|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2018 14:51:55 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. 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. 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. 1. If people are attending games during a losing season as much as they are when winning, they are either 1) interested and/or supportive of the team as is, no matter who is coaching OR 2) someone is doing a good job selling tickets, so either way people aren't as down on her or her team as those on this board. I know several people who have been sold season tickets at these events by Stacie, including myself. When people start dropping their season tickets & stop donating in droves you know you have a problem. That's not the case. 2. If you count not being a bitch to many people, abusive or seen as a cancer as "not making waves" then yea. I don't - I call it being a normal person. Doesn't mean she's not demanding, etc. If Stacie came out & did stupid things to people around the dept, to her staff or to her team then I'm sure she'd be let go. 4. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but if you think ANY athletic dept gives a crap about what someone who doesn't spend/support the dept financially says on a message board or even in person you'd be naive. Skin in the game is critical, and those with it matter more than those w/out. 5. Those close to the program are those who attend games, have season tickets & show up & donate at related events. They fund the dept, so having them be optimistic is key. Our COURSE it's hoping she will turn it around rather than knowing; I didn't realize ANYONE could see into the future. It's just like if we replaced her we'd HOPE they'd turn it around rather than know they would. If there is some level of optimism based on what they're witnessing when it comes to recruiting/off-season workouts/practices, which they do monitor, that's a good thing and it would be stupid not to take that into consideration. 6. Yea, LCFS said he still believes she should be let go, but he now understands the reasoning why she wasn't which is EXACTLY what I said. If you want to keep arguing about something most don't care about knock yourself out. I've wasted more than enough time. |
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jun 7, 2018 15:07:16 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 ditto |
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jun 7, 2018 15:44:23 GMT -8
Lets get something straight. Women's sports for the most part at almost ALL universities do NOT make money. For that matter, most collegiate sports and MOST universities lose money....MEN and WOMEN across the board!
There is only one D-1 university that I can think of that is FOR-PROFIT (Grand Canyon University - Men's basketball fans will remember them), but even they lose money on sports...but they do make it through student fees.
SDSU Women's basketball has NEVER made money.
I think that everyone should agree that the point of collegiate sports is to add value to the university as a talking point and source of pride. I am happy that the men's basketball program and the Football team have been in the black(ish) for a few years now, but that hasn't been the case for very long. Remember the Athletic department is still mostly subsidized by the school and student fees. I am okay with that, and you should be too...because you can say GO AZTECS! We are the champions! When Rashad Penny is selected in the first round, you can say HEY I WENT TO SDSU!
The point is that the team should be a source of pride and an opportunity for the SDSU student population (55%+ is women) to get to compete for the school and get an education.
Of course, it is hard to bring in women's basketball fans...but even harder if we are in last place (Same as Football attendance). San Diego has a lot of other things to do, the population tends to support a winner. It is time to get a new coach that will put a winning team on the floor. NOT to make money (necessarily), but to strive to win. That is the point of the team. That is the point of higher education...to strive.
If winning doesn't excite you, you are not a sports fan and you do not like resources going to non-money making sports. If winning for the sake of winning makes sense to you, why would you oppose bringing a new coach in to try and get the team going.
|
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jun 7, 2018 15:55:55 GMT -8
Lets get something straight. Women's sports for the most part at almost ALL universities do NOT make money. For that matter, most collegiate sports and MOST universities lose money....MEN and WOMEN across the board! There is only one D-1 university that I can think of that is FOR-PROFIT (Grand Canyon University - Men's basketball fans will remember them), but even they lose money on sports...but they do make it through student fees. SDSU Women's basketball has NEVER made money. I think that everyone should agree that the point of collegiate sports is to add value to the university as a talking point and source of pride. I am happy that the men's basketball program and the Football team have been in the black(ish) for a few years now, but that hasn't been the case for very long. Remember the Athletic department is still mostly subsidized by the school and student fees. I am okay with that, and you should be too...because you can say GO AZTECS! We are the champions! When Rashad Penny is selected in the first round, you can say HEY I WENT TO SDSU! The point is that the team should be a source of pride and an opportunity for the SDSU student population (55%+ is women) to get to compete for the school and get an education. Of course, it is hard to bring in women's basketball fans...but even harder if we are in last place (Same as Football attendance). San Diego has a lot of other things to do, the population tends to support a winner. It is time to get a new coach that will put a winning team on the floor. NOT to make money (necessarily), but to strive to win. That is the point of the team. That is the point of higher education...to strive. If winning doesn't excite you, you are not a sports fan and you do not like resources going to non-money making sports. If winning for the sake of winning makes sense to you, why would you oppose bringing a new coach in to try and get the team going. |
