|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 27, 2015 21:50:03 GMT -8
Why would any Mountain West school want to spend money to improve an on Campus Stadium when they have a pro stadium to play in? Would they not want to improve salaries? They improve on campus stadiums because there is no other stadium that is better. Have any of you been developers? You don't buy property and then fight with the neighbors for years. The winners are the attorneys. We are back to the old question of pluses versus minuses when a college team has to play in an NFL stadium. Keep in mind that a new NFL stadium, while looking impressive, is overkill when the needs of a college program are discussed. It's too big, for one thing. Why do you think we can no longer buy seats in the View Section? That's an effort to make the place look smaller, and therefore make a 30,000 fan crowd look decent. In a 71,000 seat stadium, 30,000 looks pathetic. Especially on TV. Another consideration is the cost of rental. You cannot improve salaries when you have just been given a rental fee perhaps double that required in an older stadium. And you can be sure that a one billion dollar plus stadium is going to require much higher rental rates for SDSU. The long and short of it is that SDSU is in a sticky situation regarding a football venue. There are no easy or cheap alternatives. I still like the on-campus idea, especially if "on-campus" means a stadium in the midst of an SDSU expansion in Mission Valley. I hope the Charger issue gets resolved one way or the other fairly soon so the Aztecs can at least know what they are up against. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Jul 2, 2015 11:13:24 GMT -8
then please do not be surprised if, in a few years, Aztec football has either died or continues to struggle to rise above the level of a New Mexico, San Jose State, or even . . god help us! . . . the average Mid American Conference school. We have been there and we were what we thought we were. Speak for yourself. I, for one, was appalled by the generally disappointing state of Aztec football post 1980. I continue to believe, despite the greater odds faced by second tier programs in today's world of college football, that SDSU still has a chance to rise at least to the level of the lower to mid-range P5 schools. Example: Oregon State was pretty bad last year, yet we did not really come close to beating them. Unlike schools such as Idaho, New Mexico State, Eastern Michigan, and many others, SDSU really does possess enough assets that we should be able to beat a poor Oregon State team. Or what turned out to be a mediocre North Carolina team, for that matter. It is still not too late to become, if not Top-10, at least one of the top three or four Group of Five programs. But to reach that goal, the administration at SDSU needs to be as smart and forward-looking as the administrations that have been leading Boise State, BYU, and other successful G5 schools. (Question: Did you know that Marshall won 13 games last year and was ranked in the Top-25? Other schools that won 10 or more were Memphis=10 wins, Northern Illinois=11 wins, Colorado St., Utah St., Air Force, all 10 win teams. And, of course, Boise State, who won 12 games including a win over Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl. If they can do it . . . possibly excepting BSU's achievements . . . why can't SDSU? No, it's not too late to see Aztec football become relevant nationally, but that won't happen unless the school makes a serious commitment to boosting the program. We can start that by making it clear that a 7 or 8 win season in Rocky Long's fifth year as head coach will not be good enough. I've made fun of Nebraska for firing its coach despite his record of consistently winning 9 or more games a season. On second thought, I see that the Cornhuskers did have their reasons for doing that (e.g., Pelini reputedly was somewhat lacking in people skills.) In our case, firing the head coach after a winning season would make sense if one concludes, as I do, that it's just not going to get any better without new leadership on the sidelines.. I'm hoping that Rocky Long makes a fool out of me by winning 10 or more this year and at least plays for the MWC championship. AzWm Don't disagree, was just stating that we could not have gotten much lower and weren't far from staying there. Only the lucky hire of Hoke started us on the Long journey out of the league of perennial losers. Not sure RL is the guy to lead us out of the league of mediocrity but, this season should tell us a lot.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 2, 2015 12:31:29 GMT -8
