Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:04:33 GMT -8
As fun as this discussion has been, I think it's run it's course. I hear you guys but disagree and will never change my mind about the issue. SDSU does not need its own football stadium. Although it wouldn't change my love for the team and the university, I would be extremely disappointed in the leadership were they to ever decide to fritter away resources on such an endeavor. The core mission isn't football. The core mission is to provide a quality, LOW COST education to the citizens of the San Diego region. Spending 100's of millions of dollars on an empty fucXing box is the height of irresponsibility with the public purse especially when a perfectly acceptable, perhaps even superior alternative exists.
I find sad quite frankly, the lack of vision and imagination this insistence upon a stand-alone edifice shows. This idea that what's needed in college towns is what's needed in a big, diverse world-class city is incomprehensible to me. The way forward, TO ME, is to embrace the difference and turn it into a positive. We'll never have ivy covered walls. We'll never have crisp Autumn days. Touchdown Jesus doesn't live here. People will never flock back to the old college town to re-live the good old days for a few hours on a Saturday. That's not who we are. That's not what San Diego is. We're west coast. we're different. We play our games at night. In a few years we'll be sharing a state of the art world class stadium in the very heart of a world class city surrounded by world class entertainment options pre and post game. Man-freakin-hatten KS cannot compete with that. Nobody can IF you believe it, sell it and make it happen.
This seems to me to be the path to bigger and better. Creating San Diegoville complete with wholesome refreshments and sensible bleachers in the middle of one of the most beautiful cities on planet earth is just silly to me. If this offends you, get over it.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 26, 2014 17:13:22 GMT -8
I say so. The stadium was never built as a football stadium, it was built as a "multi-purpose" stadium. It never was very good for football or baseball because it wasn't built specifically for either. Build a new stadium that is for football (works for soccer too) and demolish the old one which is approaching 50 years old. You can't redo the stadium and make it a good venue for football without making it look like a second-rate renovation. The structure itself is crumbling and they have massive issues when it rains. The aisles are too wide and they got sued when a drunk woman fell so they had to put a rail right down the center. Now while the game is being played the concession workers have to stand up when they serve people because of the stupid railing. Remember when the stadium was a lake the week before the Poinsettia bowl? Have you ever been at the stadium when it rains? I have and now I can comfortable say I never need to go to Niagra falls. The electrical and plumbing systems need to be completely redone and they have to find parts for the scoreboard on ebay for God's sake. Geez, do you even go to the stadium at all? There is absolutely, positively, nothing worth reclaiming regardless of how many seats you want to put in it. You don't need a "study" to decide whether you should renovate or rebuild, just a pair of eyes and half a brain. I think it's really smart that all those with responsibility to manage the finances and decisions around this matter don't give a damn about your opinions, and trust in the feasibility and other studies that help them to decide what to do. I'm pretty sure you're aware that the Chargers have found that Qualcomm is better than nothing ... and the Aztecs would rather have the problem of Qualcomm and renovation / replacement than to have no options at all. There is nothing in the Q that cannot be fixed by a few hundred pounds of C4. As I have said, I have no issues with building a new stadium to serve both teams, I don't think the Aztecs can afford one on their own. Do you want to follow the Cal plan of creative financing that got them a stadium that will likely bankrupt them? How many on here are willing to plunk down $40K-$250K for a 50 year seat license for a premium seat? Yeah, neither did those Berkeley pukes. What I have said is that taking over the stadium is a bad idea. If you do nothing you have costs of around $15M/year just to maintain it. That alone puts our athletic department solidly in the red. And that doesn't deal with the $70M or so in deferred maintenance. Trying to make it an actual football stadium would likely cost as much as building a new one and you would likely end up with something still not right. Again, you cannot move the fans closer to the field and if you want to delete the obstructive view seats you have to move them farther from the action. The stadium is the wrong design, it is old and falling apart, and anyone who thinks it is a viable venue for the Aztecs down the road is just, simply, naive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:16:57 GMT -8
