|
Post by monty on Dec 18, 2012 16:35:34 GMT -8
The crowd for the PAC-12 championship game between UCLA and Stanford was 31,622. True, but it was in a torrential downpour the entire game. California excuses
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Dec 18, 2012 16:42:44 GMT -8
SDSU announced 34k for a very rainy home game versus Utah in 2010.
About 28k actually showed up. Not bad considering that a Stanford home game with a shot a the Rose Bowl only drew 31k.
When you combine rain with high ticket prices, Californians stay away.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Dec 18, 2012 16:44:55 GMT -8
SDSU announced 34k for a very rainy home game versus Utah in 2010. About 28k actually showed up. Not bad considering that a Stanford home game with a shot a the Rose Bowl only drew 31k. When you combine rain with high ticket prices, Californians stay away. About 30k will show up for a big game with difficulties, more will show up if it is really really easy and sparkly out.
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on Dec 18, 2012 17:03:04 GMT -8
Their stadium looks awful
|
|
|
Post by NTU on Dec 18, 2012 17:19:41 GMT -8
60-70 million for an expanded club level and boxes seems about right. This sh*t ain't cheap. $60-70 million just for premium seating. What does that translate to if they were starting from scratch and not just "updating" an existing facility?
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 18, 2012 19:06:59 GMT -8
Cincinnati drew just 22k for their final home game against USF.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Dec 18, 2012 21:23:40 GMT -8
This is another, hea look at us ACC, announcement. And it's gonna work, too, just as soon as the ACC loses its next batch of teams to one of the big four. Yup, that's why you go damn the torpedoes into a feeder conference and do every damn thing you can to climb over the rest of the schools
|
|
|
Post by monty on Dec 18, 2012 21:36:49 GMT -8
$60-70 million just for premium seating. What does that translate to if they were starting from scratch and not just "updating" an existing facility? Just having the ability to spend that kind of cake pretty much automatically means they're too "good" for the BL. Keeping that relic of a stadium that belongs an era of Sportsmen park and ebbet's field means they will always be left behind when $#!+ goes nutty
|
|
|
Post by therealeman on Dec 18, 2012 22:18:13 GMT -8
This is another, hea look at us ACC, announcement. I mean, you can pretty much count on Cinci and Uconn only being in the "Big East", or whatever the hell it's going to be called now when they sale the naming rights to the bball schools, for one more year... tops.
|
|
|
Post by fowl on Dec 18, 2012 23:37:34 GMT -8
$60-70 million just for premium seating. What does that translate to if they were starting from scratch and not just "updating" an existing facility? Just having the ability to spend that kind of cake pretty much automatically means they're too "good" for the BL. No it doesn't. Any school can come up with $60-70M in a year to expand a decrepit stadium. That school can't even get over 20k to watch a great team play a meaningful conference game. That is San Loser St in a nutshell. Monty = correct in everything he's said here.
|
|