|
Post by adammclane on Nov 20, 2014 14:21:05 GMT -8
I don't think game attendance is a big measuring stick. Obviously, if we played Oklahoma we'd sell more tickets than if we play Idaho. The football team is competitive, that's what matters. With the budget we have and the utter lack of football facilities, there isn't much more we can do but sell a vision. If we had the necessary funding for development and stability at the head coaching spot we have a proven track record as an excellent athletic department. But--in my opinion--being "competitive" has many facets, yes? Seems that for most on this board, competitive means a team struggling for the top 4 to 6 spots in this woeful conference. What's more, that definition barely brings fans to the games. For me, the football team will only be "competitive" when it actually wins the conference, beats P5 teams regularly who are ranked, and makes news on a national level. Until then, "competitive" remains a word, inappropriate in any sentence containing SDSU football. Sorry. Our team is competitive. Yes, we've lost some games. But only the OSU game were we really out of. I seem to remember being 0-11 not too long ago... we weren't competitive then. We've been competitive since Hoke's second year. Competitive just means "can compete." Our team is that and will be that for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Nov 20, 2014 14:23:18 GMT -8
You don't need just millionaires. Every one can help. Thats really what I was getting at. The football program really needs a rallying point for people to donate to. It is tough for people to just chuck money at a program and not have a clear idea of what they are paying for. That is where the administration comes in. They have to drum up support for the program and raise funds for specific items such as coaches salaries, training equipment/meals, facilities, etc. I agree with you on that. No doubt, we need a better salesmen for football.
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Nov 20, 2014 15:02:14 GMT -8
Please tell us you aren't trying to say that they're mutually exclusive. No, but I am saying that our football program, in its current state, is not hurting us either. Viewership and interest in the Aztec brand is way up. Sure, a 10 win season would be nice and would do wonders at filling the stadium and expanding that reach. (I think we're a good QB away from that right now.) But the current administration has put us in the expansion conversation and that's about all you can ask for. I don't think you have to be considered an immediate contender in FB to get into a P5 conference. You have to look at it like a college president since it's ultimately up to 12 college presidents and the commissioner. Is SDSU going to expand the viewership and reach of B12 football and basketball for the sake of increasing revenue for the group? Is SDSU prepared to invest in developing that product further with the influx of $$$? Does SDSU have the right administrators and athletic department on board? Are their academics going to help the conference? Stuff like that. If you look at it purely through the scope of football... I don't think the B12 would be interested in a contender. They'd want someone like SDSU who won't embarrass the conference, might win the occasional big game, and be a great destination for fans of other teams to come to. The entire region would benefit if we got into a conference that traveled. Not sure if you've been in a P5 town for a football weekend, but those teams travel really, really well. You know darn well that if WVU came to town every 2 seasons that folks would love to come here. Agree. The Big10 didn’t expand with Maryland and Rutgers because of their football programs. When I spoke with some of my Big10 alum friends, the general consensus amongst Big10 people was “meh” because both schools brought little excitement to their league unlike the addition of Penn St. and Nebraska. Everyone knows it was all about penetrating new TV markets. OTOH, I think we’re placing way too much emphasis on football. Although it is one of the most important factors for consideration, I don’t think it’s the deal breaker. Why? Well, for the Big12 to keep up with the other P5 leagues, it needs to expand its TV footprint. They lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M – that’s 3 mid-size states plus a major Texas school. They added a small private school within its territory and a school from a small state. The addition of these 2 schools doesn’t even equal half of what they lost. In other words, they need to make up for what they lost (and hopefully gain more) by going after the biggest TV markets outside of the P5 landscape. And we’re one of the biggest out there. The Big12 Commish publicly stated that there are a limited number of G5 schools to choose from for expansion. Meaning, they are reviewing potential candidates from G5 because, IMHO, it’s the logical move for them to expand. I don’t think the heavyweights of ACC will jump to Big12 and play second fiddle to Texas and Oklahoma only to experience what the former Big12 schools went through. There’s no question who the big dogs are in the Big12. At least in ACC, they’re more on equal footing with the “leaders” of that league. If you allow yourself to stand back for a minute, you’ll see that SDSU’s overall package is attractive, especially the TV market that we bring with us (which is one of the most important factors for consideration). However, I certainly share everyone’s opinion that we can make our school an irresistible candidate by producing a football program that matches what TCU and Utah achieved in MWC – or at least close to what they did. It goes without saying that overcoming our mediocre success in football will remove the doubt and the path for a P5 membership will be easier to attain.
