|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 10:21:50 GMT -8
For those that believe sharing an NFL stadium is SDSU's best option this is a great article. If the Pitt/Steelers is the model SDSU follows there are lessons to be learned. Don't forget to read the reader's comments. www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oaklandPitt took a pragmatic approach when they made the decision to knock down on-campus Pitt Stadium and build a basketball arena and partner with the Steelers to build a practice facility and move its home games to Heinz Field. It seems it was a similar move to what SDSU did when the university made the decision to built Cox/Viejas on our beloved Aztec Bowl. Of course I love our basketball team and the atmosphere at Viejas Arena but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to build our basketball arena on top of our football stadium that was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. A basketball arena could have been built in a number of places on campus. Today it is a bit more complicated to build an on campus football stadium on main campus. However, there is no use crying over spilled milk. The new Pitt Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, said he was happy with Heinz Field as the long term venue for Pitt football saying, "I'm certainly not looking at an on-site stadium." He said,"I'm sure to the dismay of some." This was a great article about the decision to knock down Pitt Stadium and how that decision turned out for them 15 years later. Essentially, sharing an NFL stadium was the cheaper easier way to go (from the University of Pittsburgh perspective) even though many fans and alumni don't like the game day experience. From a San Diego State alumni/fan perspective this sure sounds familiar. Obviously, my (and many alumni and fans) preference is for an on campus stadium. If SDSU can obtain the Mission Valley site for a West Campus expansion that would probably be the best location for a new SDSU stadium (as Senator Marty Block has advocated). Main campus would be great but IMO it would be much more difficult to get built. Candidly, regardless of if an SDSU stadium is built or not, West Campus expansion is more important than anything else.If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is our only option (God I hope not!) I expect SDSU to advocate better than the University of Pittsburgh has done for their football program.The PItt move to Heinz field definitely fell short of expectations. It has not significantly helped recruiting. It does not feel like a "home" field for Pitt. There are no great game day traditions and the true college game day environment is non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Mar 31, 2015 11:23:21 GMT -8
Aztec bowl was built in 1936, and its expansion In the late 90's would not have been a better use for the site than viejas had been. The concrete seats are a mess, and where would any amenities have been, to the team or the fans. I guess there could have been a cool walk from the athletic center locker rooms to the field, but that's about the only positive thing I could see about that expansion project
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Mar 31, 2015 11:35:26 GMT -8
For those who constantly say we should have built a football stadium where Viejas is, we are lucky we built the basketball stadium there because with the trolley now going underneath I doubt we could even build on the site any longer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 12:05:10 GMT -8
For those that believe sharing an NFL stadium is SDSU's best option this is a great article. If the Pitt/Steelers is the model SDSU follows there are lessons to be learned. Don't forget to read the reader's comments. www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oaklandPitt took a pragmatic approach when they made the decision to knock down on-campus Pitt Stadium and build a basketball arena and partner with the Steelers to build a practice facility and move its home games to Heinz Field. It seems it was a similar move to what SDSU did when the university made the decision to built Cox/Viejas on our beloved Aztec Bowl. Of course I love our basketball team and the atmosphere at Viejas Arena but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to build our basketball arena on top of our football stadium that was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. A basketball arena could have been built in a number of places on campus. Today it is a bit more complicated to build an on campus football stadium on main campus. However, there is no use crying over spilled milk. The new Pitt Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, said he was happy with Heinz Field as the long term venue for Pitt football saying, "I'm certainly not looking at an on-site stadium." He said,"I'm sure to the dismay of some." This was a great article about the decision to knock down Pitt Stadium and how that decision turned out for them 15 years later. Essentially, sharing an NFL stadium was the cheaper easier way to go (from the University of Pittsburgh perspective) even though many fans and alumni don't like the game day experience. From a San Diego State alumni/fan perspective this sure sounds familiar. Obviously, my (and many alumni and fans) preference is for an on campus stadium. If SDSU can obtain the Mission Valley site for a West Campus expansion that would probably be the best location for a new SDSU stadium (as Senator Marty Block has advocated). Main campus would be great but IMO it would be much more difficult to get built. Candidly, regardless of if an SDSU stadium is built or not, West Campus expansion is more important than anything else.If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is our only option (God I hope not!) I expect SDSU to advocate better than the University of Pittsburgh has done for