As fun as this discussion has been, I think it's run it's course. I hear you guys but disagree and will never change my mind about the issue. SDSU does not need its own football stadium. Although it wouldn't change my love for the team and the university, I would be extremely disappointed in the leadership were they to ever decide to fritter away resources on such an endeavor. The core mission isn't football. The core mission is to provide a quality, LOW COST education to the citizens of the San Diego region. Spending 100's of millions of dollars on an empty fucXing box is the height of irresponsibility with the public purse especially when a perfectly acceptable, perhaps even superior alternative exists. I find sad quite frankly, the lack of vision and imagination this insistence upon a stand-alone edifice shows. This idea that what's needed in college towns is what's needed in a big, diverse world-class city is incomprehensible to me. The way forward, TO ME, is to embrace the difference and turn it into a positive. We'll never have ivy covered walls. We'll never have crisp Autumn days. Touchdown Jesus doesn't live here. People will never flock back to the old college town to re-live the good old days for a few hours on a Saturday. That's not who we are. That's not what San Diego is. We're west coast. we're different. We play our games at night. In a few years we'll be sharing a state of the art world class stadium in the very heart of a world class city surrounded by world class entertainment options pre and post game. Man-freakin-hatten KS cannot compete with that. Nobody can IF you believe it, sell it and make it happen. This seems to me to be the path to bigger and better. Creating San Diegoville complete with wholesome refreshments and sensible bleachers in the middle of one of the most beautiful cities on planet earth is just silly to me. If this offends you, get over it. lol....the dude who wants to share with a pro team who has no interest in sharing with SDSU is saying others lack vision....yeah because riding the coattails of others is taking life by the horns and making it your own. You make NO sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:21:14 GMT -8
It's funny that so many Aztec fans watched what a proper venue and coach did for BB(for both attendance and performance) but can't connect the dots for football. I cited the case of Louisville earlier in the thread which was conspicously ignored. 8 seasons after building their own stadium they were in a BCS conference...without a huge market or rich recruiting grounds(not to mention they rank behind State academically). Now, they are in the ACC, never mind they are 7 or 8 spots behind us in academic ratings. We need fan commitment, we need success, and we need facilties. Guess what, there is a damn good chance the first 2 will fall into our lap if we take care of the third bit. And for the Rocky haters, guess what, having our own digs means finding that replacement you've been fantizing about since CRL was announced as HC, will be that much easier. I'll just respond to this and that's it. the Louisville example wasn't ignored, its just stupid. The stadium didn't get Louisville into the ACC, the fact that they had actual fans in the seats, along with geography did. Well , I remember back in the good ol' days, 2 weeks ago or so, it was vitally important that WetDream Stadium be up on campus in order to get the students to fill it. The 3 minute trolly ride was far too big a burden to place on the poor dears. Today, we're informed that if WetDream Stadium isn't built in the exact same spot as the current EvilEmpire Stadium, life as we know it will cease to exist. So I'm not sure what facilities argument you are making. It now appears that the quality or newness of the facility is more important than the location. Students, being who they are expect nothing but the best apparently.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 26, 2014 17:21:45 GMT -8
I think it's really smart that all those with responsibility to manage the finances and decisions around this matter don't give a damn about your opinions, and trust in the feasibility and other studies that help them to decide what to do. I'm pretty sure you're aware that the Chargers have found that Qualcomm is better than nothing ... and the Aztecs would rather have the problem of Qualcomm and renovation / replacement than to have no options at all. There is nothing in the Q that cannot be fixed by a few hundred pounds of C4. As I have said, I have no issues with building a new stadium to serve both teams, I don't think the Aztecs can afford one on their own. Do you want to follow the Cal plan of creative financing that got them a stadium that will likely bankrupt them? How many on here are willing to plunk down $40K-$250K for a 50 year seat license for a premium seat? Yeah, neither did those Berkeley pukes. What I have said is that taking over the stadium is a bad idea. If you do nothing you have costs of around $15M/year just to maintain it. That alone puts our athletic department solidly in the red. And that doesn't deal with the $70M or so in deferred maintenance. Trying to make it an actual football stadium would likely cost as much as building a new one and you would likely end up with something still not right. Again, you cannot move the fans closer to the field and if you want to delete the obstructive view seats you have to move them farther from the action. The stadium is the wrong design, it is old and falling apart, and anyone who thinks it is a viable venue for the Aztecs down the road is just, simply, naive. Here's an idea:Let the Chargers build their own stadium downtown with their own money on land provided by the City & County of San Diego (upon approval by a vote of the people) ANDLet San Diego State buy the 166 acre Qualcomm site and the stadium already built on it with their own money (upon approval of the sale by a vote of the people) -- and they can develop the site as they see fit.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 26, 2014 17:27:39 GMT -8
