Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 7:06:26 GMT -8
San Diego has had 2 super bowls in 50 years, miami has 10, let's not even come close to comparing the two Its actually 3 in 24, but your point is made. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 18, 2011 8:50:11 GMT -8
With all the talk about us getting our own stadium ( near or on campus) I have always wondered over the years why we didn't do so when the opportunity presented itself.  It seemed strange to me that when the school first thought about building a new basketball arena why did they not tear down the old Peterson Gym building, and build it there instead of across the street in the Aztec Bowl? Wasn't there enough space to build on that site? Then the Aztec Bowl would have been the perfect and close area to build a new football stadium with high rise buildings for the luxury boxes, and made to hold 40-45k. Two problems solved, and both on campus. Couldn't get any better than that, right?  My assumption is they thought should Qualcomm be torn down that a new NFL stadium would be built on the same site and they'd have a similar situation going forward. . That is the most logical place for a stadium west of the Mississippi and the fact that the Chargers don't want anything to do with it is one of the main reasons I think they are leaving. I don't think that they factored the Chargers leaving town into the equation back then. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 9:06:04 GMT -8
With all the talk about us getting our own stadium ( near or on campus) I have always wondered over the years why we didn't do so when the opportunity presented itself. It seemed strange to me that when the school first thought about building a new basketball arena why did they not tear down the old Peterson Gym building, and build it there instead of across the street in the Aztec Bowl? Wasn't there enough space to build on that site? Then the Aztec Bowl would have been the perfect and close area to build a new football stadium with high rise buildings for the luxury boxes, and made to hold 40-45k. Two problems solved, and both on campus. Couldn't get any better than that, right? Good idea, it seems to make total sense. The AD was then Rick Bay. What makes total sense to you and I can't necessarily be assumed to have made total sense to him. |
|
|
|
Post by votecarcetti on May 18, 2011 9:13:37 GMT -8
With all the talk about us getting our own stadium ( near or on campus) I have always wondered over the years why we didn't do so when the opportunity presented itself. It seemed strange to me that when the school first thought about building a new basketball arena why did they not tear down the old Peterson Gym building, and build it there instead of across the street in the Aztec Bowl? Wasn't there enough space to build on that site? Then the Aztec Bowl would have been the perfect and close area to build a new football stadium with high rise buildings for the luxury boxes, and made to hold 40-45k. Two problems solved, and both on campus. Couldn't get any better than that, right? My assumption is they thought should Qualcomm be torn down that a new NFL stadium would be built on the same site and they'd have a similar situation going forward. . That is the most logical place for a stadium west of the Mississippi and the fact that the Chargers don't want anything to do with it is one of the main reasons I think they are leaving. I don't think that they factored the Chargers leaving town into the equation back then. Also, at the time the Q had just undergone a major renovation/expansion that most people assumed would make it a viable facility for the foreseeable future. A bad, in understandable, assumption. It would have been cool to expand the Aztec Bowl, add a retractable roof, and transform it into a multi-use facility like the Carrier Dome. Oh, well. That ship has certainly sailed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 9:17:51 GMT -8
I say the best thing for both the Chargers and the Aztecs is for the city and the Chargers to get a deal done that keeps the Chargers here, gives the Aztecs a place to play, keeps the Holiday Bowl here and the rest of the benefits which those here don't feel benefit the Aztecs any. If SDSU thought it could make money by building their own stadium they would have done that. Guess what, they haven't. Why? BECAUSE THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE DO IT OR STAY AT QUALCOMM AS IT IS BECAUSE IT MAKES MORE ECONOMIC SENSE FOR THEM AND BECAUSE THEIR ATHLETIC PROGRAM IS LOSING MONEY AND THE FOOTBALL TEAM ISN'T CARRYING THEM. There I said it. As for what happens to Qualcomm should the Chargers leave I do believe that it will be demolished and the site sold off to developers. Why, because it is losing money for the city and the city is in dire straights economically. The site is worth more sold than as it is. If