Notice the CAA wants to have its replacements picked by December, if that's credible information.

(07-03-2012 12:36 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Pitt raises a legitimate issue, low expectations for ETSU athletics. Yes, seeing the discussion of keeping the "rivalry" with Belmont shows the decline of ETSU sports. And, unfortunately, the acceptance of that decline by too many is the new reality. Does Noland feel any pressure to make athletic changes? My guess is very little. Any changes that come will be because Noland wants them. Sort of the reverse of Stanton who didn't want any changes so there were none. However, Mullins is still AD and the Stanton-Mullins athletic model is still in place. So far there have been no changes and little evidence of any in the foreseeable future.

My apologies fellas. The discussion didn't start as "can we still play Belmont," it was an incredibly stupid Belmont fan asking, "will you play us, because I like the rivalry." I'm sorry to insult you guys by even considering that we should keep playing each other. Instead, a "small" school from Lawrence, KS (population 88,000) stooped as low as to schedule us for the second time in three years. This is what their site had to say:

"I think it is going to be a really good RPI (Rating Percentage Index) schedule," KU head coach Bill Self said. "I don't think there are as many traditional names on it as we have had the last couple of years. Ohio State and Michigan State will be two of the best teams in the country. Then you throw in the Temples and the Colorados, the Washington States, Oregon States, Richmonds, Belmonts, American; there are some good teams in there that will have really good RPIs that should probably help our RPI."

I'm done insulting,..this is my last post here.

(07-08-2012 01:06 PM)Bruin2002 Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:36 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Pitt raises a legitimate issue, low expectations for ETSU athletics. Yes, seeing the discussion of keeping the "rivalry" with Belmont shows the decline of ETSU sports. And, unfortunately, the acceptance of that decline by too many is the new reality. Does Noland feel any pressure to make athletic changes? My guess is very little. Any changes that come will be because Noland wants them. Sort of the reverse of Stanton who didn't want any changes so there were none. However, Mullins is still AD and the Stanton-Mullins athletic model is still in place. So far there have been no changes and little evidence of any in the foreseeable future.

My apologies fellas. The discussion didn't start as "can we still play Belmont," it was an incredibly stupid Belmont fan asking, "will you play us, because I like the rivalry." I'm sorry to insult you guys by even considering that we should keep playing each other. Instead, a "small" school from Lawrence, KS (population 88,000) stooped as low as to schedule us for the second time in three years. This is what their site had to say:

"I think it is going to be a really good RPI (Rating Percentage Index) schedule," KU head coach Bill Self said. "I don't think there are as many traditional names on it as we have had the last couple of years. Ohio State and Michigan State will be two of the best teams in the country. Then you throw in the Temples and the Colorados, the Washington States, Oregon States, Richmonds, Belmonts, American; there are some good teams in there that will have really good RPIs that should probably help our RPI."

I'm done insulting,..this is my last post here.

Well said Bruin...hope you guys beat KU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bruin raises the only legitimate issue - Belmont is a damn good mid-major no matter what league they are in or came from with an established coach. They may beat KU.

(07-08-2012 06:04 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  Bruin raises the only legitimate issue - Belmont is a damn good mid-major no matter what league they are in or came from with an established coach. They may beat KU.

Agreed! I've posted a few times that we should keep that series going. It certainly is a special love/hate thing with that school.

I do remember when they played Kansas in '09-ish. If I recall correctly, BU got the first dunk of the game. Let that sink-in a moment. First, Belmont doesn't dunk. Second, Belmont dunks on Kansas? You know that had to shock the living %@#^ out of those Jayhawks!

(07-08-2012 01:06 PM)Bruin2002 Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:36 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Pitt raises a legitimate issue, low expectations for ETSU athletics. Yes, seeing the discussion of keeping the "rivalry" with Belmont shows the decline of ETSU sports. And, unfortunately, the acceptance of that decline by too many is the new reality. Does Noland feel any pressure to make athletic changes? My guess is very little. Any changes that come will be because Noland wants them. Sort of the reverse of Stanton who didn't want any changes so there were none. However, Mullins is still AD and the Stanton-Mullins athletic model is still in place. So far there have been no changes and little evidence of any in the foreseeable future.

