(09-03-2012 07:39 AM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  You're against outdoor football? Interesting.

I NEVER said I'm against it. Rather, I prefer to be confortable. With a choice of sitting in windy 28 degrees for 2-3 hours where my face and lips grow numb to where I can't even speak or sitting in the confides of 75 degree climate controlled splendor, I'll opt for the latter. The typical hillbilly around here might chose the same; otherwise, all weather being equal, they'd probably just drive down to Knoxpit and (win or lose) worship their beloved Vols.

(09-03-2012 02:23 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  It's not a viable stadium option for games and that's not even debatable.

What an astute observation! That is evidenced by the fact that absolutely NO football games were ever played in the Dome in the '70's, '80's, '90's, or '00's. With that kind of track record, it is CLEARLY a non-viable option of which to play football. So, you are right, you are absolutely correct; and that's not even debatable.

(09-03-2012 04:06 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  I hear the old argument about watching indoors and being comfortable, and it's laughable.

So shivering in 30 degrees with teeth chattering for 3 hours is every bit as comfortable as sitting in 75 degrees in a tee shirt?

I did not mind plaing in the Dome either. It suited me just fine. But we must also remember that all of those Saturdays in September and October are spectacular and a pleasure to watch college football in. Now mid to late November and the weather can get pretty bad....

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Why would you go watch a .500 Tennessee team from the upper bowl when you could pay half the price, save almost all of the gas, stay home and get front row seats to an ETSU team that will likely provide you with a game that's every bit as entertaining?

I wouldn't. Have you ever lived in Johnson City? The people here would give up food before they ever give up their Vols.....win or lose. On a miserable weather day, they might be more swayed to stay at home and pay to watch ETSU. When they're going to be cold and wet otherwise, they'll make the drive to watch Peyton Manning, Tee Martin, or whoever the flavor-of-the-semester happens to be. Cost is not an issue when you're a toothless UT fan......however, comfort might be.

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Football is an outdoor sport. It needs to be played outdoors.

Another astute observation! Please make sure you inform the Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, Saint Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans, Arizona Cardinals, and Indianapolis Colts. Unless, of course, those teams don't play real football and don't employ real football players.

Well Sixties, the "O" conomy (that's a new one!) is not the worst since the depression, if that was the case, why would ETSU be building anything? Good grief, when the economy was "great" in the early part of this decade ETSU was building nothing.

A new facility would cost about $8-$10 million. You could raise that if you maxed out your student fees. You could raise it in a year.

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Congratulations, you're part of the problem!

What "problem" is that exactly? Surely you're not refering to the problem of having fans who ONLY want football back WHEN the broke state of Tennessee allows the broke ETSU to spend multiple-tens-of-millions-of-dollars to replace an existing football stadium with a sparlkly new one for a currently non-existant football team.

Here's an alert for you: stadiums don't win games. I know, it's shocking. Jacksonville University has arguably one of the absolute worst stadiums in America (college or high school). That did not stop them from being Pioneer Football League champions in 2008 and 2010. In YOUR world, they would FIRST have to build the Taj Mahal before winning anything, let alone fielding a football team that has played 5 more SoCon games than ETSU has in the past 5 years.

(09-03-2012 08:28 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  A new facility would cost about $8-$10 million. You could raise that if you maxed out your student fees. You could raise it in a year.

The figure I found is much higher according to cha-cha:

"The average cost to build a college football stadium back in 2006 was about $40 million dollars."

How many seats? Skyboxes? Jumbo-tron?

Going back to the dome is not going to happen if & when football comes back.

(09-03-2012 07:10 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  I think that's how the school needs to promote its football program, if we do indeed revive the program: a bang-for-your-buck alternative to UTK, especially if the Vols can't get much traction in the SEC. Eventually, if we can string together a few conference titles, we can shake that label off, but at first, to get fans through the turnstiles, it's probably a necessity that we emphasize the price.

Seriously? If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas!

There's an existing football facility on campus. The construction cost for an existing facility is $0. A new facility is at least $80,000,000. This O-conomy is the worst since the great depression. From where would ETSU get that kind of money and how long will that take? Quickest route to football = roll out the dome carpet. Otherwise, I guess you're content to take the Stetson route and leave football alone for 50 years until the money's right.

