Recent article in the East Tennessean. Draw your own conclusions.


Lately around campus there seems to be an echo of opinions on whether or not ETSU should be tearing down the Mountain States Health Alliance Athletic Center and putting up a brand new arena.

Students have been watching new facilities for the soccer team, baseball team, softball team and golf team being built. Some are asking why not have a new building for the most popular sport instead?

Many years ago, ETSU had a football team and decided that there was a need for a football stadium.

As far as basketball goes, the teams had outgrown Brooks Gym as a useful arena. Growing teams like track and tennis indoor wanted an indoor facility to use.

There was also a need for classrooms and offices for physical education as well as a recreational facility for the students and lab space for the medical school.

In 1976, these plans all were given a place to go, and the new building, most commonly called the Mini-Dome, was opened.

“At the time it was a state-of-the-art facility because it had a track and a football stadium. It could be reconfigured for basketball. There is a rifle range. There are racquetball courts. There is a gymnastics area, classrooms and offices … [as opposed to] individual separate facilities,” said ETSU Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Dave Mullins.

Today, ETSU still has many of those uses from the MSHA Athletics Center, except for the football program of course.

There are over 100 offices in the building. Physical education classes are held there, too.

But some functions of the building have moved elsewhere. Campus Recreation moved out when the Center for Physical Activity (CPA) was built.

The medical school labs were moved to Stanton-Gerber Hall when it was built about six or seven years ago.

The athletic department expanded that area to make offices for employees, and built an academic center and ticket office.

The west side of the dome is now used for the athletic department and the east side is for physical education.

In 2004, the athletic department expanded beyond the dome and created a new University Athletic Master Plan for facilities.

The plan included a golf facility, soccer stadium, softball stadium, baseball stadium, an outdoor track, an indoor/outdoor tennis complex and a new basketball arena.

The soccer, golf and softball have been built and the baseball stadium will soon be finished.

Only the outdoor track, tennis complex and basketball arena remain.

The main issue of the basketball arena, according to Mullins, is the amount that it would cost as opposed to the smaller stadiums. The soccer stadium cost about $3.5 million. The softball field and golf facility both cost $2.5 million each. The baseball stadium is coming together for around $4.5 million. A new basketball stadium would be quite a bit more.

“The discussion for the arena has been whether we build a new stand-alone arena on campus, do a major renovation of [the dome], or to partner with the city and the county and build a multi-purpose arena convention center somewhere downtown close to the university,” said Mullins. “It is all a matter of being able to generate $50 to $60 million. So when you say why haven’t we done it? It is because we need $50 to $60 million to do it.”

The athletic crew also felt that it would be easier to raise smaller amounts for those teams before doing the big project.

Mullins believes that if making a better campus were the top priority, building a brand new arena would be the best thing to do.

A major renovation of the MSHA Athletic Center would cost half of what a new arena would, $20 million to $25 million, and achieve generally the same goal.

If ETSU worked with the county for an off-campus arena, the university would not have to come up with the total amount for the arena, but instead it would be a partnership.

“When we started the facility project we had a number of Title IX equity issues that we needed to address,” Mullins said. “We did an NCAA self-study in 1996-97 and another one in 2004-05.

“In that study we were very deficient with our facilities for our women’s sports, and most of our facilities were off campus. We were playing soccer at Louisville Park, which is a high school facility. We were playing softball at a little league park. We were playing baseball off campus at Cardinal Park downtown. So our first goal was to get everything on campus and to beat the gender equity issues of inferior facilities for our women’s programs,” he said.

After six years and having four out of seven facilities built, Mullins plans to have discussions with ETSU’s new president Dr. Brian Noland about the upcoming projects, the arena project and money issues.

They hope to finish the arena in the next few years. “It is going to take a massive effort to raise that kind of money,” said Mullins.

Michael White, associate athletic director for communications, said he has heard that some students are looking for a larger “jumbo-tron” type scoreboard for a possible new arena.

“In the planning stages for any new arena, the desire to have a great atmosphere and fan experience is one of the major priorities. While we cannot say specifically what a new arena would have, I think a quality scoreboard system would be something that is discussed in that initial stage,” White said.

White agreed that he is unsure what approaches would be taken or when the arena would finally be built.

“It’s an exciting time, and we certainly have areas we need to address,” White said. “It will be interesting to see what happens.”

A few years ago, the students were polled about having a new football team. They were asked if they wanted one back, and if they would be willing to allow tuition to be raised to pay for it.

Mullins said he does not know if this same approach would be used to potentially fund a new arena.

“They used [a student poll] originally when they were planning the CPA; they polled the students. The students voted no and then they revisited it, kind of educated students on all the benefits and what they would really receive from it,” said Mullins.

“It passed the second time and now 2,500 students a day are using it. Students do not often want to spend more money. But, how do you make progress without spending money?