My apologies fellas. The discussion didn't start as "can we still play Belmont," it was an incredibly stupid Belmont fan asking, "will you play us, because I like the rivalry." I'm sorry to insult you guys by even considering that we should keep playing each other. Instead, a "small" school from Lawrence, KS (population 88,000) stooped as low as to schedule us for the second time in three years. This is what their site had to say:

"I think it is going to be a really good RPI (Rating Percentage Index) schedule," KU head coach Bill Self said. "I don't think there are as many traditional names on it as we have had the last couple of years. Ohio State and Michigan State will be two of the best teams in the country. Then you throw in the Temples and the Colorados, the Washington States, Oregon States, Richmonds, Belmonts, American; there are some good teams in there that will have really good RPIs that should probably help our RPI."

I'm done insulting,..this is my last post here.

66 means well, it's just hard to accept that Belmont has grown the way it has.
Pitt is well, a waterdog.

Belmont is to be congratulated. What they have achieved in basketball helps highlight what ETSU has failed to achieve. Belmont came out of the NAIA ranks long after ETSU entered the NCAA Division I ranks. Belmont caught ETSU and passed them. The question might be asked now why Belmont would want to continue to schedule ETSU. My concern is with ETSU athletics and what is happening there. If the change of discussion on this board is any indication, then the decline of ETSU athletics is now being accepted. This board started out primarily as a bring back Buc football. It can now be argued that more and more people are giving up on bringing back Buc football in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the conversation is shifting more and more to basketball. And even there, more and more people seem to be lowering their expectations for basketball. As other schools, like Belmont, catch and pass ETSU basketball, Buc fans seem to be more accepting of even this. Never mind we don't have football anymore, but we're we're also declining in basketball. What will it take to get the Buc Nation off its butt and start demanding change? How much longer will Buc fans allow the failed Stanton-Mullins athletic model to go on unchallenged? Are we no better than to allow upstart school after school to catch us and pass us in athletics? Do we have no shame?

This boards primary purpose was never to bring back Buc football, that was not what it was created for and I have no clue whatever gave you that idea.
It does have a section for that but that was far from the only reason it was created and actually Buc Football was probably a very small reason in the
grand scheme of things.

The name of this board:

Buccaneer Nation

THE OFFICIAL FORUM OF ETSU ATHLETICS

BRING BACK BUCCANEER FOOTBALL

(07-09-2012 02:03 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  The name of this board:

Buccaneer Nation

THE OFFICIAL FORUM OF ETSU ATHLETICS

BRING BACK BUCCANEER FOOTBALL

Yeah, that was added later when they split it into 4 different boards instead of just one like the other A-Sun schools. I have been around pretty much from the start, trust me it was never, ever centered around football, the talk then as it is now was primarly about basketball.

Well '66, Belmont has passed a lot of people that have been in D-1 for as long as ETSU, however, this isn't a static situation and Belmont may hit rough times ahead considering they have a lost a bit in terms of personnel. I'm not sure I would say 'Belmont didn't want to schedule ETSU' unless you're privy to conversations going on between athletic departments. I can't see that the ETSU schedule is indicative of a sliding program, considering North Carolina (I think they're pretty good) is on there, as well as Va Tech, Georgia, Ole Miss, and VCU is coming to the dome and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) they made the final 4 a couple of years ago. Is this indicative of a sliding program? Or....Maybe Dave & Murry didn't' want to schedule Belmont and get more teams out of "BCS" conferences? I know, hard to believe.

