Jump to content

Picking Up The Pieces


PAC MAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

So even with new facilities, SDSU wouldn't be in the top 10 best facilities of the current PAC-12. So it looks like MWC, PAC-12, WAC, and Big West combined would give them one of the best in the West facilities.

Getting serious ****** vibes. Where is Sergio from Fresno at?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 8:21 AM, Orange said:

If you're San Diego State and you're citing Padres attendances figures to demonstrate your program's popularity, you've lost the plot.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 10:49 AM, MrBug708 said:

So even with new facilities, SDSU wouldn't be in the top 10 best facilities of the current PAC-12. So it looks like MWC, PAC-12, WAC, and Big West combined would give them one of the best in the West facilities.

Getting serious ****** vibes. Where is Sergio from Fresno at?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 12:29 PM, KUGRDON said:

And football stadium smaller than Oregon State and WSU

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal, and the Regents, were stupid to allow Cal's football stadium renovation to be put on the equivalent of a credit card. That terrible policy was why UCLA had to secure all of the funding to renovate Pauley.

UCLA has a better naming policy for basketball than SDSU has for a brand new football stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 12:05 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

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.

Except one is an MLB club, the other is a fucking college football program.  Do you really not understand the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:27 PM, Orange said:

Except one is an MLB club, the other is a fucking college football program.  Do you really not understand the difference?

And those sold out games usually involved the opponent making up over 50% of the fans in attendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:00 PM, MrBug708 said:

Cal, and the Regents, were stupid to allow Cal's football stadium renovation to be put on the equivalent of a credit card. That terrible policy was why UCLA had to secure all of the funding to renovate Pauley.

UCLA has a better naming policy for basketball than SDSU has for a brand new football stadium.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:27 PM, Orange said:

Except one is an MLB club, the other is a fucking college football program.  Do you really not understand the difference?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:50 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

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.

On 7/21/2022 at 2:38 PM, Aztecgolfer said:

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.

I like how we flip flop from business models and not the sports in one post, but in the other you want to clarify that you were "factual" with the discussion about naming rights of college football. I figured the model was what sort of naming rights a facility could bring in? I mean, your deal is smaller than a non-football facility could bring in in the PAC-12? You also talked about possibly getting a MLS team in SD, which means the draw to the stadium is most likely not SDSU football, but other uses for concerts, soccer games. Oh wait, more events are driving that naming rights. Of course, Pauley isn't really a driving force of anything but UCLA basketball.

How many PAC-12 schools currently have stadium naming rights with corporations? Oregon, UCLA, Stanford do not. Three of the biggest five programs in the PAC-12. Utah, the most consistently good program, does not. Colorado has shopped the idea of selling their naming rights, but it's still Folsom Field. Sun Devil Stadium? Arizona Stadium? Reser? Martin Stadium?

Factually speaking, SDSU is in the bottom two of naming rights in the PAC-12, if they were to join. Just ahead of Cal. Factually speaking of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 9:16 AM, glduck said:

sorry, y’all

Man, if you believe half of MHver3's twitter feed, there are some wild negotiations going on right now that are not in the press. I actually stopped following him, thinking it was mostly bs. I have no clue though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 4:14 PM, MrBug708 said:

I like how we flip flop from business models and not the sports in one post, but in the other you want to clarify that you were "factual" with the discussion about naming rights of college football. I figured the model was what sort of naming rights a facility could bring in? I mean, your deal is smaller than a non-football facility could bring in in the PAC-12? You also talked about possibly getting a MLS team in SD, which means the draw to the stadium is most likely not SDSU football, but other uses for concerts, soccer games. Oh wait, more events are driving that naming rights. Of course, Pauley isn't really a driving force of anything but UCLA basketball.

How many PAC-12 schools currently have stadium naming rights with corporations? Oregon, UCLA, Stanford do not. Three of the biggest five programs in the PAC-12. Utah, the most consistently good program, does not. Colorado has shopped the idea of selling their naming rights, but it's still Folsom Field. Sun Devil Stadium? Arizona Stadium? Reser? Martin Stadium?

Factually speaking, SDSU is in the bottom two of naming rights in the PAC-12, if they were to join. Just ahead of Cal. Factually speaking of course.

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 4:56 PM, MrBug708 said:

Factually speaking, of all of the teams in the PAC-12 with naming rights to their football stadium, SDSU would be bottom two. No need for the word vomit to confirm what I said.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 4:24 PM, row Z said:

Man, if you believe half of MHver3's twitter feed, there are some wild negotiations going on right now that are not in the press. I actually stopped following him, thinking it was mostly bs. I have no clue though. 

Yea the guy is a joke.  I loved the, "Four Corners are leaving for the Big12 immediately," followed by, "ORWA is holding conference hostage and threatening to leave to the Big12 if they don't get what they want." 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...