When is this party? I'll bring the chicken, if you get 2 nasty strippers.

(01-10-2012 12:40 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  When is this party? I'll bring the chicken, if you get 2 nasty strippers.

2 nasty or 1 of quality may cost you track and field.

we can work it out...

Lets hope Noland isn't vegan.

(01-10-2012 01:38 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  Lets hope Noland isn't vegan.

now thats nasty...

(01-10-2012 11:41 AM)TheShadow Wrote:  Think of losing money like a ship taking on water (we are the Buccaneers after all)...

If your ship springs a leak, the first thing you have to do is plug the leak. Then you bail the water out.

By cutting football, they don't gain $1 million, they simply don't lose it -- there is a difference. The football budget is simply re-allocated to other sports. You still have all the water in the boat that you have to then pump out of the boat before you are back to 100%.

Apparently, the powers that be felt that it was better to the use the additional funding (you mentioned $500k, I don't know where that number comes from but I will just use that) to "bail the water" and get the other sports afloat first because they felt that $500k would be better served after the leak had been fixed.

According to the NCAA website, the team only averaged 5,400 fans its last year, down 886 from the previous year, and only 38% of the then-14,000 seat capacity of the Dome.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2003.pdf Thats a big leak to be fixed...apparently a little drydock time.

I have no problem with cutting football then, however the subsequent rift in the fanbase, bashing of individuals, and condecending/deameaning tone on both sides troubles me. Its also troubling that the current issue of growing fan apathy (for a myriad of reasons) is being met with a 'head in the sand attitude' by officials.

The leak is fixed. The water is bailed. It is time to crank the engine and get a rudder back on this ship before it drifts into some rocks.

(Apologies for the over-use of nautical terms and cheesy analogy...but I thought it fit fairly well)

The above would fall into that category of incoherence. How are they back to 100%? 100% of what? Are you saying that ETSU is no longer losing money on athletics now that football is gone. Are you saying that football is the only sport to ever be subsidized at ETSU? Your ship is still full of water and the hole has not been patched. In fact, the hole is bigger when looking at non subsidized revenue versus expenditures. It's actually taking on more water, they just bought a bigger pump with increased subsidies (student fees and direct institutional support) to offset it. Your 27,000 football fans on campus in 2003 is a far cry from your maybe 3000 for its replacement now. What the hell has ETSU gained from your model that is spending 64% more on athletics today than before footbal was dropped with far fewer total fans at its athletic events?

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:39 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.

the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, all this subpar food and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

What happened to chicken basketball? Was it taken to that next level as promised? Where's the new chicken basketball arena? Where's the better chicken basketball conference we were supposed to be in by now? Looks like your redistribution of wealth formula burned up on the grill.

(01-10-2012 05:39 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 11:26 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:39 AM)RodShaw2 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  .


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

.

How?? How did they go from losing a million dollars to be able to spending 500k more the next year without football? Does that mean
they lost 1.5 million that year? That is the math that doesn't add up.
How can they "take" the money they were losing and add more? Makes no sense.

the million they were losing had to be subsided from the other sports as part of the fixed budget. try this...

i have $100 to buy groceries (my budget) for a party.

i buy: steaks $75, potatoes $10, chips $10, dips $5, drinks $10. total $110

oh man...i dont have enuff money, all this subpar food and i still dont have any entertainment.

steaks are expensive, i will eliminate the steaks, and substitute chicken for $50. i will spread the money i saved to enhance my party.

now i can have chicken $50, better potatoes $12, better chips $12, better dips $6, better drinks $15 AND a nasty stripper $5...total $100

the party was a success, however, there were complaints about my dips and the nasty stripper. i should get a cost of living increase to my wage later this year, i think i will increase my budget for next years party by 10% to get a better stripper. total $110

key:
steak = football, bball, baseball
chicken = bball, baseball, soccer
potatoes = softball, golf, volleyball
dips = track
drinks = facilities, wages, student-athlete recruit/retainment
stripper = tennis

im trying rod...its not that difficult to understand.