Yes the game is blacked out. Not sure what that proves. There will still be more fans in the stands than there will be for ALL Aztec games this year combined. so there's that... Convention Center expansion is another matter. 7 hotel owners have temerity to think they can get together and raise taxes? What country is this? Good thing the courts still function to an extent. BTW; The whole "contiguous space" canard is nonsense. What they really want is for the expansion to be entirely on Port controlled land so that the unelected Port Commission can steal even more revenue from the citizens. Combining with the stadium puts their control of that revenue stream in jeopardy. I would love to see the Aztecs pull the community together but that's very low... VERY. LOW. on the list of important things for the Aztecs. SDSU would prefer those not affiliated with with the university to just shut up, send money and stay away. Chargers game is blacked out ... they're really pulling this community together and have tons of support, or are you going to blame the blackout on the stadium? Maybe they should reduce the capacity of the stadium ... Convention Center Expansion has been fought by the Chargers regardless of the funding issue, odd that the Chargers want to get their hands on that same $350M from those same hotels ... guess if those funds were being directed at them, they'd have no issue with those same hotel owners "volunteering" to pay the tax. The Convention Center, like SDSU is an economic engine of the city. The "canard" is that the Chargers want to move from away from a multi-purpose stadium like the Q, to a multi-purpose convention center /sports arena /football stadium. The SDSU and the Aztecs have more ties to the city and county than the Chargers do. You can try to confine SDSU to just the football team ... but we offer so much more than that for the city and county to unite behind. How fast do you think the Chargers would be forgotten if SDSU reached the Final Four or better, if Aztecs Baseball made it to the CWS? The Aztecs can entertain the city all year long ... in 16 different sports. The Padres play 162 games over a 6 month season, with roughly half those games at PetCo. There are many more opportunities for fans to catch a game and for fans in other cities to spend 3-5 days in San Diego for a weekday or weekend series. Padres games don't get blacked out locally. Chargers have a 16 game season, 8 or so at home over a 4 month period. We have no idea how many games will get blacked out locally or if anyone will step in to prevent it like they had to 3 times last year. It is the fourth preseason game against an opponent that they play the following week in a game that counts. If the Aztecs could draw that many then they would, indeed, have a great argument for building their own stadium and the could build it smack dab in the middle of the campus if they wanted to. $#!+, why have that stupid library when you have the internet, eh? If the Aztecs were to make the Final Four it would do nothing to affect Charger ticket sales. You are comparing apples to asparagus. If the SDSU football team could compete in the MWC and against ranked out of conference opponents like the MBB team does then they would be putting butts in the seats regardless of how s#!++y the Q is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:30:02 GMT -8
It's funny that so many Aztec fans watched what a proper venue and coach did for BB(for both attendance and performance) but can't connect the dots for football. I cited the case of Louisville earlier in the thread which was conspicously ignored. 8 seasons after building their own stadium they were in a BCS conference...without a huge market or rich recruiting grounds(not to mention they rank behind State academically). Now, they are in the ACC, never mind they are 7 or 8 spots behind us in academic ratings. We need fan commitment, we need success, and we need facilties. Guess what, there is a damn good chance the first 2 will fall into our lap if we take care of the third bit. And for the Rocky haters, guess what, having our own digs means finding that replacement you've been fantizing about since CRL was announced as HC, will be that much easier. I'll just respond to this and that's it. the Louisville example wasn't ignored, its just stupid. The stadium didn't get Louisville into the ACC, the fact that they had actual fans in the seats, along with geography did. Well , I remember back in the good ol' days, 2 weeks ago or so, it was vitally important that WetDream Stadium be up on campus in order to get the students to fill it. The 3 minute trolly ride was far too big a burden to place on the poor dears. Today, we're informed that if WetDream Stadium isn't built in the exact same spot as the current EvilEmpire Stadium, life as we know it will cease to exist. So I'm not sure what facilities argument you are making. It now appears that the quality or newness of the facility is more important than the location. Students, being who they are expect nothing but the best apparently. Yeah guy, mention things that I've never said to defend your empty arguing. Sweet deal. I'm not sure when you finished up at State or if you even attended for that matter. But I am one of many graduates under 35 living in the area. I already own season tix for football and will attend games regardless of where the stadium is...but if you really have been to PAC and B12 venues then you should know that we have signficantly more seats to fill than Oregon St, Oregon, Stanford, Wazzu, and AU to name a few. In a perfect world purchsging the Q site would mean simply reducing total seating and redoing the remaining seating to improve sightlines and move the crowd closer to the field. Is any of that realistic? I'm not an engineer so I can't say...but I find your agitiation to what would only be a boon to SDSU strange...if in fact your support SDSU.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 26, 2014 17:34:33 GMT -8
