|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jan 5, 2013 10:07:49 GMT -8
im so over all of us bitching about the back and forth. me, personally... leave my basketball team the F alone and do whatever the F ever you're gonna do with football. and other than my worthless opinion, just wake me up when it's over. I found this quote more fascinating as it festered. "Your" basketball team? Really? Yours? Pretty bold statement there. Why is it any more yours than say mine? I was behind the program way back, standing in the door at Pete watching the Joel Kramer's, Goetz's, Gwynn's the flirtation with Keith Lee when we got Mike Cage, and even back to the Vezie era play teams like Prairie View A&M to a few hundred fans. I was there with young Chet. I remember the original pep band, Swinko, the Mongons and a few others later try to give some interest to the men's program at it's ebb. Many of us were there when Fish was hired to a combination of excitement and derision, supporting the hire and arguing with the NTUs of the world trying to argue Fish wasn't able to take the team beyond a high-middle plateau. All the time being as supportive as we could be. Engaging the ADs after Fred Miller to stay the course, continually increasing our AAF donations to help fund the resurrection of football and hoops. So, when folks like you point your long bony finger in some form of derision or that we have some form of lesser standing of fans is amazingly patronizing, disrespectful and short-sighted. Some of us actually have a longer, stronger view of the larger picture that supports the entire athletic department in a very unstable and uncertain CSU funding coming nightmare that will sooner-that-later severally impact our entire program. We are invested for the long term and have been strongly behind the hoops program all along, welcome aboard our program, our team. We've been waiting. Again, welcome aboard the fandom of hoops, we've been waiting for you! I think he was just saying that he's tired of the drama and wants it all to be over. It's, "His," team in that it's the college program that he cares about and wants to see do well. That's all. Just like I think the Aztecs are, "My," team. I don't really care too much about any other college programs.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 5, 2013 10:25:09 GMT -8
I found this quote more fascinating as it festered. "Your" basketball team? Really? Yours? Pretty bold statement there. Why is it any more yours than say mine? I was behind the program way back, standing in the door at Pete watching the Joel Kramer's, Goetz's, Gwynn's the flirtation with Keith Lee when we got Mike Cage, and even back to the Vezie era play teams like Prairie View A&M to a few hundred fans. I was there with young Chet. I remember the original pep band, Swinko, the Mongons and a few others later try to give some interest to the men's program at it's ebb. Many of us were there when Fish was hired to a combination of excitement and derision, supporting the hire and arguing with the NTUs of the world trying to argue Fish wasn't able to take the team beyond a high-middle plateau. All the time being as supportive as we could be. Engaging the ADs after Fred Miller to stay the course, continually increasing our AAF donations to help fund the resurrection of football and hoops. So, when folks like you point your long bony finger in some form of derision or that we have some form of lesser standing of fans is amazingly patronizing, disrespectful and short-sighted. Some of us actually have a longer, stronger view of the larger picture that supports the entire athletic department in a very unstable and uncertain CSU funding coming nightmare that will sooner-that-later severally impact our entire program. We are invested for the long term and have been strongly behind the hoops program all along, welcome aboard our program, our team. We've been waiting. Again, welcome aboard the fandom of hoops, we've been waiting for you! I think he was just saying that he's tired of the drama and wants it all to be over. It's, "His," team in that it's the college program that he cares about and wants to see do well. That's all. Just like I think the Aztecs are, "My," team. I don't really care too much about any other college programs. Nah, he only cares to keep hoops in the MWC, regardless of the consequences. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by monty619 on Jan 5, 2013 10:44:05 GMT -8
I take this as a very good sign. Move all sports back to the MWC ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 5, 2013 10:44:54 GMT -8
I think he was just saying that he's tired of the drama and wants it all to be over. It's, "His," team in that it's the college program that he cares about and wants to see do well. That's all. Just like I think the Aztecs are, "My," team. I don't really care too much about any other college programs. Nah, he only cares to keep hoops in the MWC, regardless of the consequences. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards Yup, and whenever we don't win, he'll just rip off the tshirt and move along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 10:59:45 GMT -8
Indeed. A Stanford grad that cares more about futbol than even t-shirt basketball is the ringleader. Hey! Nothing's more important than futbol! /s/ UCSB and a few UCSB wannabes in the BigLots
|
|
|
Post by lvrebelfan on Jan 5, 2013 12:00:11 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off.
SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference.
The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. There is reason the hoops schools bailed and Boise after. None believe they will be better off after the TV deal is finalized because the numbers simply can't be produced yet.
On competition... There seems to be an ongoing argument about how much better the Big East is due to not having to play the front range schools. If the conference expands to 8 or 16 teams, there will be very few games in most sports where SDSU will have to travel west of the Rockies.
On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him.
Future Big East I personally am not convinced the Big Ten will expand again, but if they do, the potential future of SDSU athletics is to be in a league with entirely conference USA teams with the nearest member over 1000 miles away. Staying in the MW and improving in the areas needed for a long term chance at the Pac 12 or Big 12 makes far more sense for SDSU, Boise, UNLV and every other program in the MW that aspires for greater things.
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Jan 5, 2013 12:18:11 GMT -8
Indeed. A Stanford grad that cares more about futbol than even t-shirt basketball is the ringleader. Hey! Nothing's more important than futbol! /s/ UCSB and a few UCSB wannabes in the BigLots "Hear Hear!" /s/ New Mexico
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 5, 2013 12:23:05 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off. SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference. The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him. The MWC does have an incredibly lousy TV deal, courtesy of Thompson and it will handcuff this conference until 2020, except for BYU 2.0, err BSU. It cost the entire upper division of the conference to leave, and that was when the payout was 50% higher. If that is leadership, I'm not a fan. That isn't a reason to join, that tge BE deal isn't done. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 12:42:15 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off. SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference. The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him. The MWC does have an incredibly lousy TV deal Not only does the MWC have an incredibly lousy TV deal, the guy's also wrong about the BE not having one at all. In fact, the BE STILL HAS a TV contract, with ESPN, which doesn't expire until January 1, 2014. There isn't a doubt in the world that SDSU's first year in the BE/BW will be vastly more lucrative than if we rejoin the MWC. Instead, the issue is whether we'll be better off thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by monty619 on Jan 5, 2013 13:04:19 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off. SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference. The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. There is reason the hoops schools bailed and Boise after. None believe they will be better off after the TV deal is finalized because the numbers simply can't be produced yet. On competition... There seems to be an ongoing argument about how much better the Big East is due to not having to play the front range schools. If the conference expands to 8 or 16 teams, there will be very few games in most sports where SDSU will have to travel west of the Rockies. On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him. Future Big East I personally am not convinced the Big Ten will expand again, but if they do, the potential future of SDSU athletics is to be in a league with entirely conference USA teams with the nearest member over 1000 miles away. Staying in the MW and improving in the areas needed for a long term chance at the Pac 12 or Big 12 makes far more sense for SDSU, Boise, UNLV and every other program in the MW that aspires for greater things. Pretty much right on the money and a good post. Who would think a rebel fan would be the voice of reason on here? We have way to many 'football only' fans who are still clinging to the mythical New Big East as some sort of golden goose that is going to catapult the program into big time status...or at least positon for a future big conference invite. Not happening at all. Absolutely true that Arseco is proviing to be a disaster and that conference is going to burn to the ground. It is mutually beneficial at this point and makes all the sense in the world for SDSU to reunite with the MWC....and I would be shocked if this didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jan 5, 2013 14:01:23 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off. SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference. The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. There is reason the hoops schools bailed and Boise after. None believe they will be better off after the TV deal is finalized because the numbers simply can't be produced yet. On competition... There seems to be an ongoing argument about how much better the Big East is due to not having to play the front range schools. If the conference expands to 8 or 16 teams, there will be very few games in most sports where SDSU will have to travel west of the Rockies. On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him. Future Big East I personally am not convinced the Big Ten will expand again, but if they do, the potential future of SDSU athletics is to be in a league with entirely conference USA teams with the nearest member over 1000 miles away. Staying in the MW and improving in the areas needed for a long term chance at the Pac 12 or Big 12 makes far more sense for SDSU, Boise, UNLV and every other program in the MW that aspires for greater things. Pretty much right on the money and a good post. Who would think a rebel fan would be the voice of reason on here? We have way to many 'football only' fans who are still clinging to the mythical New Big East as some sort of golden goose that is going to catapult the program into big time status...or at least positon for a future big conference invite. Not happening at all. Absolutely true that Arseco is proviing to be a disaster and that conference is going to burn to the ground. It is mutually beneficial at this point and makes all the sense in the world for SDSU to reunite with the MWC....and I would be shocked if this didn't happen. Outlier permeance. I would ask myself, my position is one that I think is bet articulated by a rebel fan, is that good or bad?
