I hear the beat of the drum. It's not a dead horse. It's a slow, steady, thumping that we've heard for 8 years and it's not gone away.

I'll bet DM and the regime think it's like that annoying tick-tock from that clock in your Grandmother's spare bedroom that keeps you up all night. Maybe DM feels like Captain Hook and it's the Croc circling around, making that sweat puddle up on his upper lip and the vein pulse out on his forehead.

"Western Carolina is next." I can still hear VP Andrews voice when I first heard him say that about Western Carolina being next to drop football. Dr. Stanton echo'd this misguided thinking when he told us that "many programs would be dropping IAA programs"

Today, Western Carolina might have just gotten something right with the hiring of a PROFESSIONAL Athletic Director who understands the role of football and how each sport contributes to the overall program. Western Carolina actually did a S-E-A-R-C-H and hired someone who would FIX things instead of making excuses.

I think it started when their new Chancellor took office less than a year ago. He's specifically mentioned that he understood one of his mandates was to right the ship for Athletics and Football at Western.

Good luck to Western and I'm so glad that our leadership got this one wrong.

Here's are a handful of articles that I've uncovered which give the pro's and con's for Western's sitaution. I guess we know that Western seems to be doing the "pro's" and is willing to get things moving forward.

http://www.smokymountainnews.com/index.p.../item/5806

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/201...ed-ink-WCU

http://www.tuckreader.com/questions-and-...hancellor/

OK so where is this drum you speak of. Unless I'm mistaking keeping track with western Carolina has never been a priority at etsu these last 8 years.

Why O Why O Why did not Western do the smart thing and promote their tennis coach to AD? Why,why, why?

Because their AD position hadn't been a revolving door. And Peter Principle hires are happy where they are at.

Hadn't read or heard Dr. Andrews' name for a while. He's the one that came to us with the drop football pitch on behalf of the president and an argument based on budget. Looking at the athletic budget for Morehead State for 2009-2010 I find the following compared to the ETSU budget for the same period. Total operating revenue MS = $8,613,511 ETSU = $10,948,502: Major sources of that operating revenue - MS Ticket sales $176,026 2% of total, ETSU - $275,455 2.5% of total; Student fees MS - $0 0%, ETSU - $2,840,724 26%; Gurantees MS - $180,500 2.1% ETSU - $336,000 3%; Contributions MS - $343,345 4% ETSU - $919,629 8.4%;Direct Institutional Support MS - $6,066,948 70.4% ETSU - $4,104,240 37.4%;Indirect Institutional Support MS - $1,259,231 14.6% ETSU - $1,546,007 14.1%;NCAA distributions including tournaments MS - $316,852 3.7% ETSU - $271,808 2.5%; Broadcast, TV, radio, internet rights MS - $0 0% ETSU - $127,100 1.2%;Program sales, concessions etc. MS - $14,560 0.17% ETSU - $35,868 0.33%;Royalties, Licensing MS - $61,210 0.71% ETSU - $485,711 4.4%. These figures are based on FOIA requests published at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...ances.htm. I've omitted a couple of minor categories. I don't know exactly why I find this interesting except that somehow it seems at least ironic that the main spokesperson other than Dr. Stanton for the elimination of football to save the ETSU budget (direct and indirect support from institution) has not apparently moved to do the same at Morehead where the institution contributed 85% of the operating income for the athletic program last academic year and still has football if I'm not mistaken (probably not a great team, but it's there). I at least wonder whether Wayne honestly believed what he was selling. Or maybe 1.) Kentucky is much more plush in $ than Tennessee, 2.) Dr. Andrews has had an epiphany.

I kind of believe that the state of Kentucky and Morehead State probably have a better system of checks and balances on their universities to prevent a president from doing something stupid and harmful to the university. I would guess that he tried to kill football completely at MSU but was prevented by saner people. Everyone has done cost/benefit analyses and everyone know that it is in the best interest of the school to have a football program. That is why every school in Tennessee has a football program. All except one. Hopefully that one exception will be ending shortly.

