|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 22, 2010 20:13:23 GMT -8
What level of football average attendance do you think it would take for the athletic dept. as a whole to break even?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jul 22, 2010 20:17:36 GMT -8
What level of football average attendance do you think it would take for the athletic dept. as a whole to break even? AzWm 30,000 to 35,000 a game. |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Jul 22, 2010 20:26:04 GMT -8
What level of football average attendance do you think it would take for the athletic dept. as a whole to break even? AzWm 30,000 to 35,000 a game. Yea, that would be my guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on Jul 22, 2010 21:27:46 GMT -8
30-35K is very Doable with a winning team
|
|
|
|
Post by William L. Rupp on Jul 22, 2010 22:48:49 GMT -8
No doubt the AD and his staff would be delighted with a 30K average. However, I'm wondering if even that would be enough. My guess is that the univ. really wants an average of 40K or more. They would never say so; in fact I doubt they would ever answer my question specifically. Still, I've a feeling that nothing less than a reliable 40K per game would really put the dept. on a sound footing.
The chances of averaging 40K per game any time soon? Not good. Even reaching the 30 to 35K range will not be easy.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecTom on Jul 22, 2010 22:52:29 GMT -8
No doubt the AD and his staff would be delighted with a 30K average. However, I'm wondering if even that would be enough. My guess is that the univ. really wants an average of 40K or more. They would never say so; in fact I doubt they would ever answer my question specifically. Still, I've a feeling that nothing less than a reliable 40K per game would really put the dept. on a sound footing. The chances of averaging 40K per game any time soon? Not good. Even reaching the 30 to 35K range will not be easy. AzWm Winning solves everything William. Put an exciting product on the field and win, the people will come. |
|
|
|
Post by blueaztec on Jul 23, 2010 0:05:48 GMT -8
No amount of winning will cure the woes.
Going undefeated would raise revenue no doubt, but it would probably lead to an increase spending.
Think about it this way... if th US government doubled taxes would that lead to a budget surplus? Of course not, because they'd find more junk to spend the money on.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecborracho on Jul 23, 2010 6:53:29 GMT -8
No amount of winning will cure the woes. Going undefeated would raise revenue no doubt, but it would probably lead to an increase spending. Think about it this way... if th US government doubled taxes would that lead to a budget surplus? Of course not, because they'd find more junk to spend the money on. I know your trying to slip in some kind of political commentary with this post, but I'm not sure how your connecting the dots in your argument. Having a winning football team will solve our athletic department's fiscal woes... Especially SEVERAL winning seasons going forward. I can't tell you how many Alumni that I know who are big time college sports fans that would fully support this team if we were competitive... If we would just beat who we should and pull off the occasional upset. We all know these people are... Unfortunately these people just don't have the stomach or dedication that people like us on the board have to keep fully dedicated even during the darkest of times (the last 11 seasons). If this team can become competitive, and I know we are going to be with Coach Hoke & Co., there will be so many people coming out of the woodwork to attend games, buy merch, become Aztec Club members and donate to the program. Most people need some positive memories and experiences to spend a lot of their time following something, and I don't blame them. I grew up an Angels fan and nobody would go to those games when they sucked forever... Unless the Yankees or BoSox were in town. Then they won a world series and that ballpark is filled every night. If we win... They will come. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 23, 2010 7:07:22 GMT -8
Well the answer was in the article, ticket revenue has gone down a million or so bucks in the last few years, so, when you're 1.5 million in the hole as a carry over (Sterk made it sound like we were close to dead even this year) and you're getting a 1 million payday next year, as long as we tread water in the other sports, 30-35k should be more than sufficient long term to be in the black, increased revenue say 35-40k in football, 10k in basketball would mean a lot more money on the table.
To the point above, if we start winning, of course we will spend more and invest more in football and the overall sports program; at the level we are at, we should be trying to balance the budget, any money left over should immediately go to upgrading facilities, securing the best coaches and staff, and attempting to win long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 23, 2010 8:47:57 GMT -8
Yes, winning solves all problems, but just how many wins will it take to do that? A 7-6 season (7-5 regular and a bowl loss) followed by 6-6, then 8-5 (bowl win), then 5-7, then 6-6, then 8-5, then 4-8, etc., will not do it in San Diego. You need a solid half decade, at least, of consecutive 7-10 win seasons to undo the damage done to the program by three decades of unconscionable hiring decisions.
And if Fisher is followed by a mediocre coach who typically follows an 18 or 19 win season with an 11 win season, you can kiss goodbye any hope of averaging nine or ten thousand fans no matter who the Aztecs are playing.
