It’s been 15 years since Marshall Faulk graduated from San Diego State and left the school as the greatest football player in the history of the program. He’d go on to play in the NFL for the Colts and Rams and basically redefine what a running back could be in the league. He’s since retired, and is now awaiting his eventual induction into the NFL Hall of Fame. Unfortunately for San Diego State, their football program has not followed the same path as Mr. Faulk. They haven’t played in a bowl game since the 1998 Las Vegas Bowl, and haven’t won a bowl game since 1969’s Pasadena Bowl. In the last five years the team has compiled a record of 18-41, and things don’t seem to be getting any better even with the hiring of Brady Hoke from Ball State.
Which is why Mark Zeigler’s column in the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE this morning so interesting. In the piece, Zeigler makes a pretty good argument for why the school should just cut its losses and drop the football program all together. Considering that the school loses about $4 million annually running the program, doesn’t have it’s own stadium, and Qualcomm Stadium doesn’t really want them back since they lose money hosting games, there are plenty of reasons — those three are just a start — why dropping the program would be the smart thing to do. Of course, writing a column saying that a school should drop football will no doubt cause quite an uproar amongst the school’s fans, right? Well, apparently not.
While some readers left comments on the original column saying the idea was idiotic, it turns out there are a lot more people in the San Diego area who agree with Zeigler. The UNION-TRIBUNE ran another article on its website shortly after in which they shared some emails they received from readers.
Today’s letters are in response to Mark Zeigler’s commentary in the Union-Tribune published Sunday, Dec. 27. Zeigler proposed that SDSU drop football because of its high financial costs.
We received 145 e-mails on the topic as of Saturday night; 89 were supportive of the commentary; 56 opposed Zeigler’s view. The best and most representative are published today, reflecting that ratio of views.
Some highlights include:
Thank you, Mark Zeigler, for the finest article I have read in my 15 years of reading the sports section of the Union-Tribune. I am a huge college football fan, but it is obvious that the wisest decision would be to drop football at SDSU. Of the many requirements for maintaining a football program at SDSU, the most absurd is the granting of 20 full scholarships to the women’s crew team in order to maintain equality in the number of scholarships granted for male and female athletes. Aren’t there only eight people in a boat during a crew race? Does that mean that third-string members of an athletic team that very few people know exists are getting full scholarships? These questions are not meant to denigrate the dedicated athletes on the women’s crew team, but to highlight the indirect costs of fielding a football team at San Diego State. It’s not just the millions that the team is losing, but the millions more needed to satisfy all the requirements in order to field a team. Can an institution subsidized by the state of California afford to field a men’s football team during these economic times?
ERIC DAHMS, M.D. San Diego
I’m a huge football fan but I have to admit that the writing is certainly on the wall for SDSU’s football program. Congratulations on a great article exposing the shoddy and academically dishonest way athletic budgets are being manipulated. At any other company these people would be fired, sued, and/or jailed for this kind of bookkeeping. And Weber’s comments tying SDSU’s reputation to their athletics is not only laughable but a huge insult to the academic departments and their faculty. When I think of SDSU I am constantly reminded of their excellence in engineering, biology and business, and not their underperforming athletic departments. This transgression alone should cost Weber his job.
MIKE SNELL, Poway
And my personal favorite, from Dave Sikute of Chula Vista:
San Diego State dropped football a long time ago – but, some people in the organization still haven’t gotten the word.
Zeigler’s article really is a rather interesting read — it’s also pretty long, so it makes a great time killer at work today — and I have to say I tend to agree with him. Considering the economic state of the country right now, you do have to wonder why a school should continue pumping taxpayer money into a football program that isn’t winning, and that nobody in San Diego seems to care about. Especially when some of the money the school is using to bail out the program is coming from other areas of the school’s budget. You know, the departments that take care of useless crap like education.
4:46 pm on January 5th, 2009
Gee, everywhere else we are told that the football program's budget is sancrosanct, because it's a "revenue producer" for the entire athletic program. Maybe they should ditch the program, but I'd hate for them to start applying the same analysis to all the other sports. Few college sports, outside of football and men's basketball, can really claim to be revenue generators.
5:11 pm on January 5th, 2009
Women's volleyball has great potential to become a big collegiate revenue generator - provided the uniforms include some tighter shirts and ever shorter shorts.
