(10-19-2011 09:03 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  It's time to follow up that bit of history with this statement.

Football does not take away funds from other sports at ETSU.

Golf and tennis take away funds from other sports at ETSU, including, at one time, football.

In the context of ETSU Athletics and the insanity that coaches are allowed to hoard donors, they sure do. It's one thing to have a base of support for funding, but a whole different realm when those sports get to call the shots.

If it's any consolation, I've been told Fred causes Dave fits too. That makes me smile.

No single coach can be bigger than the athletic department as a whole, including a potential football coach. At ETSU, Fred Warren is. He's done a fantastic job as the golf coach over the years, and as much as I don't care for Mullins politics he's still the A.D. Maybe with a new president/A.D. it might be time for Fred to be put out to pasture with Manahan.

(10-17-2011 10:34 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(10-17-2011 09:58 AM)BucsFan Wrote:  In case you have not seen it elsewhere, here is a little piece from the BHC on Mike Ayers and the different directions that his program at Wofford and ETSU have taken since his departure from Johnson City.

Ayers' hindsight doesn't need glasses

Looks like we have a great reporter at the BHC who knows what is going on. I hope he writes many more about the state of athletics at ETSU. Good article.

Remember Brian Smith of the BHC did a series on ETSU athletics, specifically the dropping of football, a few years back. I believe that he has since moved on, you know, like Mike Ayers did back then. In fact, a number of really capable athletic people have moved on over the last twenty-five years. No reporter, however, has ever done a complete analysis of what happened with the dropping of football and the developments since and put those who did it to the test of explaining all their inconsistencies and incoherent ramblings. Looks like they'll get out of town without ever having to answer the true, hard questions with the coming of the changing of the guard.

I was around the administration when Mike Ayres "resigned". I would guess that some of you know that it was a bit less of a choice than the article suggests. Mike and I occasionally went trout fishing so I knew him fairly well. A contributing factor in his decision was the refusal of President Beller to give him more than a one year contract and the sense that he was likely to be history at ETSU at the end of that year.

Beller was a joke. A group of faculty members banded together and got him removed.

(10-30-2011 06:38 PM)buckys Wrote:  Beller was a joke. A group of faculty members banded together and got him removed.

Well - that's what the faculty would like to think. However, it was really engineered by Paul Stanton after he, Beller and Congressman Quillen had gone to Governor McWhertor asking for a supplement to the med school's budget (as usual Tennessee was having a budget crisis). The governor agreed to $2 million. After coming back to JC Beller suddenly discovered that he and Manahan (VP business at the time) had a huge reserve fund (turned out to be $22 million) and he declined the governor's offer. This led to a chain of events during which Beller publicly told Stanton that he was an embarassment to ETSU and should resign. Stanton had already managed to get a medical school faculty member elected president of the faculty senate and quietly manipulated the entire process such that faculty members like George Poole in math were used successfully as pawns. Stanton's political connections and Beller's underestimation of Stanton's influence with Quillen really are the elements that did him in. But this doesn't have much to do with the return of Buc football - or does it?

(10-20-2011 04:52 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(10-19-2011 09:03 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  It's time to follow up that bit of history with this statement.

Football does not take away funds from other sports at ETSU.

Golf and tennis take away funds from other sports at ETSU, including, at one time, football.

In the context of ETSU Athletics and the insanity that coaches are allowed to hoard donors, they sure do. It's one thing to have a base of support for funding, but a whole different realm when those sports get to call the shots.

If it's any consolation, I've been told Fred causes Dave fits too. That makes me smile.

I'll say this again: there are many donors to tennis and golf who would otherwise not be donating to the university at all. That's just the way it is. These coaches are not "hoarding" donors. They've 'cultivated' them, maybe, mostly because said donors are interested in those specific sports, and have developed relationships with those sports (*and* athletes). Do you think Green would have given that same amount of money to a general fund? If you really think that, you don't know the score. I can name names for tennis, too, but since they're not as publicly known, and because no single donor has made a contribution that large, their anonymity should be left as is.

