Aztecgolfer

Warren is just screwing with the PAC now. The PAC-? can survive the loss of Oregon, or Stanford. However, take two teams, especially Oregon and Washington, and the conference collapses. Does the BIG need to add 3 more teams out west? Probably not, but possible. Arizona, ASU, Colorado and Utah would look to join the Big12. If WA is left out of the BIG offer add them as well. Cal, WSU and OSU become orphans. Don't see any conference in the West taking them unless it is to backfill. Maybe Cal, but their debt is unsustainable outside of the PAC alliance.

Gee, a transposition. Is that all you got? LOL. The one article I linked from 1999 was for a 25 year agreement. Did you even read it? Only USC and Washington have better naming rights for their football stadium than SDSU. That is the fact, jack! Does that mean it couldn't change in the future? No. However, that is how things stand now. Pretty good for a G5 school I would think.

I'm guessing you don't understand the term, "diversity."

I guess numbers aren't your thing. Only two schools in the PAC have better naming rights than San Diego with Snapdragon stadium.

SDSU has a 34% acceptance rate. Plenty of males could be selected to even out the numbers.

Football Stadium Naming Rights WSU: $11M/10years https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/03/12/washington-state-lands-naming-rights-deal-for-stadium-field/115554186/ ASU: N/A. However, it is Sun Devil Stadium so its likely they are getting nothing. UCLA: None. Cal: $17.5M/10 years https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2021/03/12/washington-state-lands-naming-rights-deal-for-stadium-field/115554186/ CU: None. Oregon: None. https://ivypanda.com/essays/having-naming-rights-to-autzen-stadium-challenges-and-benefits/ OSU: $12M/25 years https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Journal/Issues/1999/06/21/No-Topic-Name/Oregon-State-Renames-Stadium-For-Much-Needed-$5M.aspx Stanford: None. Utah: one time donations of $1M and $10M. https://www.deseret.com/1998/7/29/19393729/u-football-stadium-renamed-rice-eccles-to-honor-donors Zona: None: https://zonazealots.com/2021/03/13/arizona-football-add-sponsor-stadium/ USC: $69M/16 years ($4.3125 annually) Washington: $41M/10 years ($4.1M annually) https://www.geekwire.com/2015/uw-inks-41m-deal-with-alaska-airlines-for-husky-stadium-naming-rights/ SDSU: $45M/15 years ($3.0M annually)

Yes, but you have to have a minimum number of men's sports to retain Div-1 status. SDSU is at their minimum. We are going to see PAC schools dropping non revenue mens sports left and right. Title IX requires schools to provide as many scholarships for women's sports as men's sports based on the ratio of of women to men in the the campus population. At SDSU I believe the ratio for women to men enrolled is 56-44 which means SDSU has to offer 12% more non-revenue generating scholarships for women's sports as to mens. This is why men's track and field gets dumped first which also drops mens cross country. Ok, I have to add that I wonder how any university, such as SDSU, can justify such a disparity in enrollment based on sex. Really, women can outnumber men by 12%?

Interesting that an Oregon St fan would even think they deserve an elitist attitude. I live in California, that means I own an elitist attitude unless your are in NYC or Chicago. You may get small pass in Seattle or Portland, though both of those cities are piles of excrement.

Travel East is much harder than travel west. That is why I don't see Gonzaga in the Big East even though they fit perfectly outside of location. I was a CC runner and men's Track and Field and CC are the first Oly sports cut because it is the most expensive non-revenue sport

You're funny, just in a sad way.

The Big West is already overloaded with teams. There would be no reason for them to add UCLA or USC teams. especially when USC and UCLA will have a huge advantage with financing. Why would a triple A team want to compete against the Yankees? Sorry, USC and UCLA have committed their OLY teams to the BIG, and travel will be hugely expensive. First mens team to go will be track and field and cross country. Note, I actually was a distance runner that got a scholarship for a UC school. Track and field has a lot of athletes needed but costs a lot to travel. Too bad, UCLA had one of the best distance running coaches in the world, Bob Larsen, and within a couple of years they won't have the T&F or CC teams.