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 5, 2013 14:22:15 GMT -8
Pretty much right on the money and a good post. Who would think a rebel fan would be the voice of reason on here? We have way to many 'football only' fans who are still clinging to the mythical New Big East as some sort of golden goose that is going to catapult the program into big time status...or at least positon for a future big conference invite. Not happening at all. Absolutely true that Arseco is proviing to be a disaster and that conference is going to burn to the ground. It is mutually beneficial at this point and makes all the sense in the world for SDSU to reunite with the MWC....and I would be shocked if this didn't happen. Outlier permeance. I would ask myself, my position is one that I think is bet articulated by a rebel fan, is that good or bad? +28 Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by War-Ztec on Jan 5, 2013 15:20:12 GMT -8
Mark it down. January 4, 2013 SDSU finally gave up on football. Won't happen. The allumni will have a kanipshin and the sports program will fall apart. Though it may light some fire (hopefully) in their collective arses and finally go to our home games, once we find a home. I don't foresee us coming back to the MWC and we may be buying time in the BE for a year or two with some sort of concession in the contract. The SD market is too important now so we will still have a football program for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by lvrebelfan on Jan 5, 2013 17:42:33 GMT -8
On the TV deal.. 1) Boise and SDSU were not a part of the restructured TV deal from last month. Therefore, both schools' home games WILL be packaged and sold separately from the deal with CBS. Boise wants to make sure their games are sold (most likely) to ESPN. SDSU's games probably wouldn't have the cachet to get on ESPN regularly or any other national network, so logically SDSU will take a hit like most teams in the league on that point, but Boise also brings the most to the conference, it seems like a reasonable trade off. SDSU's games will be sold separately along with any other new league member to generate revenue for the entire conference. The MW has a TV deal, the Big East does not. On MW leadership... The derision of Craig Thompson's leadership ability I find interesting. I have never been a fan of his either, but even I have to admit - he outmaneuvered Benson and killed the WAC, and has now effectively killed the Big East by taking Aresco to school. You can't tell me you have confidence in Aresco's leadership - since he arrived the league has not improved or strengthened in a single tangible way. I think he was the wrong hire in the end, a TV guy made sense, but his tone deafness on dealing with college presidents has come back to bite him. The MWC does have an incredibly lousy TV deal, courtesy of Thompson and it will handcuff this conference until 2020, except for BYU 2.0, err BSU. It cost the entire upper division of the conference to leave, and that was when the payout was 50% higher. If that is leadership, I'm not a fan. That isn't a reason to join, that tge BE deal isn't done. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards It was reason enough for Boise state. And you skipped the part about all the basketball schools leaving. Don't both these decisions... By people with far more information than any of us... Concern you as to the future of the Big East? Also even if you (SDSU fans in general) believe one year is more lucrative if the 2013 version of the BE proceeds, a university president has to make decisions for the long term. Maybe the BE is better for you, but you can't just assume if it doesn't work out the Pac 12, Big 12 or Mountain West will be your savior. I hope SDSU stays in the MW because Im a western college sports fan, and I think it's better for all fans in this league - including Aztecs - if it stays together, short of any school receiving a Pac 12 or Big 12 invite. Those of you that believe the MW is holding back SDSU - consider you only have the option between a league of mid-majors and another league of mid majors that's thousands of miles away (plus a BW that's considered a low major conference). Not a choice between MW and a top level league. The argument you will recruit better or get better home attendance long term playing SMU, UH, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU makes no sense unless you need it to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jan 5, 2013 17:58:19 GMT -8
OK, show me the plural fans calling you "not a fan." California's super majority will fund education, not necessarily CSU athletics. $800K is unsustainable. How's the basketball practice facility coming? We won 11 championships this year in 9 sports, more to come. That isn't sustainable. Sterk is owed a lot of praise for working his butt off to help the olympic sports but again, it can't continue. Part of that was on the football revenue turnaround started by Hoke and a huge donation by Ron Fowler. That won't last if we can't show some ability to generate alumni donations and other revenue streams. Again, the women's basketball program lost $1M last year. That is more that the MWC media revenue provides this coming year. Tell me how we sustain it. Tell me why we CAN'T sustain it. You, and some others, are making projections based on your own research/opinions/thoughts/analysis, but nobody here is a paid researcher or analyst. That's fine, but don't act like your research/opinions/thoughts/analysis are any better than someone else's simply because they disagree with you. Tell you how we can sustain it? The same way we have for the past 2, 5, 10 years - that's how. So you tell me - how much money did athletics lose last year? How much money do we stand to gain if football keeps winning, regardless of conference? How much money do we stand to lose if bball attendance drops back to 5-6k a game? Look, I've made my case countless times over the past 6(?) months - pretty much everyone on this board with a pulse has thrown out every single thought they've ever come up with about this $#!