|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 16:47:24 GMT -8
Spot On... I have yet to read any study that says a stadium or arena is a sound financial investment. The teams stadiums house bring Civic pride, but financially stadiums are a drain. So then you and William are with me. I say let's tear down Qualcomm TODAY! Giant waste of money and Billionaires are exploiting it for profit! I'd rather salt the Earth than put one more dollar in 5the Spanos pocket! I say San Diego needs neither football or a stadium! Who's with me? What is the point of flying off the handel with a post like that? Why tear it down now? The debt on the current stadium is minimal. If the Chargers want to purchase or rent the land and build a staduim the cool with me. Same goes for SDSU, if they want to negotiate an agreement to rent or buy the land and use it to extend the campus then that is even better for the City financially long term. Many of the posts above simply and intelligently out that the statements that the Chargers are a mega financial positive for the City simply isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Dec 17, 2014 16:51:49 GMT -8
...expansion of SDSU to Mission Valley represents one occasion when the expression The Chance of a Lifetime is appropriate. Such an opportunity, if not taken advantage of, will never come again. Not in this city. 1,000 times... THIS. The Q site is soooooooo important to SDSU, and only minimally for the chance to build a bespoke stadium...
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 17, 2014 17:00:15 GMT -8
It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? Your premise that the competition is direct is just wrong. Here is an example using UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA. The Rams and Raiders left in 1994. In 1995, UCLA sold exactly 787 more season tickets, an increase of 2.7 percent, and per-game attendance actually decreased to 49,107, a drop of 4.6 percent. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6695960The only improvements UCLA and USC saw in attendance were when they made changes to their program and marketing. This proves Stan's point directly. The burden of success at SDSU is on the program, not other entities such as the Chargers. If you are going to play the zero sum game, then you have to support the idea that the football program suffers because of the success of the basketball program. If a fan only has so many dollars and has to choose one event or another then one will suffer. Obviously this has not been the case. I decided to call you on your BS and actually look into the effect on attendance on SC & UCLA for more than just the immediate season following the Rams & Raiders departure. The Rams were in LA from 1946-1994 and the Raiders were in LA from 1982-94 so here is the home attendance for UCLA/USC during those 13 seasons where the two local college teams competed with 2 NFL franchises and then the equivalent number of seasons following their departure as the only game in town. 1982-1994 UCLA Avg Attendance 54,412 1995-2007 UCLA Avg Attendance 62,058 14% increase 1982-1994 USC Avg Attendance 61,769 1995-2007 USC Avg Attendance 65,305 5.7% increase Also, the 20 years since the departure of the NFL has been the most successful stretch of attendance for both programs in their histories. Page 119 of the UCLA media guide (link below) shows UCLA attendance history. www.uclabruins.com/fls/30500/pdf/14_FB_MediaGuide.pdf?&&SPSID=749897&SPID=126928&DB_OEM_ID=30500Page 186 of the USC Media Guide (link below) shows UCLA attendance history. grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2014-15/misc_non_event/2014-fb-media-guide.pdf
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 17:27:33 GMT -8
The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. Okay, I don't get this. If the Chargers leave, who else would be the premier football program in San Diego? AzWm In the minds of most football fans here? NO ONE WOULD BE. They would just watch the Chargers on TV. And USC. That's just the way it is. As long as SDSU plays in the pathetic MWC there will be very little buy-in to the program, Chargers or no Chargers in town. You really don't get it. Most people in San Diego view SDSU football as just a step up from High School football, and not one, but two steps down from the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 17:30:58 GMT -8
