|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 4, 2018 11:20:22 GMT -8
so in reality and budget what are the options
also who is coming back and who is coming in for players for the 2018-19 season
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 4, 2018 15:38:25 GMT -8
Didnt say that at all. We may or may not find a better coach but unless you're certain you can and will with womens hoops it's not a critical issue. It's not like declining attendance in 2019 v 2018 will impact the bottom line, and she may turn things around. They're just not ready to change everything yet. She has had plenty of time to turn things around. For the amount of money she's being paid we should all expect better. So you say it's not a critical issue and they're not ready to change everything yet. That is so lame. Wicker could have offered the same money for another candidate. The $212K she's being paid is not chump change. You never make a coaching change for the sake of making a change; turnover is as likely to hurt a program as help it. She needs to do better, no doubt, and the leash is only so long. But unless there's a coaching candidate that SCREAMS a major upgrade you don't need to make the change. It's not like men's basketball where we rely on ticket sales to drive scholarship funds, and keeping the donor base appeased is critical to the financial success of the program. The leash is significantly shorter in men's hoops than women's. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 6, 2018 12:48:27 GMT -8
She has had plenty of time to turn things around. For the amount of money she's being paid we should all expect better. So you say it's not a critical issue and they're not ready to change everything yet. That is so lame. Wicker could have offered the same money for another candidate. The $212K she's being paid is not chump change. You never make a coaching change for the sake of making a change; turnover is as likely to hurt a program as help it. She needs to do better, no doubt, and the leash is only so long. But unless there's a coaching candidate that SCREAMS a major upgrade you don't need to make the change. It's not like men's basketball where we rely on ticket sales to drive scholarship funds, and keeping the donor base appeased is critical to the financial success of the program. The leash is significantly shorter in men's hoops than women's. When Beth Burns was here the 2nd time around and we were at or near the top of the conference every year, do you happen to know if our attendance was up and if they generated any more money? At worst they could at least generate SOME more money potentially if they had a good team, to where they would lose less $ annually. Seems like paying 212k for a coach that you KNOW is bad is a complete waste and should be spent on someone who at least might be good. The chances of another hire being successful are much higher than the chances Terry turns it around IMO. The team has consistently been getting worse for years under her helm |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 6, 2018 14:53:09 GMT -8
You never make a coaching change for the sake of making a change; turnover is as likely to hurt a program as help it. She needs to do better, no doubt, and the leash is only so long. But unless there's a coaching candidate that SCREAMS a major upgrade you don't need to make the change. It's not like men's basketball where we rely on ticket sales to drive scholarship funds, and keeping the donor base appeased is critical to the financial success of the program. The leash is significantly shorter in men's hoops than women's. When Beth Burns was here the 2nd time around and we were at or near the top of the conference every year, do you happen to know if our attendance was up and if they generated any more money? At worst they could at least generate SOME more money potentially if they had a good team, to where they would lose less $ annually. Seems like paying 212k for a coach that you KNOW is bad is a complete waste and should be spent on someone who at least might be good. The chances of another hire being successful are much higher than the chances Terry turns it around IMO. The team has consistently been getting worse for years under her helm I haven't seen 2018 attendance numbers yet, but 2017 was as good as any of Beth's final 3 years when it came to attendance. Terry did a great job of promoting the program and selling tickets. In 2011 we averaged 861 fans a game (12053 total attendance for the year); Beth's last year ('13) it dropped to 734 (11744). In 2017 we averaged 855 & 11976. If you take Burns last 3 years vs. Terry's ('15-'17), we drew a total of 1000 fewer fans/season. Not per game, PER SEASON, and given how cheap tickets are & knowing some are students anyway, we're probably generating under $10k less per year in revenue while paying Stacy around $20k less, so we're coming out ahead. Even in good years, which I'd think you'd say 2013 was (Beth's was), it doesn't generate income. It's better to have a HC who sells the program well off the court than who wins, and Terry is good with the fan base. Very good. It's just NOT a big deal. Sure, we'd love to win the conference championship in every sport & do better in women's hoops, but it just doesn't move the needle. Never has. And replacing Stacy may set the program back a year, as much as it could improve prospects long-term. It's unknown. While you may believe a new hire may be successful we simply don't know, especially if there isn't an obvious candidate out there right now who'd be interested. But the bottom line, even a successful hire doesn't move the needle significantly and there are MUCH BIGGER things to worry about within the department right now. Stability is not a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Jun 6, 2018 18:42:15 GMT -8
What a great gig!
You're the head coach of a D1 program, in your first head coaching job anywhere.