“It is kind of like when people say ‘we do not want any more taxes but we want this, this, this and this.’ Well, how do you have it if nobody wants to pay for it?”

According to White, when in need of new facilities for athletics, it is common to charge the students a fee on their tuition.

“It is safe to say that any new priorities, whether that be a new arena or a football program, will require additional funding sources. Fees are one of many ways to do that,” said White.

As far as the public relations goes for ETSU athletics, White said that they are constantly working on raising knowledge about the ETSU facilities along with seeking contributions for building projects.

“It is called the ‘Pathway to Excellence’ campaign and has been underway for almost seven years now. It has resulted in major philanthropic gifts for all the facilities we have built and are building,” said White.

Students, both those who are involved in sports and those who aren’t, have their own opinions.

“My response is mixed,” said senior Stacey Laughlin. “I have absolutely nothing to do with sports. I think sports are fantastic in college, but whether or not I support the decision depends on how much they are going to raise the tuition because I pay my tuition through student loans.

“I think the idea is awesome because right now we hardly use the Mini-Dome at all and refurbishing it has been a long time coming. The benefits are brilliant, because it would definitely bring money to the school.”

Finding the right balance of upgrading the facilities and minimizing the increase in cost to the students is the key to coming to an agreement.

Discussions about options of rebuilding versus renovating will still take place, and the students’ opinions will play a critical role in determining which idea will prevail.

Only time, and money, will tell the fate of a new basketball facility.

Wow. A lot of things here . . . I'll just throw my comments in on a few:

"whether or not ETSU should be tearing down the Mountain States Health Alliance Athletic Center and putting up a brand new arena."

- They got rid of football. If they get rid of the stadium too, then there'd be no way we'll ever have football again. If ETSU can't afford a $60m basketball arena, it certainly couldn't afford a $100m football stadium. Keep the dome. The Dome cost $20m to build. I wonder what it would cost in today's dollars? That figure is what they'd be tearing down. Love it or hate it, keep the dome.


* * *

"The medical school labs were moved to Stanton-Gerber Hall when it was built about six or seven years ago."

1. The Mini-Dome was not built to house the med school. Rather, the med school took-over space that was slated for athletics and student recreation (bowling allies, etc.).

2. "The Stanton-Gerber Arena for Basketball Excellence" . . . it seems like the only way to get a building built around here is to name it after Stanton.


* * *

"It is because we need $50 to $60 million to do it.”

- ...that we would have had by now if it wasn't for university-wide financial mismanagement as directed by Stanton/Mullins.


* * *

"They hope to finish the arena in the next few years."

- Wouldn't they need to actually first start the construction?


* * *

“They used [a student poll] originally when they were planning the CPA; they polled the students. The students voted no and then they revisited it"

- In other words, they forced it down the student's throats and named the building after Stanton.


* * *

“It is called the ‘Pathway to Excellence’ campaign"

- In this statement, "excellence" is a variable...especially when comparing ETSU's new facilities to better ones at much smaller schools.


* * *

"Students, both those who are involved in sports and those who aren’t, have their own opinions."

- Good for them! The players, coaches, alumni, donors, and fans all have their own opinions as well . . . as do faculty, staff, administration, city/county officials, JC residents, local media, and the TN Board of Regents.


* * *

"the students’ opinions will play a critical role in determining which idea will prevail."

- Doubtful. Students (largely viewed as care-free, sometimes drunk teenagers), won't have much influence over a decision on a $60m facility that would serve the university for 4, 5, or more decades.

*****************************************


In another post, someone mentioned building a new arena behind McDonald's, between the baseball stadium and Poor Richard's. That's the primo solution. Everything new and in a great location.

Another, more whacked-out thing to consider would be to move basketball back into a revitalized/modernized Brooks Gym. The crowds we draw now wouldn't fit, so they'd have to raise ticket prices to meet the equilibrium. Maybe when people pay more for tickets, they'd be less inclined to continuously leave early after half-time. Nonetheless, a packed-out Brooks Gym can get very, very loud . . . a great home-court advantage and wonderful basketball environment all the way around.

ETSU has a long history of half-assing things. I'm guessing they will renovate the dome before they will do the right thing and build a new arena.

Noland has already publicly expressed his plan for this. He is going to build a convocation center- using state dollars- that will be used for basketball. State money cannot be used for athletic facilities, but if we call it a convocation center which we need since we have to have two commencement ceremonies each semester, the state can pay for it. That is a genius idea- and Noland has mentioned that many times now, for example in the long interview that he did for the JC Press about a month ago.

This article was written by the East Tennessean, rendering it completely useless.

I'm halfway through that article and having a tough time getting through it.

I realize the writer is just a rookie, so we shouldn't be too hard on him/her.

But man, there simply is no flow to the writing!

Stick with it, Rook.