their football program.The PItt move to Heinz field definitely fell short of expectations. It has not significantly helped recruiting. It does not feel like a "home" field for Pitt. There are no great game day traditions and the true college game day environment is non-existent.The decision to abandon Aztec Bowl was taken in 1967 and strangely, nobody has complained about it at all over all of these years, for the most part. The "Beloved" Bowl was an abandoned hole in the ground for decades, hosting not much more than AYSO soccer games and high school band pageants before someone decided to fill it in with something useful. The article of faith that SDSU football cannot succeed at Qualcomm is new. Saint Don didn't seem to have any trouble with winning there but add a few seats and all of a sudden it's a threat to the very existence of the program. The "logic" to this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 12:14:45 GMT -8
For those that believe sharing an NFL stadium is SDSU's best option this is a great article. If the Pitt/Steelers is the model SDSU follows there are lessons to be learned. Don't forget to read the reader's comments. www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oaklandPitt took a pragmatic approach when they made the decision to knock down on-campus Pitt Stadium and build a basketball arena and partner with the Steelers to build a practice facility and move its home games to Heinz Field. It seems it was a similar move to what SDSU did when the university made the decision to built Cox/Viejas on our beloved Aztec Bowl. Of course I love our basketball team and the atmosphere at Viejas Arena but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to build our basketball arena on top of our football stadium that was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. A basketball arena could have been built in a number of places on campus. Today it is a bit more complicated to build an on campus football stadium on main campus. However, there is no use crying over spilled milk. The new Pitt Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, said he was happy with Heinz Field as the long term venue for Pitt football saying, "I'm certainly not looking at an on-site stadium." He said,"I'm sure to the dismay of some." This was a great article about the decision to knock down Pitt Stadium and how that decision turned out for them 15 years later. Essentially, sharing an NFL stadium was the cheaper easier way to go (from the University of Pittsburgh perspective) even though many fans and alumni don't like the game day experience. From a San Diego State alumni/fan perspective this sure sounds familiar. Obviously, my (and many alumni and fans) preference is for an on campus stadium. If SDSU can obtain the Mission Valley site for a West Campus expansion that would probably be the best location for a new SDSU stadium (as Senator Marty Block has advocated). Main campus would be great but IMO it would be much more difficult to get built. Candidly, regardless of if an SDSU stadium is built or not, West Campus expansion is more important than anything else.If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is our only option (God I hope not!) I expect SDSU to advocate better than the University of Pittsburgh has done for their football program.The PItt move to Heinz field definitely fell short of expectations. It has not significantly helped recruiting. It does not feel like a "home" field for Pitt. There are no great game day traditions and the true college game day environment is non-existent.The decision to abandon Aztec Bowl was taken in 1967 and strangely, nobody has complained about it at all over all of these years, for the most part. The "Beloved" Bowl was an abandoned hole in the ground for decades, hosting not much more than AYSO soccer games and high school band pageants before someone decided to fill it in with something useful. The article of faith that SDSU football cannot succeed at Qualcomm is new. Saint Don didn't seem to have any trouble with winning there but add a few seats and all of a sudden it's a threat to the very existence of the program. The "logic" to this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 12:26:27 GMT -8
The decision to abandon Aztec Bowl was taken in 1967 and strangely, nobody has complained about it at all over all of these years, for the most part. The "Beloved" Bowl was an abandoned hole in the ground for decades, hosting not much more than AYSO soccer games and high school band pageants before someone decided to fill it in with something useful. The article of faith that SDSU football cannot succeed at Qualcomm is new. Saint Don didn't seem to have any trouble with winning there but add a few seats and all of a sudden it's a threat to the very existence of the program. The "logic" to this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Gee! I thought the goal was to become an Alabama. B12 ambitions in a Sunbelt quality stadium. Again, the "logic" of this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 14:01:13 GMT -8
The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Gee! I thought the goal was to become an Alabama. B12 ambitions in a Sunbelt quality stadium. Again, the "logic" of this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. I agree based on your comments here specifically, logic on the topic eludes you. The Q would currently be around 4th in the PAC when looking at capacity. With only USC, UCLA, and UW having larger stadiums. On top of that the Q probably has the worst seating arrangement in the country (distance to field & sight-lines). If you look at programs that have ascended...TCU, Utah, BE teams, and potentially BSU do you see any 70k stadiums among them? The fact that you don't realize this or it's importance means you are already so far away from the truth that all you are doing here is throwing a tantrum...
