ETSU needs a new, more visible fraternity, one that will do more to boost enrollment, enhance the college experience and raise the name recognition of our university.
It won’t be cheap or easy. Insuring its success will require sacrifices. Those fraternities that aren’t pulling their weight will have to be dispensed with to make room.
Sounds like a pretty drastic way of bringing a new fraternity to campus, but the students aren’t paying attention, so maybe we can get away with it.
As crazy as this attitude sounds, it’s the same attitude exhibited by some of our “friends” at the Buc Football and Friends Foundation (BFFF).
If their discussion board is any indication, they’re not only looking forward to enhancing our university experience with a football revival, but would be more than happy to see other, less visible programs sacrificed to make it happen.
The problem, claim some BFFF supporters, is that many of our sports programs spend far more per player than comparable teams from other universities, and because these programs don’t attract enough fans or prestige, they ought to take a back seat to football.
“All here recognize that in order to have successful football, ETSU needs a real athletic director, (AD) who has the authority to reorganize that department — which, of course, means a complete restructuring of athletic spending and real accountability,” wrote a supporter going by the name Buc66. “As it is now, it’s more like a highly subsidized country club for the benefit of the athletic personnel.”
No surprise that football tops the list of programs that BFFF supporters think should get first dibs of athletic funding. But what about funding for programs that fall a little lower on the BFFF visibility scale?
“Spending big bucks on invisible sports must change,” Buc66 wrote.
Invisible sports?
Another supporter going by the name of John fills us in. “People have to see that widespread support of soccer is just not there and would be sparsely attended. We should just go all out for football right now.”
Are they saying less attended sports like soccer should be eliminated?
“Being stupid enough to add something like men’s soccer and sucking out more of the initial $75 (of the athletic fee) is an outrage,” BFFF discussion board co-moderator Kim Reece complained. “They’ve got to change the thinking dramatically; that you get to fully fund invisible, non-impact sports. Hell, I say don’t add men’s soccer and get kicked out of the A-Sun. Do us all a favor.”
Others took a more moderate stance. “I am not looking to hurt other men’s sports, but if they are already better funded than most I-AA programs, why can’t they freeze additional funding dollars until football is reestablished and then we can see if it makes sense to move forward,” discussion board co-moderator wetsu58 wrote.
Not every post on the BFFF discussion board relates to athletic funding preferences (though such criticism is a recurrent theme) and it’s possible many BFFF members don’t agree with suggestions to freeze or cut funds for “invisible” programs in order to revive football, but if that’s the case, those members never post on the discussion board.
Fortunately, such funding cuts are unlikely. We do, after all, have an administration and athletic department committed to maintaining a diverse athletic program.
Then again, look at what BFFF lobbying has been able to accomplish to date.
The front page of our university’s own Web site, until recently, was emblazoned with the advertising logo “ETSU Football; A New Era.” This despite the fact that the student body has yet to approve the increase in student fees required to fund football.
The administration has sent out solicitation letters from the Office of the President to more than 70,000 students and alumni welcoming them “to a new era in Buccaneer Football.”
The administration must have counted on me donating quite a bit, because I received two such letters.
Last but not least are the thousands of dollars already spent by football boosters for buttons, shirts, posters and giveaways to win students over and sway the outcome of the upcoming student referendum.
If the BFFF lobby is influential enough to accomplish what it has already, maybe soccer isn’t so safe after all, which of course raises other questions. If football falters financially, as it did previously, will other programs be sacrificed on the football altar to appease football boosters?
Should “invisible” sports like soccer be frozen or eliminated to make room for football? Should BFFF members really be the ones deciding how to enhance our university experience?
They shouldn’t be, but thanks to an apathetic student body, they are.

Author