Your premise that the competition is direct is just wrong. Here is an example using UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA. The Rams and Raiders left in 1994. In 1995, UCLA sold exactly 787 more season tickets, an increase of 2.7 percent, and per-game attendance actually decreased to 49,107, a drop of 4.6 percent. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6695960The only improvements UCLA and USC saw in attendance were when they made changes to their program and marketing. This proves Stan's point directly. The burden of success at SDSU is on the program, not other entities such as the Chargers. If you are going to play the zero sum game, then you have to support the idea that the football program suffers because of the success of the basketball program. If a fan only has so many dollars and has to choose one event or another then one will suffer. Obviously this has not been the case. I decided to call you on your BS and actually look into the effect on attendance on SC & UCLA for more than just the immediate season following the Rams & Raiders departure. The Rams were in LA from 1946-1994 and the Raiders were in LA from 1982-94 so here is the home attendance for UCLA/USC during those 13 seasons where the two local college teams competed with 2 NFL franchises and then the equivalent number of seasons following their departure as the only game in town. 1982-1994 UCLA Avg Attendance 54,412 1995-2007 UCLA Avg Attendance 62,058 14% increase 1982-1994 USC Avg Attendance 61,769 1995-2007 USC Avg Attendance 65,305 5.7% increase Also, the 20 years since the departure of the NFL has been the most successful stretch of attendance for both programs in their histories. Page 119 of the UCLA media guide (link below) shows UCLA attendance history. www.uclabruins.com/fls/30500/pdf/14_FB_MediaGuide.pdf?&&SPSID=749897&SPID=126928&DB_OEM_ID=30500Page 186 of the USC Media Guide (link below) shows UCLA attendance history. grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2014-15/misc_non_event/2014-fb-media-guide.pdfIf you took the time to read the link I provided you would know USC and UCLA credit those advances to the changes they made to marketing and product on the field-not the absence of the NFL. If what you suggest is true then both universities would be fighting the NFL from coming back to LA. That is not the case.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 17:59:56 GMT -8
We need to clarify our thinking on the issue of the future of SDSU football. Really, it's the future of the entire university that should be our focus. SDSU has made great strides academically in recent years and has the potential to make even greater strides in the coming years. That despite the ill-will and obstructionism of the University of California system. Among other challenges that stand in the way of SDSU's rise in the world of American universities one stands out in my mind.
I refer to the limited land available to the university. Practically speaking, SDSU has expanded about as much as it can at its present site. But there is one way that this problem could be solved with enormous benefit to the school and to the community at large. That would be SDSU's taking over the Qualcomm site. Such a move would offer endless possibilities, both for San Diego State's academic mission as well as for Aztec athletics. I won't bother to discuss in any detail those possibilities since the issue has been discussed at some length on AztecMesa in the past. Suffice it to say that expansion of SDSU to Mission Valley represents one occasion when the expression The Chance of a Lifetime is appropriate. Such an opportunity, if not taken advantage of, will never come again. Not in this city.
Clearly, making this happen would not be easy. On the contrary, it would require inspired, persistent leadership on the part of the school's administration as well as influential local citizens . . . many of whom are SDSU grads. As challenging as the project would be, we should not let this chance of a lifetime slip through our fingers.
On another point, let me tell you that if there were a county-wide vote to hand millions to the Spanos gang, I would personally lead an effort to defeat that proposition. If the Spanoses want to build a new stadium, they should buy land and build it at their own expense. I do not want to have to pay taxes to help people who are worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.
And let's not kid ourselves. In terms of a playing venue, SDSU football needs either an on-campus stadium or a rebuilt Qualcomm Stadium. A downtown stadium far from campus and in which we will be play the role of the unloved stepchild would be a very bad deal.
Finally, on the question of what impact on Aztec attendance the absence of the Chargers would play, it must be said that it would only help us. No, the vast majority of current Charger fans would not immediately sign-up for Aztec season tickets. But over time, SDSU would be seen as the #1 football program in San Diego County. Of course, the quality of Aztec teams would be crucial; if we go into another 11 year drought, nothing can save us. But as young kids grow up seeing SDSU win championships and going to bowl games, they will, at least many of them, become Aztec fans.
And, yes, SDSU has to do a much better job marketing the team. But if, out of 60,000 who pay an arm and a leg to watch the Chargers, only 10% become Aztec fans, we will have been given a huge boost. Do you not think that 5,000 or 6,000 more fans attending the games would be a plus? Of course it would. And those 5K or 6k might not actually be current Charger fans. They would be people who are very young at present or not even born; people who would grow up in a community in which the Aztecs would be the big show in town.