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Mar 31, 2015 15:08:22 GMT -8
Gee! I thought the goal was to become an Alabama. B12 ambitions in a Sunbelt quality stadium. Again, the "logic" of this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. I agree based on your comments here specifically, logic on the topic eludes you. The Q would currently be around 4th in the PAC when looking at capacity. With only USC, UCLA, and UW having larger stadiums. On top of that the Q probably has the worst seating arrangement in the country (distance to field & sight-lines). If you look at programs that have ascended...TCU, Utah, BE teams, and potentially BSU do you see any 70k stadiums among them? The fact that you don't realize this or it's importance means you are already so far away from the truth that all you are doing here is throwing a tantrum... I would argue that honor belongs to the Rose Bowl. Or, as I like to call it the Rose Plate. Very shallow pitch on the seats. The very lowest seats are closer to the sidelines. But, when you get enough elevation to be able to see anything you are much further away from the side lines than any comparable elevation at the Q. IMO
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Mar 31, 2015 16:19:14 GMT -8
For those that believe sharing an NFL stadium is SDSU's best option this is a great article. If the Pitt/Steelers is the model SDSU follows there are lessons to be learned. Don't forget to read the reader's comments. www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oaklandPitt took a pragmatic approach when they made the decision to knock down on-campus Pitt Stadium and build a basketball arena and partner with the Steelers to build a practice facility and move its home games to Heinz Field. It seems it was a similar move to what SDSU did when the university made the decision to built Cox/Viejas on our beloved Aztec Bowl. Of course I love our basketball team and the atmosphere at Viejas Arena but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to build our basketball arena on top of our football stadium that was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. A basketball arena could have been built in a number of places on campus. Today it is a bit more complicated to build an on campus football stadium on main campus. However, there is no use crying over spilled milk. The new Pitt Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, said he was happy with Heinz Field as the long term venue for Pitt football saying, "I'm certainly not looking at an on-site stadium." He said,"I'm sure to the dismay of some." This was a great article about the decision to knock down Pitt Stadium and how that decision turned out for them 15 years later. Essentially, sharing an NFL stadium was the cheaper easier way to go (from the University of Pittsburgh perspective) even though many fans and alumni don't like the game day experience. From a San Diego State alumni/fan perspective this sure sounds familiar. Obviously, my (and many alumni and fans) preference is for an on campus stadium. If SDSU can obtain the Mission Valley site for a West Campus expansion that would probably be the best location for a new SDSU stadium (as Senator Marty Block has advocated). Main campus would be great but IMO it would be much more difficult to get built. Candidly, regardless of if an SDSU stadium is built or not, West Campus expansion is more important than anything else.If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is our only option (God I hope not!) I expect SDSU to advocate better than the University of Pittsburgh has done for their football program.The PItt move to Heinz field definitely fell short of expectations. It has not significantly helped recruiting. It does not feel like a "home" field for Pitt. There are no great game day traditions and the true college game day environment is non-existent.I grew up in Pittsburgh and the ironic part of the on campus stadium for the university was that the Steelers did play their home games at Pitt Stadium. When Three Rivers Stadium was built was when the Steelers stopped using Pitt Stadium In addition the only Pitt pre-game tradition was how many people would have a heart attack walking up the steep hill to get to Pitt Stadium. The name of the hill was Cardiac Hill. The other factor is space, Pitt is located in an area of Pittsburgh called Oakland. It is both a business district and a residential area, it's also where Forbes Field,(Pirates old home field) was located and many museums built by the steel, oil and railroad robber barons, so space for a football field is nonexistent. World Famous Hot Dogs was located in the same area, across the street was a White Castle Hamburger place. I once ran into Rosie Greer the HOF footballer and Pam's brother In World Famous after a night of drinking at Wolfarths Pup. I know I've really dated myself with those references.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 16:25:21 GMT -8
