|
Post by Den60 on Aug 31, 2014 16:03:06 GMT -8
I wouldn't blame the stadium for the lack of attendance. When it comes right down to it, SDSU football doesn't generate much interest in the community right now. They have drawn people to that venue before (and it doesn't matter if it was a 54K stadium or a 70K stadium) when they have provided a good entertainment value. They have a long history of not doing so despite fielding a better product of the last 5 years or so. Personally, while we get a nice payout playing OSU and Michigan at their places), I think getting thumped by teams like that only serves to remind the community that SDSU is not a top tier program and struggling to find success in the conference or losing an early game at home to an Eastern Michigan doesn't generate excitement for them.
That being said, the Q is a lousy football venue because it wasn't built as a football stadium, and there is no economically sound way to make it one. Right now it is the only option and I don't think the university has the financial wherewithal to build one, even on property they already own.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Aug 31, 2014 17:10:12 GMT -8
Currently we are G5 school but Rocky uses the Q as selling point to recruits who have a dream of playing in the NFL The Aztecs and where they play is a stepping stone for their career into the NFL . Recruiting to a G5 school ( yes we all hope we get to be a P5) we are going to need all the "sizzle" we can get . To me if we played in a stadium , that had state of the art score board , locker rooms , .... are great selling points for recruits. Also feel a state of the art facility would attract fans at first just to see it . SDSU is not going to be able to survive by just getting students or the die hards . Unless we get an offer from B12 we are in the MW and going to be playing 4 MW teams at home and it could go higher if P5 stop playing us . Also see the B12 wanting a nicer state of the art facility . As noted what brought UCLA fans out is a top 25 team . We need a winning team and realize you need to go out to San Diego communities to promote the program . The stadium is part of the problem but not the major problem .Develop the program on the field and work with whom ever to get a state of the art facility.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Aug 31, 2014 17:37:23 GMT -8
College Football 2011: The 25 Worst College Football Stadium Experiences (By David Luther , Featured Columnist) No. 20: San Diego State - bleacherreport.com/articles/655869-college-football-2011-the-25-worst-college-football-stadium-experiences/page/7SDSU comes in at No. 20, and is the first on the list that plays in an expansive NFL stadium while drawing an average crowd that doesn't even fill the place half full. Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, home of the NFL's Chargers, seats 70,561. San Diego State draws an average crowd of 34,133. Even if every single fan in attendance stood up and screamed at the top of their lungs, the stadium would still sound half empty. Qualcomm is a great venue for the NFL. If San Diego State drew 70,000 fans for home games, it would probably make a nice venue for the Aztecs. But the seats in NFL stadiums are typically a bit further from the field than they are in collegiate stadiums. Add that to the fact that the place is only half full, and you have a recipe for an atmosphere that lacks that certain college feel. Bleacher Report is not to be taken seriously, ever. although I agree that bleacherrport should not be taken serioulsy ... I can't find any fault with the descriptions of Qualcomm, the Rose Bowl or the LA Colosseum
|
|
|
Post by MontezumasRevenge on Aug 31, 2014 17:41:00 GMT -8
College Football 2011: The 25 Worst College Football Stadium Experiences (By David Luther , Featured Columnist) No. 20: San Diego State - bleacherreport.com/articles/655869-college-football-2011-the-25-worst-college-football-stadium-experiences/page/7SDSU comes in at No. 20, and is the first on the list that plays in an expansive NFL stadium while drawing an average crowd that doesn't even fill the place half full. Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, home of the NFL's Chargers, seats 70,561. San Diego State draws an average crowd of 34,133. Even if every single fan in attendance stood up and screamed at the top of their lungs, the stadium would still sound half empty. Qualcomm is a great venue for the NFL. If San Diego State drew 70,000 fans for home games, it would probably make a nice venue for the Aztecs. But the seats in NFL stadiums are typically a bit further from the field than they are in collegiate stadiums. Add that to the fact that the place is only half full, and you have a recipe for an atmosphere that lacks that certain college feel. Bleacher Report is not to be taken seriously, ever. Then you're basically contradicting your own post that started this thread
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Aug 31, 2014 19:31:42 GMT -8
That's like saying back in the sports arena days "just beat Kentucky and Michigan and we'll have 15,000 for UTEP". You're not acknowledging the root of the problem. The root of the problem is apathetic fan support. There is nothing we can do about the stadium except fill the damn thing. Complaining and crying about the Q gets the program nowhere, besides it would take 15-25 years of red tape to build an on campus facility and who knows if there will be any college football by then. If only we had known that the root problem during the sports arena era was fan apathy....
