Wow! Talk about attendance padding; Time for SJSU todump football

28,867????? Is Lynn M and the Krafts back in town or something?

I saw the first half on TV while laying in bed. No way there was anything close to 28,867 flushes in the toilets that day let alone that many people in the stands.

Maybe that was a number based on people who were within a 2 mile radius of Spartan.

 

Yeah, that's a friggin' joke! I watched part of the game, too. Our games in October vs. the Galaxatives and KC outdrew SJSU and we had 25K, at best.

 

There was an article in the CC Times this week (from the Merc?) saying the president of SJSU both supports football and also agrees with the faculty that too much of the budget is spent on athletics.

I believe the article said the program is more than $1M in the red, plus lost an additional $500K on the 'Read to Succeed' game with Morgan State (not sure about the opponent or the proper title of that game??).

Maybe they are working behind the scenes, but one would think Spartan Shops would take a cold hard look at the situation (Quakes, Spartans, 'Rays).

That's TMI Tony!

Tony

 

I believe I can be of some assistance here.

NCAA regulations enacted this year require a complete ticket audit before an official attendance figure can be released for a particular game. Apparently this audit is more than just a simple stub count or simple turnstile count, and is quite time consuming. So the audit usually is not completed during a game...it can take days or weeks to complete.

However, NCAA regulations also require an attendance figure be given in the official statistics report. Hence, a conundrum. How do you file an official attendance report in the official statistics report when the "official" attendance that the NCAA requires must be audited over days and/or weeks?

SJSU officials think that's ridiculous. And if the NCAA can be ridiculous, then SJSU can be just as ridiculous. So, in order to have a number to "fill in the blank" on the attendance form (since they'll no doubt revise the number downward anyway), they fill in the capacity of Spartan Stadium and work down from there.

I thought the crowd was larger than any of the other regular season conference games...and Boise brought more fans than I figured. I guessed closer to 7,000.

 

Got a link for that? Because it's totally bogus. Even the paper the next day reported the crowd as something like 8K.

The article on ESPN.com mentions a crowd of around 5K...

I watched, and I'd say at most there were around 10K there by halftime; seemed people were rolling in all through the first half.

After a while, SJSU's attendance might go up after dropping down to 1-AA. They'd have more local rivals, ie Sac State, UC Davis, and would be more competitive. But at the rate this program seemingly rapes the athletic budget for the school, they should just stick a fork in it.

 

Agreed. This is Earthquake country...

 

Sounds like good fodder for negotiations on a rebuild and better income out of Spartan as a Quakes stadium.

 

Right, and the links on the SJSU site that you provided state attendance as 5,028. And it would have been a lot less than that if Boise State wasn't ranked #13 and on the nation's longest D-1 winning streak. Somehow I doubt a lot of their fans (there were at least 1,000 of them) would have traveled if BSU was, say, 2-7 going into that game.

When I asked for a link, I was referring to whatever article you said had the attendance at 28k+.

 

I must disagree with my blue colleague on both counts.

First, SJSU's athletic constituency is crying out for higher quality opponents before they'll show up in greater numbers. They had a series of season opening games scheduled in the late '90's which ended up losing money (upwards of $200K) against opponents like Baylor and Wisconsin. Those matchups got gates of upwards of 22K, even though the Spartans really sucked then (if you think they suck now...they really sucked then). Chuck Bell cancelled the entire series...selling home dates with Oregon State and USC back to those respective schools...and balancing the entire athletic budget on high payout road games. The current big wheels within the SJSU booster organizations are crying out for more games against "real" opponents...I mean, heck, if they can lose half-a-mill playing Morgan State (which no one cared about) and they only lose $200K playing Wisconsin, you make the better deal.

And if you read President Kassing's financial report to the Academic Senate, the football program is producing whatever meager revenue is still coming into the department. The high-revenue payouts for road games, the WAC television agreements with ESPN and SportsWest, that's what's balancing the entire athletic budget, not "raping" it. If you read the report carefully, Kassing asserts that the most cost effective option is to keep D1-A football, rather than drop to a lower division or drop the program altogether. Dropping football seems like a simple solution, but it's actually the least cost-effective solution.

 

as opposed to putting resources into their mens and women's basketball teams?

And isn't the faculty concerned about the amount of money spend on athletics?

Tony

 

Where would those resources come from? The revenue that runs those two programs really generates from the football program.

Yes...that's the heart of the matter. And everyone, including President Kassing, agrees that Athletics at SJSU needs to be more self sufficient and less reliant on university general funds.

But while you argue for the demise of football at SJSU, look at what happened at other California universities where football was unceremoniously dumped. Charitable giving dropped in virtually all cases -- not just to the athletic department, but to the universities' general fund drives as well. Many well-heeled SJSU boosters have already gone on record that if football is dropped, not only will they cease financial support for the athletic program, they'll cease general fund support for the university as well.

