|
Post by longtimebooster on Mar 31, 2015 11:18:47 GMT -8
You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it up. C'mon, now AB. Let's be genuine here. The Convention Center is a massive cash cow for the San Diego economy. No two ways about it. It generates $1.33b in economic activity, drops almost $20m into city tax coffers, holds 153 events, 76 conventions, produces a whopping 700k hotel room nights, draws 500k out-of-town visitors and 250k local visitors, generates $32m in revenue and stands at a net asset of about $14m annually. It's busy just about all day, every day. Stadia, by comparison, aren't in the same ballpark. The Q is a sinkhole and costs the city over $18m in maintenance expenses annually. A new stadium wouldn't be much better. I'm all for a new stadium, actually, if the deal is structured properly. But let's stick to calling apples apples and oranges oranges. visitsandiego.com/about/economic-impactvisitsandiego.com/sites/default/files/112114_AuditFSReportFinal.pdf
|
|
|
Post by aztecsfaninaz on Mar 31, 2015 12:48:37 GMT -8
Great quantitative analysis comparing Baltimore to San Diego. Let's take a step back and actually analyze this rationally. Do an actual qualitative study and go visit "Charm City" (SPOILER: You'll be asking yourself why in the hell they call it that). They have NOTHING in common from a lifestyle and culture standpoint. Aside from pit beef, crab cakes, and a pretty cool aquarium there is nothing redeeming about that city. Go watch reruns of "The Wire". It's amazing how much that show accurately portrays that city. I never found one "good part" of B'More when I drove around. B'More is a dilapidated, Rust Belt dump, and that's before you even compare it to San Diego. Wow, they both have ports and a large naval presence! Explain how that is impacted in any way shape or form by the presence or lack thereof of an NFL team. It has no bearing whatsoever. 99.9% of people who visit SD don't do so because of a Chargers game. People visit San Diego because it's an amazing city.
When the Raiders and Rams both left the LA/OC areas, the media acted like they'd have to declare martial law people would be so upset. Guess what? It's SoCal, people have entertainment and leisure time activity options. The same thing will happen in San Diego. It's one of the greatest cities in the world and the lack of an NFL team will have no bearing on that one bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 13:50:39 GMT -8
Great quantitative analysis comparing Baltimore to San Diego. Let's take a step back and actually analyze this rationally. Do an actual qualitative study and go visit "Charm City" (SPOILER: You'll be asking yourself why in the hell they call it that). They have NOTHING in common from a lifestyle and culture standpoint. Aside from pit beef, crab cakes, and a pretty cool aquarium there is nothing redeeming about that city. Go watch reruns of "The Wire". It's amazing how much that show accurately portrays that city. I never found one "good part" of B'More when I drove around. B'More is a dilapidated, Rust Belt dump, and that's before you even compare it to San Diego. Wow, they both have ports and a large naval presence! Explain how that is impacted in any way shape or form by the presence or lack thereof of an NFL team. It has no bearing whatsoever. 99.9% of people who visit SD don't do so because of a Chargers game. People visit San Diego because it's an amazing city. When the Raiders and Rams both left the LA/OC areas, the media acted like they'd have to declare martial law people would be so upset. Guess what? It's SoCal, people have entertainment and leisure time activity options. The same thing will happen in San Diego. It's one of the greatest cities in the world and the lack of an NFL team will have no bearing on that one bit. One of the greatest cities in the world? Paris, London, Tokyo, San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Mar 31, 2015 17:06:12 GMT -8
Based upon the comments on these boards I can see why San Diego has so few fans supporting their teams. Very sad.
|
|
|
Post by pbaztec17 on Mar 31, 2015 17:35:14 GMT -8
Based upon the comments on these boards I can see why San Diego has so few fans supporting their teams. Very sad. Aint that the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 20:34:22 GMT -8
Silly comparison. I've said it before and maintain the same thought, if the citizens of greater SD county, as a whole, want the Chargers to stay, they will figure out a way to keep them here. If the Chargers leave it will be because it's simply not that big of a deal to the majority of folk who live here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 20:41:31 GMT -8
Based upon the comments on these boards I can see why San Diego has so few fans supporting their teams. Very sad. I kind of disagree on the 'very sad' part. It's not good or bad or happy or sad, it just is. You want an NFL team here but some others don't care. It's a matter of opinion. It just seems to me that the world has become a watch it happen on your TV, computer, smart phone world. Overall fewer and fewer go to live sports games because they can watch them on the teli. If sports games weren't broadcast over the airwaves people would go to watch them play in person. They no longer need to so why go? Of course, if there was no teli then the sports stars wouldn't make so much coin... so there's that.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Mar 31, 2015 22:30:10 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.)