Speak for yourself. I, for one, was appalled by the generally disappointing state of Aztec football post 1980. I continue to believe, despite the greater odds faced by second tier programs in today's world of college football, that SDSU still has a chance to rise at least to the level of the lower to mid-range P5 schools. Example: Oregon State was pretty bad last year, yet we did not really come close to beating them. Unlike schools such as Idaho, New Mexico State, Eastern Michigan, and many others, SDSU really does possess enough assets that we should be able to beat a poor Oregon State team. Or what turned out to be a mediocre North Carolina team, for that matter. It is still not too late to become, if not Top-10, at least one of the top three or four Group of Five programs. But to reach that goal, the administration at SDSU needs to be as smart and forward-looking as the administrations that have been leading Boise State, BYU, and other successful G5 schools. (Question: Did you know that Marshall won 13 games last year and was ranked in the Top-25? Other schools that won 10 or more were Memphis=10 wins, Northern Illinois=11 wins, Colorado St., Utah St., Air Force, all 10 win teams. And, of course, Boise State, who won 12 games including a win over Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl. If they can do it . . . possibly excepting BSU's achievements . . . why can't SDSU? No, it's not too late to see Aztec football become relevant nationally, but that won't happen unless the school makes a serious commitment to boosting the program. We can start that by making it clear that a 7 or 8 win season in Rocky Long's fifth year as head coach will not be good enough. I've made fun of Nebraska for firing its coach despite his record of consistently winning 9 or more games a season. On second thought, I see that the Cornhuskers did have their reasons for doing that (e.g., Pelini reputedly was somewhat lacking in people skills.) In our case, firing the head coach after a winning season would make sense if one concludes, as I do, that it's just not going to get any better without new leadership on the sidelines.. I'm hoping that Rocky Long makes a fool out of me by winning 10 or more this year and at least plays for the MWC championship. AzWm Don't disagree, was just stating that we could not have gotten much lower and weren't far from staying there. Only the lucky hire of Hoke started us on the Long journey out of the league of perennial losers. Not sure RL is the guy to lead us out of the league of mediocrity but, this season should tell us a lot. Excuse me, but---in my opinion--Rocky Retread paved the way for us into mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jul 2, 2015 12:36:47 GMT -8
Hoke was not at all a lucky hire. For once, the hiring process wasn't botched like it had been with Craft and Chuck Long. Just off the top of my head, no players' interview committee, no allowing the fired HC to weigh in on who should replace himself, no leaking info to the Union-Trib about a candidate so as to have SDSU threatened with interference with contractual relations (a California tort), no spending money on a search firm only to ignore its recommendation and hire an old friend of our AD, etc. Instead, the creation of a former players' committee which assisted the search firm with vetting candidates, plus the campus prez flying several places to personally interview applicants, plus some interested alumni who heard rumors about our drooling fool AD trying to again push for the hiring of an old friend so informing the prez so he could tell the drooling fool to butt the heck out.
|
|
|
Post by tttrojan4life on Jul 2, 2015 16:42:15 GMT -8
Speak for yourself. I, for one, was appalled by the generally disappointing state of Aztec football post 1980. I continue to believe, despite the greater odds faced by second tier programs in today's world of college football, that SDSU still has a chance to rise at least to the level of the lower to mid-range P5 schools. Example: Oregon State was pretty bad last year, yet we did not really come close to beating them. Unlike schools such as Idaho, New Mexico State, Eastern Michigan, and many others, SDSU really does possess enough assets that we should be able to beat a poor Oregon State team. Or what turned out to be a mediocre North Carolina team, for that matter. It is still not too late to become, if not Top-10, at least one of the top three or four Group of Five programs. But to reach that goal, the administration at SDSU needs to be as smart and forward-looking as the administrations that have been leading Boise State, BYU, and other successful G5 schools. (Question: Did you know that Marshall won 13 games last year and was ranked in the Top-25? Other schools that won 10 or more were Memphis=10 wins, Northern Illinois=11 wins, Colorado St., Utah St., Air Force, all 10 win teams. And, of course, Boise State, who won 12 games including a win over Arizona in the Fiesta Bowl. If they can do it . . . possibly excepting BSU's achievements . . . why can't SDSU? No, it's not too late to see Aztec football become relevant nationally, but that won't happen unless the school makes a serious commitment to boosting the program. We can start that by making it clear that a 7 or 8 win season in Rocky Long's fifth year