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Nov 20, 2014 15:06:02 GMT -8
If over the next half dozen years preceding B12 expansion - which shouldn't be expected any time soon - SDSU football rises to the level of what TCU and WVU football was before those schools were offered membership and yet SDSU still isn't offered, I'll readily acknowledge I was wrong about its importance, as I'm sure L.A.Aztec and others will too. Or if SDSU football is still as mediocre as it is today yet we are nevertheless offered B12 admission, I'll similarly admit I was wrong. I'll also acknowledge that if it wasn't the B12 we were debating but rather potential membership in the Pac-12, SDSU could easily be denied admission strictly on the basis of academics regardless of our football prowess. However, as exemplified by WVU, whose academics are no better than SDSU's, the B12 really doesn't care all that much about that factor. (Might hurt Boise but SDSU's academics are plenty good enough for B12 admission.) But right now, from what is admittedly a small sample size, it sure appears as though it would behoove us to greatly improve our football team if we realistically want to gain B12 admission. I'm sorry if that sounds depressing to some but that's how I view it. Or this. If SDSU rises to the level of TCU on the football field and still averages 30-35 thousand a game, it's time to pull the plug. Just figure out a way to get Aztec football to that level. No problem. And you're still talking about a conference that for 2014 has averaged 55,990 per game with the low ball downtrodden Kansas at 34,077. The B12 doesn't need another one of those. I don't think we'll have difficulty surpassing our average attendance numbers. If we have Big12 teams coming to San Diego, you can bet more people will be going to the games. You'll probably even see an increase of alumni and fans from Orange County and LA going down for the games.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 20, 2014 15:42:03 GMT -8
Add to my last post. Adequate leadership would mean looking at the program and admitting that Rocky Long, though he has contributed to the school, is simply not going to get the job done. We have people who think that they are getting a bargain, not having to pay for a separate DC. It is not a bargain. We should think about bringing in a new coach for 2015, but he's got to be a program-changer. I know it will be difficult to do that, but, as even I am tired of saying it, if we don't make a change, we will continue to get what we've been getting. What we've been getting is not good enough. And, I think, not what this school is capable of producing. AzWm Oh for Odin's sake William CSU has a big year with a solid senior QB and it is a semi dynasty? When he gradates then lets see if it is not another case of Fresburg in Carr's senior year.Football has been draining from the general funds and student fees for a long time. We had 10 win season under Claude Gilbert did it lead to perenial championships? Replace Rocky in 2015 that's just fantasy and nuts. "he's got to be a program-changer" Seriously who is he for certain a nd where is the money for him? the program is going in the right direction though mighty slowly.Rocky needs to produce a big winning season next year if not then we will see what the administraion decides.I keep asking the same question in the fire Rocky now crowd never answers it. By what objective measure do you think San Diego State should be able to recruit and consistently dominate the teams in this conference. We do have a football reputation but it's very old, were California State University school with very limiting finances. We don't have a Phil Knight, or even made John Moores. Our facilities are decent by G5 standards but nothing terrific. We play in a hugely oversized stadium that makes 30,000 fans look like 5000. We have raised student fees about as high as anyone can tolerate given the economics of the times. This constant mantra that the President and athletic department doesn't care about football because they haven't poured money into it .(that they don't have) is like your princess daughter telling you Daddy why can't you buy me a new Mercedes-Benz, you must not love me. I deserve better than a two-year-old Ford escape. Can't you get another job? Do you mean to say that Brady Hoke was not a game-changer? Because the only other person who so dramatically shifted San Diego State football was Don Coryell. And Hoke certainly did not break the bank.