One more thing. As far as recruiting is concerned, I'm sure that other schools' recruiters are not telling H.S. seniors that they would be foolish to play college football in Norman, Tuscaloosa, State College, Lincoln, or Eugene on the grounds that those cities lack an NFL franchise.
We should think of San Diego State's priorities, and not those of billionaires who dabble in pro sports the way people of modest means dabble in fantasy football.
Azwm So, you agree with me. We should tear down Qualcomm tomorrow if not sooner as the city has NO business owning and operating any facility that is being exploited by billionaires for profit. That's the campaign I'll be leading. Your conclusion is in no way supported by anything I have said. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 18:02:46 GMT -8
Your UCLA info is interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to our situation. Both UCLA and USC were national brands decades before the NFL really got going (I consider that to be during the tenure of Pete Rozelle (1960-1989)). It's no surprise that the Bruins did not reap a bonanza of new fans who previously had been Rams or Raiders fans. They already had a very large and faithful fan base. (It is also important to remember that I am talking about a time during which UCLA and USC were nationally respected universities and we were still San Diego State College.) In the case of SDSU, the Aztecs took off about the same time that the Chargers moved to San Diego. In other words, the Aztecs did not already have a die-hard fan base. This can be seen by looking at the precipitous fall off in Aztec attendance when the program got in trouble in the '80s. The absence of an NFL franchise in San Diego would not automatically solve all of SDSU's problems. I have never said so, and I don't think anyone else has, either. But such a situation would help, certainly in the long run. If nothing else, it would eliminate the possibility of our having to play in yet another venue not suited to the program, but with the added handicap of being located much farther from campus. AzWm You mean the Chargers move to San Diego about the same time Don Coryell was hired as the Aztecs head football coach? That's quite correct. In the '60s and '70s, the Aztecs were quite competitive with the Chargers for fan support. Years of mediocre to bad Aztec football, accompanied by the rise in popularity of the NFL, have resulted in our present unsatisfactory situation. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 18:07:52 GMT -8
Okay, I don't get this. If the Chargers leave, who else would be the premier football program in San Diego? AzWm Quite frankly San Diego would not have a premier football program. As I mentioned before, if SDSU was to escalate to the PAC12 or Big12, then they may rise to a level to be considered premier. Referring back to the ESPN article I linked to, USC did not grow after the NFL left LA. They grew in popularity and attendance after they changed their marketing and success on the field. The product MUST be able to stand on its own to succeed. Removing competition does not make a product successful. Close every other fast foot restaurant but McDonalds and I still will not eat there because the food is crap. Keep in mind that we buy our SDSU football season tickets because we are alumni and support the program. It sure as hell isn't because of the quality opponents that come into town or in your opinion, the superior coaching that comes from our sidelines. You misunderstand my position. Without the Chargers, SDSU football would be the biggest football attraction in the county. I'm not saying that it would make us as big a deal as UCLA or USC. But it would mean far less competition for football fans' dollars. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 18:21:07 GMT -8
Quite frankly San Diego would not have a premier football program. As I mentioned before, if SDSU was to escalate to the PAC12 or Big12, then they may rise to a level to be considered premier. Referring back to the ESPN article I linked to, USC did not grow after the NFL left LA. They grew in popularity and attendance after they changed their marketing and success on the field. The product MUST be able to stand on its own to succeed. Removing competition does not make a product successful. Close every other fast foot restaurant but McDonalds and I still will not eat there because the food is crap. Keep in mind that we buy our SDSU football season tickets because we are alumni and support the program. It sure as hell isn't because of the quality opponents that come into town or in your opinion, the superior coaching that comes from our sidelines. You misunderstand my position. Without the Chargers, SDSU football would be the biggest football attraction in the county. I'm not saying that it would make us as big a deal as UCLA or USC. But it would mean far less competition for football fans' dollars. AzWm I understand your position. That's why I dug up that article, since I was curious if it was validated by prior examples. I think the results in LA show the product was the driver, not the competition.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 17, 2014 22:25:52 GMT -8
Would not be surprised if the NFL told the Chargers to sit tight another year. The NFL is having problems, in that should the Rams move back to LA, Kroenke would build a stadium he doesn't want to share with any other NFL team. The League would rather have 2 teams playing in 1 stadium. Until this problem is straightened out, I wouldn't expect any team to move to LA. Well, there's that and the fact that there isn't any place for them to play in Los Angeles because, you know, they haven't built a new stadium in LA since 1920. Any team moving to LA will be playing in the Rose Bowl--or possibly the Coliseum, so there are 2 places to play on a temporary basis, but you already knew that.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 17, 2014 23:43:17 GMT -8
It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? It "allows" for no such thing. An SDSU expansion at the Q site is the height of magical thinking. Just so happens that an SDSU expansion at the Q site is exactly what officials at the city & SDSU have been "magically thinking" about for some time now.