You're a California public employee, with the benefits of a pension, retirement, and medical program.
You're paid $20K per month with zero pressure to win. In fact, no one cares if you win, because no one cares.
And you don't win. Rather, you drive the program into the ground, striving for last place in a terrible conference.
The school doesn't want to let you go because you're a pretty face and you're safe, and maybe because the school is afraid to do anything because the last coach was awarded millions in a wrongful termination lawsuit.
And some believe firing you might set the program back a year, and because some believe there's not an obvious candidate who can do a better job than you.
Where do I apply?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 6, 2018 21:01:48 GMT -8
When Beth Burns was here the 2nd time around and we were at or near the top of the conference every year, do you happen to know if our attendance was up and if they generated any more money? At worst they could at least generate SOME more money potentially if they had a good team, to where they would lose less $ annually. Seems like paying 212k for a coach that you KNOW is bad is a complete waste and should be spent on someone who at least might be good. The chances of another hire being successful are much higher than the chances Terry turns it around IMO. The team has consistently been getting worse for years under her helm I haven't seen 2018 attendance numbers yet, but 2017 was as good as any of Beth's final 3 years when it came to attendance. Terry did a great job of promoting the program and selling tickets. In 2011 we averaged 861 fans a game (12053 total attendance for the year); Beth's last year ('13) it dropped to 734 (11744). In 2017 we averaged 855 & 11976. If you take Burns last 3 years vs. Terry's ('15-'17), we drew a total of 1000 fewer fans/season. Not per game, PER SEASON, and given how cheap tickets are & knowing some are students anyway, we're probably generating under $10k less per year in revenue while paying Stacy around $20k less, so we're coming out ahead. Even in good years, which I'd think you'd say 2013 was (Beth's was), it doesn't generate income. It's better to have a HC who sells the program well off the court than who wins, and Terry is good with the fan base. Very good. It's just NOT a big deal. Sure, we'd love to win the conference championship in every sport & do better in women's hoops, but it just doesn't move the needle. Never has. And replacing Stacy may set the program back a year, as much as it could improve prospects long-term. It's unknown. While you may believe a new hire may be successful we simply don't know, especially if there isn't an obvious candidate out there right now who'd be interested. But the bottom line, even a successful hire doesn't move the needle significantly and there are MUCH BIGGER things to worry about within the department right now. Stability is not a bad thing. You could make the same argument for baseball. Baseball averages the same or even less fans per game. Would we put up with the baseball team being turned in to one of the worst programs in a crappy MWC? Women's basketball probably has as much exposure as any women's sport. To say it doesn't matter and is not a big deal is complete chicken $hit IMO and not a position that any respectable athletic administration should ever take. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 7, 2018 5:19:27 GMT -8
When Beth Burns was here the 2nd time around and we were at or near the top of the conference every year, do you happen to know if our attendance was up and if they generated any more money? At worst they could at least generate SOME more money potentially if they had a good team, to where they would lose less $ annually. Seems like paying 212k for a coach that you KNOW is bad is a complete waste and should be spent on someone who at least might be good. The chances of another hire being successful are much higher than the chances Terry turns it around IMO. The team has consistently been getting worse for years under her helm I haven't seen 2018 attendance numbers yet, but 2017 was as good as any of Beth's final 3 years when it came to attendance. Terry did a great job of promoting the program and selling tickets. In 2011 we averaged 861 fans a game (12053 total attendance for the year); Beth's last year ('13) it dropped to 734 (11744). In 2017 we averaged 855 & 11976. If you take Burns last 3 years vs. Terry's ('15-'17), we drew a total of 1000 fewer fans/season. Not per game, PER SEASON, and given how cheap tickets are & knowing some are students anyway, we're probably generating under $10k less per year in revenue while paying Stacy around $20k less, so we're coming out ahead. Even in good years, which I'd think you'd say 2013 was (Beth's was), it doesn't generate income. It's better to have a HC who sells the program well off the court than who wins, and Terry is good with the fan base. Very good. It's just NOT a big deal. Sure, we'd love to win the conference championship in every sport & do better in women's hoops, but it just doesn't move the needle. Never has. And replacing Stacy may set the program back a year, as much as it could improve prospects long-term. It's unknown. While you may believe a new hire may be successful we simply don't know, especially if there isn't an obvious candidate out there right now who'd be interested. But the bottom line, even a successful hire doesn't move the needle significantly and there are MUCH BIGGER things to worry about within the department right now. Stability is not a bad thing. Good info, thanks for that. Still don't think I agree with keeping her, but at least I see the argument |
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 7, 2018 6:28:21 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game.
