|
|
Post by pbbroker on Aug 21, 2014 23:23:41 GMT -8
from Mark Ziegler article - SDSU playing 10 games as a soccer-only member of the Pac-12 (which has just five schools with men’s soccer programs).
pac-12.com/sport/mens-soccer
PAC 12 SCHOOLS WITH NO MENS SOCCER ( so powerful they don't have futebol teams in the #1 sport in the world )
USC
Arizona
ASU
Wash St
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Aug 22, 2014 5:53:27 GMT -8
I'm not sure on the finances. Oregon with Uncle Phil and his bags of Nike cash could easily fund a team. I think the 2 Oregon schools gave it up in to keep men's wrestling. The Oregon schools, with their crappy, wet weather probabably played in swampy fields and never did well. It only makes sense for those 2 schools to dump soccer for wrestling and Title 9 considerations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 8:38:09 GMT -8
from Mark Ziegler article - SDSU playing 10 games as a soccer-only member of the Pac-12 (which has just five schools with men’s soccer programs).
pac-12.com/sport/mens-soccer
PAC 12 SCHOOLS WITH NO MENS SOCCER ( so powerful they don't have futebol teams in the #1 sport in the world )
USC
Arizona
ASU
Wash St
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
If they added a men's soccer team they would have to add another women's sports to balance the number of scholarships given to men and women. So it's not just a matter of adding one sport, but 2. Why add 2 non-revenue gaining sports? For what it's worth, I do believe that in another 25 years college soccer will be every bit as popular as college basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 22, 2014 8:44:42 GMT -8
from Mark Ziegler article - SDSU playing 10 games as a soccer-only member of the Pac-12 (which has just five schools with men’s soccer programs).
pac-12.com/sport/mens-soccer
PAC 12 SCHOOLS WITH NO MENS SOCCER ( so powerful they don't have futebol teams in the #1 sport in the world )
USC
Arizona
ASU
Wash St
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
If they added a men's soccer team they would have to add another women's sports to balance the number of scholarships given to men and women. So it's not just a matter of adding one sport, but 2. Why add 2 non-revenue gaining sports? For what it's worth, I do believe that in another 25 years college soccer will be every bit as popular as college basketball. Exactly correct. I do know WSU will be adding Women's softball as their next sport, but they will most likely add Men's Rowing on the men's side (going from club sport to official) when that happens. Women's softball being a very big sport when it comes to recruiting female athletes in general. To even do that it means they have to build a new softball complex, so it's not just adding scholarships, coaches, travel, etc., but adding facilities. Men's soccer would be an easy add (facilities there for women's soccer at most schools) BUT it's the balancing act on the women's side where real issues arise. With WSU men's rowing club team has had some successes so they are more deserving than starting a soccer team, finding a coach, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Aug 22, 2014 9:05:49 GMT -8
USC used to have a men's soccer program but they scrapped it a couple decades ago. In theory they could revive it and if another women's sport is needed, they could start up softball.
They did start up women's lacrosse a couple years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Aug 22, 2014 9:06:28 GMT -8
I'm not sure on the finances. Oregon with Uncle Phil and his bags of Nike cash could easily fund a team. I think the 2 Oregon schools gave it up in to keep men's wrestling. The Oregon schools, with their crappy, wet weather probabably played in swampy fields and never did well. It only makes sense for those 2 schools to dump soccer for wrestling and Title 9 considerations. Oregon State sponsors men's soccer. |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 22, 2014 9:21:32 GMT -8
Each Pac 12 school makes 20 million per year from the TV contract. They have plenty of money to fund men's soccer they just choose not to.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec619 on Aug 22, 2014 9:30:47 GMT -8
Seeing SDSU in the same division as the other Pac 12 schools looks good! I know it's just a dream but man that would look great if for football/basketball and the rest of our sports.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 22, 2014 9:55:09 GMT -8
Seeing SDSU in the same division as the other Pac 12 schools looks good! I know it's just a dream but man that would look great if for football/basketball and the rest of our sports. Hopefully it is just a matter of time. I know people like to talk about how Stanford and others would block SDSU from joining the PAC12, but I just don't see it if it makes financial sense for the conference. I think the PAC would do well adding SDSU+UNLV or UNR. |
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Aug 22, 2014 9:57:36 GMT -8
Seeing SDSU in the same division as the other Pac 12 schools looks good! I know it's just a dream but man that would look great if for football/basketball and the rest of our sports. 1% chance that will ever happen. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Aug 22, 2014 12:17:25 GMT -8
Each Pac 12 school makes 20 million per year from the TV contract. They have plenty of money to fund men's soccer they just choose not to. Sure they make $20 million/year, but they've also been spending it annually because they have to in order to not have a profit. If they can't afford to field mens soccer then I think that means they're prepping for the stipends. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 22, 2014 14:08:35 GMT -8
Each Pac 12 school makes 20 million per year from the TV contract. They have plenty of money to fund men's soccer they just choose not to. Except only a few are operating in the black. Most have chosen to use & leverage all this money to get into a facilities war, so they definitely do NOT have money to fund new sports. They may once the facility war is done, but since most (WSU, OSU, Utah, Cal) are still playing catch-up in virtually every sport it'll be awhile before those funds are available. WSU is leveraged for at least 4-5 more years, and are still trying to privately fund a baseball clubhouse, basketball facility upgrade & a new indoor football facility. Utah is building a new basketball facility. Cal is basically broke and almost dropped baseball. |
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Aug 22, 2014 14:15:37 GMT -8
$20,000,000+ million a year from the PAC-12 Network and no men's soccer? Where does that money go to?