|
|
|
Post by obboy13 on Jun 7, 2018 16:01:24 GMT -8
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. 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. 1. If people are attending games during a losing season as much as they are when winning, they are either 1) interested and/or supportive of the team as is, no matter who is coaching OR 2) someone is doing a good job selling tickets, so either way people aren't as down on her or her team as those on this board. I know several people who have been sold season tickets at these events by Stacie, including myself. When people start dropping their season tickets & stop donating in droves you know you have a problem. That's not the case. 2. If you count not being a bitch to many people, abusive or seen as a cancer as "not making waves" then yea. I don't - I call it being a normal person. Doesn't mean she's not demanding, etc. If Stacie came out & did stupid things to people around the dept, to her staff or to her team then I'm sure she'd be let go. 4. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but if you think ANY athletic dept gives a crap about what someone who doesn't spend/support the dept financially says on a message board or even in person you'd be naive. Skin in the game is critical, and those with it matter more than those w/out. 5. Those close to the program are those who attend games, have season tickets & show up & donate at related events. They fund the dept, so having them be optimistic is key. Our COURSE it's hoping she will turn it around rather than knowing; I didn't realize ANYONE could see into the future. It's just like if we replaced her we'd HOPE they'd turn it around rather than know they would. If there is some level of optimism based on what they're witnessing when it comes to recruiting/off-season workouts/practices, which they do monitor, that's a good thing and it would be stupid not to take that into consideration. 6. Yea, LCFS said he still believes she should be let go, but he now understands the reasoning why she wasn't which is EXACTLY what I said. If you want to keep arguing about something most don't care about knock yourself out. I've wasted more than enough time. 1. You keep coming back to money and season tickets as proof of being good with the fan base, and for discussion sake if I agree with you then Beth Burns was "good with the fan base" too because the metrics were the same...according to you. 2. Kind of hard to disagree with this one too, except for the same folks who thought she was a cancer gave her a contract extension a few weeks before the disease presented. No matter the court's already ruled on their rationale for firing, and they sure taught her a lesson. 3. Why then are you here, if nobody gives a crap about message boards. If you are a part of the Athletic Department you're opening yourself up to some harsh criticism, if you're not, but have a lot of "skin in the game" how about sharing what impact you've had on the direction of SDSU athletics. I'm not so naive to think that donors can't buy their way in to a seat at the table...I just don't believe you contribute at a level to get a seat. Said another way if you had to buy WBB season tickets you're not a big donor, so stop belittling those on the Board who admit they aren't in the same league as say Mr. Jacobs. What would be stupid coug is for an athletic department to not care about fans who attend the contests, whether season ticket holders, walk-up purchasers, or those who help drive advertising by watching or listening on TV and radio. 4. Thanks for allowing me an opportunity to knock myself out. I think I will keep it up...it's fun getting your goat, and even funnier that you keep coming back. I think this is about the 12th time you've promised to respond, but so far you've never disappointed. |
|
|
|
Post by brokencurse on Jun 7, 2018 16:44:26 GMT -8
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. I really hope it does, but I am not optimistic. Coach Stacie is a great ambassador for women's basketball and SDSU but the way things have been going I wouldn't expect a MWC championship or 1 NCAA game (let alone win) for a long, long time. Her teams have not shown signs of high level development during her tenure. I was on this board defending Fisher when dozens of posters wanted him canned because I saw the potential. Just not seeing it here, again I'd love to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 7, 2018 16:50:19 GMT -8
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. I really hope it does, but I am not optimistic. Coach Stacie is a great ambassador for women's basketball and SDSU but the way things have been going if you gave I wouldn't expect a MWC championship or 1 NCAA game (let alone win) for a long, long time. Her teams have not shown signs of high level development during her tenure. I was on this board defending Fisher when dozens of posters wanted him canned because I saw the potential. Just not seeing it here, again I'd love to be wrong. Completely understand, and hope you're wrong as well. : ) If you're right the leash will shrink if not dissipate. She really is a great ambassador for the school, and glad that's obvious to you (even if some can't comprehend it). |
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Jun 8, 2018 5:12:47 GMT -8
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! No doubt the women's game is totally different, but I enjoyed it. My sister played high school ball at a high level and so I'd been going to her games since I was a kid (currently in my mid/late 20's), so I was used to the women's game. I'd go with my dad and I found it to be a fun experience, but to each their own. It definitely makes total sense as to why it isn't as popular as men's |
|
|
|
Post by vision on Jun 11, 2018 14:50:53 GMT -8
its all about the direction the program is headed. The last few years it has gone the WRONG way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jun 16, 2018 8:09:57 GMT -8
So we get a good recruit for only 1 year? Hope there is more coming for a lot longer. I saw the woman in the NCAA's in TN twice. I doubt any one else has. I lived in TN 10 years. Got to see all the big football games in the Midwest.
|
|