MLS. Typo.

Mental gymnastics? Really? Sorry, I don't have crayons to draw a picture for you, and. now I am am a pig. You guys are funny, nice to know I am getting under your skin for no reason. 1. UCLA will have more difficultly playing BB in the BIG, Travel will be a huge issue. Also, I have said, the BIG plays a different game than UCLA has in the PAC. To be honest, the BIG plays a lot like the MWC. Big guys up front playing physical. UCLA is following USC football to the BIG. If you don't realize it is about USC football, not UCLA basketball, then you will learn in the next few years. Personally, I thing this is a bad move for UCLA overall and UCLA basketball in particular. UCLA's football program isn't very good, and they barely get half of the Rose Bowl filled. That will get a lot worse when they are in the lower 3rd of the BIG. UCLA has said they had to do this move so save cutting Olympic sports. That is BS. They will be dropping OLY sports left and right once they join the BIG. Travel to the BIG10 will kill that and they can't dump those sports in the MWC or BIg West. 2. I only mention the MSL as potential tenant to our stadium. If they do come here they will be paying off some of the stadium debt (because they will want an ownership interest, which helps fund the stadium) while adding income to SDSU. That's a good thing. We don't need a MSL team to make the stadium profitable, nor is it figured in the current financials.

Sorry if facts confuse you. If you want to post what football stadium naming rights amounts the PAC-X schools have in excess of the $3M/yr that SDSU is getting I will gladly admit if I am wrong. By the way. I feel bad for Cronin. He took a job in the PAC-12, first good coaching hire in years for UCLA (remember Alford?) and then he gets screwed over with a move to the BIG. Travel will be a total bitch and the BIG plays a game more like the MWC, big physical guys up front, than the PAC-X. UCLA BB is going to suffer some but this move is all about football and supporting your big brother, USC, in a move driven by football, not basketball. SDSU will gladly take a place in PAC BB and do well from the start. Preseason ratings already have us in the top 15.

Again, I am comparing apples to apples. SDSU's naming rights for their FOOTBALL STADIUM as it stand right now is 3rd, behind UW and USC in the country. $3M/year for 15 years = $45M will other schools do better than that in the coming years, sure as shit yeah? But that is where things stand now. Our deal is better than 10 members of the PAC-12 as it stands now. You really want to argue that? Again, so far naming rights for the stadium and certain areas of the stadium, including the field, exceeds more than $70M. We can add "stadium gifts/PSLs" in excess of $20M right now. Yes, we designed this stadium to do more than college football. Duh, why wouldn't we? It is designed a bit larger (field dimensions) to accommodate soccer. Still, you will be much closer to the action for football than many other college stadiums. Of course we want a MLS team to come here, why not? Our numbers already work well without MSL. If they do decide to come here, and they would ask for an ownership interest, then our numbers get even better. Do we need and MSL team? No. Do we want one, of course. The more uses a stadium gets the more profitable it becomes. I do not understand why you keep bringing up Pauley. What naming rights do y'all get from the Rose Bowl? Again, good for them for getting so much money for their naming rights. That has nothing to do with what we are doing in San Diego. Again, I am just saying how our new stadium compares to the naming rights of other college football stadiums. Sorry that so many schools in the PAC haven't done more to make more money with stadium naming rights. Don't blame me for that. Of course, naming rights for a P5 school is generally going to exceed that of a G5 school at least, as this goes, to basketball. In the MWC where we play the majority of our games on CBSSN we get $690K per year for the arena naming rights. I think that contract with Viejas goes for another 7 years . Once y'all wave bye-bye to UCLA and UCLA then you are left with two schools that can be considered "elite" in BB. That is Arizona and Oregon. SDSU already competes with the PAC in BB. Again, Viejas will get a lot of their bang for the buck on their current contract. They are a local tribe, however. I will say, Gonzaga, UCLA, USC and Arizona won't schedule a home-and-home with us. Why? Stanford just did. ASU doesn't seem to have an issue as well.