To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team.
You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus.
|
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jun 7, 2018 7:46:12 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game. To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team. You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus. So what you're saying is if we consistently made the sweet 16 in women's basketball, attendance wouldn't increase! I remember Peterson gym days when we had sell out for women's basketball in the WAC CHAMPIONSHIP. Also what you're saying is, we don't give a s*** if we win or lose, as long as the program doesn't make any waves. You're missing the whole point of Title Nine. SDSU should not strive for mediocrity. She's had a run, it's not successful, time for someone new. It couldn't be much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 7, 2018 8:00:56 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game. To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team. You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus. So what you're saying is if we consistently made the sweet 16 in women's basketball, attendance wouldn't increase! I remember Peterson gym days when we had sell out for women's basketball in the WAC CHAMPIONSHIP. Also what you're saying is, we don't give a s*** if we win or lose, as long as the program doesn't make any waves. You're missing the whole point of Title Nine. SDSU should not strive for mediocrity. She's had a run, it's not successful, time for someone new. It couldn't be much worse. I think you quoted the wrong person. brokencurse seems to be in favor of making an effort to make women's basketball successful by canning the current coach |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2018 9:07:24 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game. To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team. You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus. 2013: 27-7, 15-1 in conference, 1st place = 734 fans/game (which followed a 25-7, 12-2, NCAA team) 2017: 11-19, 6-12, 8th place = 855/game During a HUGE run in SDSU women's basketball we drew fewer fans than we did during a losing season. Do you really see a correlation between winning and attendance? Or maybe it's about how well the coach & her players promote the program & sell tickets at various events? If you think we'll get to 4k/gm with a new coaching hire, after history has proven otherwise, you're ignoring facts. The target should be 1k/game, and as seen in 2017 with this current staff in place the administration may believe that's doable. They have more information about how Terry runs the team, her relationship with the players, current recruiting, etc. than most anyone on this board. They also know her relationship with donors, and how well she does promoting her squad and getting people to support the team. I know I for one bought season tickets to support HER after spending 20 minutes chatting with her at an event. Every athletic program is important to the administration BUT the hiring & firing formulas vary by sport. You have to have a quicker trigger in the big money sports than you do when hiring/firing in the remaining programs. While the leash on a men's basketball coach may be 3-4 years or 4-5 in football, it's much longer on the women's side of the ledger. If they continue to trend down I'm sure the leash will run out; it's just not there yet. They liked last years recruiting class & I'm sure they'd like to give them a couple years to play out. Kudos to Gonzaga & New Mex, but if you've been to Spokane & Alb you know it's a very different formula there than it is in San Diego, as history has shown. This isn't the days of Peterson gym; this is today. Times have changed. The equation to get fans to games is very, very different (& harder). We had the 2nd most successful athletic program overall across ALL SPORTS based on standings in conference this past year, trailing only Boise. This administration has never strived for "mediocrity"; they know what they're doing. Every school has a program or two (or 5) which struggles. Hopefully Stacie can start to turn this around this year. Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 7, 2018 9:38:12 GMT -8
When Beth Burns was here the 2nd time around and we were at or near the top of the conference every year, do you happen to know if our attendance was up and if they generated any more money? At worst they could at least generate SOME more money potentially if they had a good team, to where they would lose less $ annually. Seems like paying 212k for a coach that you KNOW is bad is a complete waste and should be spent on someone who at least might be good. The chances of another hire being successful are much higher than the chances Terry turns it around IMO. The team has consistently been getting worse for years under her helm I haven't seen 2018 attendance numbers yet, but 2017 was as good as any of Beth's final 3 years when it came to attendance. Terry did a great job of promoting the program and selling tickets. In 2011 we averaged 861 fans a game (12053 total attendance for the year); Beth's last year ('13) it dropped to 734 (11744). In 2017 we averaged 855 & 11976. If you take Burns last 3 years vs. Terry's ('15-'17), we drew a total of 1000 fewer fans/season. Not per game, PER SEASON, and given how cheap tickets are & knowing some are students anyway, we're probably generating under $10k less per year in revenue while paying Stacy around $20k less, so we're coming out ahead. Even in good years, which I'd think you'd say 2013 was (Beth's was), it doesn't generate income. It's better to have a HC who sells the program well off the court than who wins, and Terry is good with the fan base. Very good. It's just NOT a big deal. Sure, we'd love to win the conference championship in every sport & do better in