We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either.
At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 31, 2015 23:15:27 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm To me, for the Padres to draw as WELL as they do despite the fact they have sucked for quite some time, I find that pretty damn remarkable.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 1, 2015 3:09:20 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm To me, for the Padres to draw as WELL as they do despite the fact they have sucked for quite some time, I find that pretty damn remarkable. I suppose so. The thing with the Padres is that they somehow managed to get a new stadium built. A stadium that cost a lot less than what the Chargers want, and one that was built before San Diego's financial situation (thinking here of the city) blew up in everybody's face. If the Chargers seriously demand a new stadium or they will leave (which I think is probably their "red line"), then the odds are pretty high that they will be asking Bekins to send over the moving vans before too long. The Spanoses are not going to wait forever. And I cannot blame them for taking that attitude. After all, they are a business. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Apr 1, 2015 6:06:50 GMT -8
San Diego isn't Baltimore and just about economist out there not employed by the NFL will tell you stadiums are terrible financial deals for the cities. San Diego is very much like Baltimore. Â I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. Â "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. Â NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. Â You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Â Look it up. You mean the $1.3 Billion dollar impact and $19.9 million in tax revenues it created last year? Sure that's peanuts, who needs that... visitsandiego.com/about/community-benefits
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 1, 2015 6:28:54 GMT -8
San Diego is very much like Baltimore. I guess you didn't bother to read the story before typing. "San Diego and Baltimore have a lot of similarities. San Diego is the 28th-largest media market in the America. Baltimore is 26th-largest. Both cities are coastal communities with a large Navy presence. Both have two major professional sports franchises, an MLB team and an NFL team. If things keep going the way they are, both cities will have lost their pro football teams. You and others keep pointing out economists. NOBODY has ever said that a stadium is a money maker overall. You'd be quite surprised at how little the Convention Center makes. Look it u Nobody is against a stadium...people are against paying for it with their tax (welfare) dollars...if the Chargers move...San Diego will not fold...no way...no how...there are 1.3 million people in the city and 3.2 million in the county...only .046 percent of the city's and .018 of the county's population can get into the stadium at any given time...don't use people's taxes to supplement your entertainment...if you or any other person really wants a spanking brand new stadium...invest YOUR money in a loser if you're so firm in your convictions.A lot of the money to fund the stadium would come from the "fans."
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Apr 1, 2015 6:48:42 GMT -8
Based upon the comments on these boards I can see why San Diego has so few fans supporting their teams. Very sad. I kind of disagree on the 'very sad' part. It's not good or bad or happy or sad, it just is. You want an NFL team here but some others don't care. It's a matter of opinion. It just seems to me that the world has become a watch it happen on your TV, computer, smart phone world. Overall fewer and fewer go to live sports games because they can watch them on the teli. If sports games weren't broadcast over the airwaves people would go to watch them play in person. They no longer need to so why go? Of course, if there was no teli then the sports stars wouldn't make so much coin... so there's that. Couldn't agree more about the "very sad" part. Its a sports game... it has no impact on anything real, its just entertainment. I love sports and follow it way too closely, but I'm much more realistic about how unimportant it is than I used to be
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Apr 1, 2015 7:37:12 GMT -8
Based upon the comments on these boards I can see why San Diego has so few fans supporting their teams. Very sad. I kind of disagree on the 'very sad' part. It's not good or bad or happy or sad, it just is. You want an NFL team here but some others don't care. It's a matter of opinion. It just seems to me that the world has become a watch it happen on your TV, computer, smart phone world. Overall fewer and fewer go to live sports games because they can watch them on the teli. If sports games weren't broadcast over the airwaves people would go to watch them play in person. They no longer need to so why go? Of course, if there was no teli then the sports stars wouldn't make so much coin... so there's that. You miss the commentary here. The condemnation is not on NFL fans, but sports fans in general. Been to an SDSU FB game lately?