(12-15-2011 02:37 PM)OldGrayDog Wrote:  Hadn't read or heard Dr. Andrews' name for a while. He's the one that came to us with the drop football pitch on behalf of the president and an argument based on budget. Looking at the athletic budget for Morehead State for 2009-2010 I find the following compared to the ETSU budget for the same period. Total operating revenue MS = $8,613,511 ETSU = $10,948,502: Major sources of that operating revenue - MS Ticket sales $176,026 2% of total, ETSU - $275,455 2.5% of total; Student fees MS - $0 0%, ETSU - $2,840,724 26%; Gurantees MS - $180,500 2.1% ETSU - $336,000 3%; Contributions MS - $343,345 4% ETSU - $919,629 8.4%;Direct Institutional Support MS - $6,066,948 70.4% ETSU - $4,104,240 37.4%;Indirect Institutional Support MS - $1,259,231 14.6% ETSU - $1,546,007 14.1%;NCAA distributions including tournaments MS - $316,852 3.7% ETSU - $271,808 2.5%; Broadcast, TV, radio, internet rights MS - $0 0% ETSU - $127,100 1.2%;Program sales, concessions etc. MS - $14,560 0.17% ETSU - $35,868 0.33%;Royalties, Licensing MS - $61,210 0.71% ETSU - $485,711 4.4%. These figures are based on FOIA requests published at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...ances.htm. I've omitted a couple of minor categories. I don't know exactly why I find this interesting except that somehow it seems at least ironic that the main spokesperson other than Dr. Stanton for the elimination of football to save the ETSU budget (direct and indirect support from institution) has not apparently moved to do the same at Morehead where the institution contributed 85% of the operating income for the athletic program last academic year and still has football if I'm not mistaken (probably not a great team, but it's there). I at least wonder whether Wayne honestly believed what he was selling. Or maybe 1.) Kentucky is much more plush in $ than Tennessee, 2.) Dr. Andrews has had an epiphany.

Kind of makes you scratch your head and say "hum, could the whole football thing have been some sort of political trade off?" We covered that whole conspiracy idea when the initial announcement was made. I'd been told that the Governor's intent was to "make people hurt" and would do whatever he needed to do to advance his income tax agenda. We know how far that got.

We also know how little traction the idea of eliminating the "institutional funding" aspects of the student maint. fee allocation from the THEC talking heads. Doom and gloom was predicted but ETSU was the only one who took the bait. After the announcement was made to drop the sport, the proposal failed to come to a vote in THEC because of the backlash that was going on across the state over the idea.

We shouldn't forget that that was also in the same timeframe that the conversations started about the "need" for a Pharmacy school and the eventual revelation that ETSU would be granted permission to pursue the school.

It all adds up to some grimy, backroom back-scratching, frankly.

Wayne's role was that of the strong-arm intimidator, in Athletics and around campus. The fact that he 'ran' athletics after Stansbury left was telling enough.

Perhaps after he saw the sour direction at ETSU in relation to the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about with all the "predications" of programs being eliminated, Men's Basketball suffering the wrath of the school's expulsion from the SoCon, and the lack of ability to move the program to the "premiere" status they promised as a sign. The book written by ETSU, as I've said before, was "What not to do!"

Maybe he figured out that is was less of a "strategic business decision" than his own talking points stated and more of a bonehead move.

(Football at Morehead is considered 'non-scholarship' but that term is very misleading. Institutions have a good deal of latitude when it comes to the awarding of financial aid packages, and some schools can even 'purchase' the loan debt of football student athletes. At some point, I seem to remember someone telling me that Morehead, and other Kentucky schools, had some type of tuition waiver method they could also use. I'm not sure if that is still in place.)