women's hoops, but it just doesn't move the needle. Never has. And replacing Stacy may set the program back a year, as much as it could improve prospects long-term. It's unknown. While you may believe a new hire may be successful we simply don't know, especially if there isn't an obvious candidate out there right now who'd be interested. But the bottom line, even a successful hire doesn't move the needle significantly and there are MUCH BIGGER things to worry about within the department right now. Stability is not a bad thing. I agree with your point regarding not making a coaching change simply for change's sake, but nobody here is suggesting that. What they are saying, in my opinion, is that Ms. Terry has already demonstrated she's not up to the challenge, and the preference is that she perform whatever OJT is needed at another venue. While in your opinion "stability is not a bad thing," a stable losing program is a losing program, and I fail to see how that's a good thing. Now you're telling us "Terry is good with the fan base. Very good." Perhaps you could be more specific, because the fan base represented here, doesn't seem too thrilled. If you truly believe a new head coach "may set the program back a year," how could it get much worse, and what does that say about J.D.'s ability to make a good hire? Coug, in the past, you've argued that Beth Burns should have been, and was let go because nobody in the Athletic Department liked her (or at least something like that.) That's somewhat akin to her contention during her trial that she was fired because she advocated too long, too hard, and too often for increased resources. Are you saying now that Coach Terry is not making any waves right now; that J.D. likes that kind of stability because he has more important issues on his plate, and WBB "just doesn't move the needle"? If so I could understand that. Don't agree with it, think it's not the brightest policy, and feel it's a risky gamble on his part. But it's his decision to make. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 7, 2018 10:09:24 GMT -8
How many years are still on her contract ?
Would guess JD has had a meeting with Terry to go over what needs to get done to move the program into a better position with better results . Results on the court have not been what have been expected .
What are realistic goals for the 2018-19 team ? with players on the roster and those coming in for 2018 .
Difficult situation both with various people involved and finances - that need to get straightened out .
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2018 10:15:27 GMT -8
I haven't seen 2018 attendance numbers yet, but 2017 was as good as any of Beth's final 3 years when it came to attendance. Terry did a great job of promoting the program and selling tickets. In 2011 we averaged 861 fans a game (12053 total attendance for the year); Beth's last year ('13) it dropped to 734 (11744). In 2017 we averaged 855 & 11976. If you take Burns last 3 years vs. Terry's ('15-'17), we drew a total of 1000 fewer fans/season. Not per game, PER SEASON, and given how cheap tickets are & knowing some are students anyway, we're probably generating under $10k less per year in revenue while paying Stacy around $20k less, so we're coming out ahead. Even in good years, which I'd think you'd say 2013 was (Beth's was), it doesn't generate income. It's better to have a HC who sells the program well off the court than who wins, and Terry is good with the fan base. Very good. It's just NOT a big deal. Sure, we'd love to win the conference championship in every sport & do better in women's hoops, but it just doesn't move the needle. Never has. And replacing Stacy may set the program back a year, as much as it could improve prospects long-term. It's unknown. While you may believe a new hire may be successful we simply don't know, especially if there isn't an obvious candidate out there right now who'd be interested. But the bottom line, even a successful hire doesn't move the needle significantly and there are MUCH BIGGER things to worry about within the department right now. Stability is not a bad thing. I agree with your point regarding not making a coaching change simply for change's sake, but nobody here is suggesting that. What they are saying, in my opinion, is that Ms. Terry has already demonstrated she's not up to the challenge, and the preference is that she perform whatever OJT is needed at another venue. While in your opinion "stability is not a bad thing," a stable losing program is a losing program, and I fail to see how that's a good thing. Now you're telling us "Terry is good with the fan base. Very good." Perhaps you could be more specific, because the fan base represented here, doesn't seem too thrilled. If you truly believe a new head coach "may set the program back a year," how could it get much worse, and what does that say about J.D.'s ability to make a good hire? Coug, in the past, you've argued that Beth Burns should have been, and was let go because nobody in the Athletic Department liked her (or at least something like that.) That's somewhat akin to her contention during her trial that she was fired because she advocated too long, too hard, and too often for increased resources. Are you saying now that Coach Terry is not making any waves right now; that J.D. likes that kind of stability because he has more important issues on his plate, and WBB "just doesn't move the needle"? If so I could understand that. Don't agree with it, think it's not the brightest policy, and feel it's a risky gamble on his part. But it's his decision to make. 1. Good with the fan base. Check out attendance in 2017 despite having an 8th place finish & bad season overall. As good as any of Burn's last years. How do we draw better in a year we finish 8th than we did in a year we finished 1st? I doubt it's their performance ON the floor that does that. Attending any and all events its very easy to see the repertoire she has, and if you go to any of the women's basketball specific events its very obvious how good she does in those situations. 