not for the fact that the city is contractually obliged to keep it as long as the Charger remain here (for the term of the contract) then I would expect the city would sell the property now. If the Chargers leave there would be no economic argument to be made to keep the stadium as is because of the way it is situated on the site. In order to develop the site to add all the things you want you FIRST HAVE TO MOVE THE STADIUM. Should the Aztecs want the property they can pay market value for it, they will get no discount and I don't see the state willing to pay market rates given their current economic situation. Again, I really do apologize for pissing people off on here for bringing up such alien opinions. But I am sure that with the right stadium we can expect the Aztecs to become a football power on par with USC and UCLA because they don't own their own stadiums. Where you and I really part ways is in your belief it would be a good thing for the Aztecs if the Chargers and the city reach an agreement on a downtown stadium to which the Aztecs would also move. Wouldn't it be like 10 miles from campus? How has UCLA football fared since moving to the Rose Bowl, which is even farther from campus than was the Coliseum? According to the article from BleacherReport somebody linked a couple weeks ago (yeah, BR sucks but the stats were accurate), among schools from AQ conferences, UCLA continues to have on average one of the lowest percentages of seats filled. Although it sure wouldn't be ideal, I could live with a new stadium for both the Chargers and the Aztecs at the Qualcomm site, assuming that like the Steelers-Pitt stadium and unlike the Q, it includes the colors of both teams. However, it's very apparent the Chargers are not going to settle for that. In fact, with each passing year, it's more and more apparent this entire debate is going to be moot since it's L.A. which is going to build a new downtown stadium and the most likely tenant is going to be the Chargers. I live in L.A. but my NFL team is the 49ers and I therefore have zero interest in seeing the Chargers move here. I'd rather see the Jaguars move and have them treated like an expansion team with a name change, which in all probability is what would occur. However, I can live with the Chargers coming here if it means the Aztecs won't move to a downtown SD stadium and the tea leaves suggest that's much less a question of if than it is a question of when. |
|
|
|
Post by azteken on May 18, 2011 10:10:30 GMT -8
The Pitt Panthers and Miami Hurricanes have the advantage of having one color the same as their NFL co-tenant, and the other being very similar*. And the same color is the predominant color of the seats. We have no color in common with the Chargers. When San Diego Stadium opened, seats were yellow, orange, brown and rust.
* Steelers/Panthers: black & gold/navy and gold (although the Steelers use a yellow gold)
Dolphins/Hurricanes: teal & orange/green & orange
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 10:14:33 GMT -8
The Pitt Panthers and Miami Hurricanes have the advantage of having one color the same as their NFL co-tenant, and the other being very similar*. And the same color is the predominant color of the seats. We have no color in common with the Chargers. When San Diego Stadium opened, seats were yellow, orange, brown and rust. * Steelers/Panthers: black & gold/navy and gold (although the Steelers use a yellow gold) Dolphins/Hurricanes: teal & orange/green & orange So make all the seats scarlet and black. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
Post by votecarcetti on May 18, 2011 10:41:25 GMT -8
Dark green seats tend to make for a pretty neutral backdrop. That's what the Bengals and countless new baseball stadiums use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spud on May 18, 2011 11:01:27 GMT -8
I think ultimately its the CSU system Trustees that need to make the committment whether SDSU is going to be a full fledged D-1A school or not, and that decision needs to be made fairly soon as the whole Charger debacle will certainly push the issue to the forefront very quickly. They've been able to sidestep the issue because of Qualcomm. But if the Q is going to be gone in 5 or so years, they really need to make that decision now. They ultimately control the pursestrings for a new stadium...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2011 11:27:57 GMT -8