Yes, I am explaining the business model, not the sport. You do understand the concept of supply and demand, right? I will tell you, if you can walk up and buy a ticket for a good seat on game day then you are not going to sell as many season tickets. So far, SDSU has sold over 80% of its premium seats which call for rather significant "stadium gifts" (PSLs). Cal wishes they would have done that well. But heck, they have a stadium that they cannot afford but, at least, they can barely fill half of it. Oregon St is reducing the size of its stadium, right? I've read it could go as low as 34K.

Good for them, even higher than USC's football naming rights deal. I suppose having more events drives that. Still, we are talking about CFB naming rights deals, and what I posted is factual. If we get to the PAC-X then Snapdragon is getting more bang for their bucks.

TV drives the bus, but the numbers show the stadium will be profitable which is most important. More so if we get a MLS team to commit (they do prefer smaller stadiums and would want to purchase an ownership interest in the stadium). We have raised something exceeding $70M in donations plus another $20M in seat licenses/"stadium gifts." We are not going to have the financial issues that Cal has had funding their stadium renovation. Our stadium naming rights are $3M/year for $45M total. Only Washington and USC have done better in CFB. If we need to expand it that can be done. But, CFB attendance has been dropping in recent years.

Within the last 25 years we have invested over $384M in our athletic facilities.

No, I made the point that the Padres, while they did have games where they sold out a 62K stadium, opted to build a smaller 42K seat stadium to increase demand and profits. Same model SDSU is using.

You do realize that money comes from TV, right? UCLA playing in a P5 conference has only averaged a bit more that 40K fans in a 90K stadium. USC, 60K fans in a 100K stadium. Both Stanford and Cal are averaging about 40K as well. You really don't want to show how few fans are in the seats, that creates terrible optics. Oh, the players hate playing in a mostly empty stadium no matter how large it is. UNLV will learn this soon. SDSU built a stadium using the same model as the San Diego Padres. The Padres would have numerous games in the old "Q" where they would put 60K fans in the seats. However, they opted to build a 42K stadium downtown instead. Why? Less seats creates more demand. Despite being a "small market" club the Padres are #5 in attendance in MLB so far this year. Oh, the Aztec players toured Snapdragon stadium a month or so ago and said the fans "will be right on top of us." It is going to be a great game day, in person experience We built a stadium that fits our immediate needs (unlike Cal) and one that will be attractive to a MSL club (who will likely assume some ownership value based on MSL desires, which means money to decrease our stadium debt). We have already raised at least $100M in donations and naming rights (sorry Cal, we exceeded our targets unlike you). By the way, for just the naming rights of the stadium, our deal with Snapdragon (Qualcomm) is exceeded only by the University of Washington and USC in collegiate football. Pretty impressive, I have to say. We have sold something like 80-90% of our premium seating so far. Cal wishes they came close to that. UCLA likely wishes they had an on campus stadium. The Rose Bowl is like a tomb for them. If we need to expand the stadium then we can later on. Don't see a need for that at all in the near future. Again, the stadium is about making money, but TV is what earns for the football program.

If you guys lose no more than Stanford, reported to be part of the deal for the BIG to add Notre Dame, then we would love the add. We will be a R1 research institution by 2025 and our athletic facilities are among the best in the West Coast.

We would likely enter like Utah did, with reduced payout initially.

Well, it is built already: https://oxblue.com/pro/videoRedirect.php?videoCamID=0fdc5b7e09245eaba289af7ba36d9a75

If you want to recruit SoCal you're gonna need to have a SoCal school. The Zona schools, Utah, Oregon and Washington all recruit heavily in SoCal.