Chargers game is blacked out ... they're really pulling this community together and have tons of support, or are you going to blame the blackout on the stadium? Maybe they should reduce the capacity of the stadium ... Convention Center Expansion has been fought by the Chargers regardless of the funding issue, odd that the Chargers want to get their hands on that same $350M from those same hotels ... guess if those funds were being directed at them, they'd have no issue with those same hotel owners "volunteering" to pay the tax. The Convention Center, like SDSU is an economic engine of the city. The "canard" is that the Chargers want to move from away from a multi-purpose stadium like the Q, to a multi-purpose convention center /sports arena /football stadium. The SDSU and the Aztecs have more ties to the city and county than the Chargers do. You can try to confine SDSU to just the football team ... but we offer so much more than that for the city and county to unite behind. How fast do you think the Chargers would be forgotten if SDSU reached the Final Four or better, if Aztecs Baseball made it to the CWS? The Aztecs can entertain the city all year long ... in 16 different sports. The Padres play 162 games over a 6 month season, with roughly half those games at PetCo. There are many more opportunities for fans to catch a game and for fans in other cities to spend 3-5 days in San Diego for a weekday or weekend series. Padres games don't get blacked out locally. Chargers have a 16 game season, 8 or so at home over a 4 month period. We have no idea how many games will get blacked out locally or if anyone will step in to prevent it like they had to 3 times last year. It is the fourth preseason game against an opponent that they play the following week in a game that counts. If the Aztecs could draw that many then they would, indeed, have a great argument for building their own stadium and the could build it smack dab in the middle of the campus if they wanted to. $#!+, why have that stupid library when you have the internet, eh? If the Aztecs were to make the Final Four it would do nothing to affect Charger ticket sales. You are comparing apples to asparagus. If the SDSU football team could compete in the MWC and against ranked out of conference opponents like the MBB team does then they would be putting butts in the seats regardless of how s#!++y the Q is. Who knows how many Chargers games will be blacked out this season ... I believe last year they were the ONLY NFL team to have a game blacked out during the season. I suggest you write to the Federal Government and have them demolish the Library of Congress, then you can write to the city of San Diego and have them sell the downtown library because the internet, ya know. Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers. America loves a winner and the Aztecs are it for this city, a Final Four would just solidify that. It's not a mistake that more people in this city wear Aztec gear than Chargers gear.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 26, 2014 17:34:40 GMT -8
It's funny that so many Aztec fans watched what a proper venue and coach did for BB(for both attendance and performance) but can't connect the dots for football. I cited the case of Louisville earlier in the thread which was conspicously ignored. 8 seasons after building their own stadium they were in a BCS conference...without a huge market or rich recruiting grounds(not to mention they rank behind State academically). Now, they are in the ACC, never mind they are 7 or 8 spots behind us in academic ratings. We need fan commitment, we need success, and we need facilties. Guess what, there is a damn good chance the first 2 will fall into our lap if we take care of the third bit. And for the Rocky haters, guess what, having our own digs means finding that replacement you've been fantizing about since CRL was announced as HC, will be that much easier. I'll just respond to this and that's it. the Louisville example wasn't ignored, its just stupid. The stadium didn't get Louisville into the ACC, the fact that they had actual fans in the seats, along with geography did. Well , I remember back in the good ol' days, 2 weeks ago or so, it was vitally important that WetDream Stadium be up on campus in order to get the students to fill it. The 3 minute trolly ride was far too big a burden to place on the poor dears. Today, we're informed that if WetDream Stadium isn't built in the exact same spot as the current EvilEmpire Stadium, life as we know it will cease to exist. So I'm not sure what facilities argument you are making. It now appears that the quality or newness of the facility is more important than the location. Students, being who they are expect nothing but the best apparently. What I really find comical is that saying the ride down to the Q is a burden for, what, 5 times a year and yet they have no issues putting student housing on the site. Evidently, not many on here took a lot of math during their time at State.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:37:14 GMT -8