I think some Aztec fans underestimate the hole this school has fallen into in the area of intercollegiate athletics. SDSU had a modest history in that field before Don Coryell, and much latter Steve Fisher, arrived. The football component of the rise attributable to St. Don has already been squandered. One does not get that back easily.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jul 23, 2010 9:22:10 GMT -8
Yes, winning solves all problems, but just how many wins will it take to do that? A 7-6 season (7-5 regular and a bowl loss) followed by 6-6, then 8-5 (bowl win), then 5-7, then 6-6, then 8-5, then 4-8, etc., will not do it in San Diego. You need a solid half decade, at least, of consecutive 7-10 win seasons to undo the damage done to the program by three decades of unconscionable hiring decisions. And if Fisher is followed by a mediocre coach who typically follows an 18 or 19 win season with an 11 win season, you can kiss goodbye any hope of averaging nine or ten thousand fans no matter who the Aztecs are playing. I think some Aztec fans underestimate the hole this school has fallen into in the area of intercollegiate athletics. SDSU had a modest history in that field before Don Coryell, and much latter Steve Fisher, arrived. The football component of the rise attributable to St. Don has already been squandered. One does not get that back easily. AzWm I have to agree with this analysis. It is why my thought is that concentrating our attention on particular teams at any given time takes our attention away from the real issue--stable, long term quality management. The AD's ability and stability is a critical component here and the lack thereof has, and not coincidentally, paralleled our on field failure. When you look at successful pro and college franchises they have one thing in common--excellent management. Players come and go, as do the coaches but they continue to win and bring in the revenues that go with winning. We have not been stable or competent at the top for a long time. Our fund raising and won/loss percentages reflect this reality. In fairness, saying its important to hire the right person for the job is easier said than done but that does not alter the fact that the SDSU AD slot has been like a revolving door of mediocrity for a long time now. Say what you will about U$C (oh, and believe me I do) but they recognize the importance of the position. Replacing Mike Garret with a Rhodes Scholar like Pat Haden is indicative of what they think about the need for quality at the top (Oh, god forbid did I just imply quality in the person of a U$C guy? Forgive me, I'm losing it this morning). The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 23, 2010 10:39:15 GMT -8
A consistently winning football team will attract better athletes and higher attendance. That's also key to making Sterk's fund raising efforts that much more successful. Right now Sterk's job is as tough as Hoke persuading multi-star recruits to come here because both have nothing to show for it.
If we can hang on to Hoke I really think Sterk can do his thing. In the long term his fund raising contribution will be more significant than what attendance brings in.
|
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Jul 23, 2010 11:42:17 GMT -8
Can one of you pull out the historical attendance over the last 20-30 years? I am certain we have had years where we averaged over 40K. It is doable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ziggy on Jul 23, 2010 12:23:54 GMT -8
Can one of you pull out the historical attendance over the last 20-30 years? I am certain we have had years where we averaged over 40K. It is doable. From the media guide: 1969 41,139 1970 33,835 1971 26,047 1972 30,816 1973 30,201 1974 28,691 1975 42,040 1976 34,861 1977 38,153 1978 35,809 1979 39,978 1980 24,450 1981 34,366 1982 20,452 1983 17,949 1984 23,378 1985 19,485 1986 35,687 1987 22,911 1988 22,398 1989 20,462 1990 22,061 1991 33,241 1992 46,766 1993 38,477 1994 31,879 1995 30,769 1996 28,416 1997 26,022 1998 25,864 1999 29,880 2000 23,449 2001 22,518 2002 25,263 2003 22,626 2004 35,995 2005 36,223 2006 29,227 2007 27,940 2008 24,376 |
|
|
|
Post by ziggy on Jul 23, 2010 12:34:07 GMT -8
Graphic with more attendance information. Winning will defiantely get more butts in the seats but averaging 40K is a going to take winning and playing some decent teams IMO. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2010 13:39:34 GMT -8
Can one of you pull out the historical attendance over the last 20-30 years? I am certain we have had years where we averaged over 40K. It is doable. From the media guide: 1969 41,139 1970 33,835 1971 26,047 1972 30,816 1973 30,201 1974 28,691 1975 42,040 1976 34,861 1977 38,153 1978 35,809 1979 39,978 1980 24,450 1981 34,366 1982 20,452 1983 17,949 1984 23,378 1985 19,485 1986 35,687 1987 22,911 1988 22,398 1989 20,462 1990 22,061 1991 33,241 1992 46,766 1993 38,477 1994 31,879 1995 30,769 1996 28,416 Comments: 1980: We were 1-8 and averaging an embarrassing 9.8 ppg before winning our final three. 1982: We finished 7-5, including a loss to 10-2 Washington and a blowout of Okie State. Our horrific attendance for that year is therefore inexplicable. 1983: 2-9-1. "Nuff said. 1986: WAC championship. 1991: Marshall. 1996: 8-3 and considering the roster we had, that lousy attendance is also inexplicable. |
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Jul 23, 2010 13:41:17 GMT -8
1992 was awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 23, 2010 21:35:34 GMT -8
The 1982 and 1996 seasons (among others) are good examples of what ails San Diego college football. In some parts of the country, attendance for seasons such as those would easily have averaged 40,000 or more.
It's a lot to ask of a school such as SDSU that the team never fall below 7 wins per season. Unfortunately, it appears that an almost unbroken string of 7, 8, 9, or 10 win seasons would be required to get S.D. fans to come to the games regularly. Despite the good years under Coryell and Gilbert, there simply is no die-hard tradition of fan support here as exists in a number of other schools.
Example? How about Indiana. It's a basketball school, right? FB has hardly ever been good there. Still, last year they drew an average of 41,833 fans.
What SDSU needs, in addition to a solid program, is fans who cares enough about the team to show up in great numbers even during losing seasons.
That's what we need. Whether we will ever see that come to pass is an open question.
AzWm
|
|
