sure he's doing better than I.

you're living in a dream world if you think that money brought in by attendance alone would pay for every expense of every sport in the athletic department, even without football. You're talking about coaching salaries, recruiting expenses, travel expenses for the teams, including buses, hotels and food, facilities, up keep on those facilities, game day staff, equipment, uniforms, and I'm probably missing some things. All it all up for all of the sports, there's a whole lot more that goes into it than you realize.

Not really trying to argue with you. Most sports will never have the ability to pay for themselves. Most sports except for football don't lose millions. Very sucessful basketball operations can make millions. Those millions can be funneled into other sports.

ok, just for fun lets say a new arena with seating capacity of 7,000 is built. And lets say that every game sells out. But because you have students getting in free lets put the paid attendance at 6500. times that by $10.00 per ticket for an average and by 15 home games which is on this years schedule. you come up with $975,000 dollars from ticket sales alone. A Feb 2, 2009 article quoted Mike White from ETSU as stating the men's basketball budget had been cut from $966,860 in 07-08, to $935,000. So yes if you could draw 6500 in paid attendance for every game, including the exhibition games, and the North Floridas, Campbells, and like we're likely not to sell out against, and it's barely enough to cover the "mens" basketball budget let alone the rest of the athletic department budgets. oh and not to mention the fact that is based on a new areans which is also going to cost money, and the mens budget is still way under what it should be compared to like institutions. bottom line is, you can talk about doing it with money from fans all you want, you have to go out and find boosters, that's how it's done. not through ticket sales.

Can I ask the board a question?

What did that last sentence on bug wrestling have to do with anything I wrote?

Attendance for the Ole Miss game last night was 61,752. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Rebels are one of the major college football programs that make money.

You keep making these proclomations that are based on half truths. Is football expensive? Yes.

So is basketball. If you had seen the figures Dr. Larimore presented, a school would theoretically be better off dropping its women's basketball team if costs were the only concern.

Not advocating that. Just sayin'.

(11-22-2009 09:56 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 09:09 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 07:56 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 06:23 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 02:33 PM)Just A Fan Wrote:  

Quote:It comes down to money. If you don't have a large fan base in basketball (sometimes football) to create money then you have to have one or more suggar daddys to fund football.

Show me the money! In other words whose your daddy?

I don't care how many fans you have coming to the games, if you don't have the financial support from as you call them sugar daddy's you'll never have any kind of decent athletic department, let alone football program. College athletic departments as a whole run on money donated by boosters. It sure isn't the ave of 2059 people per game that attended Tusculum home games this year that paid for their facilities alone.

I agree for the most part, but if ETSU basketball had a real arena and were drawing say 7K a game. It may be able to fund everything but football?

Hate to bring up Memphis, but the current savior of Memphis football is susposed to be uncle Fred (Fed EX). Granted he is beyond rich, but the guy isn't even an alumni? Maybe he will? Who knows.

On a side note one of my classmates from when I went to school in Memphis has donated over a half million to basketball along with another half million to the school for academic programs. I'm pretty sure he's doing better than I.

you're living in a dream world if you think that money brought in by attendance alone would pay for every expense of every sport in the athletic department, even without football. You're talking about coaching salaries, recruiting expenses, travel expenses for the teams, including buses, hotels and food, facilities, up keep on those facilities, game day staff, equipment, uniforms, and I'm probably missing some things. All it all up for all of the sports, there's a whole lot more that goes into it than you realize.