I'll just respond to this and that's it. the Louisville example wasn't ignored, its just stupid. The stadium didn't get Louisville into the ACC, the fact that they had actual fans in the seats, along with geography did. Well , I remember back in the good ol' days, 2 weeks ago or so, it was vitally important that WetDream Stadium be up on campus in order to get the students to fill it. The 3 minute trolly ride was far too big a burden to place on the poor dears. Today, we're informed that if WetDream Stadium isn't built in the exact same spot as the current EvilEmpire Stadium, life as we know it will cease to exist. So I'm not sure what facilities argument you are making. It now appears that the quality or newness of the facility is more important than the location. Students, being who they are expect nothing but the best apparently. Yeah guy, mention things that I've never said to defend your empty arguing. Sweet deal. I'm not sure when you finished up at State or if you even attended for that matter. But I am one of many graduates under 35 living in the area. I already own season tix for football and will attend games regardless of where the stadium is...but if you really have been to PAC and B12 venues then you should know that we have signficantly more seats to fill than Oregon St, Oregon, Stanford, Wazzu, and AU to name a few. In a perfect world purchsging the Q site would mean simply reducing total seating and redoing the remaining seating to improve sightlines and move the crowd closer to the field. Is any of that realistic? I'm not an engineer so I can't say...but I find your agitiation to what would only be a boon to SDSU strange...if in fact your support SDSU. My apologies. I had no idea I was arguing with The One, The Keeper of All Truth. I am an apostate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:39:43 GMT -8
I think it's really smart that all those with responsibility to manage the finances and decisions around this matter don't give a damn about your opinions, and trust in the feasibility and other studies that help them to decide what to do. I'm pretty sure you're aware that the Chargers have found that Qualcomm is better than nothing ... and the Aztecs would rather have the problem of Qualcomm and renovation / replacement than to have no options at all. There is nothing in the Q that cannot be fixed by a few hundred pounds of C4. As I have said, I have no issues with building a new stadium to serve both teams, I don't think the Aztecs can afford one on their own. Do you want to follow the Cal plan of creative financing that got them a stadium that will likely bankrupt them? How many on here are willing to plunk down $40K-$250K for a 50 year seat license for a premium seat? Yeah, neither did those Berkeley pukes. What I have said is that taking over the stadium is a bad idea. If you do nothing you have costs of around $15M/year just to maintain it. That alone puts our athletic department solidly in the red. And that doesn't deal with the $70M or so in deferred maintenance. Trying to make it an actual football stadium would likely cost as much as building a new one and you would likely end up with something still not right. Again, you cannot move the fans closer to the field and if you want to delete the obstructive view seats you have to move them farther from the action. The stadium is the wrong design, it is old and falling apart, and anyone who thinks it is a viable venue for the Aztecs down the road is just, simply, naive. Damn you and your facts.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 26, 2014 17:46:52 GMT -8
There is nothing in the Q that cannot be fixed by a few hundred pounds of C4. As I have said, I have no issues with building a new stadium to serve both teams, I don't think the Aztecs can afford one on their own. Do you want to follow the Cal plan of creative financing that got them a stadium that will likely bankrupt them? How many on here are willing to plunk down $40K-$250K for a 50 year seat license for a premium seat? Yeah, neither did those Berkeley pukes. What I have said is that taking over the stadium is a bad idea. If you do nothing you have costs of around $15M/year just to maintain it. That alone puts our athletic department solidly in the red. And that doesn't deal with the $70M or so in deferred maintenance. Trying to make it an actual football stadium would likely cost as much as building a new one and you would likely end up with something still not right. Again, you cannot move the fans closer to the field and if you want to delete the obstructive view seats you have to move them farther from the action. The stadium is the wrong design, it is old and falling apart, and anyone who thinks it is a viable venue for the Aztecs down the road is just, simply, naive. Damn you and your facts. Here's an idea: Let the Chargers build their own stadium downtown with their own money on land provided by the City & County of San Diego (upon approval by a vote of the people) AND
Let San Diego State buy the 166 acre Qualcomm site and the stadium already built on it with their own money (upon approval of the sale by a vote of the people) -- and they can develop the site as they see fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2014 17:52:59 GMT -8