What happened to chicken basketball? Was it taken to that next level as promised? Where's the new chicken basketball arena? Where's the better chicken basketball conference we were supposed to be in by now? Looks like your redistribution of wealth formula burned up on the grill.

ok 66...go bucs

A fellow really needs to read all the posts in order.
I jump to the last page this time and see a discussion about chicken and strippers and vegans and I am totally lost. I think what the heck is chicken basketball ?
A little backtracking cleared things up.
I needed a good laugh tonight.

(01-10-2012 06:39 PM)JWBUC Wrote:  A fellow really needs to read all the posts in order.
I jump to the last page this time and see a discussion about chicken and strippers and vegans and I am totally lost. I think what the heck is chicken basketball ?
A little backtracking cleared things up.
I needed a good laugh tonight.

Now that is funny right there!

Visual imagery of a raw chicken being thrown through a goal, with nasty stripper cheerleaders along with a vegan concession stand.

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  ok 66, here we go...again. Please dont go back to the old "minor sport" staple as you usually do. I am just answering your question. Oh, and i dont think my response to you was nasty at all.

the federal budget in 2000 was 1.8 trillion. in 2010 it was 3.6 trillion. a 100% increase
the tn state budget in 2000 was 16.6 billion. in 2010 it was 29.6 billion. a 75% increase

i tell you this because from my budget 101 class, i gather the assumption that budgets do change over time. in a 10 year period it can change significantly and it usually increases rather than decreases.

now etsu being a state university, i would think their budget would increase as well. athletics being a part of the university...again...increases along with it.

it looks like in comparison, at 65%, etsu athletics is a bargain over that same amount of time. the athletics budget could very well have increased 75-100% during that time WITH FOOTBALL...who knows.


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

Now if football were garnering etsu national exposure, as is claimed on this board, it may not have been worthwhile to cut it. But it was not, not even close to that. so the university made a decission to try a different tact.

here is where these numbers you tout become irrelevant...budgets change. etsu is not overspending. far from it. can football be added with a budget of 11 mil? sure it can, but it will come from the other sports, as well as cost more to operate than is currently budgeted. Is the new pres willing to do that? maybe, maybe not. the other sports as a whole, are doing pretty well on this current arrangement as i have pointed out. They certainly, dont deserve to have their funding cut to add a football program that has struggled for many many years. Thats not to say we dont need football. Thats been my stance all along. etsu is not in a position financially nor support wise to reinstate football at this time. etsu athletics have bigger problems that need attending to first, then football.

this is not an endorsement for etsu, athletics, dave, stanton or anyone else that has taken steps to make your life more difficult. if/when you come back with the same, old, tired, song and dance and i respond with either "ok or go bucs", im not ducking, diverting or diving...im just not beating this poor horse any more. he has suffered enuff.

Back to the interview - what Stanton said. He still says that football was losing $1 million annually and it was being covered by money from academics and the old Pirate Club (first mention of this source) Not sure what he thought the Pirate club was there for, maybe to subsidize academics? He has always talked "losing" and apparently doesn"t want to get into the topic of "subsidizing". Anyway, sticking with what he said. $500,000.00 was being taken from academics to help run football. If he had of cut the athletic budget by $500,000.00 the next year or a similar amount after factoring in inflation, etc. thus leaving that money in academics, his argument would have held water. But he didn"t if the USA Today numbers on college finances have any validity. Instead, he increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 the next year after football, sending his argument that football was eliminated due to finances up in smoke. He took the $500,000.00 from academics as usual that would have gone to football and raised it another $500,000.00. Would that not mean that he then took a cool $1 million from academics to help subsidize his new athletic department after football - unless, of course, he had found a radical new source of revenue in those dire economic times that he kept secret? You, Slappy, say that you can live with his decision. Good for you. But those of us who expect better leadership and honesty cannot. And this whole charade continues to this day. He's apparently going out on his old argument that has been shredded by the facts on the ground. If, today, he's not taking more money from academics (and student fees) than before football on an actual and percentage basis to run his athletic department, then where is he getting the money? By the way, the dead horse beating was initiated by Stanton on this. With his departure, all this will be history. Not a bad thought.

