|
Post by myownwords on Jul 13, 2015 13:28:02 GMT -8
Yes, that hierarchical offering is true, but contingent on an appraisal or two. I'll guess that should have been done as part of the CSAG's work and should be good for 3-5 years and would give 2 value estimates -- 1 for the land untitled and the other for the entitlement It certainly should have.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 13, 2015 13:31:27 GMT -8
USD is a bad metric to use. They are a private Catholic University that chooses to be non-scholarship and are under no public restrictions regarding the tuition & fees that they charge. They can redirect the scholarship funds they aren't paying into other AD uses like travel. They are one of two teams in the WCC that field football teams, the other is Independent BYU. Other FCS teams in CA are part of the BW, but play football in the Big Sky. The Pioneer League is the closest and only non-scholarship FCS conference that would accept USD for football only. That is what makes it a good metric to use. It's all about the viewpoint. USD is willing to play in the PFL and incur travel expense that easily outstrips total revenue in order to maintain a D1 status AND play football, and those other PFL institutions are willing to include USD despite the travel burdens placed on the membership. USD could maintain D1 status as a non-football member, but they choose to carry a huge travel expense to maintain the program. It is the equivalent of SDSU making a commitment to pay a P5 salary scale and develop P5 facilities to play on a P5 level. You invest to your level of expectation. The only difference in the comparison between USD and SDSU, is that SDSU has some ultimate possibility of reclaiming that investment, whereas USD is spending the money ultimately simply to maintain an upper-half level of football without any expectation of financial redemption.
You cannot consider the USD model as a redirection of scholarship funds, because at their level of competition there is no reasonable expectation of generating such revenues. It is a dead expense. If they chose to award scholarships and play at the FCS level, they could generate those revenues with a single OOC game played for guarantee at a P5 opponent. See Liberty, Abilene Christian, Incarnate Word, Charleston Southern, UC-Davis, etc.
I don't think you quite grasp the differences in funding between this small private Catholic University in San Diego with their $400M endowment, 8K enrollment and 6K seat football stadium vs SDSU (1 of 23 Cal-State Universities) and SDSUs more modest $200M endowment, 33K enrollment and the restrictions on tuition/fees the campus may charge per the charter, BOR & state gov't involvement. It may be worth you looking into the how and why we moved from our less than 20K on-campus stadium (Aztec Bowl) in 1967 to join the Padres and Chargers at what is now Qualcomm (capacity at the time was 50K) ... and what we ended up doing with that on-campus stadium (it is now Viejas Arena).
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 13, 2015 13:48:14 GMT -8
That is what makes it a good metric to use. It's all about the viewpoint. USD is willing to play in the PFL and incur travel expense that easily outstrips total revenue in order to maintain a D1 status AND play football, and those other PFL institutions are willing to include USD despite the travel burdens placed on the membership. USD could maintain D1 status as a non-football member, but they choose to carry a huge travel expense to maintain the program. It is the equivalent of SDSU making a commitment to pay a P5 salary scale and develop P5 facilities to play on a P5 level. You invest to your level of expectation. The only difference in the comparison between USD and SDSU, is that SDSU has some ultimate possibility of reclaiming that investment, whereas USD is spending the money ultimately simply to maintain an upper-half level of football without any expectation of financial redemption.
You cannot consider the USD model as a redirection of scholarship funds, because at their level of competition there is no reasonable expectation of generating such revenues. It is a dead expense. If they chose to award scholarships and play at the FCS level, they could generate those revenues with a single OOC game played for guarantee at a P5 opponent. See Liberty, Abilene Christian, Incarnate Word, Charleston Southern, UC-Davis, etc.
I don't think you quite grasp the differences in funding between this small private Catholic University in San Diego with their $400M endowment, 8K enrollment and 6K seat football stadium vs SDSU (1 of 23 Cal-State Universities) and SDSUs more modest $200M endowment, 33K enrollment and the restrictions on tuition/fees the campus may charge per the charter, BOR & state gov't involvement. It may be worth you looking into the how and why we moved from our less than 20K on-campus stadium (Aztec Bowl) in 1967 to join the Padres and Chargers at what is now Qualcomm (capacity at the time was 50K) ... and what we ended up doing with that on-campus stadium (it is now Viejas Arena). You don't have to educate me on private school issues. How and where the money comes from is irrelevant to this discussion of geographical placement. You have gone far afield from the original topic. Are you now saying that SDSU should NOT seek membership in the B12, because of travel expense concerns with which they cannot deal because they have too many students and not enough endowment?