Not really trying to argue with you. Most sports will never have the ability to pay for themselves. Most sports except for football don't lose millions. Very sucessful basketball operations can make millions. Those millions can be funneled into other sports.

ok, just for fun lets say a new arena with seating capacity of 7,000 is built. And lets say that every game sells out. But because you have students getting in free lets put the paid attendance at 6500. times that by $10.00 per ticket for an average and by 15 home games which is on this years schedule. you come up with $975,000 dollars from ticket sales alone. A Feb 2, 2009 article quoted Mike White from ETSU as stating the men's basketball budget had been cut from $966,860 in 07-08, to $935,000. So yes if you could draw 6500 in paid attendance for every game, including the exhibition games, and the North Floridas, Campbells, and like we're likely not to sell out against, and it's barely enough to cover the "mens" basketball budget let alone the rest of the athletic department budgets. oh and not to mention the fact that is based on a new areans which is also going to cost money, and the mens budget is still way under what it should be compared to like institutions. bottom line is, you can talk about doing it with money from fans all you want, you have to go out and find boosters, that's how it's done. not through ticket sales.

I quess we can quibble over the definition of boosters. Most major basketball programs sell tickets with a face value of, lets say $10.00, but if you plan on getting good seats you have to give a "donation". My Memphis' friends call it an "extortion fee", I would add the word football to the front of that, but that is just me. When tickets are in demand it is remarkable what "donations" a school will get. So are tickets still 10 bucks? Yes. Are people (boosters) "donating" to the athletic program? Yes, but many are donating more money than they would other wise to get good seats. Could ETSU do this? I think so with a good size arena, that isn't too big (you want your tickets to be in demand), that has some corporate boxes. Granted maybe ETSU couldn't do it. You have to have some luck. You have to have some good years. You have to have a new arena. One thing is for sure it isn't going to happen anytime soon if football is reinstated, there isn't enough money, and it isn't going to happen in the dome. But hey, we could be just like Tennessee Tech.

(11-22-2009 10:07 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Can I ask the board a question?

What did that last sentence on bug wrestling have to do with anything I wrote?

OK, I see I'm going to have to type slow.

When you have a large population of lets say Atlanta? I lived in Atlanta for a short time over 25 years ago. Even back then in Atlanta you had like 100 tv stations. Now granted Atlanta isn't New York and you can't do half a million things at a quarter to three (sorry always liked that line), but if you can't find it in Atlanta you really don't need it. The reason is with such a large population there are people interested in fringe things, fringe sports, whatever. Well in southern California with a population of 10s of millions, I'm sure there are fringe sports that are poplar. Maybe not bug wrestling, but hey who am I to judge. Well if there are 30K people interested in bug wrestling or some other fringe activity, then maybe there are tons of football fans. I mean if you can get 100K to a UT game I'm sure UCLA should be able to get people to attend a football game out of 10s of millions of people. Since LA probably has half the population that the state of TN has, I'm sure losing or gaining a football team and the resulting requirement of filling a 60K (or whatever size) arena will not be a problem.

It's late, that probably isn't clear. But I was trying to illiustrate something with a joke.

(11-22-2009 10:07 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Attendance for the Ole Miss game last night was 61,752. I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Rebels are one of the major college football programs that make money.

You keep making these proclomations that are based on half truths. Is football expensive? Yes.

I don't know about Ole Miss' finances. If they are one of the 20 or so programs making money, it would have to be recent, or in the 60s. They have had a lot of down years.

And a lot of support.

You're showing your prejudices about football loud and clear, Northeast.

(11-23-2009 03:13 AM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 10:07 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Can I ask the board a question?

What did that last sentence on bug wrestling have to do with anything I wrote?

OK, I see I'm going to have to type slow.

When you have a large population of lets say Atlanta? I lived in Atlanta for a short time over 25 years ago. Even back then in Atlanta you had like 100 tv stations. Now granted Atlanta isn't New York and you can't do half a million things at a quarter to three (sorry always liked that line), but if you can't find it in Atlanta you really don't need it. The reason is with such a large population there are people interested in fringe things, fringe sports, whatever. Well in southern California with a population of 10s of millions, I'm sure there are fringe sports that are poplar. Maybe not bug wrestling, but hey who am I to judge. Well if there are 30K people interested in bug wrestling or some other fringe activity, then maybe there are tons of football fans. I mean if you can get 100K to a UT game I'm sure UCLA should be able to get people to attend a football game out of 10s of millions of people. Since LA probably has half the population that the state of TN has, I'm sure losing or gaining a football team and the resulting requirement of filling a 60K (or whatever size) arena will not be a problem.