|
|
|
|
Post by pbbroker on Aug 22, 2014 15:54:51 GMT -8
I'm not sure on the finances. Oregon with Uncle Phil and his bags of Nike cash could easily fund a team. I think the 2 Oregon schools gave it up in to keep men's wrestling. The Oregon schools, with their crappy, wet weather probabably played in swampy fields and never did well. It only makes sense for those 2 schools to dump soccer for wrestling and Title 9 considerations. Oregon State sponsors men's soccer. Yes what is written - the schools listed - do not have mens soccer
Oregon - has no mens soccer - even though the MLS TEAM Sounders sells out their NFL stadium
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 22, 2014 16:01:08 GMT -8
$20,000,000+ million a year from the PAC-12 Network and no men's soccer? Where does that money go to? For one, it's not $20MM. Without DirecTV & given the fact the P12 network is losing money (which they supplement) it's less than projections. Still a ton more than what SDSU gets, but not quite $20MM. As mentioned, right now they're all leveraging current & even future P12 incomes on the facility wars. I believe there are over $1B in new facilities that have been built in the past 3 years or will be in the next 2 years. For example, WSU is losing $6MM a year, mostly paying down the debt on $150MM in new facilities. With the uncertainty around additional payments to athletes, etc., and with the crazy salaries being paid the money is flying out the door. |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 22, 2014 16:02:38 GMT -8
Oregon State sponsors men's soccer. Yes what is written - the schools listed - do not have mens soccer
Oregon - has no mens soccer - even though the MLS TEAM Sounders sells out their NFL stadium
Not sure I get the correlation between Oregon (Eugene, OR) and the Seattle Sounders ... unless you mean to say U of Washington & Seattle Sounders or U of Oregon & Portland Timbers |
|
|
|
Post by tttrojan4life on Aug 22, 2014 16:03:37 GMT -8
Seeing SDSU in the same division as the other Pac 12 schools looks good! I know it's just a dream but man that would look great if for football/basketball and the rest of our sports. Hopefully it is just a matter of time. I know people like to talk about how Stanford and others would block SDSU from joining the PAC12, but I just don't see it if it makes financial sense for the conference. I think the PAC would do well adding SDSU+UNLV or UNR. Stanford is not the main opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Aug 22, 2014 16:34:00 GMT -8
Each Pac 12 school makes 20 million per year from the TV contract. They have plenty of money to fund men's soccer they just choose not to. Except only a few are operating in the black. Most have chosen to use & leverage all this money to get into a facilities war, so they definitely do NOT have money to fund new sports. They may once the facility war is done, but since most (WSU, OSU, Utah, Cal) are still playing catch-up in virtually every sport it'll be awhile before those funds are available. WSU is leveraged for at least 4-5 more years, and are still trying to privately fund a baseball clubhouse, basketball facility upgrade & a new indoor football facility. Utah is building a new basketball facility. Cal is basically broke and almost dropped baseball. Yes, that's what really pisses me off about all this media hype. I'm sure there are a lot of P5 schools in the same boat. We never read about articles about questionable stipend affordability. Only articles that are going to eventually put the G5 out of business as they break away from the NCAA. The super P5 jock schools like Alabama, Texas, tOSU, etc., are the ones driving this shit. When all is said and done these stipends will be moderate and many G5 schools will be able to afford them. Watch and see. Meanwhile, don't think for a second that recruits are getting caught up in this perceived hype. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Aug 23, 2014 8:45:28 GMT -8
Schools like Oregon with a sugar daddy can do pretty much what daddy will finance. The Oregon State Beavers were tearing it up in CBB. Uncle Phil wanted baseball back at Ore. So they bulldozed a student rec area, bought a coaching staff and voila baseballis back in Eugene. It's all about the money!
|
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Aug 23, 2014 9:40:51 GMT -8
from Mark Ziegler article - SDSU playing 10 games as a soccer-only member of the Pac-12 (which has just five schools with men’s soccer programs).
pac-12.com/sport/mens-soccer
PAC 12 SCHOOLS WITH NO MENS SOCCER ( so powerful they don't have futebol teams in the #1 sport in the world )
USC
Arizona
ASU
Wash St
Oregon
Utah
Colorado
If they added a men's soccer team they would have to add another women's sports to balance the number of scholarships given to men and women. So it's not just a matter of adding one sport, but 2. Why add 2 non-revenue gaining sports? For what it's worth, I do believe that in another 25 years college soccer will be every bit as popular as college basketball. That's not an unreasonable projection (25 years), given how popular soccer has become for the next generation of kids, partially at the expense of youth basketball. However, you've got to remember the NCAA has March Madness, which is arguably the most successful endeavor in NCAA athletics. Football has finally gotten smart and is moving into the realm of playoffs, but it still won't compare to March Madness for a while. Especially while it remains exclusive to the top, big-money schools. And I don't believe soccer will ever get there as far as the college game goes. The tradition of storied college soccer teams just isn't there. I'm interested to find out if that tradition does eventually develop though. |
|