(01-10-2012 06:52 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:25 AM)slappywhite Wrote:  ok 66, here we go...again. Please dont go back to the old "minor sport" staple as you usually do. I am just answering your question. Oh, and i dont think my response to you was nasty at all.

the federal budget in 2000 was 1.8 trillion. in 2010 it was 3.6 trillion. a 100% increase
the tn state budget in 2000 was 16.6 billion. in 2010 it was 29.6 billion. a 75% increase

i tell you this because from my budget 101 class, i gather the assumption that budgets do change over time. in a 10 year period it can change significantly and it usually increases rather than decreases.

now etsu being a state university, i would think their budget would increase as well. athletics being a part of the university...again...increases along with it.

it looks like in comparison, at 65%, etsu athletics is a bargain over that same amount of time. the athletics budget could very well have increased 75-100% during that time WITH FOOTBALL...who knows.


now they drop football and try to fully fund all of the intercolliegate sports at etsu. they take the million football was losing and spread it out among the other sports and an additional 500k to help all become fully funded over time. so in summary, instead of fully funding 1 sport (football) and overall losing 1 million, they spend an additional 500K and FULLY fund ALL the sports, build some on campus facilities, pay coaches and staff better salaries, and to try to help the overall student athlete experience at etsu. I have no problems with that.

Now if football were garnering etsu national exposure, as is claimed on this board, it may not have been worthwhile to cut it. But it was not, not even close to that. so the university made a decission to try a different tact.

here is where these numbers you tout become irrelevant...budgets change. etsu is not overspending. far from it. can football be added with a budget of 11 mil? sure it can, but it will come from the other sports, as well as cost more to operate than is currently budgeted. Is the new pres willing to do that? maybe, maybe not. the other sports as a whole, are doing pretty well on this current arrangement as i have pointed out. They certainly, dont deserve to have their funding cut to add a football program that has struggled for many many years. Thats not to say we dont need football. Thats been my stance all along. etsu is not in a position financially nor support wise to reinstate football at this time. etsu athletics have bigger problems that need attending to first, then football.

this is not an endorsement for etsu, athletics, dave, stanton or anyone else that has taken steps to make your life more difficult. if/when you come back with the same, old, tired, song and dance and i respond with either "ok or go bucs", im not ducking, diverting or diving...im just not beating this poor horse any more. he has suffered enuff.

Back to the interview - what Stanton said. He still says that football was losing $1 million annually and it was being covered by money from academics and the old Pirate Club (first mention of this source) Not sure what he thought the Pirate club was there for, maybe to subsidize academics? He has always talked "losing" and apparently doesn"t want to get into the topic of "subsidizing". Anyway, sticking with what he said. $500,000.00 was being taken from academics to help run football. If he had of cut the athletic budget by $500,000.00 the next year or a similar amount after factoring in inflation, etc. thus leaving that money in academics, his argument would have held water. But he didn"t if the USA Today numbers on college finances have any validity. Instead, he increased athletic spending by $500,000.00 the next year after football, sending his argument that football was eliminated due to finances up in smoke. He took the $500,000.00 from academics as usual that would have gone to football and raised it another $500,000.00. Would that not mean that he then took a cool $1 million from academics to help subsidize his new athletic department after football - unless, of course, he had found a radical new source of revenue in those dire economic times that he kept secret? You, Slappy, say that you can live with his decision. Good for you. But those of us who expect better leadership and honesty cannot. And this whole charade continues to this day. He's apparently going out on his old argument that has been shredded by the facts on the ground. If, today, he's not taking more money from academics (and student fees) than before football on an actual and percentage basis to run his athletic department, then where is he getting the money? By the way, the dead horse beating was initiated by Stanton on this. With his departure, all this will be history. Not a bad thought.

ok 66

Stanton got the money for all this stuff with the athletic fee he started after football was dropped. The proverbial "backs of the students."

What is the athletic fee now anyway? $150/semester? It's was somewhere around $125 in the last year or two. Why not take a vote on that and see what the results show? No athletic fee with football, or $150/semester and no football but a good soccer team. Hmmm, wonder how that'd turn out...

(01-10-2012 08:51 PM)etsugrad99 Wrote:  Stanton got the money for all this stuff with the athletic fee he started after football was dropped. The proverbial "backs of the students."

What is the athletic fee now anyway? $150/semester? It's was somewhere around $125 in the last year or two. Why not take a vote on that and see what the results show? No athletic fee with football, or $150/semester and no football but a good soccer team. Hmmm, wonder how that'd turn out...