5:54 pm on January 5th, 2009
The Aztecs shouldn't give up the pigskin so soon. Heck, if Vanderbilt can have a winning season (and win a bowl game for the first time in over 50 years!), then there's hope for everyone.
6:38 pm on January 5th, 2009
I don't get it. I've been to San Diego, and it's a great city. Qualcomm's not much of a stadium, but it's good enough.
Maybe if the Aztecs consider building their own on-campus stadium, they wouldn't have to be in so much debt to the city, and the city can stop bitching about losing money.
12:33 pm on January 6th, 2009
For how much I love Air Force and the Moutain West Conference, I must admit that the conference isn't that tough top to bottom.
It's saying something that SDSU can't make a run towards the top of the conference every blue moon or so and/or get bowl eligable. Really, in the conference only Utah and BYU are able to put together a long string of good seasons. Colorado State and Air Force have had streaks of good seasons, but CSU has fallen quite a bit.
SDSU shouldn't be this bad for this long. There's something really wrong that they are.
1:22 pm on January 6th, 2009
This is all the fault of the BCS. If they had revenue sharing, which exists in the NFL, the king of kings, then San Diego State's athletic department wouldn't be considering giving its football program the clap.
7:04 pm on January 6th, 2009
Yes, Zeigler touched on some points. Yes there are profs (and others) at SDSU who want the program canned. These profs have been calling for the demise of the football program since the early 60's (under Don Coryll- the best college coach NOT in the College Football Hall of Fame) to now- through GOOD and BAD. This fishrap newspaper has had a vendetta against SDSU since the late 80's. The timing of this article tends to make me believe that this was done with a vendetta in mind. HC Brady Hoke will be VERY BUSY trying in getting his staff hired and on the road recruiting. You can bet that everyone SDSU recruits against will be using this article against SDSU,. not to mention pursuading potentials coaching hires against coming here. But so far, so good (Rocky Long DC, Al Borges OC). As for the fish rap that ran that article- (I didn't renew my subscription) it's losing money. As for SDSU, I'll be once again purchasing season tickets for my family and unvited friends. Yes Zeigler touched on some truth, but he left alot out and wants the reader to believe that the only solution is to can the program.
11:25 pm on January 6th, 2009
There is no "vendetta" against Aztec football. SDSU invited the current crisis when it was finally revealed that SDSU refuses to pay honest rent for Qualcomm Stadium. Because of recent severe city budget cuts, this fact was finally properly publicized, and thus the current controversy. (The City "rents" to the Aztecs at far below the cost to open and run the stadium…. a City of San Diego subsidy of several hundred thousand each year.)
While the city is at fault too…they could start by firing the person at city rec who negotiated the lease…the blame lies mostly with president Weber. For years he has pushed his irrational support to the brink….every spare "discretionary" penny to the football team, then raising the student fees 200 percent….TWICE…against the wishes of the student body. (They overwhlemingly voted against the first fee increase for football…Weber did it anyway…the most recent increase Weber abolished the vote and had a puppet committee "approve" the higher fee.)
This happens at lots of campuses, but the current financial crisis in the city and state has finally made it a burning issue.
Of course SDSU should drop football….all sports lose money, but you could operate 6-8 non-revenue sports for half what they lose on football every year.
11:10 pm on January 7th, 2009
There's a simple solution- win football games. Winning cures a multitude of ills- many are financial. The dismal crowds are a reflection of the ineptitude of the football team. The finger can be pointed at current and former SDSU administrations. Making bad hires has been a huge problem starting with Chuck Long and going back.
The stadium lease wouldn't be an issue for the city if there were 35,000 instead of 17,000 in the seats. Anyone who thinks 35,000 is unrealistic hasn't been around long. Crowds of 35,000 at one time were considered dismal by many longtime fans. As far as the UT, reporting the lease problems aren't part of the vendetta- it's reporting. The vendetta is an 18 year long thing dating back to the early 90's (not the late 80's as earlier written). It is around that time that the spirit of the coverage changed (for the worst). An on-campus stadium needs to be considered, but the winning thing has to be resolved first. Elimination of the football isn't a solution.
8:24 am on January 10th, 2009
Good players make good teams and make coaches good coaches. How the hell can't you recruit good players when your school is in San Diego? The school is beautiful, the weather is perfect, the girls are gorgeous… what's the problem?