(12-15-2011 03:49 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 02:37 PM)OldGrayDog Wrote:  Hadn't read or heard Dr. Andrews' name for a while. He's the one that came to us with the drop football pitch on behalf of the president and an argument based on budget. Looking at the athletic budget for Morehead State for 2009-2010 I find the following compared to the ETSU budget for the same period. Total operating revenue MS = $8,613,511 ETSU = $10,948,502: Major sources of that operating revenue - MS Ticket sales $176,026 2% of total, ETSU - $275,455 2.5% of total; Student fees MS - $0 0%, ETSU - $2,840,724 26%; Gurantees MS - $180,500 2.1% ETSU - $336,000 3%; Contributions MS - $343,345 4% ETSU - $919,629 8.4%;Direct Institutional Support MS - $6,066,948 70.4% ETSU - $4,104,240 37.4%;Indirect Institutional Support MS - $1,259,231 14.6% ETSU - $1,546,007 14.1%;NCAA distributions including tournaments MS - $316,852 3.7% ETSU - $271,808 2.5%; Broadcast, TV, radio, internet rights MS - $0 0% ETSU - $127,100 1.2%;Program sales, concessions etc. MS - $14,560 0.17% ETSU - $35,868 0.33%;Royalties, Licensing MS - $61,210 0.71% ETSU - $485,711 4.4%. These figures are based on FOIA requests published at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...ances.htm. I've omitted a couple of minor categories. I don't know exactly why I find this interesting except that somehow it seems at least ironic that the main spokesperson other than Dr. Stanton for the elimination of football to save the ETSU budget (direct and indirect support from institution) has not apparently moved to do the same at Morehead where the institution contributed 85% of the operating income for the athletic program last academic year and still has football if I'm not mistaken (probably not a great team, but it's there). I at least wonder whether Wayne honestly believed what he was selling. Or maybe 1.) Kentucky is much more plush in $ than Tennessee, 2.) Dr. Andrews has had an epiphany.

Kind of makes you scratch your head and say "hum, could the whole football thing have been some sort of political trade off?" We covered that whole conspiracy idea when the initial announcement was made. I'd been told that the Governor's intent was to "make people hurt" and would do whatever he needed to do to advance his income tax agenda. We know how far that got.

We also know how little traction the idea of eliminating the "institutional funding" aspects of the student maint. fee allocation from the THEC talking heads. Doom and gloom was predicted but ETSU was the only one who took the bait. After the announcement was made to drop the sport, the proposal failed to come to a vote in THEC because of the backlash that was going on across the state over the idea.

We shouldn't forget that that was also in the same timeframe that the conversations started about the "need" for a Pharmacy school and the eventual revelation that ETSU would be granted permission to pursue the school.

It all adds up to some grimy, backroom back-scratching, frankly.

Wayne's role was that of the strong-arm intimidator, in Athletics and around campus. The fact that he 'ran' athletics after Stansbury left was telling enough.

Perhaps after he saw the sour direction at ETSU in relation to the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about with all the "predications" of programs being eliminated, Men's Basketball suffering the wrath of the school's expulsion from the SoCon, and the lack of ability to move the program to the "premiere" status they promised as a sign. The book written by ETSU, as I've said before, was "What not to do!"

Maybe he figured out that is was less of a "strategic business decision" than his own talking points stated and more of a bonehead move.

(Football at Morehead is considered 'non-scholarship' but that term is very misleading. Institutions have a good deal of latitude when it comes to the awarding of financial aid packages, and some schools can even 'purchase' the loan debt of football student athletes. At some point, I seem to remember someone telling me that Morehead, and other Kentucky schools, had some type of tuition waiver method they could also use. I'm not sure if that is still in place.)

And, after all this time, there has not been one investigative report in the mainstream Tri-Cities media fully disclosing what happened. I can only conclude that this same media has gone out of its way to cover Dr. Stanton and ETSU athletics while ignoring the direct evidence that contradicts almost all of what was given as justification and rationale for the elimination of football in 2003. At least 90% of what has been peddled has been directly refuted by the facts of these last eight years. And, ETSU is much worse off for it. I will never understand why so many in the region have gone along with this fraud and allowed this to continue, especially the alumni.