A better model would be for basketball (and football, for that matter, when it returns) to try the same route. Sure, in an ideal world, there would be healthier unrestricted giving, both to athletics and to the general university funds. But because of the lack of transparency in outlays, big donors don't want their contributions to go down a black hole. It all comes down to TRUST, and ETSU has repeatedly violated that.

Look at the Mary B. Martin School of Arts. Do you think Jim Martin would allow the ETSU administrators free access to that money, "trusting" them to do his and his late wife's wishes? Not a chance. Mr. Martin had to safeguard this bequest by setting up an entire program. That's the way it's become because nobody trusts the university to do it right.
To put it another way, some people are fine and happy donating to the United Way. Others, maybe more discerning, would rather pick and choose, but make sure their money goes to where they want it to go. Shouldn't Mr. Green have the same right? Was stanton going to tell him "no thank you"?

How many of us have quit contributing to the university because football was dropped? Many of us. It's really the same thing. How many (even several on this board) have told the university that they'd be glad to donate - when football is restored? We should have that right; that's really a form of market power. Why is it that a golf or tennis donor's decision to donate specifically to a specific sport is criticized, while us wanting our donation to go to the restoration of football not?

You've got to take the money when and how you can, and cultivate donors when and how possible, as long as it's moral (obviously subjective) and legal, of course....

There are lots of gray areas on this stuff, and it's important to make sure donor/friends abide by NCAA regulations, of course, but overall, what I've described above is, whether for bad or good, or both, the way it works these days at ETSU.

(10-31-2011 12:25 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(10-20-2011 04:52 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(10-19-2011 09:03 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  It's time to follow up that bit of history with this statement.

Football does not take away funds from other sports at ETSU.

Golf and tennis take away funds from other sports at ETSU, including, at one time, football.

In the context of ETSU Athletics and the insanity that coaches are allowed to hoard donors, they sure do. It's one thing to have a base of support for funding, but a whole different realm when those sports get to call the shots.

If it's any consolation, I've been told Fred causes Dave fits too. That makes me smile.

I'll say this again: there are many donors to tennis and golf who would otherwise not be donating to the university at all. That's just the way it is. These coaches are not "hoarding" donors. They've 'cultivated' them, maybe, mostly because said donors are interested in those specific sports, and have developed relationships with those sports (*and* athletes). Do you think Green would have given that same amount of money to a general fund? If you really think that, you don't know the score. I can name names for tennis, too, but since they're not as publicly known, and because no single donor has made a contribution that large, their anonymity should be left as is.

A better model would be for basketball (and football, for that matter, when it returns) to try the same route. Sure, in an ideal world, there would be healthier unrestricted giving, both to athletics and to the general university funds. But because of the lack of transparency in outlays, big donors don't want their contributions to go down a black hole. It all comes down to TRUST, and ETSU has repeatedly violated that.

Look at the Mary B. Martin School of Arts. Do you think Jim Martin would allow the ETSU administrators free access to that money, "trusting" them to do his and his late wife's wishes? Not a chance. Mr. Martin had to safeguard this bequest by setting up an entire program. That's the way it's become because nobody trusts the university to do it right.
To put it another way, some people are fine and happy donating to the United Way. Others, maybe more discerning, would rather pick and choose, but make sure their money goes to where they want it to go. Shouldn't Mr. Green have the same right? Was stanton going to tell him "no thank you"?

How many of us have quit contributing to the university because football was dropped? Many of us. It's really the same thing. How many (even several on this board) have told the university that they'd be glad to donate - when football is restored? We should have that right; that's really a form of market power. Why is it that a golf or tennis donor's decision to donate specifically to a specific sport is criticized, while us wanting our donation to go to the restoration of football not?

You've got to take the money when and how you can, and cultivate donors when and how possible, as long as it's moral (obviously subjective) and legal, of course....