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Apr 1, 2015 7:48:30 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm AW, I have to follow your logic here. You are one that advocates that removal of the NFL from San Diego will help SDSU FB prosper (IIRC, correct me if I am wrong). If I am reading your post correctly you are saying SD cannot support NFL or MLB. So if SD cant support the premier level of football or baseball with teams that have played in title games and have had success, how do you expect SD to support SDSU FB when it has NO chance at playing in a title game and is part of an irrelevant conference? Personally I think the two serve different entertainment interests and SDSU FB will succeed with a winning product on the field - regardless of if that field is shared with the Chargers or not. There is an appetite for college football in SD, just as there is for NFL. The issue is putting a winning product on the field, or at the very least inspiring the hope there will be a winning product. That is what you are seeing in the Padres this year and has been established by SDSU MBB and the Chargers at times. At the end of the day it is entertainment. It doesnt matter if it is professional or "amateur". To succeed in entertainment you either have to have a captive audience (hello Green Bay and Cleveland), or produce a product people want to see. BTW, losing to Navy on your home field does not qualify as a product people want to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 9:23:54 GMT -8
I kind of disagree on the 'very sad' part. It's not good or bad or happy or sad, it just is. You want an NFL team here but some others don't care. It's a matter of opinion. It just seems to me that the world has become a watch it happen on your TV, computer, smart phone world. Overall fewer and fewer go to live sports games because they can watch them on the teli. If sports games weren't broadcast over the airwaves people would go to watch them play in person. They no longer need to so why go? Of course, if there was no teli then the sports stars wouldn't make so much coin... so there's that. You miss the commentary here. The condemnation is not on NFL fans, but sports fans in general. Been to an SDSU FB game lately? Did you even read what I wrote? It explains my opinion. You may not agree but it certainly answers your 'been to an sdsu fb game lately?'...
|
|
|
Post by AztecSports95 on Apr 1, 2015 9:43:21 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm To me, for the Padres to draw as WELL as they do despite the fact they have sucked for quite some time, I find that pretty damn remarkable. Tickets are cheap and there are 81 opportunities to go. Chargers games, by comparison, are incredibly expensive and in limited supply. I can take my family of four to a Padres game and spend all of $50 on the day. I can take my family of four to a Chargers game and spend at minimum $200 (and that is being generous). Imagine what the cost of attendance will be at the new stadium. No thanks, I'll watch from my couch.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Apr 1, 2015 12:42:30 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm William...I do respect your opinion...but you can't compare the Chargers (or ANY other professional sports franchise) with Green Bay Packers. The Packer are OWNED by the city...not by a billionaire individual or consortium... I had previously argued that the City San Diego should purchase a 49% interest in the Chargers by investing $1B in a new stadium owned jointly by the Spanos family and the city (this would effective give the franchise value of $2B)...but then it was pointed out to me that the NFL now has a rule in effect that prevents any civic ownership (with Green Bay being grandfathered). What the NFL (as well as the MLB / NBA / NHL) essentially has told cities is that you get "associated benefits" of having a professional team in your city...so you must pay your "fair share" and must to build state-of-the-art facilities to house a team or risk losing your team...however you are not allowed to participate in the financial success of the professional team that your city residents support (through ticket sales / parking / TV money / merchandising) through joint ownership). Professional sports are a business...its customers are its fan base...if the fan base wants to support a professional team through higher taxes...then there should be a vote of the citizens...if the citizens vote to tax themselves to build facilities for a professional sports team...then so be it... If not...the professional sports team is free to find new customers elsewhere... Let's vote once and for all in Nov. It doesn't take 2-3 years before putting something on the ballot...put it on the ballot now and let's vote... The city and the Chargers are unlikely to do this because they are afraid because they know that today the measure would lose hands-down...they figure it's better to finagle a back-room deal that takes the issue out of the hands of the citizens rather than to actually put it to a vote... There will always be some support for the Chargers in San Diego...but in reality...a very large majority of the people here just don't give a damn about sports...so it'll be a hard sell to those people to convince them open their wallets to support those teams. Vote today and get on with life without the Chargers in San Diego
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 1, 2015 16:49:04 GMT -8