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Nov 20, 2014 15:49:52 GMT -8
Add to my last post. Adequate leadership would mean looking at the program and admitting that Rocky Long, though he has contributed to the school, is simply not going to get the job done. We have people who think that they are getting a bargain, not having to pay for a separate DC. It is not a bargain. We should think about bringing in a new coach for 2015, but he's got to be a program-changer. I know it will be difficult to do that, but, as even I am tired of saying it, if we don't make a change, we will continue to get what we've been getting. What we've been getting is not good enough. And, I think, not what this school is capable of producing. AzWm I think most, if not all, of us are in agreement with you. RLong stabilized our program and maintained its winning ways. However, we do need a coach who can take us to the next level and be the “face” of our program. I suppose 2015 is Judgment Year. Like you said, it’ll be quite difficult to find a coach who’s a program-changer. Our committee will have to go with their gut instincts when it comes to identifying the intangibles. We got lucky with Hoke but I personally don’t want to find someone like him who will only stay for 2 years. I noticed from SGF’s post regarding the coaches’ salaries that there were quite a few recognizable names coaching in CUSA and MAC. It would be interesting to see if we go after a current HC from one of these 2 leagues or go after an OC or DC from a powerhouse program. I’m curious to know, IF next year should surprise us all by producing a 10-win season which includes a bowl win, would you RLong haters still call for his head?
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Nov 20, 2014 16:04:11 GMT -8
Nothing is going to happen until after they select the 4 teams from the playoffs . Then all the talk becomes how do they expand to a 8 or more playoff. If a B12 team is not in the mix , the WVU AD will be told why by others on the committee . If they only need an extra game at the end of the season between their top two teams then they do that next year or start looking at expansion .Again MONEY is the driving force -
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Nov 20, 2014 16:18:00 GMT -8
Add to my last post. Adequate leadership would mean looking at the program and admitting that Rocky Long, though he has contributed to the school, is simply not going to get the job done. We have people who think that they are getting a bargain, not having to pay for a separate DC. It is not a bargain. We should think about bringing in a new coach for 2015, but he's got to be a program-changer. I know it will be difficult to do that, but, as even I am tired of saying it, if we don't make a change, we will continue to get what we've been getting. What we've been getting is not good enough. And, I think, not what this school is capable of producing. AzWm I think most, if not all, of us are in agreement with you. RLong stabilized our program and maintained its winning ways. However, we do need a coach who can take us to the next level and be the “face” of our program. I suppose 2015 is Judgment Year. Like you said, it’ll be quite difficult to find a coach who’s a program-changer. Our committee will have to go with their gut instincts when it comes to identifying the intangibles. We got lucky with Hoke but I personally don’t want to find someone like him who will only stay for 2 years. I noticed from SGF’s post regarding the coaches’ salaries that there were quite a few recognizable names coaching in CUSA and MAC. It would be interesting to see if we go after a current HC from one of these 2 leagues or go after an OC or DC from a powerhouse program. I’m curious to know, IF next year should surprise us all by producing a 10-win season which includes a bowl win, would you RLong haters still call for his head? Not sure to whom you're referring, but I know of no one who "hates" Rocky. If you mean that many would still like to see a new coach if Rocky were to have a 10-win season, maybe, maybe not. But it's odd, why not say 12/13 wins? You obviously don't think that's possible with Rocky. If there were any football programs in the country who ever thought he could produce those numbers against true D-1 teams, he'd have been heavily recruited. No one wants him but a few fans, and the AD at SDSU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 16:47:37 GMT -8
I seem to remember being 0-11 not too long ago... we weren't competitive then. "We?" Meaning the Aztecs? 0-11? FWIW, SDSU has never had a winless season, nor has SDSU ever lost 11 games in a season. Ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 16:55:29 GMT -8