as head coach will not be good enough. I've made fun of Nebraska for firing its coach despite his record of consistently winning 9 or more games a season. On second thought, I see that the Cornhuskers did have their reasons for doing that (e.g., Pelini reputedly was somewhat lacking in people skills.) In our case, firing the head coach after a winning season would make sense if one concludes, as I do, that it's just not going to get any better without new leadership on the sidelines.. I'm hoping that Rocky Long makes a fool out of me by winning 10 or more this year and at least plays for the MWC championship. AzWm Don't disagree, was just stating that we could not have gotten much lower and weren't far from staying there. Only the lucky hire of Hoke started us on the Long journey out of the league of perennial losers. Not sure RL is the guy to lead us out of the league of mediocrity but, this season should tell us a lot. That is putting it mildly.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 2, 2015 18:22:08 GMT -8
Hoke was not at all a lucky hire. For once, the hiring process wasn't botched like it had been with Craft and Chuck Long. Just off the top of my head, no players' interview committee, no allowing the fired HC to weigh in on who should replace himself, no leaking info to the Union-Trib about a candidate so as to have SDSU threatened with interference with contractual relations (a California tort), no spending money on a search firm only to ignore its recommendation and hire an old friend of our AD, etc. Instead, the creation of a former players' committee which assisted the search firm with vetting candidates, plus the campus prez flying several places to personally interview applicants, plus some interested alumni who heard rumors about our drooling fool AD trying to again push for the hiring of an old friend so informing the prez so he could tell the drooling fool to butt the heck out. For the most part all the ADs we've had since Fred Miller, have been duds. But then consider the source, our presidents. Therein lies the problem of our lost decades.
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 3, 2015 4:14:42 GMT -8
Take it from someone who knows the depths of depression as a fan and alumnus of a school that was mired in the squalor of a pathetic athletic department for decades. For years, all Baylor fans had to take pride in was how great our track athletes were, then suddenly, we had a great women's basketball team and men's tennis team. WooooHoooo! That will get the fan base jumping!
We played football in a 60+ year old off-campus stadium, that we couldn't get students to travel 2 miles to get to. We played home games against Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech, where there were more opponent's fans in the stands, and where the stadium was the last place you took recruits during their official visits. In 12 years, under 3 different coaches, Baylor was 28-85 on the football field and were 10-78 in conference play. We suffered humiliating blowouts not only to the power teams, but to schools like North Texas, UAB, Army, Iowa State and New Mexico. There was an arms race going on, and Baylor was fighting with a sling-shot.
Over the course of less than 15 years, Baylor has built one of America's most beautiful, state-of-the-art football stadiums to the tune of $266MM, a new track facility costing nearly $20MM, one of the finest tennis facilities in the NCAA (both outdoors and indoors), a 5,000 seat baseball stadium, one of the nation's nicest softball facilities, a first-class equestrian center, a top-notch soccer stadium, an Olympic-sports center, an indoor football practice facility, two new basketball practice facilities and this August will be opening a new athletic nutritional building, among other projects.
In 2011, every single sport sponsored by the university qualified for post-season play, and this past season, 16 of the 19 programs did the same, and Baylor had its highest finish ever in the Director's Cup standings. The three sports that didn't make the post-season all have new head coaches on board this year. Eight teams in 2014-15 finished among the Top 10 in the nation, with a national championship and a runner-up finish. The football team played in its second straight NY6 bowl, won its second straight P5 conference championship, and won 11 games for the second straight year. Football season tickets are sold out and there is a 9,000 person waiting list. Every sport, except golf is now back on campus, and there are plans being drawn to bring that sport on campus. All of this was done by a private university with 16,000 students in a city of less than 110,000 residents.
How does a university with such small alumni and fan bases accomplish such a feat? It's all about the commitment. You have to make the decision to do it, and then follow through. Baylor was so far behind SDSU before they took the plunge, it didn't even make a joke funny enough to draw a chuckle.