For those that believe sharing an NFL stadium is SDSU's best option this is a great article. If the Pitt/Steelers is the model SDSU follows there are lessons to be learned. Don't forget to read the reader's comments. www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oaklandPitt took a pragmatic approach when they made the decision to knock down on-campus Pitt Stadium and build a basketball arena and partner with the Steelers to build a practice facility and move its home games to Heinz Field. It seems it was a similar move to what SDSU did when the university made the decision to built Cox/Viejas on our beloved Aztec Bowl. Of course I love our basketball team and the atmosphere at Viejas Arena but, in my opinion, it was a mistake to build our basketball arena on top of our football stadium that was originally designed to be expanded to 45,000 seats. A basketball arena could have been built in a number of places on campus. Today it is a bit more complicated to build an on campus football stadium on main campus. However, there is no use crying over spilled milk. The new Pitt Chancellor, Patrick Gallagher, said he was happy with Heinz Field as the long term venue for Pitt football saying, "I'm certainly not looking at an on-site stadium." He said,"I'm sure to the dismay of some." This was a great article about the decision to knock down Pitt Stadium and how that decision turned out for them 15 years later. Essentially, sharing an NFL stadium was the cheaper easier way to go (from the University of Pittsburgh perspective) even though many fans and alumni don't like the game day experience. From a San Diego State alumni/fan perspective this sure sounds familiar. Obviously, my (and many alumni and fans) preference is for an on campus stadium. If SDSU can obtain the Mission Valley site for a West Campus expansion that would probably be the best location for a new SDSU stadium (as Senator Marty Block has advocated). Main campus would be great but IMO it would be much more difficult to get built. Candidly, regardless of if an SDSU stadium is built or not, West Campus expansion is more important than anything else.If sharing a stadium with the Chargers is our only option (God I hope not!) I expect SDSU to advocate better than the University of Pittsburgh has done for their football program.The PItt move to Heinz field definitely fell short of expectations. It has not significantly helped recruiting. It does not feel like a "home" field for Pitt. There are no great game day traditions and the true college game day environment is non-existent.I grew up in Pittsburgh and the ironic part of the on campus stadium for the university was that the Steelers did play their home games at Pitt Stadium. When Three Rivers Stadium was built was when the Steelers stopped using Pitt Stadium In addition the only Pitt pre-game tradition was how many people would have a heart attack walking up the steep hill to get to Pitt Stadium. The name of the hill was Cardiac Hill. The other factor is space, Pitt is located in an area of Pittsburgh called Oakland. It is both a business district and a residential area, it's also where Forbes Field,(Pirates old home field) was located and many museums built by the steel, oil and railroad robber barons, so space for a football field is nonexistent. World Famous Hot Dogs was located in the same area, across the street was a White Castle Hamburger place. I once ran into Rosie Greer the HOF footballer and Pam's brother In World Famous after a night of drinking at Wolfarths Pup. I know I've really dated myself with those references. Sounds like you have some good memories there. It's a shame Pitt didn't just rebuild or renovate their original on campus stadium in a similar fashion as did Stanford. They could have built a basketball arena in a different location on campus.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Mar 31, 2015 16:31:58 GMT -8
For those who constantly say we should have built a football stadium where Viejas is, we are lucky we built the basketball stadium there because with the trolley now going underneath I doubt we could even build on the site any longer. Excellent point and likely very true.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Mar 31, 2015 16:39:16 GMT -8
The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Gee! I thought the goal was to become an Alabama. B12 ambitions in a Sunbelt quality stadium. Again, the "logic" of this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. Who ever said the goal was to become an Alabama? Just an FYI... 5/10 schools in the BIG XII have a stadium capacity of approximately 55,000 seats or less. This includes Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State & TCU. 7/12 schools in the PAC 12 have a stadium capacity of approximately 55,000 seats or less. This includes Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah & Washington State. Not bad company to be in. If a stadium capacity of 55,000 or less is good enough for those schools then it is good enough for San Diego State.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Mar 31, 2015 16:39:26 GMT -8
For those who constantly say we should have built a football stadium where Viejas is, we are lucky we built the basketball stadium there because with the trolley now going underneath I doubt we could even build on the site any longer. And with no Viejas... no Fisher... and men's hoops is still struggling to win 15 games a season...