No, but I am saying that our football program, in its current state, is not hurting us either. Viewership and interest in the Aztec brand is way up. Sure, a 10 win season would be nice and would do wonders at filling the stadium and expanding that reach. (I think we're a good QB away from that right now.) But the current administration has put us in the expansion conversation and that's about all you can ask for. I don't think you have to be considered an immediate contender in FB to get into a P5 conference. You have to look at it like a college president since it's ultimately up to 12 college presidents and the commissioner. Is SDSU going to expand the viewership and reach of B12 football and basketball for the sake of increasing revenue for the group? Is SDSU prepared to invest in developing that product further with the influx of $$$? Does SDSU have the right administrators and athletic department on board? Are their academics going to help the conference? Stuff like that. If you look at it purely through the scope of football... I don't think the B12 would be interested in a contender. They'd want someone like SDSU who won't embarrass the conference, might win the occasional big game, and be a great destination for fans of other teams to come to. The entire region would benefit if we got into a conference that traveled. Not sure if you've been in a P5 town for a football weekend, but those teams travel really, really well. You know darn well that if WVU came to town every 2 seasons that folks would love to come here. Agree. The Big10 didn’t expand with Maryland and Rutgers because of their football programs. When I spoke with some of my Big10 alum friends, the general consensus amongst Big10 people was “meh” because both schools brought little excitement to their league unlike the addition of Penn St. and Nebraska. Everyone knows it was all about penetrating new TV markets. OTOH, I think we’re placing way too much emphasis on football. Although it is one of the most important factors for consideration, I don’t think it’s the deal breaker. Why? Well, for the Big12 to keep up with the other P5 leagues, it needs to expand its TV footprint. They lost Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, and Texas A&M – that’s 3 mid-size states plus a major Texas school. They added a small private school within its territory and a school from a small state. The addition of these 2 schools doesn’t even equal half of what they lost. In other words, they need to make up for what they lost (and hopefully gain more) by going after the biggest TV markets outside of the P5 landscape. And we’re one of the biggest out there. The Big12 Commish publicly stated that there are a limited number of G5 schools to choose from for expansion. Meaning, they are reviewing potential candidates from G5 because, IMHO, it’s the logical move for them to expand. I don’t think the heavyweights of ACC will jump to Big12 and play second fiddle to Texas and Oklahoma only to experience what the former Big12 schools went through. There’s no question who the big dogs are in the Big12. At least in ACC, they’re more on equal footing with the “leaders” of that league. If you allow yourself to stand back for a minute, you’ll see that SDSU’s overall package is attractive, especially the TV market that we bring with us (which is one of the most important factors for consideration). However, I certainly share everyone’s opinion that we can make our school an irresistible candidate by producing a football program that matches what TCU and Utah achieved in MWC – or at least close to what they did. It goes without saying that overcoming our mediocre success in football will remove the doubt and the path for a P5 membership will be easier to attain. That's true, it didn't. However, we're discussing THE BIG 12!!! Because of the major metropolitan areas it has the luxury of calling home, the Big Ten makes boatloads of money regardless of whether its football teams are good. The same isn't true of the B12, which has members in such little burgs in the middle of nowhere as Ames, Iowa, Waco and Lubbock, Texas, Manhattan, Kansas and Morgantown, West Virginia. The B12 therefore has a much greater need to bring in schools with football programs with the potential to garner attention from the national media. (Gawd this is frustrating.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2014 17:00:56 GMT -8
I don't think we'll have difficulty surpassing our average attendance numbers. If we have Big12 teams coming to San Diego, you can bet more people will be going to the games. You'll probably even see an increase of alumni and fans from Orange County and LA going down for the games. Nobody is going to care about Iowa State and few will care about Kansas football either. However, not only are you correct about what a massive infusion of butts in the seats the likes of Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and WVU would bring, if we got admitted to the B12, it would be foolish not to increase the size of Viejas Arena since we would get huge crowds for Kansas basketball and even Iowa State has a solid program that would be worth coming out to see. Call me naive but I honestly think if we got admitted to the B12 that our hoops program would become one of the 10 best in the country because of the uptick in competition.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Nov 20, 2014 22:48:43 GMT -8
I seem to remember being 0-11 not too long ago... we weren't competitive then. "We?" Meaning the Aztecs? 0-11? FWIW, SDSU has never had a winless season, nor has SDSU ever lost 11 games in a season. Ever. How bad was the last year before Brady? All I remember was it being really really bad and there being a few hundred people in the stands by the end of some games. Sorry... I really thought we were winless. Sure felt like it.