But that isn't the question.

For what it takes to run soccer every year you couldn't create a weight room for football.

You could use the soccer team van to shuttle the football staff around....maybe.

You get what you pay for.

(01-10-2012 10:01 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 08:51 PM)etsugrad99 Wrote:  Stanton got the money for all this stuff with the athletic fee he started after football was dropped. The proverbial "backs of the students."

What is the athletic fee now anyway? $150/semester? It's was somewhere around $125 in the last year or two. Why not take a vote on that and see what the results show? No athletic fee with football, or $150/semester and no football but a good soccer team. Hmmm, wonder how that'd turn out...

But that isn't the question.

For what it takes to run soccer every year you couldn't create a weight room for football.

You could use the soccer team van to shuttle the football staff around....maybe.

No one would be foolish enough to compare the cost of football to the cost of soccer, or to tennis, or to track, or to baseball, or even to basketball one-on-one. Anyone who has looked at this at all knows that college football is by far the most expensive college sport to play anywhere. However, football and basketball are the two sports that bring in the bulk of athletic revenue. They are the only two sports that generate, by far, the most fans. And, no reasonable person can deny that they are the only two sports that give, by wide margins, the biggest windows onto a school. All the minor sports added together pale in comparison in ticket sales, attendance, interest, and exposure. Even in the bad football years at ETSU, many more fans attended the home football games in a season than attend all the home minor sports events combined in a season today. It is a known fact that at the NCAA mid-major/FCS level, all sports are subsidized with football getting the most, basketball the second most, and the rest getting the remainder in descending order. The subsidies come from direct institutional support and student fees. Now, of course, ETSU is now different from its state and former peer regional mid-major/FCS universities. Obviously football is not in the mix, therefore the subsidies are distributed among the remaining sports and the new sport of soccer. However, Dr. Stanton continues to insist to this day that ETSU dropped football to save money, or to stop the $1 million it was "losing" (being subsidized) annually, $500,000.00 of which was coming from academics according to him. But, the very next year after football was dropped, he disagreed with himself and increased athletic spending by some $500,000.00, money which had to come from academics. What in the world is going on here? So, he didn't drop football because it was "losing" money(being subsidized). He dropped football so that the football subsidy could be used to increase the subsidies that were already going to the remaining sports, and, of course, to start up soccer. He has never discussed this reality. And, this subsidy has been increasing ever since with no hope of increased revenue in sight from ticket sales and increased fans with the current line up of sports. The athletic department even claims that they are now running a "balanced budget" department. What could that mean? So, a mid-major, regional state university like ETSU has to decide which sports line up it is going to sponsor through mostly subsidies, or pay to play. All of ETSU's peer TN state schools and former other FCS peer schools have football in their line up of sports. Why not, if a school is going to run a highly subsidized sports program, why not line your sports up in descending order from the ones that will generate the most revenue and fan support to the ones that will generate the least - that is if you want your athletic program to be the best window onto your school that it can be.

So, ETSU did not drop football to save money, or to eliminate the $1 million the program was "losing" (being subsidized). It did not even drop football in order to take basketball to a higher level. So, what was this all about?

In 2004-05, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget with direct institutional support and student fees by *67.89%. In 2009-10, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget by *77.56%. What do these numbers suggest about the state of the ETSU athletics? More fans, more revenue, more TV money, more exposure, more community interest, a more popular basketball program, a better conference, more money game revenue, a better overall athletic program without football, et al?

*USA Today NCAA college athletic finance database

Stanton did some great things while at ETSU. I will not deny that. He found ways to fund the projects he thought were important and they were quite ambitious (new dorms, pharmacy school, etc.). My problem is that football was deemed simply impossible to fund. Bottom line is this...if Noland believes football is important then it will happen, it he doesn't then it won't.

(01-11-2012 09:53 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  You get what you pay for.

Ok, let's kill men's soccer, I have already stated, I don't care.

I'll even let you have football, if you can fund it from the 150K saved from the soccer program.

Change under the seat cushions.

(01-11-2012 06:59 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:01 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 08:51 PM)etsugrad99 Wrote:  Stanton got the money for all this stuff with the athletic fee he started after football was dropped. The proverbial "backs of the students."