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Mar 31, 2015 16:45:46 GMT -8
Just look at what the OSU Beavers built, that is a model for SDSU's needs! JMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2015 16:48:21 GMT -8
For those who constantly say we should have built a football stadium where Viejas is, we are lucky we built the basketball stadium there because with the trolley now going underneath I doubt we could even build on the site any longer. And with no Viejas... no Fisher... and men's hoops is still struggling to win 15 games a season... Without the arena Fisher would've never come to SDSU...we will never attract a big time FB coach with a crummy facility situation. After watching Viejas and Fish resurrect our BB I'm surprised more don't think the same way about FB. Not that many big time SDSU FB fans on this board maybe???
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 31, 2015 17:01:04 GMT -8
And with no Viejas... no Fisher... and men's hoops is still struggling to win 15 games a season... Without the arena Fisher would've never come to SDSU...we will never attract a big time FB coach with a crummy facility situation. After watching Viejas and Fish resurrect our BB I'm surprised more don't think the same way about FB. Not that many big time SDSU FB fans on this board maybe??? just to continue the hypothetical ... would the basketball arena get built where the sports deck is today? Would that have pushed the sports deck to the Hardy site instead? Had the Aztecs continued to use the bowl for football, what changes would have happened over time? Since none of this is knowable, it is useless to conjecture how things might have been different. We could just as uselessly talk about if we'd only hired coach Y instead of Coach X back in year Z how would that have changed SDSU athletics?
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Mar 31, 2015 18:13:07 GMT -8
Without the arena Fisher would've never come to SDSU...we will never attract a big time FB coach with a crummy facility situation. After watching Viejas and Fish resurrect our BB I'm surprised more don't think the same way about FB. Not that many big time SDSU FB fans on this board maybe??? just to continue the hypothetical ... would the basketball arena get built where the sports deck is today? Would that have pushed the sports deck to the Hardy site instead? Had the Aztecs continued to use the bowl for football, what changes would have happened over time? Since none of this is knowable, it is useless to conjecture how things might have been different. We could just as uselessly talk about if we'd only hired coach Y instead of Coach X back in year Z how would that have changed SDSU athletics? In fact, the entire conversation is useless... as are most efforts as revisiting history... we built over Aztec Bowl... now we just just need to get on with what to do next. Which, IMO, is figuring out a way to turn the Q site into a West Campus expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 1, 2015 6:42:07 GMT -8
The decision to abandon Aztec Bowl was taken in 1967 and strangely, nobody has complained about it at all over all of these years, for the most part. The "Beloved" Bowl was an abandoned hole in the ground for decades, hosting not much more than AYSO soccer games and high school band pageants before someone decided to fill it in with something useful. The article of faith that SDSU football cannot succeed at Qualcomm is new. Saint Don didn't seem to have any trouble with winning there but add a few seats and all of a sudden it's a threat to the very existence of the program. The "logic" to this line of thinking UTTERLY eludes me. The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Hell, a 30K stadium is too big for SDSU's needs. It comes down to money and the SDSU athletic program doesn't make it, largely because of football. To think that having a stadium with SDSUs name on it suddenly going to make the team better is naive. To decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a stadium for a football program that can't pay for it is downright ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Apr 1, 2015 6:47:57 GMT -8
The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Hell, a 30K stadium is too big for SDSU's needs. It comes down to money and the SDSU athletic program doesn't make it, largely because of football. To think that having a stadium with SDSUs name on it suddenly going to make the team better is naive. To decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a stadium for a football program that can't pay for it is downright ludicrous. You are going to lose your mind when the Chargers leave town. I really think you might cry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 6:49:56 GMT -8
The Q was fine when it was 50,000 seats in the Coryell years. Today it is over 70,000 seats to accommodate NFL needs. If we were Alabama that would be fine. It is just too big for SDSU's needs. Hell, a 30K stadium is too big for SDSU's needs. It comes down to money and the SDSU athletic program doesn't make it, largely because of football. To think that having a stadium with SDSUs name on it suddenly going to make the team better is naive. To decide to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a stadium for a football program that can't pay for it is downright ludicrous. I'm glad more forward thinking people were in charge of the decision to build viejas since BB couldn't pay for or fill that level of facility when it was built. You know, 3000 fans a game and all. Your comments strike me as simply biased against the FB team.
|
|