|
|
|
Post by adammclane on Nov 20, 2014 23:03:10 GMT -8
(Gawd this is frustrating.) Agreed. Especially considering the B12 is not currently looking to expand according to people who have actually talked to the B12. (cough, people in suits at SDSU) I think you are dead on about the attractiveness of the SD market to the B12. This is exactly why the school is studying our viewership against the PAC-12. We currently do well in all of SD and Imperial County against PAC-12 football & basketball. (More so with basketball, obviously) But we also do pretty well in parts of OC and Riverside County. Not to be forgotten is the Bay area, where we have a ton of alumni. If we're already doing pretty good in those markets and the B12 wanted to do better in those markets... SDSU would be a very attractive addition. Even if it moved the needle for them by 5%-10% in those markets that might help them get a better media rights deal from ESPN. All of this stuff was absolutely part of the equation for adding TCU. A rising DFW-area program offered a program alternative to help lock up a huge metropolitan area. It's the same reason there seems to be a big game at Jerry's World each Saturday. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas. We aren't as big as Dallas. But owning SD and a nice showing in other major markets in CA is pretty attractive.
|
|
|
Post by Gundo on Nov 21, 2014 1:08:28 GMT -8
StopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStopStop Talking about Big VII Expansion, do you think those greedy bastards are gonna split $250MM more then 10 ways?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Nov 21, 2014 6:23:56 GMT -8
Our committee will have to go with their gut instincts when it comes to identifying the intangibles. We got lucky with Hoke but I personally don’t want to find someone like him who will only stay for 2 years. We didn't get lucky with Hoke, our administration (with help from a committee of former players) finally made a competent hire. Our previous two hires were a JC coach and Chuck Long who wasn't even on the radar of the nationwide search by the head hunter who tabbed Jimbo Fisher for the job. Rocky has been a placeholder since Hoke and I hope he either takes it to the next level next year or steps aside for someone else that can. We will always have good candidates wanting to take this job it's just a matter of making the right choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2014 9:21:28 GMT -8
"We?" Meaning the Aztecs? 0-11? FWIW, SDSU has never had a winless season, nor has SDSU ever lost 11 games in a season. Ever. How bad was the last year before Brady? All I remember was it being really really bad and there being a few hundred people in the stands by the end of some games. Sorry... I really thought we were winless. Sure felt like it. Agree it felt like a winless season. That can happen when you lose for a second consecutive time to Cal Poly when no other coach in school history had lost to a DIAA/FCS opponent since SDSU we moved up to Division I 39 years before and then you lose to a conference opponent which otherwise won just three games by the biggest margin in school history, 63 points. I know we beat UNLV because it was the final game of the season and my buddy and I sat in the stands with about 8K of our closest friends assuring our punter's family that Chuck was a goner. (They didn't outright say great but it was apparent they weren't exactly disappointed to hear it. Nice folks.) Who our other victory was over I can't recall but you can bet it was somebody lousy.
|
|