What is the athletic fee now anyway? $150/semester? It's was somewhere around $125 in the last year or two. Why not take a vote on that and see what the results show? No athletic fee with football, or $150/semester and no football but a good soccer team. Hmmm, wonder how that'd turn out...

But that isn't the question.

For what it takes to run soccer every year you couldn't create a weight room for football.

You could use the soccer team van to shuttle the football staff around....maybe.

No one would be foolish enough to compare the cost of football to the cost of soccer, or to tennis, or to track, or to baseball, or even to basketball one-on-one. Anyone who has looked at this at all knows that college football is by far the most expensive college sport to play anywhere. However, football and basketball are the two sports that bring in the bulk of athletic revenue. They are the only two sports that generate, by far, the most fans. And, no reasonable person can deny that they are the only two sports that give, by wide margins, the biggest windows onto a school. All the minor sports added together pale in comparison in ticket sales, attendance, interest, and exposure. Even in the bad football years at ETSU, many more fans attended the home football games in a season than attend all the home minor sports events combined in a season today. It is a known fact that at the NCAA mid-major/FCS level, all sports are subsidized with football getting the most, basketball the second most, and the rest getting the remainder in descending order. The subsidies come from direct institutional support and student fees. Now, of course, ETSU is now different from its state and former peer regional mid-major/FCS universities. Obviously football is not in the mix, therefore the subsidies are distributed among the remaining sports and the new sport of soccer. However, Dr. Stanton continues to insist to this day that ETSU dropped football to save money, or to stop the $1 million it was "losing" (being subsidized) annually, $500,000.00 of which was coming from academics according to him. But, the very next year after football was dropped, he disagreed with himself and increased athletic spending by some $500,000.00, money which had to come from academics. What in the world is going on here? So, he didn't drop football because it was "losing" money(being subsidized). He dropped football so that the football subsidy could be used to increase the subsidies that were already going to the remaining sports, and, of course, to start up soccer. He has never discussed this reality. And, this subsidy has been increasing ever since with no hope of increased revenue in sight from ticket sales and increased fans with the current line up of sports. The athletic department even claims that they are now running a "balanced budget" department. What could that mean? So, a mid-major, regional state university like ETSU has to decide which sports line up it is going to sponsor through mostly subsidies, or pay to play. All of ETSU's peer TN state schools and former other FCS peer schools have football in their line up of sports. Why not, if a school is going to run a highly subsidized sports program, why not line your sports up in descending order from the ones that will generate the most revenue and fan support to the ones that will generate the least - that is if you want your athletic program to be the best window onto your school that it can be.

So, ETSU did not drop football to save money, or to eliminate the $1 million the program was "losing" (being subsidized). It did not even drop football in order to take basketball to a higher level. So, what was this all about?

In 2004-05, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget with direct institutional support and student fees by *67.89%. In 2009-10, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget by *77.56%. What do these numbers suggest about the state of the ETSU athletics? More fans, more revenue, more TV money, more exposure, more community interest, a more popular basketball program, a better conference, more money game revenue, a better overall athletic program without football, et al?

*USA Today NCAA college athletic finance database

Average attendance at football games, was what 5,000? I doubt it was that but it is a nice number.

5 home games

5 X 5,000 = 25,000 total attendance

That's some community interest right there

More fans?
More revenue?

Since there isn't enough fans (and there never will be), there isn't enough money to cover the massive expense of football.

(01-11-2012 10:29 PM)abuc90 Wrote:  Stanton did some great things while at ETSU. I will not deny that. He found ways to fund the projects he thought were important and they were quite ambitious (new dorms, pharmacy school, etc.). My problem is that football was deemed simply impossible to fund. Bottom line is this...if Noland believes football is important then it will happen, it he doesn't then it won't.

Noland is a university president, i.e., a politician. If there is enough community support for football, it will happen, if there isn't it will not.

If you don't have enough community support, you won't have enough money. If you don't have enough money, well, that makes his decision easier.


Stanton already did the hard part, he killed it. Noland's decision to start up football again or not is easier.

1. If he is looking to move on after a few years, he could start up football and while it still has that new car smell (3 years) and a few people are actually attending games, he could ride that to the job he has been groomed for (UT, something in Nashville). By doing this he could catch the wave of sentiment and ride it out of town, leaving the next poor SOB to handle the anvil around their neck.