It's late, that probably isn't clear. But I was trying to illiustrate something with a joke.

Then make it funny.

Or relevant to the discussion at hand. You have still done nothing to prove Tigers football attendance would be affected by an NFL franchise.

As I asked, did football attendance drop when the Oilers played in Memphis? I did a bit of research and found the Tigers did set an attendance record in 1996 when they drew 41,000 fans. I'm sure it was bouyed by apperances by Miami and Tennessee at the Liberty Bowl, but the other attendance figure I saw was that Memphis was the second leading school in attendance in C-USA with 38,000 fans a game in the middle of this decade.

I would not be surprised if the Tigers outdrew the Oilers in 1997 per game. I don't know that, but I would imagine the figures would be close and totally refute your statement.

You keep on making these erroneous claims, be it Memphis football or saying Atlanta had 100 TV stations in 1984 WHEN THE DIAL ONLY GOES UP TO 83!

When you make them, how do you possibly expect us to believe anything else you say?

Volume?

"IF you pooled the money for all the new venues, Voila! New arena! What the community needs."

Pitt, that's just flat wrong. While the money of the other venues is not inconsequential, the gist of what he's saying is correct. It would take min. of $50 million to build an arena of what you guys want. It cost $30 million to build Campbell's arena, which seats around 3,000. It has not cost $50 million to build the soccer and softball stadiums or to add in baseball. It would have been foolish to put off building those facilities for YEARS to try and fund raise for a new arena for basketball. You guys are just flat out wrong when you say facilities do not matter outside of basketball/football to move up in a conference. Facilities are a part of it.

As far as building an arena for the good of the community? C'mon. Johnson City is a tiny place in the backwoods of Tennessee. No major concerts/events are coming here. Why would they come here instead of Knoxville or even Greensboro? If they want to play in a smaller place, Asheville is way better because that's a town that appreciates art. Johnson City will not become a metro of any kind, no matter what kind of arena is built. This community can't even spruce up it's downtown and you think a major arena is a necessity?

As far as alcohol at college games go, it's based on where it's located. You can't serve alcohol generally at on campus site, but it's up to the school if the site is off campus.

I disagree, Let'sGo. Here's why.

First, major concerts came to Freedom Hall when it was a relatively new facility. Elvis. Kiss, Aerosmith, and AC/DC in their heyday.

Unfortunately, the venue became too small for such bands. The last show I can really remember being there that I was impressed by was Sara Evans a couple of years back.

And though I like Sara Evans, she's simply not going to sell as many concert tickets as the groups listed above, or is as legendary as Elvis Presley.

She is much more beautiful than all of them, but regardless.

So major concerts will come here if the venue is there, especially since Thompson Bolling is often thought to be too big to sell out for most music acts.

With that in mind, you have to understand that a new arena is going to attract more attention than a softball field, or a soccer field, or a golf facility.

If you go after the big fish first, then you can ask for more money. You can build momentum. "We've raised $25 million to our goal of $50 million!" makes it seem as if the community is all behind it.

If they wanted to do that now, it will almost be like "Well, I gave you $2 million for the golf facility. Now how much do you want? FIFTY MILLION? Sorry, you'll just have to keep playing in the Dome."

Meanwhile, that same person, in my opinion, would give, say, $10 mil for a new arena. More profits, more exposure, etc.

Now come by when you need a golf facility, and he may have received some return on his investment and won't balk when you ask him 1/5 of his initial donation, rather than five times the original donation, which he most certainly will.

(11-23-2009 07:17 AM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  And a lot of support.

You're showing your prejudices about football loud and clear, Northeast.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/wr...index.html

I'm just sayin

(11-23-2009 12:54 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  "IF you pooled the money for all the new venues, Voila! New arena! What the community needs."