I realize that it may be very hard for many to accept my view as impartial, but, honestly, if I were the Chargers, I would be making serious plans to move or sell the franchise. Consider the Packers. The whole city of Green Bay is seriously invested, in all senses of that word, in the Packers. They are going to do what is necessary to see that their franchise (and it IS theirs) does not move. But San Diego does not have that degree of love for the Chargers, and certainly does not have nearly the degree of willingness to do whatever it takes to keep the franchise here. Equally if not more important is the fact that San Diego is simply not economically in a position to put up the kind of money needed. (And that does not even deal with the question of whether helping the Chargers is the most important way to spend taxpayer money.) We have no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pro football team here. It was just dumb luck that the Chargers moved here in '61. Even with our much larger current population, I don't think there would be a ghost of a chance to attract an NFL team here had the Chargers not fled LA. The bottom line is that San Diego is not in a position to make an NFL franchise successful. It appears, based on the pathetic performance of the Padres, that it can't really support a MLB team, either. At some point Charger fans are going to have to understand that the team can't make a go of it here. One Super Bowl in nearly half a century ought to tell us something. Fortunately, as other have discussed, this city and county will barely feel a ripple if the Chargers leave. Many will be very disappointed, but it's important to keep in mind that there are much more important things than a pro sports franchise. AzWm AW, I have to follow your logic here. You are one that advocates that removal of the NFL from San Diego will help SDSU FB prosper (IIRC, correct me if I am wrong). If I am reading your post correctly you are saying SD cannot support NFL or MLB. So if SD cant support the premier level of football or baseball with teams that have played in title games and have had success, how do you expect SD to support SDSU FB when it has NO chance at playing in a title game and is part of an irrelevant conference? Personally I think the two serve different entertainment interests and SDSU FB will succeed with a winning product on the field - regardless of if that field is shared with the Chargers or not. There is an appetite for college football in SD, just as there is for NFL. The issue is putting a winning product on the field, or at the very least inspiring the hope there will be a winning product. That is what you are seeing in the Padres this year and has been established by SDSU MBB and the Chargers at times. At the end of the day it is entertainment. It doesnt matter if it is professional or "amateur". To succeed in entertainment you either have to have a captive audience (hello Green Bay and Cleveland), or produce a product people want to see. BTW, losing to Navy on your home field does not qualify as a product people want to see. You are partly correct. I'll try to sort out what I find correct and what I find flawed in your post. * San Diego (specifically the city) Really cannot afford to put up several hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money simply to make pro football fans and the Spanos family feel good. If the Chargers could build their own stadium on land they buy, that's fine. No doubt the city will end up spending some money on access roads, etc., but that would be much preferable to the deal (or should I say "steal") that the Chargers hope they will get. * In order to succeed in the long term, the Aztecs need to do several things. They need to hire a coach who, in the manner of Don Coryell and Steve Fisher, is a dramatic game changer. That will not be easy to do, since hiring coaches who turn out not to be very good is easier than hiring outstanding ones. They also need, in my view, to divorce themselves from the Chargers. I understand why the school opted to play in San Diego Stadium in 1967, but it's clear now that however much that made sense then, sharing a stadium with an NFL team is less than ideal. The best case would be to build a stadium on campus. Next best, and this is in a sense a variation of the first concept, take over the Mission Valley site for educational purposes but also in order eventually to be able to raze the Q and build a 40,000 stadium more suited to the needs of an FBS program. Here's a point to keep in mind. SDSU's football program took off and captured the imagination of the city at a time when the Chargers were mediocre and not yet part of the NFL. The Chargers represented much less competition then than they now do. If the Chargers move, there will be a lot of local fans who will not be buying season tickets to follow the Los Angeles Chargers. I don't expect too many of them to become Aztec fans overnight, but eventually the absence of a pro team here will give the Aztecs a chance to be the favorite team of generations yet to come, people who will not have grown up with "Go Chargers" blinking on message boards on the back of transit busses. But, of course, the Aztecs are going to have to be winning 9, 10, 11 or more games a year to close that deal. No more losing to mediocre Navy teams because of missing an easy field goal on the game's last play. Aztec football has to get a lot better than it now is in order to be taken seriously here and nation-wide. But that would be easier to do without having to fight for attention against the NFL. IF the Aztecs have to continue sharing a stadium with the Chargers, reaching the goal all Aztec football fans hope for will be possible but a lot harder than if the school did not have to play second fiddle to a pro team. How many perennial Top-25 FBS schools share a stadium with an NFL franchise? The Hurricanes do, but they also do not draw terribly well. Right off hand I cannot think of another really successful FBS school that plays in an NFL stadium. I don't think that's just a coincidence. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Apr 2, 2015 7:23:33 GMT -8
