The two arguments were meant to back up how little validity there are in arguments like those and you idea that ETSU is turning left and that's why football is gone.

Your idea is to bring football back by trying to say those damn democrats killed football and rallying the strong republican base here which I am calling out as bull****.

I have not stated that the "damn Democrats" killed football.

I am saying that if a university wanted to shift left, one of the cultural ways they could do it is drop football.

And I am wondering if that might be on the agenda at ETSU.

You don't seem to agree, but you haven't given me one tangible bit of evidence to the contrary.

(12-09-2009 01:59 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 01:29 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  All of this of course is ignoring the main question though. And that is why is ETSU the ONLY state university in the state of Tennessee without football? I have yet to hear a credible answer to that question.

As Mr. Floyd stated so eloquently, it is about money. Yes Pink said it best.

The problem is that it seems to not be about the money at Austin Peay. Or Tenn State. Or Tenn Tech. Or UT-Martin. Or UTC. Only at ETSU. HMMMMM...

Bucsfan - don't think i am not responding on your money issue - i think it has been discussed on other threads better than here. I am focusing on Pitt's culture shift statement here.

Pitt - I still don't understand why you even brought a shift to left into it. I don't think it serves a purpose. There are better ways to shift the culture of ETSU to the left than dropping football and those things haven't happened. You are trying to bring politics into to a subject that it has no place in.

There are colleges all around the country with football teams that have Obama rallies and pro choice and gun control and all the other "leftist" rallies.

You are trying to stir trouble and make something out of a random thought that crossed your mind.

As for tangible evidence I don't know exactly what you want - you haven't given any to support your idea but how about this going with a statement of mine above:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...-kids.html

Obama rally at U of Maryland basketball game - i know you think basketball is more to left than football but last time i checked Maryland still had a football team as well and I am sure there was someone connected to the football program at the rally.

This discussion is starting to peak my interest. I've never considered basketball being political...in terms of its fans leaning left or right. Now there have always been a certain academia leftist type that dislikes football...but outside of that I wouldn't think leftists hated football...but I could be wrong on that. THey are a kooky lot.

31- I dont think your examples have anything to do with the points I've made.

I'll ask it again. Since it seems the schools that have dropped football are primarily in the northeast, could there be a correlation with the political culture a president wants his school to take and the decision to drop football?

You don't think so. That's fine- but I just don't think your examples prove why very well.

As for trying to cause trouble with a random thought that crossed my mind- that's essentially what message boards are for.

(12-09-2009 08:10 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 01:59 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 01:29 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  All of this of course is ignoring the main question though. And that is why is ETSU the ONLY state university in the state of Tennessee without football? I have yet to hear a credible answer to that question.

As Mr. Floyd stated so eloquently, it is about money. Yes Pink said it best.

The problem is that it seems to not be about the money at Austin Peay. Or Tenn State. Or Tenn Tech. Or UT-Martin. Or UTC. Only at ETSU. HMMMMM...

UTC sucks from the UT teet, so they can't be in the discussion.

You actually want to have a athletic program like (fill in the blank) ______________ (Austin Peay, Tenn State, Tenn Tech or UT-Martin? Your holding those up to model ETSU by? Man, we really aren't on the same page.

I generally hang to the left, does that count?

ETSU is significantly better than the four schools you mention?

(12-10-2009 12:21 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 08:10 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 01:59 PM)NorthEastTennesseeTiger Wrote:  

(12-09-2009 01:29 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  All of this of course is ignoring the main question though. And that is why is ETSU the ONLY state university in the state of Tennessee without football? I have yet to hear a credible answer to that question.

As Mr. Floyd stated so eloquently, it is about money. Yes Pink said it best.

The problem is that it seems to not be about the money at Austin Peay. Or Tenn State. Or Tenn Tech. Or UT-Martin. Or UTC. Only at ETSU. HMMMMM...

UTC sucks from the UT teet, so they can't be in the discussion.

You actually want to have a athletic program like (fill in the blank) ______________ (Austin Peay, Tenn State, Tenn Tech or UT-Martin? Your holding those up to model ETSU by? Man, we really aren't on the same page.

Two different pages for sure. Absolutely.

(12-10-2009 12:36 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  ETSU is significantly better than the four schools you mention?

I only repeated 4 of the 5 that were referred.

Name one thing any of those schools have ever accomplished in college sport. Other than have under funded unsucessful football programs, of course.

(12-10-2009 11:21 AM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  31- I dont think your examples have anything to do with the points I've made.

I'll ask it again. Since it seems the schools that have dropped football are primarily in the northeast, could there be a correlation with the political culture a president wants his school to take and the decision to drop football?

You don't think so. That's fine- but I just don't think your examples prove why very well.

As for trying to cause trouble with a random thought that crossed my mind- that's essentially what message boards are for.

Pitt my examples were never supposed to - READ THE POST MAN GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY. They were examples of bad theories about why the northeast has dropped more than the south, that one could throw out that were better than your even shittier leftist theory.

I don't know why the north has dropped football more but it is not because they are leftists. The examples I gave we just pulled completely out of nowhere to show that other reasons could be out there that are better than your leftist idea.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Read the posts before you fire off a response.

I get it. I finally get it! ETSU dropping football was Obama's fault.

31- Perhaps you're not as familiar with the culture of football as I am. That's fine.

But don't insult me. I have read your posts, and I don't find anything tangible in them.

All they've done is make our moderator tell bad jokes.

You're right. It was no amish buggy gag.

Now Pitt don't go making yourself the God of football culture. I am just as aware of it as you are.

If you feel insulted that I considering your leftist theory to be full of it, so be it I really don't care.

The facts are you want to put forth the argument that Dr. Stanton and Co. want to shift the culture of the college to left and as part of that evil plan of theirs they dropped football. Please tell me if I have misread your posts as you have mine.

I am saying that Dr. Stanton and Co killed football because they didn't like and thought it was a money drain - regardless of whether or not you feel those are good arguments thats why they dropped it. They did not dropped it to make the college more leftist which serves almost no purpose.

You are trying to bring politics into a subject that its not called for it.

You have it wrong. I did not say it was an "evil" plot, for instance. You put that tag on it. If you think Democrats are evil, so be it, but don't say that I said that.

And yes, I did read your post. And that WAS the point you wanted to make.

(12-11-2009 03:33 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  You have it wrong. I did not say it was an "evil" plot, for instance. You put that tag on it. If you think Democrats are evil, so be it, but don't say that I said that.

And yes, I did read your post. And that WAS the point you wanted to make.

Ok so i misinterpreted your view that the school going left was evil.

So what was your point in saying the school was going left. Why are you linking dropping football and going left?

Because I think we all believe it was more than just cost. When you see what ETSU has lost in terms of conference membership and such, and the money they've spent on athletics on new facilities, "cost" is an arguement that simply doesn't hold up.

I'm actually giving Stanton the benefit of the doubt to wonder if a participating factor was, intentional or not, a shift to the left.

I could just say it was proof of incompetence.

(12-11-2009 04:03 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Because I think we all believe it was more than just cost. When you see what ETSU has lost in terms of conference membership and such, and the money they've spent on athletics on new facilities, "cost" is an arguement that simply doesn't hold up.

I'm actually giving Stanton the benefit of the doubt to wonder if a participating factor was, intentional or not, a shift to the left.

I could just say it was proof of incompetence.

So what are you wanting them to do with all of this excess money that is now available due to the removal of the large sucking sound of football. New athletic facilities seem OK to me. Also, build the cheaper ones first and get them out of the way, before tackling the basketball arena.