(12-15-2011 03:49 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 02:37 PM)OldGrayDog Wrote:  Hadn't read or heard Dr. Andrews' name for a while. He's the one that came to us with the drop football pitch on behalf of the president and an argument based on budget. Looking at the athletic budget for Morehead State for 2009-2010 I find the following compared to the ETSU budget for the same period. Total operating revenue MS = $8,613,511 ETSU = $10,948,502: Major sources of that operating revenue - MS Ticket sales $176,026 2% of total, ETSU - $275,455 2.5% of total; Student fees MS - $0 0%, ETSU - $2,840,724 26%; Gurantees MS - $180,500 2.1% ETSU - $336,000 3%; Contributions MS - $343,345 4% ETSU - $919,629 8.4%;Direct Institutional Support MS - $6,066,948 70.4% ETSU - $4,104,240 37.4%;Indirect Institutional Support MS - $1,259,231 14.6% ETSU - $1,546,007 14.1%;NCAA distributions including tournaments MS - $316,852 3.7% ETSU - $271,808 2.5%; Broadcast, TV, radio, internet rights MS - $0 0% ETSU - $127,100 1.2%;Program sales, concessions etc. MS - $14,560 0.17% ETSU - $35,868 0.33%;Royalties, Licensing MS - $61,210 0.71% ETSU - $485,711 4.4%. These figures are based on FOIA requests published at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...ances.htm. I've omitted a couple of minor categories. I don't know exactly why I find this interesting except that somehow it seems at least ironic that the main spokesperson other than Dr. Stanton for the elimination of football to save the ETSU budget (direct and indirect support from institution) has not apparently moved to do the same at Morehead where the institution contributed 85% of the operating income for the athletic program last academic year and still has football if I'm not mistaken (probably not a great team, but it's there). I at least wonder whether Wayne honestly believed what he was selling. Or maybe 1.) Kentucky is much more plush in $ than Tennessee, 2.) Dr. Andrews has had an epiphany.

Kind of makes you scratch your head and say "hum, could the whole football thing have been some sort of political trade off?" We covered that whole conspiracy idea when the initial announcement was made. I'd been told that the Governor's intent was to "make people hurt" and would do whatever he needed to do to advance his income tax agenda. We know how far that got.

We also know how little traction the idea of eliminating the "institutional funding" aspects of the student maint. fee allocation from the THEC talking heads. Doom and gloom was predicted but ETSU was the only one who took the bait. After the announcement was made to drop the sport, the proposal failed to come to a vote in THEC because of the backlash that was going on across the state over the idea.

We shouldn't forget that that was also in the same timeframe that the conversations started about the "need" for a Pharmacy school and the eventual revelation that ETSU would be granted permission to pursue the school.

It all adds up to some grimy, backroom back-scratching, frankly.

Wayne's role was that of the strong-arm intimidator, in Athletics and around campus. The fact that he 'ran' athletics after Stansbury left was telling enough.

Perhaps after he saw the sour direction at ETSU in relation to the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about with all the "predications" of programs being eliminated, Men's Basketball suffering the wrath of the school's expulsion from the SoCon, and the lack of ability to move the program to the "premiere" status they promised as a sign. The book written by ETSU, as I've said before, was "What not to do!"

Maybe he figured out that is was less of a "strategic business decision" than his own talking points stated and more of a bonehead move.

(Football at Morehead is considered 'non-scholarship' but that term is very misleading. Institutions have a good deal of latitude when it comes to the awarding of financial aid packages, and some schools can even 'purchase' the loan debt of football student athletes. At some point, I seem to remember someone telling me that Morehead, and other Kentucky schools, had some type of tuition waiver method they could also use. I'm not sure if that is still in place.)

Morehead is in the Pioneer league, which is indeed non-scholarship. If they are awarding other forms of scholarships to football players, based on their status as student athletes, that would be an extra benefit and a violation of NCAA rules. Are you suggesting they are knowingly violating NCAA rules as a way of doing business? I don't know anything about the way they do business at Morehead, but that would be a strong suggestion.