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 1, 2014 1:14:37 GMT -8
The root of the problem is apathetic fan support. There is nothing we can do about the stadium except fill the damn thing. Complaining and crying about the Q gets the program nowhere, besides it would take 15-25 years of red tape to build an on campus facility and who knows if there will be any college football by then. If only we had known that the root problem during the sports arena era was fan apathy.... I love throwing the basketball turnaround in their faces too because it blows up their argument. The Q sucks the life out of the crowd and it's just a terrible venue for the program.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Sept 1, 2014 7:43:14 GMT -8
The moaning and groaning around here about the stadium issue is getting old. I think everyone agrees that playing at The Q is less than ideal. However, it's a waste of breath unless someone has a viable plan to raise $150-$200 million dollars. I mean it took one of the richest families in the world to get the basketball practice facility built and they are still a couple million short. How do they raise 10x that figure for a football stadium with little student or community support?
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Sept 1, 2014 8:35:38 GMT -8
If only we had known that the root problem during the sports arena era was fan apathy.... I love throwing the basketball turnaround in their faces too because it blows up their argument. The Q sucks the life out of the crowd and it's just a terrible venue for the program. No, it doesn't. When the on-campus arena was first built did fans flock to watch Aztec BB? No. Fisher could't even give tickets away. Did the Aztecs suddenly start getting 4 and 5 star recruits immediately? Again, no. Do not minimize the work that Fisher and his staff did to build a winning program. Just four years ago the average attendance was only 7,200 fans. That ain't bad when you consider UCLA managed only about 8,100 fans in a newly renovated Pauley Pavilion last year but it has just been in the last 3 seasons that SDSU started filling the arena routinely (and only the last two were "sellout seasons"). And it has been only in the last 4-5 years that we started getting interest from higher value recruits (and you can say that only in the last couple of years have we been mentioned in the top 20 for recruiting nationally). So, it took about 10 years for Aztec BB to be a popular ticket. "If you build it (a place to play), they will come" isn't the case outside of the movies. An on-campus arena does help. We play more home BB games (about 16-18) than home football (6) and at least half are played on weekdays. Putting an arena on campus makes it a lot easier for the students to attend games whereas college football is played on weekends and is an all day event. Let's say that you build a 45,000 seat stadium and you can count on 1/3 or the students showing up each game. That leaves 80% of the stadium to be filled by people that are not students of the university and likely live all over the county so an on-campus facility isn't, in itself, a draw for them. What you want is a location that is easy to get to and a product that is entertaining once you get there. And when it comes down to it, students don't pay nearly as much (aren't student section tickets free?) for their tickets as non-students do so you need strong support of non-students to help fund the program.
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Sept 1, 2014 10:00:59 GMT -8
A new 42k stadium with seating closer to the field would make a HUGE improvement to the atmosphere of the games. Right now there's a bit of a disconnect between the fans and the team, due in part to the huge distance between the field and most of the seats. Put the fans almost on top of the field in a smaller stadium and the atmosphere totally changes. It would be a lot more like what Cox/Viejas Arena has become for basketball. As it stands now, the atmosphere for Aztec football games is pretty weak most of the time. It's just a cavernous stadium where the fans feel like they're watching the game from the next county... This, every word of it. When Steve Fisher last year became the first person in our athletic department to speak publically on this subject, he didn’t say we needed a new stadium or a fancier stadium or a stadium in a different location. His words were, “We need a smaller stadium.” An NFL facility will seat at least 65K, which is 20K more than the Aztecs need or want. Ultimate prosperity for our program won’t be found in a building with its upper deck tarped off every week. We need a compact, intimate house where each fan is right on top of the action and has a perfect view of he field, and where the scarce supply of tickets will ensure sellouts for the whole season by the middle of July. That is the genius of Viejas. Yes, Baylor just spent stupid money on a Taj Mahal of a stadium, but we don’t need such extravagance. We can easily do what Central Florida did a few years ago with Bright House Stadium, plus maybe a couple extra bells and whistles. We already own enough land to do it. The Fund for SDSU set an original target of $500 million, but that number was approached so fast the goal was increased to a billion. There should be no doubt that we can raise enough money to do this, especially if we make it clear to donors they need to either help us build this stadium very soon or else start taking a lot of pride in water polo. www.ucfknights.com/facilities/ucf-brighthouse-bio.html
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Sept 1, 2014 11:39:05 GMT -8