2. Not making waves. Again, this has nothing to do with making/not making waves, this has to do with the fact that even when very successful women's basketball doesn't move the dial financially, so there's less urgency in making a change. They know a lot more about the status of the program than you, me, or anyone else on this board, and they can see the benefits beyond the standings, and may be more optimistic about where they see the program going. I doubt they've drawn the "failure" conclusion like some apparently have quite yet. BTW, how is it a "gamble"? We do poorly, and attendance & revenue isn't much different than when we do really well, so even if she has a bad year the dial isn't going to move much. However, having stability, both with recruiting, players on the roster, and with her supporters, can be a very good thing, and if things improve its an excellent decision. Recruiting, based on what I've heard & read, isn't going in the toilet, and was actually very good last year & into this year as well. If she was struggling to recruit and attendance was dumping, then that's one thing. That doesn't appear to be the case. There really isn't much risk or reward, whether they kept her or fired her. I'm curious how many of the people griping about Terry actually attend women's basketball games? How many actually have season tickets, whether now or in 2013? People love to bitch & moan from afar, but those who are close to the program that I've interacted with - including just a couple weeks ago - are more optimistic & OK if not very supportive with keeping her. I doubt very much 4 people - 1 of whom is now more understanding of the decision - represents the "fan base" of women's hoops. The lack of commentary on the subject is more representative, as does the amount of support she receives at events by donors who are the financial backbone of the women's program. |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 7, 2018 11:09:40 GMT -8
I agree with your point regarding not making a coaching change simply for change's sake, but nobody here is suggesting that. What they are saying, in my opinion, is that Ms. Terry has already demonstrated she's not up to the challenge, and the preference is that she perform whatever OJT is needed at another venue. While in your opinion "stability is not a bad thing," a stable losing program is a losing program, and I fail to see how that's a good thing. Now you're telling us "Terry is good with the fan base. Very good." Perhaps you could be more specific, because the fan base represented here, doesn't seem too thrilled. If you truly believe a new head coach "may set the program back a year," how could it get much worse, and what does that say about J.D.'s ability to make a good hire? Coug, in the past, you've argued that Beth Burns should have been, and was let go because nobody in the Athletic Department liked her (or at least something like that.) That's somewhat akin to her contention during her trial that she was fired because she advocated too long, too hard, and too often for increased resources. Are you saying now that Coach Terry is not making any waves right now; that J.D. likes that kind of stability because he has more important issues on his plate, and WBB "just doesn't move the needle"? If so I could understand that. Don't agree with it, think it's not the brightest policy, and feel it's a risky gamble on his part. But it's his decision to make. 1. Good with the fan base. Check out attendance in 2017 despite having an 8th place finish & bad season overall. As good as any of Burn's last years. How do we draw better in a year we finish 8th than we did in a year we finished 1st? I doubt it's their performance ON the floor that does that. Attending any and all events its very easy to see the repertoire she has, and if you go to any of the women's basketball specific events its very obvious how good she does in those situations. 2. Not making waves. Again, this has nothing to do with making/not making waves, this has to do with the fact that even when very successful women's basketball doesn't move the dial financially, so there's less urgency in making a change. They know a lot more about the status of the program than you, me, or anyone else on this board, and they can see the benefits beyond the standings, and may be more optimistic about where they see the program going. I doubt they've drawn the "failure" conclusion like some apparently have quite yet. BTW, how is it a "gamble"? We do poorly, and attendance & revenue isn't much different than when we do really well, so even if she has a bad year the dial isn't going to move much. However, having stability, both with recruiting, players on the roster, and with her supporters, can be a very good thing, and if things improve its an excellent decision. Recruiting, based on what I've heard & read, isn't going in the toilet, and was actually very good last year & into this year as well. If she was struggling to recruit and attendance was dumping, then that's one thing. That doesn't appear to be the case. There really isn't much risk or reward, whether they kept her or fired her. I'm curious how many of the people griping about Terry actually attend women's basketball games? How many actually have season tickets, whether now or in 2013? People love to bitch & moan from afar, but those who are close to the program that I've interacted with - including just a couple weeks ago - are more optimistic & OK if not very supportive with keeping her. I doubt very much 4 people - 1 of whom is now more understanding of the decision - represents the "fan base" of women's hoops. The lack of commentary on the subject is more representative, as does the amount of support she receives at events by donors who are the financial backbone of the women's program. I had season tickets under Burns, and I stopped 3 years ago |