(12-15-2011 10:44 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 03:49 PM)ReturnOfMommaBear Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 02:37 PM)OldGrayDog Wrote:  Hadn't read or heard Dr. Andrews' name for a while. He's the one that came to us with the drop football pitch on behalf of the president and an argument based on budget. Looking at the athletic budget for Morehead State for 2009-2010 I find the following compared to the ETSU budget for the same period. Total operating revenue MS = $8,613,511 ETSU = $10,948,502: Major sources of that operating revenue - MS Ticket sales $176,026 2% of total, ETSU - $275,455 2.5% of total; Student fees MS - $0 0%, ETSU - $2,840,724 26%; Gurantees MS - $180,500 2.1% ETSU - $336,000 3%; Contributions MS - $343,345 4% ETSU - $919,629 8.4%;Direct Institutional Support MS - $6,066,948 70.4% ETSU - $4,104,240 37.4%;Indirect Institutional Support MS - $1,259,231 14.6% ETSU - $1,546,007 14.1%;NCAA distributions including tournaments MS - $316,852 3.7% ETSU - $271,808 2.5%; Broadcast, TV, radio, internet rights MS - $0 0% ETSU - $127,100 1.2%;Program sales, concessions etc. MS - $14,560 0.17% ETSU - $35,868 0.33%;Royalties, Licensing MS - $61,210 0.71% ETSU - $485,711 4.4%. These figures are based on FOIA requests published at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...ances.htm. I've omitted a couple of minor categories. I don't know exactly why I find this interesting except that somehow it seems at least ironic that the main spokesperson other than Dr. Stanton for the elimination of football to save the ETSU budget (direct and indirect support from institution) has not apparently moved to do the same at Morehead where the institution contributed 85% of the operating income for the athletic program last academic year and still has football if I'm not mistaken (probably not a great team, but it's there). I at least wonder whether Wayne honestly believed what he was selling. Or maybe 1.) Kentucky is much more plush in $ than Tennessee, 2.) Dr. Andrews has had an epiphany.

Kind of makes you scratch your head and say "hum, could the whole football thing have been some sort of political trade off?" We covered that whole conspiracy idea when the initial announcement was made. I'd been told that the Governor's intent was to "make people hurt" and would do whatever he needed to do to advance his income tax agenda. We know how far that got.

We also know how little traction the idea of eliminating the "institutional funding" aspects of the student maint. fee allocation from the THEC talking heads. Doom and gloom was predicted but ETSU was the only one who took the bait. After the announcement was made to drop the sport, the proposal failed to come to a vote in THEC because of the backlash that was going on across the state over the idea.

We shouldn't forget that that was also in the same timeframe that the conversations started about the "need" for a Pharmacy school and the eventual revelation that ETSU would be granted permission to pursue the school.

It all adds up to some grimy, backroom back-scratching, frankly.

Wayne's role was that of the strong-arm intimidator, in Athletics and around campus. The fact that he 'ran' athletics after Stansbury left was telling enough.

Perhaps after he saw the sour direction at ETSU in relation to the fact that he didn't know what he was talking about with all the "predications" of programs being eliminated, Men's Basketball suffering the wrath of the school's expulsion from the SoCon, and the lack of ability to move the program to the "premiere" status they promised as a sign. The book written by ETSU, as I've said before, was "What not to do!"

Maybe he figured out that is was less of a "strategic business decision" than his own talking points stated and more of a bonehead move.

(Football at Morehead is considered 'non-scholarship' but that term is very misleading. Institutions have a good deal of latitude when it comes to the awarding of financial aid packages, and some schools can even 'purchase' the loan debt of football student athletes. At some point, I seem to remember someone telling me that Morehead, and other Kentucky schools, had some type of tuition waiver method they could also use. I'm not sure if that is still in place.)

Morehead is in the Pioneer league, which is indeed non-scholarship. If they are awarding other forms of scholarships to football players, based on their status as student athletes, that would be an extra benefit and a violation of NCAA rules. Are you suggesting they are knowingly violating NCAA rules as a way of doing business? I don't know anything about the way they do business at Morehead, but that would be a strong suggestion.

how dare you question MB....her status and reputation on this board alone is enough for me to believe everything she says. she's like the pied piper of football...

