You know what's really depressing? Sure, ETSU is not being talked about during football season. But, even worse, ETSU is not even being talked about as not having a football program. I wanted to find out who the largest universities without football are. I found this list on WIKI where there is no mention of ETS-Who.

Copied from: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_...l_programs


There are many non-football schools with less than 10,000 students.

But larger non-football schools include -

University of Alaska (30,000 students)
Boston University (32,000)
California - Santa Barbara (20,000)
Cal State - Fullerton (36,000)
Cal State - Long Beach (35,000)
Cal State - Northridge (36,000)
George Washington (24,000)
Marquette (11,000)
Maryland - Baltimore County (12,000)
Northeastern (15,000) *dropped football in 2009*
Texas - Arlington (31,000)
Texas - San Antonio (28,000) *but will start football in 2011*
Vermont (11,000)
Wichita State (15,000)

(08-29-2012 09:38 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(08-28-2012 02:55 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Mullins and his department have been on a gravy train for the past ten years and have had the pie jobs of all the NCAA DI schools. There's no way that Noland does not see the amount of money flowing through there for the work output derived.

I'm not going to defend Mullins' ability to lead at all, but to even suggest that ETSU athletics jobs are the "pie jobs of all the NCAA DI schools" is flat out ignorant. Look up the salaries. They are at the bottom third of DI easily. The head coaches do okay, but assistants get paid a pittance and the administrative staff is the same. Mullins really doesn't make that much for an AD at a DI (whether he earns it or not is not the issue). If the jobs were so good, people would stay. They don't. ETSU is a stepping stone, because the salaries are too low to make it a long term deal for most of the staff.

Yea, it's a known fact that Mullins is on most DI search lists and has been offered numerous AD positions that would make his present salary look like pocket change. It's his loyalty to the Blue & Gold and his determination to seeing the Stanton-Mullins athletic model completed and spread nationwide that warms our
hearts.

(08-30-2012 07:42 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  Yea, it's a known fact that Mullins is on most DI search lists and has been offered numerous AD positions that would make his present salary look like pocket change. It's his loyalty to the Blue & Gold and his determination to seeing the Stanton-Mullins athletic model completed and spread nationwide that warms our
hearts.

Here's a career move for him that would make everyone happy!

Copied from NCAA.com's "The Market" for athletic jobs:

Assistant Women's Tennis Coach - Part-Time
Emory & Henry College- US - VA - Emory
Prior coaching or playing experience at the collegiate level preferred. Candidates should have acceptable driving record, criminal background and NCAA compliance history. Submit a cover letter, re...
Aug-28-2012 - save job - email

This is great! From yesterday, Kent State vs. Towson.

"Wrong-way Parker"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_VqhrWW4ZA

Buc Nation,

How does it feel watching all the others play football today?

(09-01-2012 11:19 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  Buc Nation,

How does it feel watching all the others play football today?

It hurts. I miss it. Chattanooga is playing today...and I thought they were supposed to ditch football too. I think they have been observing what has happened and decided it's not a good idea.

(09-01-2012 11:22 AM)Mister Jennings Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 11:19 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  Buc Nation,

How does it feel watching all the others play football today?

It hurts. I miss it. Chattanooga is playing today...and I thought they were supposed to ditch football too. I think they have been observing what has happened and decided it's not a good idea.

The Sickening Time for ETSU kicks in full gear today. Hard to watch all the other schools. Hope our AD enjoys watching the US Open and soccer. Nothing for Bucs fans and alumni.

The Pacific NW FOX regional sports network is showing the Appalachian State-ECU game here.

I miss seeing ETSU football scores popping up during national and regional broadcasts of college football.

And we still have a tennis coach running athletics and it gets more embarrassing each year. This is the toughest year yet. Surely it will be the last. How many regional state universities would be run like we are?

(09-01-2012 04:26 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  And we still have a tennis coach running athletics and it gets more embarrassing each year. This is the toughest year yet. Surely it will be the last. How many regional state universities would be run like we are?