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 7, 2018 13:50:07 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game. To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team. You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus. So what you're saying is if we consistently made the sweet 16 in women's basketball, attendance wouldn't increase! I remember Peterson gym days when we had sell out for women's basketball in the WAC CHAMPIONSHIP. Also what you're saying is, we don't give a s*** if we win or lose, as long as the program doesn't make any waves. You're missing the whole point of Title Nine. SDSU should not strive for mediocrity. She's had a run, it's not successful, time for someone new. It couldn't be much worse. I'm confused, are you replying to me? I'm saying the opposite: - Multiple sweet 16s and attendance would definitely increase - People do care about the program and the program is just scratching the surface of its potential |
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 7, 2018 14:02:00 GMT -8
Gonzaga women's basketball averages almost 6,000 per game. New Mexico almost 5,000 per game. Hawaii almost 4,000 per game. To judge SDSU women's basketball on current attendance numbers is like saying the Peterson gym days was the ceiling for the men's team. You could make an argument that women's basketball is the third most important sport on campus. 2013: 27-7, 15-1 in conference, 1st place = 734 fans/game (which followed a 25-7, 12-2, NCAA team) 2017: 11-19, 6-12, 8th place = 855/game During a HUGE run in SDSU women's basketball we drew fewer fans than we did during a losing season. Do you really see a correlation between winning and attendance? Or maybe it's about how well the coach & her players promote the program & sell tickets at various events? If you think we'll get to 4k/gm with a new coaching hire, after history has proven otherwise, you're ignoring facts. The target should be 1k/game, and as seen in 2017 with this current staff in place the administration may believe that's doable. They have more information about how Terry runs the team, her relationship with the players, current recruiting, etc. than most anyone on this board. They also know her relationship with donors, and how well she does promoting her squad and getting people to support the team. I know I for one bought season tickets to support HER after spending 20 minutes chatting with her at an event. Every athletic program is important to the administration BUT the hiring & firing formulas vary by sport. You have to have a quicker trigger in the big money sports than you do when hiring/firing in the remaining programs. While the leash on a men's basketball coach may be 3-4 years or 4-5 in football, it's much longer on the women's side of the ledger. If they continue to trend down I'm sure the leash will run out; it's just not there yet. They liked last years recruiting class & I'm sure they'd like to give them a couple years to play out. Kudos to Gonzaga & New Mex, but if you've been to Spokane & Alb you know it's a very different formula there than it is in San Diego, as history has shown. This isn't the days of Peterson gym; this is today. Times have changed. The equation to get fans to games is very, very different (& harder). We had the 2nd most successful athletic program overall across ALL SPORTS based on standings in conference this past year, trailing only Boise. This administration has never strived for "mediocrity"; they know what they're doing. Every school has a program or two (or 5) which struggles. Hopefully Stacie can start to turn this around this year. Only time will tell. Before Steve Fisher, a lot of people thought San Diego State was basketball purgatory. So yes, I think hiring the right coach can have a dramatic effect on a program. As you mention, past success doesn't guarantee support. Women's basketball requires much more grass roots efforts. But the argument that San Diego isn't Albuquerque is a hollow one. San Diego is capable of that support. A lot of people thought Vegas couldn't support hockey. It does require lightning in a bottle and it is definitely not easy. I just don't agree with it's women's basketball and no one cares so why try. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2018 14:08:51 GMT -8
2013: 27-7, 15-1 in conference, 1st place = 734 fans/game (which followed a 25-7, 12-2, NCAA team) 2017: 11-19, 6-12, 8th place = 855/game During a HUGE run in SDSU women's basketball we drew fewer fans than we did during a losing season. Do you really see a correlation between winning and attendance? Or maybe it's about how well the coach & her players promote the program & sell tickets at various events? If you think we'll get to 4k/gm with a new coaching hire, after history has proven otherwise, you're ignoring facts. The target should be 1k/game, and as seen in 2017 with this current staff in place the administration may believe that's doable. They have more information about how Terry runs the team, her relationship with the players, current recruiting, etc. than most anyone on this board. They also know her relationship with donors, and how well she does promoting her squad and getting people to support the team. I know I for one bought season tickets to support HER after spending 20 minutes chatting with her at an event. Every athletic program is important to the administration BUT the hiring & firing formulas vary by sport. You have to have a quicker trigger in the big money sports than you do when hiring/firing in the remaining programs. While the leash on a men's basketball coach may be 3-4 years or 4-5 in football, it's much longer on the women's side of the ledger. If they continue to trend down I'm sure the leash will run out; it's just not there yet. They liked last years recruiting class & I'm