(12-15-2011 05:17 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  . I will never understand why so many in the region have gone along with this fraud and allowed this to continue, especially the alumni.

It's not because they have gone along with it, it's because they don't care about it.

(12-16-2011 07:03 AM)etsuBucsFan1988 Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 05:17 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  . I will never understand why so many in the region have gone along with this fraud and allowed this to continue, especially the alumni.

It's not because they have gone along with it, it's because they don't care about it.

+1
...a post of reality

(12-16-2011 07:03 AM)etsuBucsFan1988 Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 05:17 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  . I will never understand why so many in the region have gone along with this fraud and allowed this to continue, especially the alumni.

It's not because they have gone along with it, it's because they don't care about it.

Is this correct? Yes. Is it curable? Yes.

(12-16-2011 07:03 AM)etsuBucsFan1988 Wrote:  

(12-15-2011 05:17 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  . I will never understand why so many in the region have gone along with this fraud and allowed this to continue, especially the alumni.

It's not because they have gone along with it, it's because they don't care about it.

The "reality" is that the "don't care" attitude is a direct result of years of ignoring the potential of the region and the fact that there are very few people that care about ETSU because they don't trust the University to do anything other than put a clinic or a doctor's office in their county. There's never been any accountability or transparency in anything they do. The fact that the Presidental search was "open" was interesting, but very few feel it was an open search. Dr. Noland will have a lot of work to do to show that he's his own man and not going to be a puppet.

The lack of "care" comes from the lack of trust. That's the reality.

Well maybe it's trust, or maybe it's shear marketing, especially to the student body. I think it can be fixed and rather quickly, actually.

I think it's interesting that two of the so-called successes that have been carted out in football on here are Western Carolina & Tennessee Tech. WCU which is in a massive financial hole due to football, and Tennessee Tech which won their first OVC title in 36 years. I don't think either program is one to emulate.

I'll give it to Tech - at least they're on the winning side of things, although they had a quick first round exit in the football playoffs (we can have playoffs? in football? INSANITY!) in which the listed attendance was just over 6,000. They drew much better a week before for the final home game at over 9,000, and they drew even better @ earlier games in the season, which is interesting. So making the playoffs apparently didn't jazz them up in Cookeville although it was the first time in 36 years. It's going to be tough @ this level, regardless of where you are. I'm watching North Dakota State vs Ga Southern. NDSU's support looks excellent. This is what we need here if this is going to occur. NDSU is the same size as ETSU and I would think the MSA population of Fargo-Moorhead is smaller than here, although I'm not taking the time to look that up.

So, at least they're drawing better than ETSU apparently did, although Cookeville is much smaller than the Tri. If football is to come back (which I think is likely inevitable because of it being a central issue in the Prez seazrch, but then again, I wear 'rose-colored' glasses), the Bucs will need to draw a hell of a lot better than they did when it existed. Marketing has got to improve, and attendance needs to improve dramatically across the board.

I use Western as an example because they didn't abandon the sport. The "predictions" (although I'm not sure what crystal ball they used on the ETSU campus) predicted the doom of FCS (IAA at the time) football. It simply has not happened.

Part of the financial issues at Western stem from the yanking of the out-of-state waivers they'd enjoyed. They had no way to make up the difference over the past two years without raising student fees. Coupled with horrible results on the football field, and long-time boosters walking away from the program have really taken a toll on the department.

They will correct the problems, not kill the program. Just like Chattanooga is correcting the problem, Tech is correcting the problem, and all the other programs that are need correcting will have done. They aren't killing their programs.

I've been following the coaching drama down at Coastal Carolina and will try to get those articles linked today. Interesting comments from their President. I see his decision to fire a very popular coach that simply was not winning like he'd been expected to do as "a strategic business decision" because he sees the role of football as vital to the progress of the University. ETSU's decision is still the "bonehead decision" of the Century.

Agree in total about marketing. Still going to assert the lack of trust as a major inhibitor.

