In early 1998, then-San Diego State Athletic Director Rick Bay spoke with a sense of urgency about the athletic department needing to support itself.

“We could be on the brink of something great,” Bay said [Pant, pant! goes President Weber.], “but if it happens, it must happen over the next two or three years, because it will be difficult for the faculty to provide money for athletics. This is a very lean, very modest operation, but we've had to ask for an augmentation of $2.5 million, and that's money a lot of people in the university would like to have for their programs.”

Nine years later, the goal remains elusive. While the current fiscal year doesn't close until June 30, the athletic department again will receive about $2.8 million in “one-time” or “auxiliary” funding from other university sources to balance its budget of about $27 million. [Infinite one-time-only increases for athletics! Because... we could be on the brink of something GREAT!]

The infusion is necessary despite a $160 annual student fee increase implemented in 2004 by SDSU President Stephen Weber, overriding a student referendum [Fuck the kiddies. We're on the BRINK OF SOMETHING GREAT.]. That has added $4.8 million to $7 million to the athletic department coffers annually. An additional $5 million in athletics revenue comes from the state general fund.

How long can the athletic department count on this kind of support?

“It will go on as long as I am president of San Diego State University,” Weber said in response to an e-mail question. [Here I stand! I can do no other! God help me! Amen!]

That rankles some faculty members, who question whether the football program will ever produce enough revenue to eliminate the athletic department's need for additional university funding.

“One-time funding is a joke if it's been going on for the last 20 years, every year, no?” asked Leon Rosenstein, an SDSU emeritus professor of philosophy. [Emeritus. Old fart. Ignore.] “If forced to think about it, you will find – though they will rarely allow you to quote them by name – that most faculty agree; and, finally, no, no one bails out academics. Football is sacred.”

Rosenstein added:

“The (SDSU) president should be censured by the Senate and (Associated Students) for his ridiculous persistence – in spite of all evidence to the contrary – that somehow, at some time, in some way, if we only 'stay the course,' football will be a big money-maker.” [SHUT UP.]



...Most athletic departments at NCAA Division I-A schools are not profitable. But for more than a decade, SDSU has needed help at a higher rate than the national average for public schools.

In 1996, Bay noted that athletic department derived 40 percent of its budget from the university. The national average, he said, was 8 percent.

Little has changed in 10 years. In the two most recent fiscal years, 42.7 percent of athletics revenue has come from student fees, the general fund and other university funding, according to audited financial statements.

SDSU's percentage of university and student support is second-highest in its conference among public nonmilitary schools. (Numbers for private schools and the Air Force Academy were not available.) Wyoming is first in the Mountain West Conference at 44.3 percent.

Among Cal State schools with football teams, San Jose State, which faces many of the same athletics revenue and marketing challenges as SDSU, takes a higher percentage of university and student support: 68.8 percent over the previous two years, according to financial statements required by the NCAA. Fresno State was at 14.6 percent.

In the Pac-10, where football ticket sales and TV revenue are far greater, most public schools receive less than 12 percent of their athletic funding from university and student support.



SDSU's goal is to make football and fundraising more lucrative. The school increased its salary budget for football coaches by more than $600,000 before the 2006 season, hoping to produce a more successful team on the field and more ticket-buyers in the stands. [See, we'll spend MORE money! On winning coaches! THAT way, we'll make ever so much more... eventually!]

Last year, that investment resulted in a 3-9 record and 21,670 in actual average attendance – a figure buoyed by 39,964 for the SkyShow fireworks event.

Before the season, SDSU projected football ticket revenue of $3 million but ended up with only $1.9 million, forcing tightening in other athletic department expenses this year. The year before, SDSU projected $2.5 million in football revenue and brought in $2.3 million. Meanwhile, the team hasn't finished better than 6-6 since 1998. [I LOVE projections! When they come out, it just puts me in the greatest mood ... Sure, it's a downer when they don't work out... But... We're on the brink of something great...]

“We expect that our investments made in football in the last two years will take time to bring a return,” Weber wrote in an e-mail. A spokesman said Weber was not available for an interview otherwise. [Fuck off.]

“What we hope to attain is consistent success in football from year to year,” Weber wrote. “When that happens, we believe attendance and consequently revenue production will improve proportionately.” [Here's the deal: I'll use big presidential words like consequently and proportionately. You'll be impressed by these words, and you will agree that we are ... on the brink!]

This year, the SDSU athletic department has a projected budget shortfall of $100,000 to $250,000 – even after about $2.8 million in “one-time funding” was arranged from a university contract with a broadband communications company. Next year, the athletic department expects $2.7 million more from the same contract.

“The expectation is . . . that these are investments,” SDSU economics professor Mark Thayer said in a faculty senate executive committee meeting last year. “If they (the university sources) don't get their money back in short order, they will not continue to fund (athletics).”

Asked by another faculty senator last year how he defined “short order,” Thayer responded:

“If next year SDSU has a great season and we make a Bowl Championship Series appearance, they could pay it back next year. If it takes three or four years to get to a BCS bowl, then it will be three or four years. If they never make a bowl, then it will be a tough payback.”

But as Utah demonstrated after going undefeated in 2004, a BCS bowl berth is only a limited financial benefit – good for about $3 million for that year after revenue sharing and expenses, according to an athletic department official at Utah. And unlike schools in bigger conferences, no team in the MWC receives an automatic bid to BCS bowl games. To get there, SDSU almost certainly would have to go undefeated.



... At a faculty senate meeting in April, Steven Barbone, an associate philosophy professor, told Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel that “other programs on campus do not receive these kinds of favors” with one-time funding.

Schemmel responded: “We are committed to have the very best we can have here, and we understand that costs money.”

It's virtually the same response the faculty has heard from Schemmel's predecessors. But some faculty members view it as unfair, because when they don't meet budget, they don't get “one-time” funding; they have to cut back. Others ask why revenue from the broadband contract, which lasts through at least 2016, is going to support sports teams instead of academic areas.

“By this point, there are two things that are common knowledge,” said English professor Peter Herman. “The first is that the athletics are a financial black hole. The second is that the university will continue to fund them regardless of all sense and logic." [To hell with naysayers like you, Herman! Go crawl back in the stacks. You're afraid of greatness!]

Barbone expressed a similar sentiment:

“It seems to me that there is a disparity, one that does not support the mission statement of SDSU,” he said. “There is some concern that the president, for whatever reasons, is beholden to continue athletics here no matter what the cost to any other program. There is another concern that with the big fundraising campaign coming up, that all resources will be put into athletics since it is widely believed that donations pour in when the home team wins.”

Weber stated he steadfastly supports athletics because of their potential for student growth, development and community pride.

“I do not expect all faculty members share my belief in the importance of athletics,” he said.

Weber also noted that in 1998 he kept a promise not to devote additional general fund revenue to support athletics. The student fee increase in 2004 allowed SDSU to decrease its reliance on the general fund by more than $2 million.

But repeated “one-time” funding is the main stickler for those unhappy about the situation in the academic sector.

“It's discouraging, primarily because there was a substantial increase in student fee support for athletics, and we're still in the same position with the athletics budget (as 1998),” said Gordon Shackelford, a lecturer in the physics department. “The only reason it's not vastly worse is the student fee increase.”