As fun as this discussion has been, I think it's run it's course. I hear you guys but disagree and will never change my mind about the issue. SDSU does not need its own football stadium. Although it wouldn't change my love for the team and the university, I would be extremely disappointed in the leadership were they to ever decide to fritter away resources on such an endeavor. The core mission isn't football. The core mission is to provide a quality, LOW COST education to the citizens of the San Diego region. Spending 100's of millions of dollars on an empty fucXing box is the height of irresponsibility with the public purse especially when a perfectly acceptable, perhaps even superior alternative exists. I find sad quite frankly, the lack of vision and imagination this insistence upon a stand-alone edifice shows. This idea that what's needed in college towns is what's needed in a big, diverse world-class city is incomprehensible to me. The way forward, TO ME, is to embrace the difference and turn it into a positive. We'll never have ivy covered walls. We'll never have crisp Autumn days. Touchdown Jesus doesn't live here. People will never flock back to the old college town to re-live the good old days for a few hours on a Saturday. That's not who we are. That's not what San Diego is. We're west coast. we're different. We play our games at night. In a few years we'll be sharing a state of the art world class stadium in the very heart of a world class city surrounded by world class entertainment options pre and post game. Man-freakin-hatten KS cannot compete with that. Nobody can IF you believe it, sell it and make it happen. This seems to me to be the path to bigger and better. Creating San Diegoville complete with wholesome refreshments and sensible bleachers in the middle of one of the most beautiful cities on planet earth is just silly to me. If this offends you, get over it. lol....the dude who wants to share with a pro team who has no interest in sharing with SDSU is saying others lack vision....yeah because riding the coattails of others is taking life by the horns and making it your own. You make NO sense. I know huh? After all, there's no middle ground here. You're either "controlling your destiny" or your riding coattails. Life's much simpler when understood as a series of OR gates. Compromise and negotiation are for losers. FUx Yeah! SDSU Rules!
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 26, 2014 17:57:17 GMT -8
It is the fourth preseason game against an opponent that they play the following week in a game that counts. If the Aztecs could draw that many then they would, indeed, have a great argument for building their own stadium and the could build it smack dab in the middle of the campus if they wanted to. $#!+, why have that stupid library when you have the internet, eh? If the Aztecs were to make the Final Four it would do nothing to affect Charger ticket sales. You are comparing apples to asparagus. If the SDSU football team could compete in the MWC and against ranked out of conference opponents like the MBB team does then they would be putting butts in the seats regardless of how s#!++y the Q is. Who knows how many Chargers games will be blacked out this season ... I believe last year they were the ONLY NFL team to have a game blacked out during the season. I suggest you write to the Federal Government and have them demolish the Library of Congress, then you can write to the city of San Diego and have them sell the downtown library because the internet, ya know. Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers. America loves a winner and the Aztecs are it for this city, a Final Four would just solidify that. It's not a mistake that more people in this city wear Aztec gear than Chargers gear. It depends on whether the win. That's what happens in a free market. It is also dependent on how well their opponent's fans travel. They get stuck in those seats where you can't see over the players along the sidelines for the most part. I was not a supporter of spending a bunch of money on a downtown library. I expect more people attend Charger games each year than will pass through those doors in a year. And building a central library and then closing local branches is just a stupid waste of taxpayer money but that makes the politicians happy. We will probably get a $1 Billion new city hall before we get a stadium built with TOT taxes in this city. Hell, they might get that before we even do a convention center expansion. Stupid is as stupid does. Now I will be accused as a Charger honk when I say that the Chargers have a stronger connection to this city than the Aztecs, you can look up attendance and TV ratings to find that I am right if you want. If that were the case the Aztecs would be putting at least as many butts in the Q than the Chargers do. They do less than half, though. There was a time in the 70s when they drew as many if not more than the Chargers but that was 40 years and many mistakes ago. There have been games since then when they didn't have enough fans in the stadium to fill Viejas. San Diego is rallying around Aztec BB because Fisher has done a tremendous job building a first rate program. It wins its conference and doesn't look like a high school JV team against the best team in the NCAA. People in San Diego like and support a winner and don't waste their time on losers. There is just too much competition for their time and dollars. Unfortunately, the SDSU football team has not been able to match the success of the MBB program. If you take out Marshall Faulk you would have to go back to the 70s to find a time when the Aztecs could actually brag about their football program. I'm sorry, but the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl ain't exactly filled with Roses and the University of Buffalo isn't Ohio State. I can remember when we entered the WAC and people around here were talking about how we would dominate in football because of all the great talent we have in Southern California. It never happened. Back in those days the motto was "Red & Black, Getting WAC'ed." The WAC wasn't a bad football conference at the time either. Then we moved into the MWC and still did nothing. TCU, Utah, BYU and Boise St sure didn't have an issue gaining national recognition though, despite the "lousy" conference they were in. Now were stuck looking down our noses at teams like Fresno State when, perhaps, we should actually beat them before telling them how much it stinks to play them. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Aug 26, 2014 18:00:31 GMT -8