I think this idea is horrible. Simply having football is not worthwhile. The mere existence of football did nothing to promote ETSU n any kind of significant way when they had it. It would be pointless and wasteful to simply add the expense of football and do it halfway. If the money isn't right to get behind football in a meaningful way, then there is no point to football. If there's no support there's no success.

(09-03-2012 07:45 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Why would you go watch a .500 Tennessee team from the upper bowl when you could pay half the price, save almost all of the gas, stay home and get front row seats to an ETSU team that will likely provide you with a game that's every bit as entertaining?

I wouldn't. Have you ever lived in Johnson City? The people here would give up food before they ever give up their Vols.....win or lose. On a miserable weather day, they might be more swayed to stay at home and pay to watch ETSU. When they're going to be cold and wet otherwise, they'll make the drive to watch Peyton Manning, Tee Martin, or whoever the flavor-of-the-semester happens to be. Cost is not an issue when you're a toothless UT fan......however, comfort might be.

If that's true then why are people on here even asking for football back. If the local community is always going to opt to support the Vols and ignore the Bucs, then football is a pointless venture.

(09-03-2012 08:14 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Football is an outdoor sport. It needs to be played outdoors.

Another astute observation! Please make sure you inform the Atlanta Falcons, New Orleans Saints, Saint Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans, Arizona Cardinals, and Indianapolis Colts. Unless, of course, those teams don't play real football and don't employ real football players.

You can't even compare the mini Dome with the Cardinals or Colts facilities. Yes, they both have a roof, but they are in no way similar facilities. It's not just a matter of scale. They have real grass, retractable roofs, and an open airy feel that is reminiscent of an outdoor stadium. Those facilities are exceptional. The mini Dome is a cold, dark, leaky facility reminiscent of an airplane hangars. It's a subpar facility, even at the FCS level. It blows my mind that posters on this board are adamant that we need a new basketball facility (which I agree with), but believe the Dome is a suitable facility for DI college football in 2012. It's not even as good as Tusculum's stadium.

(09-03-2012 09:06 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 07:45 PM)BucSinceTheSixties Wrote:  

(09-03-2012 12:12 PM)Mister Consistency Wrote:  Why would you go watch a .500 Tennessee team from the upper bowl when you could pay half the price, save almost all of the gas, stay home and get front row seats to an ETSU team that will likely provide you with a game that's every bit as entertaining?

I wouldn't. Have you ever lived in Johnson City? The people here would give up food before they ever give up their Vols.....win or lose. On a miserable weather day, they might be more swayed to stay at home and pay to watch ETSU. When they're going to be cold and wet otherwise, they'll make the drive to watch Peyton Manning, Tee Martin, or whoever the flavor-of-the-semester happens to be. Cost is not an issue when you're a toothless UT fan......however, comfort might be.

If that's true then why are people on here even asking for football back. If the local community is always going to opt to support the Vols and ignore the Bucs, then football is a pointless venture.

It has absolutely nothing to do with ETSU playing FCS football. 7-10K per game is reasonable and achievable for schools like ETSU and there is no reason to not be playing football at this level. There are big, rich schools in every state but that does not keep the regional FCS schools from playing. If that were true Eastern Kentucky, Western Carolina, Tenn Tech and dozens of others would not be playing football but they are playing and it has nothing to do with the big schools in their states. Nothing.
It is true you cannot let the tennis coach run athletics but you can have a successful FCS program and can allow all of the opportunities that that program brings to the school.

(09-03-2012 08:28 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  Well Sixties, the "O" conomy (that's a new one!) is not the worst since the depression

:muttering: You've just displayed an absolute scary level of uninformed ignorance or denial. I don't think I can safely take anything you say seriously, nor ever should anybody else. I call it the O-conomy for a reason.

So, don't tell me this isn't the worst economy since the Great Depression, tell all the experts:

"U.S. Recession Worst Since Great Depression, Revised Data Show"
Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n...ivTjr852TI

"The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression"
Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara...epression/

"Thread: "Worst Economy Since the Great Depression""
Hannity
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php...ssion-quot

"World Bank: Economy worst since Depression"
CNN Money
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/09/news/int...orld_bank/

. . . and tens-of-thousands more articles like these are out there.