Forget about the Chargers. If YOU build it, they will come. Students, alumni, t-shirt fans, the media, a P5 conference looking for a good partner. You have to get all of your sports on campus. You have to build your brand by closely identifying all your sports within the mission of the university. The money you spend will be a magnet for more capital. The increased exposure will lead to more student applicants, more academic support, more research funding, greater athletic revenues, higher quality faculty and staff and a wealth of civic pride and support. Tying your football program to a professional franchise is an anchor that ties you in place. How many successful college football programs play their games off-campus in professional stadiums? Athletes are looking for a true college experience, and if you think playing in somebody else's stadium, no matter how nice it is, will be a selling point to recruits, you are unfortunately mistaken.
Bottom-line, you must quit talking about what can't be done. You must view each obstacle, whether it's financing, land acquisition or anything else as simply something that you WILL overcome. Otherwise, you have to relegate the athletics aspect of SDSU to the realm of afterthought.
|
|
|
Post by kctxr on Jul 3, 2015 4:53:47 GMT -8
I think this is an excellent post. It all starts and ends with Leadership and knowing where you want to go. Getting there is the tricky part. Understanding and managing thru the constraints is tough. For me, standing on the sidelines, it seems like we are on the path, maybe we all would like to get there a little faster.
G^3
|
|
|
Post by jdaztec on Jul 3, 2015 5:18:30 GMT -8
I agree whole heartedly. I have no ill will towards The Chargers but personally I just don't like the experience at Pro Football games , I would rather watch the games on tv and I can still watch The Chargers if they are in LA.If their moving to LA is what is needed to get a new Aztec Stadium either on the current campus or an extension of SDSU in Mission Valley that would be great. The Chargers get the $ they are looking for, we can all still be Chargers Fans and SDSU Football can really take off.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 3, 2015 5:43:30 GMT -8
Thanks alamobruin, terrific post and appreciate you taking the time to share it with us.
One small caveat... Baylor was able to do that with Big12 $$$. Not saying that to point it out as an excuse for why SDSU CAN'T, but that sure made it a bit easier for Baylor.
That being said I think the point was COMMITMENT. And yes, SDSU needs to make its commitment in a big way despite the cacophony of nay-sayers here.
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 3, 2015 5:55:40 GMT -8
Thanks alamobruin, terrific post and appreciate you taking the time to share it with us. One small caveat... Baylor was able to do that with Big12 $$$. Not saying that to point it out as an excuse for why SDSU CAN'T, but that sure made it a bit easier for Baylor. That being said I think the point was COMMITMENT. And yes, SDSU needs to make its commitment in a big way despite the cacophony of nay-sayers here. Yes, and no. Virtually all of these projects were undertaken prior to the big $$$ that came with the recent television contract, and well before the inclusion of CFP money. When Colorado and Nebraska left the B12, Baylor saw the handwriting on the wall. It was a question of whether the university was going to compete in big-time college athletics or not. You can't even begin to imagine the obstacles facing a school with such limiting factors as those with which Baylor had to deal. Believe me, there were naysayers at BU, and they were vociferous to say the least. Now those skeptics are standing in line hoping they can score some season tickets, or a tailgating spot sometime before they die.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 3, 2015 6:34:51 GMT -8
Take it from someone who knows the depths of depression as a fan and alumnus of a school that was mired in the squalor of a pathetic athletic department for decades. For years, all Baylor fans had to take pride in was how great our track athletes were, then suddenly, we had a great women's basketball team and men's tennis team. WooooHoooo! That will get the fan base jumping! We played football in a 60+ year old off-campus stadium, that we couldn't get students to travel 2 miles to get to. We played home games against Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Texas Tech, where there were more opponent's fans in the stands, and where the stadium was the last place you took recruits during their official visits. In 12 years, under 3 different coaches, Baylor was 28-85 on the football field and were 10-78 in conference play. We suffered humiliating blowouts not only to the power teams, but to schools like North Texas, UAB, Army, Iowa State and New Mexico. There was an arms