There is nothing in the Q that cannot be fixed by a few hundred pounds of C4. As I have said, I have no issues with building a new stadium to serve both teams, I don't think the Aztecs can afford one on their own. Do you want to follow the Cal plan of creative financing that got them a stadium that will likely bankrupt them? How many on here are willing to plunk down $40K-$250K for a 50 year seat license for a premium seat? Yeah, neither did those Berkeley pukes. What I have said is that taking over the stadium is a bad idea. If you do nothing you have costs of around $15M/year just to maintain it. That alone puts our athletic department solidly in the red. And that doesn't deal with the $70M or so in deferred maintenance. Trying to make it an actual football stadium would likely cost as much as building a new one and you would likely end up with something still not right. Again, you cannot move the fans closer to the field and if you want to delete the obstructive view seats you have to move them farther from the action. The stadium is the wrong design, it is old and falling apart, and anyone who thinks it is a viable venue for the Aztecs down the road is just, simply, naive. Damn you and your facts. At least I didn't tell him that there is no Santa Claus. Oh... damn!
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 26, 2014 18:00:43 GMT -8
Who knows how many Chargers games will be blacked out this season ... I believe last year they were the ONLY NFL team to have a game blacked out during the season. I suggest you write to the Federal Government and have them demolish the Library of Congress, then you can write to the city of San Diego and have them sell the downtown library because the internet, ya know. Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers. America loves a winner and the Aztecs are it for this city, a Final Four would just solidify that. It's not a mistake that more people in this city wear Aztec gear than Chargers gear. It depends on whether the win. That's what happens in a free market. It is also dependent on how well their opponent's fans travel. They get stuck in those seats where you can't see over the players along the sidelines for the most part. I was not a supporter of spending a bunch of money on a downtown library. I expect more people attend Charger games each year than will pass through those doors in a year. And building a central library and then closing local branches is just a stupid waste of taxpayer money but that makes the politicians happy. We will probably get a $1 Billion new city hall before we get a stadium built with TOT taxes in this city. Hell, they might get that before we even do a convention center expansion. Stupid is as stupid does. Now I will be accused as a Charger honk when I say that the Chargers have a stronger connection to this city than the Aztecs, you can look up attendance and TV ratings to find that I am right if you want. If that were the case the Aztecs would be putting at least as many butts in the Q than the Chargers do. They do less than half, though. There was a time in the 70s when they drew as many if not more than the Chargers but that was 40 years and many mistakes ago. There have been games since then when they didn't have enough fans in the stadium to fill Viejas. San Diego is rallying around Aztec BB because Fisher has done a tremendous job building a first rate program. It wins its conference and doesn't look like a high school JV team against the best team in the NCAA. People in San Diego like and support a winner and don't waste their time on losers. There is just too much competition for their time and dollars. Unfortunately, the SDSU football team has not been able to match the success of the MBB program. If you take out Marshall Faulk you would have to go back to the 70s to find a time when the Aztecs could actually brag about their football program. I'm sorry, but the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl ain't exactly filled with Roses and the University of Buffalo isn't Ohio State. I can remember when we entered the WAC and people around here were talking about how we would dominate in football because of all the great talent we have in Southern California. It never happened. Back in those days the motto was "Red & Black, Getting WAC'ed." The WAC wasn't a bad football conference at the time either. Then we moved into the MWC and still did nothing. TCU, Utah, BYU and Boise St sure didn't have an issue gaining national recognition though, despite the "lousy" conference they were in. Now were stuck looking down our noses at teams like Fresno State when, perhaps, we should actually beat them before telling them how much it stinks to play them. Just a thought. So let the Chargers put their money where your mouth is ... let them build their own stadium to their own specs with their own money -- if they have so much support, let them bank on that and not tax payers funds.