2. If he is looking to actually run the university for awhile he will refrain from placing the anvil around his own neck.

(01-12-2012 12:54 AM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 06:59 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 10:01 PM)BuccTiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2012 08:51 PM)etsugrad99 Wrote:  Stanton got the money for all this stuff with the athletic fee he started after football was dropped. The proverbial "backs of the students."

What is the athletic fee now anyway? $150/semester? It's was somewhere around $125 in the last year or two. Why not take a vote on that and see what the results show? No athletic fee with football, or $150/semester and no football but a good soccer team. Hmmm, wonder how that'd turn out...

But that isn't the question.

For what it takes to run soccer every year you couldn't create a weight room for football.

You could use the soccer team van to shuttle the football staff around....maybe.

No one would be foolish enough to compare the cost of football to the cost of soccer, or to tennis, or to track, or to baseball, or even to basketball one-on-one. Anyone who has looked at this at all knows that college football is by far the most expensive college sport to play anywhere. However, football and basketball are the two sports that bring in the bulk of athletic revenue. They are the only two sports that generate, by far, the most fans. And, no reasonable person can deny that they are the only two sports that give, by wide margins, the biggest windows onto a school. All the minor sports added together pale in comparison in ticket sales, attendance, interest, and exposure. Even in the bad football years at ETSU, many more fans attended the home football games in a season than attend all the home minor sports events combined in a season today. It is a known fact that at the NCAA mid-major/FCS level, all sports are subsidized with football getting the most, basketball the second most, and the rest getting the remainder in descending order. The subsidies come from direct institutional support and student fees. Now, of course, ETSU is now different from its state and former peer regional mid-major/FCS universities. Obviously football is not in the mix, therefore the subsidies are distributed among the remaining sports and the new sport of soccer. However, Dr. Stanton continues to insist to this day that ETSU dropped football to save money, or to stop the $1 million it was "losing" (being subsidized) annually, $500,000.00 of which was coming from academics according to him. But, the very next year after football was dropped, he disagreed with himself and increased athletic spending by some $500,000.00, money which had to come from academics. What in the world is going on here? So, he didn't drop football because it was "losing" money(being subsidized). He dropped football so that the football subsidy could be used to increase the subsidies that were already going to the remaining sports, and, of course, to start up soccer. He has never discussed this reality. And, this subsidy has been increasing ever since with no hope of increased revenue in sight from ticket sales and increased fans with the current line up of sports. The athletic department even claims that they are now running a "balanced budget" department. What could that mean? So, a mid-major, regional state university like ETSU has to decide which sports line up it is going to sponsor through mostly subsidies, or pay to play. All of ETSU's peer TN state schools and former other FCS peer schools have football in their line up of sports. Why not, if a school is going to run a highly subsidized sports program, why not line your sports up in descending order from the ones that will generate the most revenue and fan support to the ones that will generate the least - that is if you want your athletic program to be the best window onto your school that it can be.

So, ETSU did not drop football to save money, or to eliminate the $1 million the program was "losing" (being subsidized). It did not even drop football in order to take basketball to a higher level. So, what was this all about?

In 2004-05, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget with direct institutional support and student fees by *67.89%. In 2009-10, ETSU subsidized its athletic budget by *77.56%. What do these numbers suggest about the state of the ETSU athletics? More fans, more revenue, more TV money, more exposure, more community interest, a more popular basketball program, a better conference, more money game revenue, a better overall athletic program without football, et al?

*USA Today NCAA college athletic finance database

Average attendance at football games, was what 5,000? I doubt it was that but it is a nice number.

5 home games

5 X 5,000 = 25,000 total attendance

That's some community interest right there

More fans?
More revenue?

Since there isn't enough fans (and there never will be), there isn't enough money to cover the massive expense of football.

Question was, what do the numbers suggest about the state of ETSU athletics TODAY, not 2003. They're spending $11 million annually on TODAY'S product as opposed to $6.7 million the last year of football. Are more people coming to ETSU's athletic events, thus generating more ticket revenue, TODAY than in 2003? If so, then there's some justification for the 64% increase in the HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED, pay to play athletic spending. Show your numbers.