Pitt, that's just flat wrong. While the money of the other venues is not inconsequential, the gist of what he's saying is correct. It would take min. of $50 million to build an arena of what you guys want. It cost $30 million to build Campbell's arena, which seats around 3,000. It has not cost $50 million to build the soccer and softball stadiums or to add in baseball. It would have been foolish to put off building those facilities for YEARS to try and fund raise for a new arena for basketball. You guys are just flat out wrong when you say facilities do not matter outside of basketball/football to move up in a conference. Facilities are a part of it.

As far as building an arena for the good of the community? C'mon. Johnson City is a tiny place in the backwoods of Tennessee. No major concerts/events are coming here. Why would they come here instead of Knoxville or even Greensboro? If they want to play in a smaller place, Asheville is way better because that's a town that appreciates art. Johnson City will not become a metro of any kind, no matter what kind of arena is built. This community can't even spruce up it's downtown and you think a major arena is a necessity?

:ncaabbs:

(11-23-2009 08:07 AM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  

(11-23-2009 03:13 AM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(11-22-2009 10:07 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Can I ask the board a question?

What did that last sentence on bug wrestling have to do with anything I wrote?

OK, I see I'm going to have to type slow.

When you have a large population of lets say Atlanta? I lived in Atlanta for a short time over 25 years ago. Even back then in Atlanta you had like 100 tv stations. Now granted Atlanta isn't New York and you can't do half a million things at a quarter to three (sorry always liked that line), but if you can't find it in Atlanta you really don't need it. The reason is with such a large population there are people interested in fringe things, fringe sports, whatever. Well in southern California with a population of 10s of millions, I'm sure there are fringe sports that are poplar. Maybe not bug wrestling, but hey who am I to judge. Well if there are 30K people interested in bug wrestling or some other fringe activity, then maybe there are tons of football fans. I mean if you can get 100K to a UT game I'm sure UCLA should be able to get people to attend a football game out of 10s of millions of people. Since LA probably has half the population that the state of TN has, I'm sure losing or gaining a football team and the resulting requirement of filling a 60K (or whatever size) arena will not be a problem.

It's late, that probably isn't clear. But I was trying to illiustrate something with a joke.

Then make it funny.

Or relevant to the discussion at hand. You have still done nothing to prove Tigers football attendance would be affected by an NFL franchise.

As I asked, did football attendance drop when the Oilers played in Memphis? I did a bit of research and found the Tigers did set an attendance record in 1996 when they drew 41,000 fans. I'm sure it was bouyed by apperances by Miami and Tennessee at the Liberty Bowl, but the other attendance figure I saw was that Memphis was the second leading school in attendance in C-USA with 38,000 fans a game in the middle of this decade.

I would not be surprised if the Tigers outdrew the Oilers in 1997 per game. I don't know that, but I would imagine the figures would be close and totally refute your statement.

You keep on making these erroneous claims, be it Memphis football or saying Atlanta had 100 TV stations in 1984 WHEN THE DIAL ONLY GOES UP TO 83!

When you make them, how do you possibly expect us to believe anything else you say?

Volume?

I lived in Atlanta in 83 for a while and they had a huge number of channels. There were numerous Spanish channels even then. I don't remember the total number exactly, I've slept since then, but it was a lot.

Even with the attendance for Memphis football they have never won a conference championship. I don't know if they have ever finished higer than 3rd in the conference? They still lose 2 million every year and I would bet that number doesn't include the title nine finance balancing that has to take place. I"m OK with it basketball pays for it, so maybe one day they will be able to get it going?

The Oilers were looked at as carpetbaggers and never embraced by the city of Memphis. Think about it, they come in and play in your city temporarily until they get to move home. How many chicks do you know who will let you tap them until you marry their sister (Nashville)?

(11-23-2009 07:17 AM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  And a lot of support.

You're showing your prejudices about football loud and clear, Northeast.

I don't mind a sport losing money, but does it have to lose so much. Why can't football live with in it's means?

Considering the recruiting and travel budgets for the one-time football program and the golf team at ETSU, it would be tough to argue that the football program at ETSU DID NOT live within their means.