Another criticism, shouldn't a source other than the athletic director and the SID be consulted in writing this article? That's just the ETSU PR department talking.

Idea two- One thought on the idea that it is easier to raise $3 million at a time rather than $60 million at one time.

To a certain extent, in the backroom deal way that ETSU does things, that's true. But here's what I see-

The way that I see it, when trying to build a lower cost venue, it is funded by a single company, say Summers-Taylor. And for Summers-Taylor it's a write off, a nice ad campaign putting their name on a new stadium, and with the "We'll go along with everything the ruling class says" atmosphere in Johnson City they won't hold it against Summers-Taylor that they sponsored the venue that essentially ETSU swapped football for.

But this shows the mentality of ETSU and the divide they have with the public. A new soccer field does nothing to create momentum to build a basketball arena, restore football, or make ETSU sports more popular. It satisfies the needs of joining the Atlantic Sun Conference and the agenda of the current athletic administration; nothing more, nothing less.

In many ways it makes ETSU sports LESS popular, since fewer fans are likely less interested in competing in the A-Sun rather than the SoCon or other conference. Let's face it, victories against ASU and Chattanooga create more of a buzz than victories against even Belmont.

Where I'm going is wouldn't a mass capital campaign to construct a new basketball venue be more apt to get donations from not just a single company or two, but the entire community, from the big company to the fan at large?

And not just from ETSU basketball fans. If said venue was offered as a place where pro hockey could be held, wouldn't that get donations from the transplanted citizen who otherwise would have no interest in ETSU, and therefore create a new interest and fan of the Bucs? Wouldn't advertising it as a place that could attrack better concerts to the area, like we once had, get the non-sports fan involved?

Wouldn't selling the image of a more cosmopolitan Johnson City, which all but the backwater hicks would want, create an image of a better community and a more forward-thinking university, which would benefit everyone?

Title IX made you build a softball field? You can put a full allotment of scholarships for the softball team if they play at Bassler or Kiwanis. Furthermore, at least this "Little League field" Mullins mentioned has, to my knowledge, a PLACE FOR FANS TO SIT, which makes it a better place to watch a game than the new baseball yard.

Point is, it will be far more beneficial in the long run to raise they money for the arena first? If we added up all the money it cost to build the new venues, then that's $13 mil.

Now, we can use that as seed money for a facility that will benefit nearly everyone in the community, or we can use that to benefit a select few. And the arena will create the new fans and momentum to get the secondary facilities, which haven't improved the competitiveness of ETSU sports, built?

I thought Stanton was supposed to be this master fundraiser. If that's the case, then why was raising money for a new arena so difficult?

Unless, of course, the population around here are a bunch of underpaid rubes who simply don't have the intelligence to understand the strategy of a simple ballgame.

(06-03-2012 07:32 AM)etsubuc Wrote:  Noland has already publicly expressed his plan for this. He is going to build a convocation center- using state dollars- that will be used for basketball. State money cannot be used for athletic facilities, but if we call it a convocation center which we need since we have to have two commencement ceremonies each semester, the state can pay for it. That is a genius idea- and Noland has mentioned that many times now, for example in the long interview that he did for the JC Press about a month ago.

This article was written by the East Tennessean, rendering it completely useless.

But, it did quote Mullins and White. Mullins said," the discussion for the arena has been whether we build a new stand-alone arena on campus, do a major renovation of (the Dome) ........ Dr Noland in the JC Press interview in April said, "I'm hopeful that within five years we're turning ground for a new convocation center". Mullins went on to say, "they hope to finish the arena in the next few years. It is going to take a massive effort to raise that kind of money". Who does he mean by "they"?

The projects mentioned in this article have cost $10.5 million so far. The "Athletic Master Plan for facilities" launched in 2004 called for $87 million to be raised, with no completion date indicated. Eight years into this capital campaign and $10.5 million raised seems like, maybe, slow motion. Do you think Dave Mullins and staff are up to the task of raising $60 million for a new arena in the "next few years"?

Of course they aren't. Tennis coaches don't bring in those sort of numbers.

Real athletic administrators with vision do.

Here's what is going to define Noland's athletic plan. Does he keep Mullins on or does he replace him and when?

(06-03-2012 12:37 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Of course they aren't. Tennis coaches don't bring in those sort of numbers.

Real athletic administrators with vision do.

Here's what is going to define Noland's athletic plan. Does he keep Mullins on or does he replace him and when?

If Noland wants to see ground broken on a new convocation center within the next five years, can he get this done with the present athletic department personnel and organizational structure?

(06-03-2012 01:19 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 12:37 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Of course they aren't. Tennis coaches don't bring in those sort of numbers.

Real athletic administrators with vision do.

Here's what is going to define Noland's athletic plan. Does he keep Mullins on or does he replace him and when?