race going on, and Baylor was fighting with a sling-shot. Over the course of less than 15 years, Baylor has built one of America's most beautiful, state-of-the-art football stadiums to the tune of $266MM, a new track facility costing nearly $20MM, one of the finest tennis facilities in the NCAA (both outdoors and indoors), a 5,000 seat baseball stadium, one of the nation's nicest softball facilities, a first-class equestrian center, a top-notch soccer stadium, an Olympic-sports center, an indoor football practice facility, two new basketball practice facilities and this August will be opening a new athletic nutritional building, among other projects. In 2011, every single sport sponsored by the university qualified for post-season play, and this past season, 16 of the 19 programs did the same, and Baylor had its highest finish ever in the Director's Cup standings. The three sports that didn't make the post-season all have new head coaches on board this year. Eight teams in 2014-15 finished among the Top 10 in the nation, with a national championship and a runner-up finish. The football team played in its second straight NY6 bowl, won its second straight P5 conference championship, and won 11 games for the second straight year. Football season tickets are sold out and there is a 9,000 person waiting list. Every sport, except golf is now back on campus, and there are plans being drawn to bring that sport on campus. All of this was done by a private university with 16,000 students in a city of less than 110,000 residents. How does a university with such small alumni and fan bases accomplish such a feat? It's all about the commitment. You have to make the decision to do it, and then follow through. Baylor was so far behind SDSU before they took the plunge, it didn't even make a joke funny enough to draw a chuckle. Forget about the Chargers. If YOU build it, they will come. Students, alumni, t-shirt fans, the media, a P5 conference looking for a good partner. You have to get all of your sports on campus. You have to build your brand by closely identifying all your sports within the mission of the university. The money you spend will be a magnet for more capital. The increased exposure will lead to more student applicants, more academic support, more research funding, greater athletic revenues, higher quality faculty and staff and a wealth of civic pride and support. Tying your football program to a professional franchise is an anchor that ties you in place. How many successful college football programs play their games off-campus in professional stadiums? Athletes are looking for a true college experience, and if you think playing in somebody else's stadium, no matter how nice it is, will be a selling point to recruits, you are unfortunately mistaken. Bottom-line, you must quit talking about what can't be done. You must view each obstacle, whether it's financing, land acquisition or anything else as simply something that you WILL overcome. Otherwise, you have to relegate the athletics aspect of SDSU to the realm of afterthought. Great post from an outside perspective. Someone who gets it. What is your perspective on BIG XII expansion? What do you think SDSU's chances are? Do you happen to know how many BIG XII alumni live in Caliifornia? Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jul 3, 2015 7:10:59 GMT -8
Thanks alamobruin, terrific post and appreciate you taking the time to share it with us. One small caveat... Baylor was able to do that with Big12 $$$. Not saying that to point it out as an excuse for why SDSU CAN'T, but that sure made it a bit easier for Baylor. That being said I think the point was COMMITMENT. And yes, SDSU needs to make its commitment in a big way despite the cacophony of nay-sayers here. Yes, and no. Virtually all of these projects were undertaken prior to the big $$$ that came with the recent television contract, and well before the inclusion of CFP money. When Colorado and Nebraska left the B12, Baylor saw the handwriting on the wall. It was a question of whether the university was going to compete in big-time college athletics or not. You can't even begin to imagine the obstacles facing a school with such limiting factors as those with which Baylor had to deal. Believe me, there were naysayers at BU, and they were vociferous to say the least. Now those skeptics are standing in line hoping they can score some season tickets, or a tailgating spot sometime before they die. Ahhhhhhh, outstanding... thanks for correcting me. Even more fodder against the nay-sayers.
|
|
|
Post by alamobruin on Jul 3, 2015 10:40:39 GMT -8
SDSU-Alum2003,
I really am not an expert concerning Big XII alumni populations in California, but I will say that such is not a priority in expansion. I doubt you will find that many Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech or West Virginia alumni in Iowa and Kansas.