I love throwing the basketball turnaround in their faces too because it blows up their argument. The Q sucks the life out of the crowd and it's just a terrible venue for the program. No, it doesn't. When the on-campus arena was first built did fans flock to watch Aztec BB? No. Fisher could't even give tickets away. Did the Aztecs suddenly start getting 4 and 5 star recruits immediately? Again, no. Do not minimize the work that Fisher and his staff did to build a winning program. Just four years ago the average attendance was only 7,200 fans. That ain't bad when you consider UCLA managed only about 8,100 fans in a newly renovated Pauley Pavilion last year but it has just been in the last 3 seasons that SDSU started filling the arena routinely (and only the last two were "sellout seasons"). And it has been only in the last 4-5 years that we started getting interest from higher value recruits (and you can say that only in the last couple of years have we been mentioned in the top 20 for recruiting nationally). So, it took about 10 years for Aztec BB to be a popular ticket. "If you build it (a place to play), they will come" isn't the case outside of the movies. An on-campus arena does help. We play more home BB games (about 16-18) than home football (6) and at least half are played on weekdays. Putting an arena on campus makes it a lot easier for the students to attend games whereas college football is played on weekends and is an all day event. Let's say that you build a 45,000 seat stadium and you can count on 1/3 or the students showing up each game. That leaves 80% of the stadium to be filled by people that are not students of the university and likely live all over the county so an on-campus facility isn't, in itself, a draw for them. What you want is a location that is easy to get to and a product that is entertaining once you get there. And when it comes down to it, students don't pay nearly as much (aren't student section tickets free?) for their tickets as non-students do so you need strong support of non-students to help fund the program. Steve Fisher DOES NOT come to SDSU without cox/Viejas. I've heard him say it privately and alluded to that in an interview last year. Cox/Viejas was the catalyst to where SDSU hoops is today and it doesn't surprise me a bit that you try to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your Charger Agenda. I never said it would happen overnight but I have no doubt you'd see a similar trend with regards to atmosphere and attendance that SDSU hoops went through. It didn't happen overnight but it happened and now we have a top 25 program and one of the rowdiest arenas in the nation. The transformation from one of the worst teams in D1 to one of the best started when ground was broken on Cox arena.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Sept 1, 2014 11:53:01 GMT -8
If only we had known that the root problem during the sports arena era was fan apathy.... I love throwing the basketball turnaround in their faces too because it blows up their argument. The Q sucks the life out of the crowd and it's just a terrible venue for the program. Really? Sure it's an old stadium, yet the Chargers draw much more than 40K a game. So is it the stadium or us?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Sept 1, 2014 12:02:24 GMT -8
If we build an on-campus stadium, Steve Fisher will take over as head football coach and lead the program to the national spotlight and sell out crowds 12 years later. It worked for basketball so it's guaranteed to work for football.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 1, 2014 12:08:48 GMT -8
I love throwing the basketball turnaround in their faces too because it blows up their argument. The Q sucks the life out of the crowd and it's just a terrible venue for the program. Really? Sure it's an old stadium, yet the Chargers draw much more than 40K a game. So is it the stadium or us? Umm, State does not need a 70k stadium, the reach and appeal of the Chargers and the Chargers are different. The NFL is king in attendance and TV rattings and even the SC's and Alabama's don't have its appeal. Even the Chargers don't don't need a 70K stadium (The Chargers wanted 70K), they seem to be topped out at 60-65. The Aztecs don't need more than 40-45K. This why State and the Chargers should not share a stadium. The clientele has some cross over but are largely different. The amenity needs in the stadiums are different. The Chargers need to offer Oggi's, Lounges, and other trinkets. The Aztecs just need basic concessions like you see at Viejas. Beer, Soda, water, hot dogs, hamburgers, kettle corn, etc..... Go to ND game and it is nothing like a Bears game. Got to a Tennessee Titan Game and it is nothing near a Volunteers game. etc.... College Football and the NFL are not one in needs, atmosphere, or clientele. Having them share a venue makes no sense, the Chargers don't really want to share a stadium with the Aztecs. They like the rent and the political cover but outside of that, they would rather have no other tenant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 12:13:17 GMT -8
If we build an on-campus stadium, Steve Fisher will take over as head football coach and lead the program to the national spotlight and sell out crowds 12 years later. It worked for basketball so it's guaranteed to work for football. worked just fine for Louisville, and they don't have the market, recruits, or academics that SD has
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Sept 1, 2014 12:15:44 GMT -8