As for the move in 1967, college football was a completely different animal then.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jul 13, 2015 14:38:19 GMT -8
I don't think you quite grasp the differences in funding between this small private Catholic University in San Diego with their $400M endowment, 8K enrollment and 6K seat football stadium vs SDSU (1 of 23 Cal-State Universities) and SDSUs more modest $200M endowment, 33K enrollment and the restrictions on tuition/fees the campus may charge per the charter, BOR & state gov't involvement. It may be worth you looking into the how and why we moved from our less than 20K on-campus stadium (Aztec Bowl) in 1967 to join the Padres and Chargers at what is now Qualcomm (capacity at the time was 50K) ... and what we ended up doing with that on-campus stadium (it is now Viejas Arena). You don't have to educate me on private school issues. How and where the money comes from is irrelevant to this discussion of geographical placement. You have gone far afield from the original topic. Are you now saying that SDSU should NOT seek membership in the B12, because of travel expense concerns with which they cannot deal because they have too many students and not enough endowment?
As for the move in 1967, college football was a completely different animal then.
I must admit that I don't see why you are trying to compare USDs AD budget and choosing to be the only other D1 football program in San Diego (FCS) and their membership in the non-scholarship PFL/WCC as anything close to the AD Budget of SDSU (FBS) and it's ability to attract the B12 and "earn" an invitation to share in their TV revenue/bowl income. The two situations are completely different and the conferences involved have different goals for membership and inclusion. The B12 has a WVU, and that automatically makes it harder for them to consider extending a conference from the East Coast to the West Coast. I am not saying it would be impossible, just improbable. The B12 has designs on remaining an East facing conference and being in the Southwest corner of the continental US, we just don't fit well. In a previous post you had indicated that the B12 could divide East-West to ease travel pressure on a conference with both WVU & SDSU ... tell me how many members this would take and how that would it work for football and basketball as well as other Olympic sports? (this is assuming the B12 is not going with football-only members)
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 13, 2015 16:32:48 GMT -8
The comparison was to show simply the commitment to the two programs, based upon their individual level of priority, not to compare budgets. What I am saying is that USD desires to compete at a D1 level, but somehow maintain their football program, because they view keeping football as a priority.
They have four options: 1) Go all out and play FBS ball the way Rice does; 2) Commit to scholarship FCS and get in a league where travel is not such a major expense; 3) Play as a non-scholarship D1 program and spend big travel bucks; 4) Drop to D3. Number 1 is more than they want to chew on. Number two is workable, except they cannot dodge Title IX, and that will blow up the whole AD. Number four means they can't play at a level that they want in the other sports. Now there is another option, drop football altogether and play non-football D1. They obviously consider maintaining football as a priority, and choose to spend the money to keep operating at the level they want for their AD.
While the goal is different, SDSU must do the same, and commit the resources necessary to get to P5, if that is truly their goal. -------------------------------------------
Now as to the B12 and distance. If the conference added 2, 4, or 6 teams, it would divide into divisions, just as it did from the start when it had 12 teams. BU, UT, TCU, OU and OSU are all in a similar geocentric configuration, while TT is even farther west.
Using Texas as an example, they must now travel to WVU every other year under the round-robin format (a distance of 1400 miles) and WVU must travel to UT in the other years. If SDSU, were made a member and was placed in a western division with UT, and WVU placed in an eastern division, UT would be replacing the 1400 mile trip to WVU, with a 1300 mile trip to SDSU, and would have to go to WVU no more than once every 6-8 years. SDSU would have to make a trip to WVU once every 6-8 years (and the return by WVU would be at the same frequency).
And for the Texas schools (and the Midwest schools as well), you would actually be reducing the travel issue, since they would be making less frequent trips to ISU, KU and KSU (with the reverse true for those Midwest schools).
Here is where it gets sticky for SDSU. If the B12 adds only 2 schools, it must go east to even out the travel issue. If the B12 adds 4 schools, it must add 3 in the east and only 1 in the west. In this scenario, SDSU must make themselves the best western option. If the B12 adds 6 schools, they will need to add 4 in the east and 2 in the west, and this is undoubtedly the best scenario for SDSU.
There is another scenario, whereby the B12 could expand to 12 members by adding two western schools. That would be to place OU an OSU in the eastern division (OU is only 1100 miles from WVU), and protect the cross-division rivalry between UT and OU. This would still leave WVU on an island, but would reduce their travel to the Texas schools. This would mean that if you could go to 14, you could add 3 western schools, and an eastern rival and partner for WVU. This would allow for a divisional setup something like:
East: WVU, Cincy, ISU, KU, KSU, OU, OSU West: UT, TT, BU, TCU, SDSU, BYU, CSU
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 16:41:40 GMT -8
Are you even following along here?
To help you follow it's simple >>> I think SDSU needs to better their reputation and winning on the football field is not all that needs to happen for that reputation to change... got it?
Look Mack, I suspect by reputation you mean academics, right? Mack?
Let's just call it a day shall we?
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 13, 2015 17:02:04 GMT -8
Look Mack, I suspect by reputation you mean academics, right? Mack?
Let's just call it a day shall we?
I'd still like to know what your definition of reputation is.
|
|