There are lots of gray areas on this stuff, and it's important to make sure donor/friends abide by NCAA regulations, of course, but overall, what I've described above is, whether for bad or good, or both, the way it works these days at ETSU.

Sorry that you don't like the hoarding term, but there are sports that weren't allowed to have restricted donors, namely football. The Gridiron Club was set up in order to raise money for football but they ended up being absorbed in the Pirate Club because it was embarrassing to the University that off campus people were doing a better job at in-kind and extramural fundraising. Mr. Simon's was discouraged from giving specifically to football and there was a nice amount shifted to women's golf and College of Business before football was axed.

SO where's the happy balance? For every private dollar that goes to a specific men's sport, theoritically, the Department then has to match those dollars for the comparable women's sport.

It's Ok for people to give to whatever cause they see fit, I like restricted giving.

We all know that the money for the Golf Facility wasn't meant for the women's team BUT the only way the money was allowed for the donation was to include women's golf use. Coach Warren didn't want it to happen but because of Title IX, he didn't have a choice, the University would have refused the money if not for the ultimate inclusion for the women's team.

UTC has a billionare alumi just waiting to dump a ton of money into the program, the initial money he gave was to transform Scrappy Moore Field, the practice complex down by the river. The only way it happened was to agree to allow women's soccer access to the fields. Shulman cultivated the Chattam Basketball Practice facility for several years, but he doesn't get to just have it for the men's program, the women get equal time.

At ASU, the "Football" Indoor Practice Facility was built with a donation by a football alumni, but the facility isn't limited to just football practice, on purpose, because of Gender Equity. I've been told most of the teams use it at some point or another outside of M/W basketball.

(10-31-2011 03:20 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 12:25 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(10-20-2011 04:52 AM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(10-19-2011 09:03 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  It's time to follow up that bit of history with this statement.

Football does not take away funds from other sports at ETSU.

Golf and tennis take away funds from other sports at ETSU, including, at one time, football.

In the context of ETSU Athletics and the insanity that coaches are allowed to hoard donors, they sure do. It's one thing to have a base of support for funding, but a whole different realm when those sports get to call the shots.

If it's any consolation, I've been told Fred causes Dave fits too. That makes me smile.

I'll say this again: there are many donors to tennis and golf who would otherwise not be donating to the university at all. That's just the way it is. These coaches are not "hoarding" donors. They've 'cultivated' them, maybe, mostly because said donors are interested in those specific sports, and have developed relationships with those sports (*and* athletes). Do you think Green would have given that same amount of money to a general fund? If you really think that, you don't know the score. I can name names for tennis, too, but since they're not as publicly known, and because no single donor has made a contribution that large, their anonymity should be left as is.

A better model would be for basketball (and football, for that matter, when it returns) to try the same route. Sure, in an ideal world, there would be healthier unrestricted giving, both to athletics and to the general university funds. But because of the lack of transparency in outlays, big donors don't want their contributions to go down a black hole. It all comes down to TRUST, and ETSU has repeatedly violated that.

Look at the Mary B. Martin School of Arts. Do you think Jim Martin would allow the ETSU administrators free access to that money, "trusting" them to do his and his late wife's wishes? Not a chance. Mr. Martin had to safeguard this bequest by setting up an entire program. That's the way it's become because nobody trusts the university to do it right.
To put it another way, some people are fine and happy donating to the United Way. Others, maybe more discerning, would rather pick and choose, but make sure their money goes to where they want it to go. Shouldn't Mr. Green have the same right? Was stanton going to tell him "no thank you"?

How many of us have quit contributing to the university because football was dropped? Many of us. It's really the same thing. How many (even several on this board) have told the university that they'd be glad to donate - when football is restored? We should have that right; that's really a form of market power. Why is it that a golf or tennis donor's decision to donate specifically to a specific sport is criticized, while us wanting our donation to go to the restoration of football not?

You've got to take the money when and how you can, and cultivate donors when and how possible, as long as it's moral (obviously subjective) and legal, of course....