sure they'd like to give them a couple years to play out. Kudos to Gonzaga & New Mex, but if you've been to Spokane & Alb you know it's a very different formula there than it is in San Diego, as history has shown. This isn't the days of Peterson gym; this is today. Times have changed. The equation to get fans to games is very, very different (& harder). We had the 2nd most successful athletic program overall across ALL SPORTS based on standings in conference this past year, trailing only Boise. This administration has never strived for "mediocrity"; they know what they're doing. Every school has a program or two (or 5) which struggles. Hopefully Stacie can start to turn this around this year. Only time will tell. Before Steve Fisher, a lot of people thought San Diego State was basketball purgatory. So yes, I think hiring the right coach can have a dramatic effect on a program. As you mention, past success doesn't guarantee support. Women's basketball requires much more grass roots efforts. But the argument that San Diego isn't Albuquerque is a hollow one. San Diego is capable of that support. A lot of people thought Vegas couldn't support hockey. It does require lightning in a bottle and it is definitely not easy. I just don't agree with it's women's basketball and no one cares so why try. No one has said that. They're trying. The fact they had BETTER attendance is a bad year than in a GREAT year shows the administration (& WBB staff) cares & is doing all it can. They just don't think Stacie's run her course yet, and want to give her a longer leash than you and since - fiscally - it doesn't impact the bottom line they can afford to do that. There are several people who actually believe the program will start to turn around this year, myself included. |
|
|
|
Post by azteca on Jun 7, 2018 14:23:11 GMT -8
1. Good with the fan base. Check out attendance in 2017 despite having an 8th place finish & bad season overall. As good as any of Burn's last years. How do we draw better in a year we finish 8th than we did in a year we finished 1st? I doubt it's their performance ON the floor that does that. Attending any and all events its very easy to see the repertoire she has, and if you go to any of the women's basketball specific events its very obvious how good she does in those situations. 2. Not making waves. Again, this has nothing to do with making/not making waves, this has to do with the fact that even when very successful women's basketball doesn't move the dial financially, so there's less urgency in making a change. They know a lot more about the status of the program than you, me, or anyone else on this board, and they can see the benefits beyond the standings, and may be more optimistic about where they see the program going. I doubt they've drawn the "failure" conclusion like some apparently have quite yet. BTW, how is it a "gamble"? We do poorly, and attendance & revenue isn't much different than when we do really well, so even if she has a bad year the dial isn't going to move much. However, having stability, both with recruiting, players on the roster, and with her supporters, can be a very good thing, and if things improve its an excellent decision. Recruiting, based on what I've heard & read, isn't going in the toilet, and was actually very good last year & into this year as well. If she was struggling to recruit and attendance was dumping, then that's one thing. That doesn't appear to be the case. There really isn't much risk or reward, whether they kept her or fired her. I'm curious how many of the people griping about Terry actually attend women's basketball games? How many actually have season tickets, whether now or in 2013? People love to bitch & moan from afar, but those who are close to the program that I've interacted with - including just a couple weeks ago - are more optimistic & OK if not very supportive with keeping her. I doubt very much 4 people - 1 of whom is now more understanding of the decision - represents the "fan base" of women's hoops. The lack of commentary on the subject is more representative, as does the amount of support she receives at events by donors who are the financial backbone of the women's program. I had season tickets under Burns, and I stopped 3 years ago I had season tickets for two years when Beth was here but was bored to tears. The only thing the women could do was shoot free throws. They had trouble with lay-ins for gosh sakes. I'm sure I'll catch flak on this comment but I just couldn't get excited at all! |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 7, 2018 14:29:01 GMT -8
I agree with your point regarding not making a coaching change simply for change's sake, but nobody here is suggesting that. What they are saying, in my opinion, is that Ms. Terry has already demonstrated she's not up to the challenge, and the preference is that she perform whatever OJT is needed at another venue. While in your opinion "stability is not a bad thing," a stable losing program is a losing program, and I fail to see how that's a good thing. Now you're telling us "Terry is good with the fan base. Very good." Perhaps you could be more specific, because the fan base represented here, doesn't seem too thrilled. If you truly believe a new head coach "may set the program back a year," how could it get much worse, and what does that say about J.D.'s ability to make a good hire? Coug, in the past, you've argued that Beth Burns should have been, and was let go because nobody in the Athletic Department liked her (or at least something like that.) That's somewhat akin to her contention during her trial that she was fired because she advocated too long, too hard, and too often for increased resources. Are you saying now that Coach Terry is not making any waves right now; that J.D. likes that kind of stability because he has more important issues on his plate, and WBB "just doesn't move the needle"? If so I could understand that. Don't agree with it, think it's not the brightest policy, and feel it's a risky gamble on his part. But it's his decision to make. 1. Good with the fan base. Check out attendance in 2017 despite having an 8th place finish & bad season overall. As good as any of Burn's last years. How do we draw better in a year we finish 8th than we did in a year we finished 1st? I doubt it's their performance ON the floor that does that. Attending any and all events its very easy to see the repertoire she has, and if you go to any of the women's basketball specific events its very obvious how good she does in those situations. 