|
|
|
Post by alohaboarder on Dec 17, 2014 23:47:06 GMT -8
Well, there's that and the fact that there isn't any place for them to play in Los Angeles because, you know, they haven't built a new stadium in LA since 1920. Any team moving to LA will be playing in the Rose Bowl--or possibly the Coliseum, so there are 2 places to play on a temporary basis, but you already knew that. Not bad considering both can hold over 90k fans. 20k over Qualcomm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 9:52:46 GMT -8
Any team moving to LA will be playing in the Rose Bowl--or possibly the Coliseum, so there are 2 places to play on a temporary basis, but you already knew that. Not bad considering both can hold over 90k fans. 20k over Qualcomm. Pasadena wants no part of an NFL team, temporary or otherwise. USC now operates the coliseum and said they would listen to offers but that too is far from certain. Doesn't matter because LA won't get it done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 9:56:08 GMT -8
It "allows" for no such thing. An SDSU expansion at the Q site is the height of magical thinking. Just so happens that an SDSU expansion at the Q site is exactly what officials at the city & SDSU have been "magically thinking" about for some time now. Talk is talk. There are just as many, if not more hurdles to a new campus in MV than there are for a new stadium anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Dec 18, 2014 10:40:40 GMT -8
It's like trying to talk to a brick wall. The Chargers Honks don't want to believe anything that could potenitally harm their Chargers chances of getting a stadium anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 10:50:47 GMT -8
Translation- "I'm holding my breath until I get a downtown stadium for the Chargers! Civic Pride! WAAAAH!"
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 18, 2014 11:32:57 GMT -8
You feel that there is only an Aztec fan , if some one also cheers for the Chargers they are no longer an Aztec fan . Believe it or not but many fans cheer for both to succeed .Aztecs are going to need more Chargers fans to succeed . You state that when the Chargers leave the Aztecs will gain thousands of fans , there is no way of proving that will happen . San Diego fans want Championship teams , at any level , they do not support average teams Pro or College. Or the need to attend football games.
Still nothing showing that if the Chargers leave it improves the AZTECS football team on the field . The issue still remains the team on the field not the stadium or the fans .
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Dec 18, 2014 14:10:08 GMT -8
Not bad considering both can hold over 90k fans. 20k over Qualcomm. Pasadena wants no part of an NFL team, temporary or otherwise. USC now operates the coliseum and said they would listen to offers but that too is far from certain. Doesn't matter because LA won't get it done. You might want to check on what the Pasadena City Council has to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Dec 18, 2014 14:44:28 GMT -8
Just so happens that an SDSU expansion at the Q site is exactly what officials at the city & SDSU have been "magically thinking" about for some time now. Talk is talk. There are just as many, if not more hurdles to a new campus in MV than there are for a new stadium anywhere. Talk is talk when it is fans on a message board; it's a little more than that when the talk is from SDSU and city officials. CSU/SDSU are one of the few organizations that could indeed develop the Q site. They have the support, resources and time to do it. It is just a matter of time before CSU/SDSU aquires and develops the property.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 18, 2014 15:12:21 GMT -8
It's like trying to talk to a brick wall. The Chargers Honks don't want to believe anything that could potenitally harm their Chargers chances of getting a stadium anywhere. Hello pot, this is kettle calling. For someone that defaults to name calling rather than rational discussion your comment is hilarious.
|
|