There are lots of gray areas on this stuff, and it's important to make sure donor/friends abide by NCAA regulations, of course, but overall, what I've described above is, whether for bad or good, or both, the way it works these days at ETSU.

Sorry that you don't like the hoarding term, but there are sports that weren't allowed to have restricted donors, namely football. The Gridiron Club was set up in order to raise money for football but they ended up being absorbed in the Pirate Club because it was embarrassing to the University that off campus people were doing a better job at in-kind and extramural fundraising. Mr. Simon's was discouraged from giving specifically to football and there was a nice amount shifted to women's golf and College of Business before football was axed.

SO where's the happy balance? For every private dollar that goes to a specific men's sport, theoritically, the Department then has to match those dollars for the comparable women's sport.

It's Ok for people to give to whatever cause they see fit, I like restricted giving.

We all know that the money for the Golf Facility wasn't meant for the women's team BUT the only way the money was allowed for the donation was to include women's golf use. Coach Warren didn't want it to happen but because of Title IX, he didn't have a choice, the University would have refused the money if not for the ultimate inclusion for the women's team.

UTC has a billionare alumi just waiting to dump a ton of money into the program, the initial money he gave was to transform Scrappy Moore Field, the practice complex down by the river. The only way it happened was to agree to allow women's soccer access to the fields. Shulman cultivated the Chattam Basketball Practice facility for several years, but he doesn't get to just have it for the men's program, the women get equal time.

At ASU, the "Football" Indoor Practice Facility was built with a donation by a football alumni, but the facility isn't limited to just football practice, on purpose, because of Gender Equity. I've been told most of the teams use it at some point or another outside of M/W basketball.

*** I'm not sure why you took this as a gender equity/Title IX issue. I'm certainly not against those principles, and I think we agree that ETSU could have met one of those 3 criteria in other ways, and for the better, likely. The donors for tennis give about as much for the women as the men, or more truly, support both and don't distinguish (with some minor exceptions). Of course Green knew the women would use the golf facility, too, by the time it was a reality. 'Course when the golf complex was being planned, there *wasn't* a women's team, so he initially didn't want to have it shared. But at the same time, he's enough of a pragmatist that he really didn't fight it, either. I think you know that.... I mean, how could he? He's just not that dumb.

*** The thing about the Gridiron Club being absorbed, was, as you know, because of poor leadership by Paty at the Pirate Club. That goes hand-in-hand with the phantom fundraising that really *was* a phantom, and designed to be scapegoat for failure. OF COURSE the Gridiron Club did a better job, because the Liberty Bell cheerleaders could have done a better job than the Pirate Club, not to mention any random den of Cub Scouts. As I've said numerous times, the Pirate Club members didn't have the guts to stand up and be counted when it really mattered. Because they didn't, one shouldn't criticize the coaches OR fans/donors/supporters of tennis and golf, or track & field, etc.

*** If you were a coach of golf or tennis, and wanted to maximize your own team's success, you'd be doing exactly the same thing Fred's been doing, and Yaser, and Steve Brooks, and mullins before Yaser. You're in that job to succeed, and you do your best to do that, with the tools you're given, and then you try to go out and get better and more tools, if you can. We rightly criticize bartow for not going out into the campus and community enough to publicize and promote the men's basketball team. Well.....that criticism can't be leveled at the tennis coaches and Fred. They've worked it like they need to for a LONG time. The athletics dept. would be better off all the way around if all the coaches would go for it in that same way.

*** To the extent that handcuffs were put on the Gridiron Club, that's the university's, and mullins's fault. And I assume you mean the late Kim Simonds above. The way I heard it was that he was told to "wait", and contribute when there was the giant $100 million athletics fundraising (how much have we heard about *THAT* lately, huh?). That's second hand, but I think reliable. (I also heard that his donation would be quite large; I heard possibly up to $1 million, but that was second- or third-hand, so I don't know how valid that number was.) It's a terrible situation, and change HAS to come from the top. Hopefully, it can.....