As far as my stance on B12 expansion, I have long been a proponent of the addition of SDSU and BYU, but that opinion is far from the majority one. There are basically three factions among B12 people when it comes to expansion:
1. The Do-Nothings. These people feel that the conference is situated perfectly now. They don't believe that expansion will result in financial gain after increasing the number of partners in the split. They like the round-robin format in football and the double-round-robin format in basketball and view a CCG as a red herring argument in the CFP, as we only have one year's experience with it, and they believe that a move to expand the CFP to 8 teams will solve any issues anyway. 2. The Raiders. These people feel that there will be opportunities to pick up other P5 programs, especially from the ACC (namely Florida State and Clemson) after the new B12 TV contract is negotiated. They believe that the ACC will be so far behind in revenues at that point, that it will be "open season" on their membership. Their view is that it is better to wait until 2024-25 and make overtures to established P5 programs, and that if those overtures are rebuffed, the same G5 pool will exist for expansion candidates, and those years will help to further shake out the G5 pretenders. 3. The Expansionists. They believe that the conference has a shaky foundation, and that its future rests entirely at the beck and call of Texas and Oklahoma. The feel that Texas has hamstrung the conference with its Longhorn Network and any testing of the waters by UT and OU will serve to further undermine stability for the other members. These people want to move now. They believe that some solid choices and commitments from the G5 will result in those programs making competitive inroads over the next 8-10 years of the current media agreements. They also believe that by expanding the conference's footprint now, the B12 will garner additional leverage in TV negotiations before the next contract is signed.
As far as those expansionists are concerned, they are further divided into camps over who should be invited. One of the factors that works against SDSU is the "West Virginia Parallax." WVU was made veiled promises that when the conference did expand, it would look to the east first and take the Mountaineers off of their island. This also affects the school most suitable for B12 expansion, BYU. If the B12 were to add a single school to end the isolation of WVU, that would put BYU in the same situation that was just alleviated for WVU. All of this means that if the B12 were to expand only to 12 members, both of those would likely be in the eastern zone of the conference. Two of Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina, Tulane, UCF or USF. Don't expect Houston to be a real player as Texas, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech have long-standing negative views of the program from the old SWC, and the non-Texas members are strongly opposed to adding another Texas program that does not expand the footprint.
I think, that when you throw out any ancillary limitations, that the very best option for the B12 is BYU/SDSU. But SDSU is going to have to bring the B12 around to that line of reasoning, and that is going to take some visionary commitment. Salt Lake City/Provo and San Diego are large media markets that outstrip every B12 market outside of Texas. BYU has the facilities and support that makes them an upper-half partner from Day 1. SDSU brings a large state university with untapped resources in a highly desirable market and creates access to rich recruiting grounds in California, including the JUCOs. BYU and SDSU already have a natural, established rivalry. I will say this though, Qualcomm is a negative, and there would need to be an expansion of the number of sports within SDSU's athletic department.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 3, 2015 11:16:23 GMT -8
Thanks alamobruin, terrific post and appreciate you taking the time to share it with us. One small caveat... Baylor was able to do that with Big12 $$$. Not saying that to point it out as an excuse for why SDSU CAN'T, but that sure made it a bit easier for Baylor. That being said I think the point was COMMITMENT. And yes, SDSU needs to make its commitment in a big way despite the cacophony of nay-sayers here. Yes, and no. Virtually all of these projects were undertaken prior to the big $$$ that came with the recent television contract, and well before the inclusion of CFP money. When Colorado and Nebraska left the B12, Baylor saw the handwriting on the wall. It was a question of whether the university was going to compete in big-time college athletics or not. You can't even begin to imagine the obstacles facing a school with such limiting factors as those with which Baylor had to deal. Believe me, there were naysayers at BU, and they were vociferous to say the least. Now those skeptics are standing in line hoping they can score some season tickets, or a tailgating spot sometime before they die. Baylor is definitely the blueprint for taking a mediocre program and bringing it into the limelight, and they've done it via a combination of donations and TV money. It's definitely been impressive.