Currently, according to U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there are 12.8 million unemployed people in the U.S. (about 8.3% . . . one would have to attend 3,813 home ETSU basketball games to see that many people/about 273 seasons). These have been sustained numbers for a very long time and only reflect the reported unemployment. So, the actual numbers would be much higher. Further, the U.S. government is spending $1,937,500,000 per hour (about a $500,000 per second, or a new college football stadium every 1 minute and 20 seconds). The Bush administration added $4,000,000,000,000 to the national debt over eight years (more than ALL previous administrations COMBINED). The Obama administration has added $4,000,000,000,000 in only 3 years.

Here's something really scary:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

All this while Iran and North Korea are going un-checked in their nuke-up ventures. It's a real race right now to see if the U.S. first goes broke or gets killed. So, o' wise one, if this isn't the worst economy since the great depression, please tell us exactly when that was.



By the way, college volleyball players ARE hot...and I don't care how much that offends you or how "sexist" you think I am!

Linn-Benton Community College:

(09-03-2012 08:54 PM)GoBucsGo Wrote:  How many seats? Skyboxes? Jumbo-tron?

Average means average.

(09-03-2012 09:05 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  I think this idea is horrible. Simply having football is not worthwhile. The mere existence of football did nothing to promote ETSU n any kind of significant way when they had it. It would be pointless and wasteful to simply add the expense of football and do it halfway. If the money isn't right to get behind football in a meaningful way, then there is no point to football. If there's no support there's no success.

Simple question: Were things better when ETSU was playing football in the Dome as a member of the Southern Conference, or are things better now having no football and being a member of the Atlantic Sun?

The most affordable and quickest way to have football at ETSU is to bring the sports program back to a 2002 level. There is nothing wrong with going "backwards" for a bit if it allows the institution to change direction for the long-haul.

Get a team, play in the Dome, get into a football conference, and build the program from there. Winning sells. When there's 15,000 people clamoring to get one of the Dome's 13,000 seats, that is the time to drop millions & millions & millions on a new stadium. Or, if there's suddenly an influx of money that the university doesn't know what to do with, that would also be a good time to build a new stadium. When that day comes, it would come down to university preference whether to give people like me a roof or give people like Mister Consistancy the harsh outdoors.

(09-03-2012 09:10 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  You can't even compare the mini Dome with the Cardinals or Colts facilities.

I can, and I did. Everything is relative. If Lucas Oil Stadium is good enough for the Colts and Superbowl XLVI, then the Mountain States Health Alliance Athletics Center is good enough for the Bucs re-start football program and select scenes from "We Are Marshall."


From an SI.com 2010 article titled "Baseball keeps connection to its past as domes change NFL":

• Dome teams at home are 7-0 in the playoffs. Teams without a dome are 0-3 at home.

• A dome team is 15 percent more likely to win at home than a non-dome team at home -- worth an extra win over the course of a season.

• Peyton Manning has put himself in the argument among the best quarterbacks in NFL history, in great part because of his mastery of indoor football.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...z25TUbsIwe


I'm beginning to think that LetsgoBucs, GoBucsGo, Goldfinger, and PittsburghBucs are all the same person. I'm also beginning to think that Buc66 and bucfan81 are head-and-shoulders way more intelligent and insightful than any of the aforementioned.

(09-02-2012 05:41 PM)Buc66 Wrote:  Fix the Mini-Dome and let's play some football. Take some rows out down front, configure seats on the four ends to replace the lost seats, and turn the place into a dreaded venue for visitors and a party place for the home team. Why not start playing ball again with a plan to move into a new stadium down the road? There's enough money to fund a competitive football program without raising student fees.
Why not?

Billiant!!! I'm in. It definitely beats the Stetson University model of waiting 50 years just to "do things the right way."

Well, not exactly a political board, but the 'O' conomy isn't exactly the problem. And good Lord, you cited Hannity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...-watching/

You're making a comparison between the NFL and I-AA football. Yeah, I'm the idiot.