2. Not making waves. Again, this has nothing to do with making/not making waves, this has to do with the fact that even when very successful women's basketball doesn't move the dial financially, so there's less urgency in making a change. They know a lot more about the status of the program than you, me, or anyone else on this board, and they can see the benefits beyond the standings, and may be more optimistic about where they see the program going. I doubt they've drawn the "failure" conclusion like some apparently have quite yet. BTW, how is it a "gamble"? We do poorly, and attendance & revenue isn't much different than when we do really well, so even if she has a bad year the dial isn't going to move much. However, having stability, both with recruiting, players on the roster, and with her supporters, can be a very good thing, and if things improve its an excellent decision. Recruiting, based on what I've heard & read, isn't going in the toilet, and was actually very good last year & into this year as well. If she was struggling to recruit and attendance was dumping, then that's one thing. That doesn't appear to be the case. There really isn't much risk or reward, whether they kept her or fired her. I'm curious how many of the people griping about Terry actually attend women's basketball games? How many actually have season tickets, whether now or in 2013? People love to bitch & moan from afar, but those who are close to the program that I've interacted with - including just a couple weeks ago - are more optimistic & OK if not very supportive with keeping her. I doubt very much 4 people - 1 of whom is now more understanding of the decision - represents the "fan base" of women's hoops. The lack of commentary on the subject is more representative, as does the amount of support she receives at events by donors who are the financial backbone of the women's program. 1. Good is a somewhat relative and subjective term I guess. I wasn't questioning your attendance figures, however I don't see that as a quantitative measure of how good she is with the fan base. It does however buttress your point regarding the importance of WBB in the overall scheme of athletics. 2. Can't agree that Coach Terry's extension doesn't have anything to do with her not making waves. If this doesn't have anything to do with not making waves, then Beth Burns would still be coach, because all, and I mean each and every one of your arguments is true of the previous coach. Attendance was the same, so the fan base must have been good; there was stability in retaining Coach Burns; and she was fired without a credible replacement (change for change's sake?) So what's the difference? You've alluded many times to unspecified problems, but as you know at trial Burns team made the point she was let go because the Administration tired of her aggressiveness i.e. making waves. Based on your own rationale coug, the only logical explanation is that Coach Terry doesn't "make waves." Well ok, there is one other difference...Burns teams won on, and later in, the court. 3. The gamble isn't big nor a monetary one, the chips represent credibility, and with a new President... Should anything go south for J.D. in addition to whatever issues he has to deal with there will be an opportunity for someone to say, "oh yeah Wicker, the guy who ran WBB into the ground. Not a big deal, but alumni like winners in everything. 4. Please, spare us the you can't speak unless you attend the games argument. Earlier you said you only bought season tickets after speaking with Coach Terry. Does that mean you didn't have them when Coach Burns was around and therefore really haven't been qualified all this time to comment on her issues? Of course not. For what it's worth, I've probably been to significantly more Aztec WBB games than you. My daughter played high school basketball at Point Loma and we went to nearly every home game for three years. So does that mean I know more about WBB than you, and by reason of attendance am more qualified to speak about it? I'm guessing you don't think so. Alumni have a stake in their institution regardless of how many tickets they buy. It's Aztec for Life. Not Aztec for as long as you buy season tickets. I think that makes my point clear. Oh except, wouldn't the logical extension of your thesis also include those who aren't alumni shouldn't be trusted? Probably not a path to pursue. 5. Of course those "close to the program" are more optimistic...they have to be. However wasn't it you who was discussing the benefit of learning from history a couple of posts ago, and history is clearly not in Coach Terry's favor. There may be cause for optimism, but if, as you say the Athletic Department doesn't really consider WBB as a "needle mover" it sounds more as if they're hoping it will turn around rather than knowing it will. 6. Finally, you sound like the President. Everyone is with her, and only a few are vocally against her? I'm not sure to whom you're referring as being more understanding, but if it's Likecoachfishsay in this thread, note that after thanking you for the numbers (which I do too) he said he still believes Coach Terry should be let go. Not a true convert in any sense of the word. If you think the silent majority is with you, you lack proof, and you're simply wrong. |
|