However, there's also no denying Baylor has several advantages over SDSU when it comes to rebuilding. Specifically, they had McLane, who has been their white knight, they've had TV money and they have significant more land at less expense than SDSU can ever dream of having.
Yes, Baylor started the facilities campaign with a ton of donations. Believe I read $400MM-ish, since around 2000 or so. ALL of their facilities have sold naming rights, including the football facility, and McLane has been in the forefront. That's a great place to start. The Jacob's, Altman's, Fowler's, etc. have been great, but don't believe they're in the ballpark of a McLane. Yet.
In addition, although much was built via donations, they HAVE been in the B12 & hold a significant advantage in their TV contract over SDSU. Even prior to the new 2012 contract, they were receiving significantly more in TV revenues than SDSU is today which, frankly, is a killer. Since 2012 Baylor's built most of their facilities - Tennis, football, track, soccer/Olympic sports center & finally their nutrition center, and although much of this was privately funded, there's no denying they were able to focus their donations on capital improvements due to the fact they had $20MM in guaranteed revenues to run their athletic dept. Something SDSU cannot do. Donations fund our dept.
Given it's Waco, Baylor was able to build a new stadium for under $300MM I believe, whereas TA&M paid over $400MM just to remodel theirs. SDSU, being in ultra expensive So Cal, would face higher costs as well.
For the most part I believe SDSU is in a much better place than Baylor was when they started their revival, as most of our sports are in pretty good shape. Football being the MAJOR outlier. So its not beyond the realm of possibility for SDSU to do what Baylor did. However, HUGE hurdles, with a) finding that white knight to launch the football stadium like a McLean being one; and b) finding more money to fund the athletic department WITHOUT TV money being a second key IMO.
Odds are the Chargers leave, opening the door & taking off the handcuffs. Personally, I don't think SDSU funds a stadium on their own without significantly more buy-in from the community over the next year or two. SDSU alums need to stop putting conditions on their support and get their asses in the seats & opening up their checkbooks if they even want the possibility of a new (or improved) stadium situation moving forward. Forget who's on the schedule; forget whether we go 8-4 vs. 10-2. To do what Baylor did you have to have alums who buy in, even during lesser seasons.
But #1 we need a white knight, which can come in the form of a business partner (Qualcomm, Viejas) who's willing to pony up BIG money, or individuals who are looking to bring MLS to SD. Personally I think the latter is more likely, but you never know.
With a small fraction $20MM coming in the door annual via TV, and higher construction/land costs, it's going to be a tough battle but doable.
I have no doubt the administration is "taking our stadium situation seriously"; I've heard and seen as much. Baylor is a great blueprint, but not necessarily apples to apples. It all starts with the fan base supporting the program, through thick & thin, much as Baylor's alumni did back when they started the process.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jul 3, 2015 11:26:05 GMT -8
SDSU-Alum2003, I really am not an expert concerning Big XII alumni populations in California, but I will say that such is not a priority in expansion. I doubt you will find that many Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech or West Virginia alumni in Iowa and Kansas. As far as my stance on B12 expansion, I have long been a proponent of the addition of SDSU and BYU, but that opinion is far from the majority one. There are basically three factions among B12 people when it comes to expansion: 1. The Do-Nothings. These people feel that the conference is situated perfectly now. They don't believe that expansion will result in financial gain after increasing the number of partners in the split. They like the round-robin format in football and the double-round-robin format in basketball and view a CCG as a red herring argument in the CFP, as we only have one year's experience with it, and they believe that a move to expand the CFP to 8 teams will solve any issues anyway. 2. The Raiders. These people feel that there will be opportunities to pick up other P5 programs, especially from the ACC (namely Florida State and Clemson) after the new B12 TV contract is negotiated. They believe that the ACC will be so far behind in revenues at that point, that it will be "open season" on their membership. Their view is that it is better to wait until 2024-25 and make overtures to established P5 programs, and that if those overtures are rebuffed, the same G5 pool will exist for expansion candidates, and those years will help to further shake out the G5 pretenders. 