+. I accept i'm not going to change anyone's opinion, and neither are the guys who post 30 times a day about tv markets and football attendance and complaining about fans and western all-sports and etc etc etc. But, I will call people out on their bs and small dik syndrome when they get all high and mighty. You like the big east? That's cool, but you're not a better fan, and you don't have more foresight, and the opposition isn't wrong just because you think so.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 5, 2013 17:59:43 GMT -8
The MWC does have an incredibly lousy TV deal, courtesy of Thompson and it will handcuff this conference until 2020, except for BYU 2.0, err BSU. It cost the entire upper division of the conference to leave, and that was when the payout was 50% higher. If that is leadership, I'm not a fan. That isn't a reason to join, that tge BE deal isn't done. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards It was reason enough for Boise state. And you skipped the part about all the basketball schools leaving. Don't both these decisions... By people with far more information than any of us... Concern you as to the future of the Big East? Also even if you (SDSU fans in general) believe one year is more lucrative if the 2013 version of the BE proceeds, a university president has to make decisions for the long term. Maybe the BE is better for you, but you can't just assume if it doesn't work out the Pac 12, Big 12 or Mountain West will be your savior. I hope SDSU stays in the MW because Im a western college sports fan, and I think it's better for all fans in this league - including Aztecs - if it stays together, short of any school receiving a Pac 12 or Big 12 invite. Those of you that believe the MW is holding back SDSU - consider you only have the option between a league of mid-majors and another league of mid majors that's thousands of miles away (plus a BW that's considered a low major conference). Not a choice between MW and a top level league. The argument you will recruit better or get better home attendance long term playing SMU, UH, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU makes no sense unless you need it to make sense. Have you bothered to actually ponder the ramification of the deal offered/accepted by Boise... and how much their deal actually hurts every other team in the conference?
|
|
|
Post by bschmurda on Jan 5, 2013 18:02:49 GMT -8
It was reason enough for Boise state. And you skipped the part about all the basketball schools leaving. Don't both these decisions... By people with far more information than any of us... Concern you as to the future of the Big East? Also even if you (SDSU fans in general) believe one year is more lucrative if the 2013 version of the BE proceeds, a university president has to make decisions for the long term. Maybe the BE is better for you, but you can't just assume if it doesn't work out the Pac 12, Big 12 or Mountain West will be your savior. I hope SDSU stays in the MW because Im a western college sports fan, and I think it's better for all fans in this league - including Aztecs - if it stays together, short of any school receiving a Pac 12 or Big 12 invite. Those of you that believe the MW is holding back SDSU - consider you only have the option between a league of mid-majors and another league of mid majors that's thousands of miles away (plus a BW that's considered a low major conference). Not a choice between MW and a top level league. The argument you will recruit better or get better home attendance long term playing SMU, UH, Tulane, Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU makes no sense unless you need it to make sense. Have you bothered to actually ponder the ramification of the deal offered/accepted by Boise... and how much their deal actually hurts every other team in the conference? Like what?
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jan 5, 2013 18:05:46 GMT -8
Have you bothered to actually ponder the ramification of the deal offered/accepted by Boise... and how much their deal actually hurts every other team in the conference? Like what?
|
|
|
Post by sdsu4lifealmost on Jan 5, 2013 21:07:43 GMT -8
Logo Means nothing, as pure speculation causes rumors and we all know that rumors are not to be trusted. BE is the key to SDSU success and deeply disappointed that some fans don't see it. I hope Sterk does.
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jan 5, 2013 21:09:58 GMT -8
Logo Means nothing, as pure speculation causes rumors and we all know that rumors are not to be trusted. BE is the key to SDSU success and deeply disappointed that some fans don't see it. I hope Sterk does. what's a rumor
|
|