Also, we still have the Stanton-Mullins athletic model in place where the money was ripped from football, then significantly increased, and added to the invisible sports for a mostly invisible, irrelevant athletic program. You're right, not one other regional state university in the nation has followed us down this road. Other than ETSU, who would be stupid enough to spend $12 million a year on such an athletic model that guarantees almost no return on the investment? This athletic model makes little or no financial sense.

Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

Any way you look at it FCS football is worth the effort for schools like ETSU. No other way to get the pay back it provides. Volleyball and kick-ball do not do it. Only FCS football can get schools like ETSU back in the system again. It is a no-brainer. Get rid of tennis coaches and trumpet players running athletics and make it a real athletic department again and we can start anew at ETSU.

(09-01-2012 10:46 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

Any way you look at it FCS football is worth the effort for schools like ETSU. No other way to get the pay back it provides. Volleyball and kick-ball do not do it. Only FCS football can get schools like ETSU back in the system again. It is a no-brainer. Get rid of tennis coaches and trumpet players running athletics and make it a real athletic department again and we can start anew at ETSU.

Yeah, football is definitely NOT a profit center at most institutions. But, neither is basketball, soccer, track & field, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, English, Mathematics, Med Schools, administration, campus security, janitorial, museums, or libraries. I would say that most componants of most universities fail to make a monetary gain over their expenditures, with perhaps the exceptions of book stores and VP's of University Enhancement. The absolute most effective way for most universities to save money is to just simply close. Otherwise, it just all comes down to what the university President wants funded based on a somewhat order-of-importance and various perceived non-tangible returns.

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

If you're going to run a highly subsidized athletic program, then you subsidize the teams that generate the most advertising. The most advertising means the most ticket sales, the most fans, the most media coverage, the most exposure you can get for your expenditures. That kind of program has football first, basketball next and the rest in order by the exposure they bring your school. Good example: Georgia Southern University. Bad example: East Tennessee State University.

I agree that football is valuable. It's value is not in it's profit generation though, which has long been championed as the reason to add football on this board. I think the last line makes the point - "But, says Fulks: "If it's worth having, it's worth paying for, just like your music program or anything else."

(09-02-2012 06:35 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

If you're going to run a highly subsidized athletic program, then you subsidize the teams that generate the most advertising. The most advertising means the most ticket sales, the most fans, the most media coverage, the most exposure you can get for your expenditures. That kind of program has football first, basketball next and the rest in order by the exposure they bring your school. Good example: Georgia Southern University. Bad example: East Tennessee State University.

Well all the programs are going to be subsidized at ETSU, so any program you have falls in that category. Also, if you're saying that advertising is biggest factor in determining funding, I think you would have to say that it's not the most exposure you get that deserves priority, but the most exposure for your money. You could easily argue that basketball is a more worthy expenditure in this category. Far less money spent, with equal to better exposure, especially considering the possibility of a post-season. The NCAA basketball tournament is far better exposure than the FCS playoffs. I don't think exposure should be your primary reason for fielding and funding a football team. A line on the ticker is not worth $3 million a year. However, football has the ability to generate fan and community interest and involvement at a high level. That's the value of football in my opinion.

(09-02-2012 09:31 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 06:35 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

If you're going to run a highly subsidized athletic program, then you subsidize the teams that generate the most advertising. The most advertising means the most ticket sales, the most fans, the most media coverage, the most exposure you can get for your expenditures. That kind of program has football first, basketball next and the rest in order by the exposure they bring your school. Good example: Georgia Southern University. Bad example: East Tennessee State University.

Well all the programs are going to be subsidized at ETSU, so any program you have falls in that category. Also, if you're saying that advertising is biggest factor in determining funding, I think you would have to say that it's not the most exposure you get that deserves priority, but the most exposure for your money. You could easily argue that basketball is a more worthy expenditure in this category. Far less money spent, with equal to better exposure, especially considering the possibility of a post-season. The NCAA basketball tournament is far better exposure than the FCS playoffs. I don't think exposure should be your primary reason for fielding and funding a football team. A line on the ticker is not worth $3 million a year. However, football has the ability to generate fan and community interest and involvement at a high level. That's the value of football in my opinion.

Now we are talking some sense. Football has many paybacks to the school. Some you can put a dollar value on others you cannot. There are still valuable benefits and is why every state school in Tennessee supports football and is why we must get back in the game. Because it is worth it!