AW, I have to follow your logic here. You are one that advocates that removal of the NFL from San Diego will help SDSU FB prosper (IIRC, correct me if I am wrong). If I am reading your post correctly you are saying SD cannot support NFL or MLB. So if SD cant support the premier level of football or baseball with teams that have played in title games and have had success, how do you expect SD to support SDSU FB when it has NO chance at playing in a title game and is part of an irrelevant conference? Personally I think the two serve different entertainment interests and SDSU FB will succeed with a winning product on the field - regardless of if that field is shared with the Chargers or not. There is an appetite for college football in SD, just as there is for NFL. The issue is putting a winning product on the field, or at the very least inspiring the hope there will be a winning product. That is what you are seeing in the Padres this year and has been established by SDSU MBB and the Chargers at times. At the end of the day it is entertainment. It doesnt matter if it is professional or "amateur". To succeed in entertainment you either have to have a captive audience (hello Green Bay and Cleveland), or produce a product people want to see. BTW, losing to Navy on your home field does not qualify as a product people want to see. You are partly correct. I'll try to sort out what I find correct and what I find flawed in your post. * San Diego (specifically the city) Really cannot afford to put up several hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money simply to make pro football fans and the Spanos family feel good. If the Chargers could build their own stadium on land they buy, that's fine. No doubt the city will end up spending some money on access roads, etc., but that would be much preferable to the deal (or should I say "steal") that the Chargers hope they will get. * In order to succeed in the long term, the Aztecs need to do several things. They need to hire a coach who, in the manner of Don Coryell and Steve Fisher, is a dramatic game changer. That will not be easy to do, since hiring coaches who turn out not to be very good is easier than hiring outstanding ones. They also need, in my view, to divorce themselves from the Chargers. I understand why the school opted to play in San Diego Stadium in 1967, but it's clear now that however much that made sense then, sharing a stadium with an NFL team is less than ideal. The best case would be to build a stadium on campus. Next best, and this is in a sense a variation of the first concept, take over the Mission Valley site for educational purposes but also in order eventually to be able to raze the Q and build a 40,000 stadium more suited to the needs of an FBS program. Here's a point to keep in mind. SDSU's football program took off and captured the imagination of the city at a time when the Chargers were mediocre and not yet part of the NFL. The Chargers represented much less competition then than they now do. If the Chargers move, there will be a lot of local fans who will not be buying season tickets to follow the Los Angeles Chargers. I don't expect too many of them to become Aztec fans overnight, but eventually the absence of a pro team here will give the Aztecs a chance to be the favorite team of generations yet to come, people who will not have grown up with "Go Chargers" blinking on message boards on the back of transit busses. But, of course, the Aztecs are going to have to be winning 9, 10, 11 or more games a year to close that deal. No more losing to mediocre Navy teams because of missing an easy field goal on the game's last play. Aztec football has to get a lot better than it now is in order to be taken seriously here and nation-wide. But that would be easier to do without having to fight for attention against the NFL. IF the Aztecs have to continue sharing a stadium with the Chargers, reaching the goal all Aztec football fans hope for will be possible but a lot harder than if the school did not have to play second fiddle to a pro team. How many perennial Top-25 FBS schools share a stadium with an NFL franchise? The Hurricanes do, but they also do not draw terribly well. Right off hand I cannot think of another really successful FBS school that plays in an NFL stadium. I don't think that's just a coincidence. AzWm You and I agree on what is needed for SDSU FB to succeed with the exception of the involvement the Chargers do/don't have in it. First, SDSU has to have a good facility to play in. I think that we can agree on. It is important for recruits and fans alike. A stadium on the existing campus would be great, but it is not going to happen according to Jim Sterk. The next option is MV. I have no doubt that a stadium can be designed that makes for a great game day experience for the Aztecs and Chargers. I have many thoughts on that I will not bore you with. Second, you mention having to fight for attention against the NFL. SDSU MBB has had no problem with attention because they have put a great product on the court. The same will happen with the football team when they give the community an expectation of success and not failure. I watch the Chargers on Sundays expecting them to win and am disappointed when they don't. I feel the same with SDSU MBB. I am just not in that place with the football team. Expectations of success are replaced by concern they are going to $hit the bed as they have so many times before. So the rebuttal I would make to your last paragraph is that Aztecs Football is not in a fight for attention, but rather a fight for expectations. They will never grow attendance beyond the dedicated alumni without success on the field - no matter where that field is or who they share it with.
|
|