|
|
|
Post by rolf tomato on Aug 26, 2014 18:03:49 GMT -8
If the SDSU football team could compete in the MWC and against ranked out of conference opponents like the MBB team does then they would be putting butts in the seats regardless of how s#!++y the Q is. Just my personal opinion, but I disagree with this. (in part anyway). Obviously the team needs to do its part and win games. But all other things being equal, I believe a smaller stadium, with seating that is closer to the action, will draw more fans than playing in the 'Q'. What's the average attendance now, about 20,000 or so? I honestly believe that just by playing in a smaller, closer to the action stadium, that attendance would increase by 10,000 or so. I base this on what I saw with the women's basketball program. When Beth Burns was here the first time, her teams were playing in Peterson Gym. They were averaging 1000 people or more per game. (I know because I was there). It was fun and exciting and the fans showed up. Years later, coach Burns team was playing in beautiful Viejas arena. Her teams were better than what she had previously, and yet they'd be lucky to get 200 people to show up for a game. The difference? It was just more fun and exciting to watch the women play at Peterson, and therefor more fans showed up. Again, this is all strictly my opinion from what I observed first hand going to the games. That's why I believe an Aztec owned, made for football stadium would bring more fans to the games. Not to mention the crappy concessions we have to put up with at the 'Q'. One mans opinion.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 26, 2014 18:11:33 GMT -8
My two cents again. The "Q" site is just the best option. A redeveloped or rebuilt football only stadium with 45 -50 K seat designed to be expandable to 70K if needed would be our best option. Rolf tomato is on the right track. I disagree a little on the reason that attendance for Beth Burn's early teams was better. I think it has to do with the idea that her teams were much better than the men's team for many years and created more excitement and thus better attendance. I went in the early years but it had more to do with distance for me to travel than any thing else.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Aug 26, 2014 18:12:15 GMT -8
It is the fourth preseason game against an opponent that they play the following week in a game that counts. If the Aztecs could draw that many then they would, indeed, have a great argument for building their own stadium and the could build it smack dab in the middle of the campus if they wanted to. $#!+, why have that stupid library when you have the internet, eh? If the Aztecs were to make the Final Four it would do nothing to affect Charger ticket sales. You are comparing apples to asparagus. If the SDSU football team could compete in the MWC and against ranked out of conference opponents like the MBB team does then they would be putting butts in the seats regardless of how s#!++y the Q is. Who knows how many Chargers games will be blacked out this season ... I believe last year they were the ONLY NFL team to have a game blacked out during the season. I suggest you write to the Federal Government and have them demolish the Library of Congress, then you can write to the city of San Diego and have them sell the downtown library because the internet, ya know. Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers. America loves a winner and the Aztecs are it for this city, a Final Four would just solidify that. It's not a mistake that more people in this city wear Aztec gear than Chargers gear. "Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers." Slow your roll there turbo. Myopic comments undermine your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 26, 2014 18:16:28 GMT -8
Who knows how many Chargers games will be blacked out this season ... I believe last year they were the ONLY NFL team to have a game blacked out during the season. I suggest you write to the Federal Government and have them demolish the Library of Congress, then you can write to the city of San Diego and have them sell the downtown library because the internet, ya know. Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers. America loves a winner and the Aztecs are it for this city, a Final Four would just solidify that. It's not a mistake that more people in this city wear Aztec gear than Chargers gear. "Aztecs (and Men's Basketball in particular) have a stronger connection to the city than the Chargers." Slow your roll there turbo. Myopic comments undermine your arguments. you're probably right, it should read the San Diego State University, the Aztecs and Men's Basketball in particular have a stronger connection socially, economically and support-wise in this city than the Chargers.
|
|