The other more interesting conversation to have is howl this team will fare with this schedule. Kelly Hodge certainly implied it's going to be rough, and considering ETSU lost 3 starters and have a ton of new faces I am certainly concerned about how well they will perform. On the other hand, Va Tech just hired a new coach, and I don't know how strong UGA or Ole Miss really are. I'm not sure I, nor any other poster, has said that they 'lowered their expectations for basketball.' However, if I'm to say anything positive about the ETSU basketball team in this forum, or any other ETSU athletic team, I'm told I'm "Dave's lapdog" (that's hilarious) or "accepting of the current state of ETSU athletics." Positivity is not accepted here. Whining and crying is the M.O.

When Belmont is described as an "upstart" program . . . . well, I'd have to disagree. First, they made their transition to D-I in 1998. After 14 years, haven't they earned the right to drop out of the "upstart" category? Second, regardless of when they became D-I, up until that point they were nationally regarded as an NAIA powerehouse. Thinking back, I seem to recall them beating the likes of UT-Chattanooga and Western Carolina around '94 or '95. My crazy speculation would be that as an NAIA team in the mid '90's, Belmont could have just as easily been a mid-level SoCon team. Today, they could beat everyone in the SoCon as they did everyone in the higher RPI A-Sun.

Looking-up stuff about Belmont these past couple of days, I ran across this nice article from a Kentucky paper about Belmont basketball. If any of us are envious of Belmont basketball success (as I am), this should certainly stoke-the-flames a bit!

http://www.kentuckynewera.com/sports/tre...963f4.html

I've always hated Belmont (a kind of "Appy State" hate). However, the more I read-up on this team, the more I like them. If I should suddenly change my online name to "BruinSince2012" . . . then you know I've officially jumped ship! (I'm only joking . . . don't revoke my BASA membership).

I'm growing a little tired of this Belmont love fest on this ETSU board.

Hopefully A-Sun coaches just don't want to schedule Belmont. We can't forget how they up and left in the middle of the night. ETSU and Lipscomb at the top of the list of teams that should have been most offended with the no-notice departure.

(07-09-2012 11:28 PM)MercerFan Wrote:  Hopefully A-Sun coaches just don't want to schedule Belmont. We can't forget how they up and left in the middle of the night. ETSU and Lipscomb at the top of the list of teams that should have been most offended with the no-notice departure.

Being the 22nd school to leave the ASun since 1979, Belmont's departure is just par for the course and the usual character of this conference. Why would anybody be offended? Of course our AD was surprised because he thought he had some oath, pledge or something with Belmont. But what would he know about a school looking out for its own interests.

(07-10-2012 08:29 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(07-09-2012 11:28 PM)MercerFan Wrote:  Hopefully A-Sun coaches just don't want to schedule Belmont. We can't forget how they up and left in the middle of the night. ETSU and Lipscomb at the top of the list of teams that should have been most offended with the no-notice departure.

Being the 22nd school to leave the ASun since 1979, Belmont's departure is just par for the course and the usual character of this conference. Why would anybody be offended? Of course our AD was surprised because he thought he had some oath, pledge or something with Belmont. But what would he know about a school looking out for its own interests.

I wonder if Belmont faxed us a letter to let us know.

(07-10-2012 08:44 AM)abuc90 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 08:29 AM)Buc66 Wrote:  

(07-09-2012 11:28 PM)MercerFan Wrote:  Hopefully A-Sun coaches just don't want to schedule Belmont. We can't forget how they up and left in the middle of the night. ETSU and Lipscomb at the top of the list of teams that should have been most offended with the no-notice departure.

Being the 22nd school to leave the ASun since 1979, Belmont's departure is just par for the course and the usual character of this conference. Why would anybody be offended? Of course our AD was surprised because he thought he had some oath, pledge or something with Belmont. But what would he know about a school looking out for its own interests.

I wonder if Belmont faxed us a letter to let us know.

Ha, ha, hee, hee -- that's a good one. I'm sure Dave's feelings must have been hurt because of that special understanding that he thought he had with Belmont -- you know the "pledge" all of them made to stick together when ETSU rejected the OVC. Perhaps he fails to comprehend the concept of an AD looking out for the interest of his own school and making decisions accordingly.