President Kassing has gone on record...football is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future...and he's in for 2 years. There's a new athletic administration coming in after 12/1 (when the Walsh committee finds a new athletic director). If this group doesn't do it right, then yes, it's time to go. But until then SJSU is going to make every effort to make a go of it, in spite of the naysayers who tell them they should just give up.

And remember, for every one of us on these boards who say SJSU should give up, there's another on the SJSU message boards who say "no one cares about soccer". I know, I'm reading both boards simultaneously.

 

I agree with you, Spartacus. I think Quakes and SJSU backers are both better off teaming up; our interests are congruent. And my comments are not site-specific. A new soccer stadium anywhere in the South Bay might be a good home for SJSU football as well. UCLA is in Westwood but plays home games in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. San Jose State can certainly play football games in Santa Clara, or at the fairgrounds, or elsewhere in the valley, and the added revenue would help with the financing equation for a new stadium and would make SJSU games more enticing for fans and recruits as well. SJSU football boosters ought to be joining SSV and working to keep the Quakes, if only because better facilities for the Quakes will mean likely mean better facilities for SJSU football.

 

No prob. I thought there might've been a mix-up.

The Morgan State thing was a fluke. A lot of promotion went into that game, including WAY more TV ads than usual. I think SJSU was expecting a similar turnout to the Grambling game last year, but forgot that nobody's heard of Morgan State or their marching band.

It's fine that some people have the opinion that higher-caliber opponents would bring in more fans. But, unless something changes drastically with SJSU's football recruiting, those will be horrible, horrible games, with lots and lots of visiting team fans. And the novelty of hosting powerhouses like USC, LSU, Oklahoma, whatever, would wear off quickly. Sure, it's nice to get a chance to see those schools in person. But it sucks when you know your team's gonna lose 66-3.

I understand that D-1AA won't bring in the same money, or attendance, especially at first. But I presume it costs less to operate a D-1AA program, too. They could still keep the rivalry games with Fresno and Stanford if desired (D-1A teams can play D-1AA teams in preseason; see SJSU v. Morgan State this year). But I really believe that, in the long term, D-1AA status could help, IF the Spartans were suddenly competitive on the field, and could develop new local rivalries.

Didn't read it, I'm not an alum, and I'll admit "raping the budget" was a bit of harsh hyperbole. But I would go to more SJSU football games if they were more consistently competitive and there was a point to the season, a payoff for the fans if you will. D-1AA status wouldn't bother me, but there's no pride factor for non-alumni.

I can understand the passion of alumni, players and current students wanting high-revenue games. I just don't think that approach is veritable unless SJSU greatly increases their recruiting budget, which then increases program expenses. If they're going to play with the big boys, they've gotta do a better job of securing blue-chip local talent, most of which goes to Stanford or Cal or leaves the area.

But this also brings us to an Earthquakes tie-in. There is, according to you, a general feeling of malaise among "SJSU's athletic consituency" towards the program right now. Like the Quakes, they're apparently banking decisions about the future on the droves and droves of fans who currently stay away and may continue to do so regardless of what happens.

I'd also like to say that Don Gagliardi's idea of SJSU sharing an SSS is interesting and something I hadn't thought of.

 

If SJSU doesn't average 15k, they stand to placed on probation. If it happens again it the next few years, the current rules boot them out of 1-a. Rumor is that the NCAA may balk at booting programs.

But that's a good reason to inflate attendance. Middle Tennesse St tried a "double-header" with a concert by Big Boi (half of Outkast), but it didn't really help much.

Other teams are selling home games against big programs to get huge crowds (like Arkansas playing some Louisiana program in Arkansas as an "away game" IIRC). Several different "attendance games" are being played out there.

 

Uhh. Soccer SPECIFIC Stadium wanted. Need not to apply if planning to instill football lines.

 

You get what you can get, when you can get it.

 

Holy heck! I'm going to agree with you!

How can football and the Quakes share an SSS?! Umm...SSS.... ????

 

But what's the point of spending all that money to get what we already have?! We already have a stadium to share with SJSU. I don't get the point....

 

The Home Depot Center was the San Diego Chargers' preseason camp in 2003 (not sure about 2004). Not sure whether there have been any HS football games there, either.

Columbus Crew Stadium has hosted HS football.

To me, "soccer specific" means two things primarily: (1) a regulation sized pitch; (2) perfect sightlines for soccer. If other sports or events can fit in, fine. But there better never, ever be football lines on the pitch during a soccer match.

 

Is that what happened to the beautiful field at HDC?

Preseason, has hosted.... Those are temporary things. I don't see those the same as sharing a stadium during the regular season. Like you say, no football lines during a soccer match!!!

 

That is factually just plain wrong. The revenue that is generated by the football program only covers about 50% of football's own expenses. It does zilch to contribute to anything else.

See for yourself...
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/Search.asp

As cash-strapped as California universities are today, they really don't need to be losing millions of dollars a year on their athletic departments.