If we build an on-campus stadium, Steve Fisher will take over as head football coach and lead the program to the national spotlight and sell out crowds 12 years later. It worked for basketball so it's guaranteed to work for football. Why did USD build the Slim Gym? To compete with Gonzaga. I know as a USD guy, you don't think much of State or think it has a right for ambition. But the cold hard facts is that you need facilities to recruit a coach, it doesn't mean you pick the right coach and wins are certain, but you can't even get a decent pool unless you have the facilities to attract the coach. When Viejas was built and they fired the ole ball coach, the pool of coaches who put in their names was 20x better than what applied before. Rick Majerus. Steve Fisher. To name just two. Certainly having the stadium does not lead to instant wins, but it takes a certain path.... Facilities - Shows commitment and increase the quality of the coaches you can hire. With Facilities and a coach, you can now recruit kids at a different level. Is it certain? No, but to say that Facilities are not integral in hiring a coach is a foolish. We would be properly screwed if we hadn't redone 55th street and had the Q. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Sept 1, 2014 12:19:03 GMT -8
You guys continue to drink too much Charger koolaid ,The Q is a perfectly fine place to watch FB. If (allegedly) the press box and the equipment room leak I really don't care. Yes , I wish it was smaller but that's not going to happen. My advice is move to where the action is. I gave up my Club 49 yard line seats (felt like I was in church) for plaza near the students , bank and booty girls ...waaaay more fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 12:23:46 GMT -8
You guys continue to drink too much Charger koolaid ,The Q is a perfectly fine place to watch FB. If (allegedly) the press box and the equipment room leak I really don't care. Yes , I wish it was smaller but that's not going to happen. My advice is move to where the action is. I gave up my Club 49 yard line seats (felt like I was in church) for plaza near the students , bank and booty girls ...waaaay more fun. The Q only works if the seating is completely redone. I don't think that will ever happen though as it would mean the chargers have to stay longer, and they have no interest in staying at the Q.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Sept 1, 2014 12:32:02 GMT -8
There is nothing that can be done, so bitching won't change anything. The Q is our home field. Win at North Carolina and Oregon St. and there will 50k at the Q for the UNLV game. I would bet that is about right. Still, I think we need to redevelop the "Q" site with a 45K to 50K stadium designed to be further expanded. Let SDSU use that location and let the Chargers go downtown. In the meantime, a few more wins and we will get more folks to come out. I would love to win both North Carolina & Oregon State but we will see. I could definitely see us draw 40-50K if we win both. When SDSU builds a new stadium I don't think we need anything larger than 50K. Stanford has a beautiful 50K stadium and it works just fine for them. Several other P5 schools have stadiums 50k or less in size that also fulfill their needs.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Football Fan on Sept 1, 2014 12:37:16 GMT -8
If we build an on-campus stadium, Steve Fisher will take over as head football coach and lead the program to the national spotlight and sell out crowds 12 years later. It worked for basketball so it's guaranteed to work for football. Why did USD build the Slim Gym? To compete with Gonzaga. I know as a USD guy, you don't think much of State or think it has a right for ambition. But the cold hard facts is that you need facilities to recruit a coach, it doesn't mean you pick the right coach and wins are certain, but you can't even get a decent pool unless you have the facilities to attract the coach. When Viejas was built and they fired the ole ball coach, the pool of coaches who put in their names was 20x better than what applied before. Rick Majerus. Steve Fisher. To name just two. Certainly having the stadium does not lead to instant wins, but it takes a certain path.... Facilities - Shows commitment and increase the quality of the coaches you can hire. With Facilities and a coach, you can now recruit kids at a different level. Is it certain? No, but to say that Facilities are not integral in hiring a coach is a foolish. We would be properly screwed if we hadn't redone 55th street and had the Q. JMO. Have you seen the USD Rec Center? They couldn't compete with Gonzaga Prep let alone Gonzaga in that thing. But seriously, you made some great points. I'm not anti-campus stadium, I'm anti-blame other people for your problems. I wouldn't mind a situation where the Chargers and Aztecs got their own stadiums. If the Aztecs ever reach a level of success where the ticket demand exceeded the capacity, they could move the game to the larger Charger stadium. Everybody wins, everybody happy.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Sept 1, 2014 12:40:32 GMT -8
Really? Sure it's an old stadium, yet the Chargers draw much more than 40K a game. So is it the stadium or us? Umm, State does not need a 70k stadium, the reach and appeal of the Chargers and the Chargers are different. The NFL is king in attendance and TV rattings and even the SC's and Alabama's don't have its appeal. Even the Chargers don't don't need a 70K stadium (The Chargers wanted 70K), they seem to be topped out at 60-65. The Aztecs don't need more than 40-45K. This why State and the Chargers should not share a stadium. The clientele has some cross over but are largely different. The amenity needs in the stadiums are different. The Chargers need to offer Oggi's, Lounges, and other trinkets. The Aztecs just need basic concessions like you see at Viejas. Beer, Soda, water, hot dogs, hamburgers, kettle corn, etc..... Go to ND game and it is nothing like a Bears game. Got to a Tennessee Titan Game and it is nothing near a Volunteers game. etc.... College Football and the NFL are not one in needs, atmosphere, or clientele. Having them share a venue makes no sense, the Chargers don't really want to share a stadium with the Aztecs. They like the rent and the political cover but outside of that, they would rather have no other tenant. Of course we won't get sellouts in this cavern, but at the same time where are the crowds that Lugie had?
|
|