I think ultimately its the CSU system Trustees that need to make the committment whether SDSU is going to be a full fledged D-1A school or not, and that decision needs to be made fairly soon as the whole Charger debacle will certainly push the issue to the forefront very quickly. They've been able to sidestep the issue because of Qualcomm. But if the Q is going to be gone in 5 or so years, they really need to make that decision now. They ultimately control the pursestrings for a new stadium... They would certainly be the ones to decide whether SDSU would be able to acquire the Qualcomm site through eminent domain - something den60 has failed to acknowledge as the trump card which would allow SDSU to obtain that property regardless of how much private sector developers might want it. I'll add that I bet local homeowners would much rather see the land go to SDSU for a new stadium and faculty offices than to a developer for a gazillion more condos, thereby facilitating the approval process. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 18, 2011 11:57:36 GMT -8
I think ultimately its the CSU system Trustees that need to make the committment whether SDSU is going to be a full fledged D-1A school or not, and that decision needs to be made fairly soon as the whole Charger debacle will certainly push the issue to the forefront very quickly. They've been able to sidestep the issue because of Qualcomm. But if the Q is going to be gone in 5 or so years, they really need to make that decision now. They ultimately control the pursestrings for a new stadium... SDSU will not move a muscle until the Chargers announce they are leaving town. SDSU will more than likely take over the site at that time so there is no rush as we will control our own destiny. If the CSU and SDSU decide not to build a new stadium, there is still an existing stadium that could work for the Aztecs for another 30 years. |
|
|
|
Post by untitled on May 18, 2011 12:14:00 GMT -8
there is still an existing stadium that could work for the Aztecs for another 30 years. The Q for another 30? Please God, no. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on May 18, 2011 12:15:36 GMT -8
there is still an existing stadium that could work for the Aztecs for another 30 years. The Q for another 30? Please God, no. For a college stadium the Q is pretty damn nice. If the Aztecs can actually have a top 20 team on a regular basis that place will be great. |
|
|
|
Post by Spud on May 18, 2011 12:55:49 GMT -8
The Q for another 30? Please God, no. For a college stadium the Q is pretty damn nice. If the Aztecs can actually have a top 20 team on a regular basis that place will be great. Maybe for the players on the field, but the amenities for fans are crappy. Still, better than nothing though! |
|
|
|
Post by carpediemaztec on May 19, 2011 9:53:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediemaztec on May 19, 2011 10:09:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by retreader on May 19, 2011 10:20:49 GMT -8
Just because the Chargers leave doesn't mean that the Q has to be torn down. How many days do the Chargers use it? Schedule that many big Soccer games ,I read in the paper this morning that the up coming Soccer game will be a sell out and that tickets start at $40!!!!! Let our friends to the South pay for the upkeep of the Q so that the Aztecs can use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediemaztec on May 19, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on May 20, 2011 12:37:34 GMT -8
Two years ago I spoke with former AD Jeff Schemmel and asked him that in preparation for the Chargers potentially leaving town if they'd ever considered joining forces with a current MLS owner and building a stadium together. He told me that he had been in discussions with a current MLS owner about that very thing. Many on this board speculated at the time that it was likely the LA Chivas who nearly began their franchise at Qualcomm stadium but opted to be the second tenant at the soccer specific Home Deopot Center in LA. Here is an article from today describing the Chivas' struggles being second fiddle in LA: www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2011/05/20/chivas-look-prove-they-belong-crowded-la-marketHere is an article that the Union Tribune's Marc Ziegler wrote in August desribing the strong possibility of San Diego attracting an MLS expansion franchise if a suitable stadium is available. www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/03/piecing-the-puzzle-of-mls-expansion-picture-here/Qwest Field in Seattle was built for the Seahawks but with soccer in mind and they have the Seattle Sounders as their MLS franchise. The total seating capacity is 67,000 which is great for the NFL and they tarp off the top sections (shown below) for the MLS franchise that averages about 36K per game. A 45-50K stadium in Mission Valley would be perfect on the Qualcomm site and a stadium this size could still host the Holiday Bowl and Poinsettia Bowl.  Here is an article saying the Chivas want to build their own stadium but says they are talking to LA communities: www.aolnews.com/2010/09/15/chivas-usa-inching-toward-independence/And last but not least, should the Aztecs share a stadium with the Chivas I don't think we would have to worry about blue seats....  |
|
|
|
Post by monty on May 20, 2011 13:17:07 GMT -8
sd incas
|
|