If Noland wants to see ground broken on a new convocation center within the next five years, can he get this done with the present athletic department personnel and organizational structure?

I think we all know the answer to that one and it is no. New athletic director with completely new staff.

(06-03-2012 01:48 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 01:19 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 12:37 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Of course they aren't. Tennis coaches don't bring in those sort of numbers.

Real athletic administrators with vision do.

Here's what is going to define Noland's athletic plan. Does he keep Mullins on or does he replace him and when?

If Noland wants to see ground broken on a new convocation center within the next five years, can he get this done with the present athletic department personnel and organizational structure?

I think we all know the answer to that one and it is no. New athletic director with completely new staff.

So, if Noland plans to see ground broken on a new convocation center within the next five years, will he be FORCED, COMPELLED to hire a new athletic director and a new athletic staff in order to get it done?

Mullins' body of "work" demands his immediate firing.

It's my hope that in the east Tennessee "we'll let it rot before we do something bold that might upset an apple cart" mentality Noland is waiting for Mullins to retire.

We all get it, Mullins has largely sucked as an A.D. but how about this... Instead of the hands off approach Stanton took with athletics, what if Dr. Noland, realizing athletics is the front porch and drives the perception (not always the reality, but the perception) of the university. In doing so, he takes a micro managing approach in order to show that he can get done what others have failed miserably at, and that's build something at ETSU that isn't half-assed? Perhaps instead of leaving it in the hands of Corky and friends Dr. Noland spearheads the planning, fundraising and oversees every step of a potential arena from pre planning to groundbreaking to ribbon cutting... Thoughts? Anyone?
Remember, he needs something to make a splash, one would think he has ambitions for perhaps a larger, state land grant university?

Heres my thought on that. We are going to be breaking ground on the new parking garage very soon- and with it we will be moving the tennis courts. It would make sense in some ways to name the courts after Mullins as kind of a going away gift. He could retire with the positive spin that everyone always likes, it would not seem as though he is being forced out, and we could move on.

If it puts him out to pasture then great...

(06-03-2012 02:38 PM)etsubuc Wrote:  Heres my thought on that. We are going to be breaking ground on the new parking garage very soon- and with it we will be moving the tennis courts. It would make sense in some ways to name the courts after Mullins as kind of a going away gift. He could retire with the positive spin that everyone always likes, it would not seem as though he is being forced out, and we could move on.

Or, if Dave Mullins would not retire gracefully, Dr Noland could establish a firm, without compromise, five year window for getting the construction of this project under way. He could establish a yearly minimum benchmark of funds to be raised in order to accomplish the fund raising in the five years. He could establish the yearly benchmark of funds to be raised as a minimum job performance measure for the AD in order to continue in that position He could do this up front at the beginning so that the AD could fully see the plan so as to decide if he wanted to stay on or not.

The AD has been a failure- so let's name the tennis courts after him!

Noland wants to be successful at ETSU- so he can then go to UT!

That is sooooooooo Tri-Cities thinking. In step one, we honor the incompentent.

In step two, we take a back seat to another university by establishing ETSU as the "minor leagues" and UT-K as the "big leagues." Why would anyone ever want to be here when they can be there?

And you wonder why I call the people around here stupid.

It's a business move for him. Bigger job, more prestige and MORE MONEY. That's usually the approach that successful people in the world take.

(06-03-2012 11:07 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(06-03-2012 07:32 AM)etsubuc Wrote:  Noland has already publicly expressed his plan for this. He is going to build a convocation center- using state dollars- that will be used for basketball. State money cannot be used for athletic facilities, but if we call it a convocation center which we need since we have to have two commencement ceremonies each semester, the state can pay for it. That is a genius idea- and Noland has mentioned that many times now, for example in the long interview that he did for the JC Press about a month ago.

This article was written by the East Tennessean, rendering it completely useless.

But, it did quote Mullins and White. Mullins said," the discussion for the arena has been whether we build a new stand-alone arena on campus, do a major renovation of (the Dome) ........ Dr Noland in the JC Press interview in April said, "I'm hopeful that within five years we're turning ground for a new convocation center". Mullins went on to say, "they hope to finish the arena in the next few years. It is going to take a massive effort to raise that kind of money". Who does he mean by "they"?

The projects mentioned in this article have cost $10.5 million so far. The "Athletic Master Plan for facilities" launched in 2004 called for $87 million to be raised, with no completion date indicated. Eight years into this capital campaign and $10.5 million raised seems like, maybe, slow motion. Do you think Dave Mullins and staff are up to the task of raising $60 million for a new arena in the "next few years"?

Hell no they aren't.

(06-03-2012 03:39 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  It's a business move for him. Bigger job, more prestige and MORE MONEY. That's usually the approach that successful people in the world take.

So by this logic, the future of the Bucs lies mainly with someone's carpetbagging ambitions.

Interesting . . . .