3. The Expansionists. They believe that the conference has a shaky foundation, and that its future rests entirely at the beck and call of Texas and Oklahoma. The feel that Texas has hamstrung the conference with its Longhorn Network and any testing of the waters by UT and OU will serve to further undermine stability for the other members. These people want to move now. They believe that some solid choices and commitments from the G5 will result in those programs making competitive inroads over the next 8-10 years of the current media agreements. They also believe that by expanding the conference's footprint now, the B12 will garner additional leverage in TV negotiations before the next contract is signed. As far as those expansionists are concerned, they are further divided into camps over who should be invited. One of the factors that works against SDSU is the "West Virginia Parallax." WVU was made veiled promises that when the conference did expand, it would look to the east first and take the Mountaineers off of their island. This also affects the school most suitable for B12 expansion, BYU. If the B12 were to add a single school to end the isolation of WVU, that would put BYU in the same situation that was just alleviated for WVU. All of this means that if the B12 were to expand only to 12 members, both of those would likely be in the eastern zone of the conference. Two of Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina, Tulane, UCF or USF. Don't expect Houston to be a real player as Texas, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech have long-standing negative views of the program from the old SWC, and the non-Texas members are strongly opposed to adding another Texas program that does not expand the footprint. I think, that when you throw out any ancillary limitations, that the very best option for the B12 is BYU/SDSU. But SDSU is going to have to bring the B12 around to that line of reasoning, and that is going to take some visionary commitment. Salt Lake City/Provo and San Diego are large media markets that outstrip every B12 market outside of Texas. BYU has the facilities and support that makes them an upper-half partner from Day 1. SDSU brings a large state university with untapped resources in a highly desirable market and creates access to rich recruiting grounds in California, including the JUCOs. BYU and SDSU already have a natural, established rivalry. I will say this though, Qualcomm is a negative, and there would need to be an expansion of the number of sports within SDSU's athletic department. Terrific summation. Agree 100%. Go east young man has to be their default right now, but to truly increase the footprint western expansion to some degree is very important. Just a bigger commitment.
Any thoughts on a few other negatives w/ BYU (& thus SDSU by association) - not willing to play on Sundays, BYU network & thus lack of a relationship with FOX, one of the B12's primary partners?
One thing college football isn't is stable - change is a constant. Will be an interesting next couple of years.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jul 3, 2015 11:51:24 GMT -8
Thanks alamobruin, terrific post and appreciate you taking the time to share it with us. One small caveat... Baylor was able to do that with Big12 $$$. Not saying that to point it out as an excuse for why SDSU CAN'T, but that sure made it a bit easier for Baylor. That being said I think the point was COMMITMENT. And yes, SDSU needs to make its commitment in a big way despite the cacophony of nay-sayers here. Yes, and no. Virtually all of these projects were undertaken prior to the big $$$ that came with the recent television contract, and well before the inclusion of CFP money. When Colorado and Nebraska left the B12, Baylor saw the handwriting on the wall. It was a question of whether the university was going to compete in big-time college athletics or not. You can't even begin to imagine the obstacles facing a school with such limiting factors as those with which Baylor had to deal. Believe me, there were naysayers at BU, and they were vociferous to say the least. Now those skeptics are standing in line hoping they can score some season tickets, or a tailgating spot sometime before they die. Thanks so much for the inspiring words. I've said it before and I'll say it again, SDSU has enough going for it to have a shot at promotion to a power conference. However, we need to really pick it up in football. Although building a stadium would be very costly, it would be more than worth it through revenue generated by the promotion to say nothing of the huge benefit to school spirit as evidenced by Aztecs basketball and Viejas Arena. I won't go as far as others and say Jim Sterk should be fired if the B12 expands and SDSU isn't one of the additions but considering the above, if he and Hirshman don't make a 100% effort in that regard, the powers that be need to question their continued tenure.
|
|
|
Post by hai520 on Jul 4, 2015 0:16:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hai520 on Jul 4, 2015 0:17:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hai520 on Jul 4, 2015 0:18:32 GMT -8
|
|