In my 3+ years on this board, I don't think I've ever read a thread (especially a FOOTBALL-related thread) with more thought-provoking conversation, fact-based opinions, and respectful discussion and banter. Kudos to all, we need much more of this kind of thing around here. Its amazing what this board can become when the petty grudges, chippy comments, sniping, and diatribes are set aside.

Dont have to wait til January, things are ALREADY changing around here!

I found the stats provided by OldGrayDog comparing Morehead State and ETSU very interesting. ETSU is blowing them away in several of the revenue categories (ticket sales, athletic fund raising, guarantee games, broadcast rights, concessions, etc.), but Morehead is around $2m ahead in Direct Institutional Support. Granted, ETSU receives around that much in student fees, but I think The Bucs should strive to be -- and SHOULD BE -- better than Morehead State. If direct institutional support was increased to the same level as Morehead, and budgets were more properly allocated *cough* tennis *cough*, to revenue-generating sports, this athletic department could be successful not only on the GRIDIRON, but across many other sports as well! The potential for greatness is at ETSU. This place is a powder keg of success waiting to go off -- just need certain folks to stop dousing the fuse.

(12-18-2011 02:56 PM)TheShadow Wrote:  In my 3+ years on this board, I don't think I've ever read a thread (especially a FOOTBALL-related thread) with more thought-provoking conversation, fact-based opinions, and respectful discussion and banter. Kudos to all, we need much more of this kind of thing around here. Its amazing what this board can become when the petty grudges, chippy comments, sniping, and diatribes are set aside.

Dont have to wait til January, things are ALREADY changing around here!

I found the stats provided by OldGrayDog comparing Morehead State and ETSU very interesting. ETSU is blowing them away in several of the revenue categories (ticket sales, athletic fund raising, guarantee games, broadcast rights, concessions, etc.), but Morehead is around $2m ahead in Direct Institutional Support. Granted, ETSU receives around that much in student fees, but I think The Bucs should strive to be -- and SHOULD BE -- better than Morehead State. If direct institutional support was increased to the same level as Morehead, and budgets were more properly allocated *cough* tennis *cough*, to revenue-generating sports, this athletic department could be successful not only on the GRIDIRON, but across many other sports as well! The potential for greatness is at ETSU. This place is a powder keg of success waiting to go off -- just need certain folks to stop dousing the fuse.

Ahhhh the "powder keg". Dave says this can't happen again. I agree with you that it can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gttze7Fdw0

(12-18-2011 11:52 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  

(12-18-2011 02:56 PM)TheShadow Wrote:  In my 3+ years on this board, I don't think I've ever read a thread (especially a FOOTBALL-related thread) with more thought-provoking conversation, fact-based opinions, and respectful discussion and banter. Kudos to all, we need much more of this kind of thing around here. Its amazing what this board can become when the petty grudges, chippy comments, sniping, and diatribes are set aside.

Dont have to wait til January, things are ALREADY changing around here!

I found the stats provided by OldGrayDog comparing Morehead State and ETSU very interesting. ETSU is blowing them away in several of the revenue categories (ticket sales, athletic fund raising, guarantee games, broadcast rights, concessions, etc.), but Morehead is around $2m ahead in Direct Institutional Support. Granted, ETSU receives around that much in student fees, but I think The Bucs should strive to be -- and SHOULD BE -- better than Morehead State. If direct institutional support was increased to the same level as Morehead, and budgets were more properly allocated *cough* tennis *cough*, to revenue-generating sports, this athletic department could be successful not only on the GRIDIRON, but across many other sports as well! The potential for greatness is at ETSU. This place is a powder keg of success waiting to go off -- just need certain folks to stop dousing the fuse.

Ahhhh the "powder keg". Dave says this can't happen again. I agree with you that it can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gttze7Fdw0

Thanks for posting this. The Dome was rocking. The place was packed. Where was the fire marshal? This is what Dave and Paul promised when they dropped football. But wait, this is ETSU basketball when the school played football. Why did we need to drop football in order to achieve what had already been achieved with football? What a bunch of dipsticks!

I'm with MommaBear it's all about a lack of trust.