(09-02-2012 09:44 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 09:31 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 06:35 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

If you're going to run a highly subsidized athletic program, then you subsidize the teams that generate the most advertising. The most advertising means the most ticket sales, the most fans, the most media coverage, the most exposure you can get for your expenditures. That kind of program has football first, basketball next and the rest in order by the exposure they bring your school. Good example: Georgia Southern University. Bad example: East Tennessee State University.

Well all the programs are going to be subsidized at ETSU, so any program you have falls in that category. Also, if you're saying that advertising is biggest factor in determining funding, I think you would have to say that it's not the most exposure you get that deserves priority, but the most exposure for your money. You could easily argue that basketball is a more worthy expenditure in this category. Far less money spent, with equal to better exposure, especially considering the possibility of a post-season. The NCAA basketball tournament is far better exposure than the FCS playoffs. I don't think exposure should be your primary reason for fielding and funding a football team. A line on the ticker is not worth $3 million a year. However, football has the ability to generate fan and community interest and involvement at a high level. That's the value of football in my opinion.

Now we are talking some sense. Football has many paybacks to the school. Some you can put a dollar value on others you cannot. There are still valuable benefits and is why every state school in Tennessee supports football and is why we must get back in the game. Because it is worth it!

I do think the key is the students though. If the students demand football, they will get it. Up until now, ETSU students are apathetic toward football. All the schools that have added DI football recently, have had strong student support driving the effort. Forget the BFFF in my opinion, you need the students. If the students want it, and are willing to see their fees go up for it, it's just a matter of time. Somehow someway, someone needs to engage the student body to this end. The community/fan involvement aspect of football will never be realized until the students become interested. Apathy is what killed ETSU football and apathy has made sure it stays dead. Alumni and current students haven't thrown a fit to get it back.

(09-02-2012 09:37 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 09:44 AM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 09:31 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(09-02-2012 06:35 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(09-01-2012 09:35 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  Interesting story here on the economics of FBS football. The average FBS program costs $11.5 million more than it generates. FCS is $9.2 million more.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/economics...s-football

If you're going to run a highly subsidized athletic program, then you subsidize the teams that generate the most advertising. The most advertising means the most ticket sales, the most fans, the most media coverage, the most exposure you can get for your expenditures. That kind of program has football first, basketball next and the rest in order by the exposure they bring your school. Good example: Georgia Southern University. Bad example: East Tennessee State University.

Well all the programs are going to be subsidized at ETSU, so any program you have falls in that category. Also, if you're saying that advertising is biggest factor in determining funding, I think you would have to say that it's not the most exposure you get that deserves priority, but the most exposure for your money. You could easily argue that basketball is a more worthy expenditure in this category. Far less money spent, with equal to better exposure, especially considering the possibility of a post-season. The NCAA basketball tournament is far better exposure than the FCS playoffs. I don't think exposure should be your primary reason for fielding and funding a football team. A line on the ticker is not worth $3 million a year. However, football has the ability to generate fan and community interest and involvement at a high level. That's the value of football in my opinion.

Now we are talking some sense. Football has many paybacks to the school. Some you can put a dollar value on others you cannot. There are still valuable benefits and is why every state school in Tennessee supports football and is why we must get back in the game. Because it is worth it!

I do think the key is the students though. If the students demand football, they will get it. Up until now, ETSU students are apathetic toward football. All the schools that have added DI football recently, have had strong student support driving the effort. Forget the BFFF in my opinion, you need the students. If the students want it, and are willing to see their fees go up for it, it's just a matter of time. Somehow someway, someone needs to engage the student body to this end. The community/fan involvement aspect of football will never be realized until the students become interested. Apathy is what killed ETSU football and apathy has made sure it stays dead. Alumni and current students haven't thrown a fit to get it back.

The students were never asked if they wanted it but they got soccer put upon their backs from the AD who wanted it. There was no community, fans, student, alumni support but they got soccer rammed down their throats any way. Now a real leader as president can go public and rally the community and fans and ETSU can have respectible football program that can give the school something to grow with. Zero leadership the last then years. That has been the problem.