|
Post by Den60 on Apr 1, 2015 6:53:01 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. The trolley doesn't go under the arena or the old stadium site.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 1, 2015 6:56:40 GMT -8
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. Again, I think it will be bad for the city, I am not one who wants the city to return to the status of a "sleepy Navy town." Since you didn't question the facts I will assume that you agree that SDSU's athletic's program doesn't earn enough to support building a new stadium. By the way, the "if you build it, they will come" comes from a work of fiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 6:59:06 GMT -8
Lololol. San Diego is going to be a sleepy town? Oh no call the president!
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Apr 1, 2015 7:40:03 GMT -8
You are going to lose your mind when the Chargers leave town. I really think you might cry. Again, I think it will be bad for the city, I am not one who wants the city to return to the status of a "sleepy Navy town." Since you didn't question the facts I will assume that you agree that SDSU's athletic's program doesn't earn enough to support building a new stadium. By the way, the "if you build it, they will come" comes from a work of fiction. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 1, 2015 7:50:53 GMT -8
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. Biased? No. I wish they would at least win the conference that many on here think is beneath them. If they won more, then they would have more people attending. That would make them profitable - perhaps even profitable enough to pay for the Title IX implications of having a football team. But attendance figures are what they are, and they would have trouble filling a 30K stadium. That isn't bias, that is a fact. Even going to a bowl game, here in town, against NAVY in a Navy town, they only got 33K people to buy tickets (don't know what the turnstile attendance was). You want to blame the Q for the attendance but it comes down to the fact that there isn't as much interest in the football program as you seem to believe. If you want more interest then you need to put a better product on the field. Without interest the money going into building a stadium will never be recovered and it will negatively affect the entire athletic program. By the way, it took more than Viejas to make the program successful. It is also easier, and cheaper, to build a competitive basketball program than a football program. A stadium would be at least 5 times the cost of Viejas. A sports arena also gets used a lot more than a stadium. You have 6.5 times the number of scholarships in football than basketball, and double the coaching staff. Is there a football coach the quality of a Steve Fisher out there who would find SDSU attractive enough to come here and stay? I haven't heard of any. And with the P5s doing what they are doing it will be very hard for even the lower tier P5 teams to stay competitive. For teams outside the P5 it will be even harder, if not impossible, to try to compete. Football has been the focus of SDSU athletics since the 60s. It isn't like it was second sister to any other sport on campus. Not until recently, that is. It hasn't been given the chance to succeed, it just hasn't been successful; not since the Coryell/Gilbert years when they could draw over 40K fans to watch them. Losing to P5 teams hasn't helped generate interest in the program in this town. It just serves as a reminder that SDSUs program is second tier. Hopefully they can beat either Cal or Penn State next year because losing will, once again, temper later ticket sales. If they don't beat FSU, Hawaii and SJSU then they are in real trouble. If SDSU wanted an on campus facility then they should have renovated Aztec Bowl. People that say an arena could have been built elsewhere on the camps are right. But those in charge realized that they just couldn't afford to do so, and that hasn't changed. Seeing people on here promoting the use of money that was raised to elevate the university's academic standing to be directed towards building a football stadium is rather pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Apr 1, 2015 8:03:26 GMT -8
If a team (any team) WINS, then the people will come and watch wherever. Even if games were played in an abandoned asphalt parking lot instead of grass. And that might be where our Aztecs play if the Chargers leave.
But the real questions here are about $$$. Which site, past or present, potential or actual, save the most money and can generate the most money. THAT site will be where the Aztecs play their football. If the cheapest route is to piggy back on with the Chargers again, then that is where we will be going to watch the Red & Black play on Saturdays. Fan experience is always the least of business men and directors worries. $$$ is the bottom line.
I remember being told how Jack Murphy Stadium (in those years)/Chargers wanted to charge rent to the University just for having their ticket box office there onsite at the stadium. Which is ridiculous considering selling more tickets would only help bring in more revenue to the stadium and a portion of that money would go to the stadium/Chargers anyways. I mean, can you imagine not being able to sell tickets at the venue where your performances are? But that is how small the university was regarded back in those days in comparison to the Chargers, the big money draw.
I hope this view will not be repeated if the University decides to keep sleeping with this city's Professional football team. Otherwise, we're screwed all over again.
|
|
|
Post by pbaztec17 on Apr 1, 2015 12:10:07 GMT -8
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. What will you do if they stay? Will you cry?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 1, 2015 12:36:48 GMT -8
You are going to lose your mind when the Chargers leave town. I really think you might cry. What will you do if they stay? Will you cry? I suppose that all depends on what the tax payers will have to contribute ... and at what cost to other projects that will not be funded to an equal amount like water desal & reclamation or convention center expansion
|
|
|
Post by Den60 on Apr 3, 2015 7:29:26 GMT -8
What will you do if they stay? Will you cry? I suppose that all depends on what the tax payers will have to contribute ... and at what cost to other projects that will not be funded to an equal amount like water desal & reclamation or convention center expansion And yet you are unabashed in your desire to use money donated for the purpose of raising SDSU academically for the purpose of building a football stadium. Hypocritical much?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 8:11:02 GMT -8
I suppose that all depends on what the tax payers will have to contribute ... and at what cost to other projects that will not be funded to an equal amount like water desal & reclamation or convention center expansion And yet you are unabashed in your desire to use money donated for the purpose of raising SDSU academically for the purpose of building a football stadium. Hypocritical much? That wouldn't be necessary. Student fees, bonds, and a dedicated fund raising campaign explicitly for the purpose of building a stadium would be enough. But it's always good to have back up sources if necessary
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 3, 2015 8:17:06 GMT -8
I suppose that all depends on what the tax payers will have to contribute ... and at what cost to other projects that will not be funded to an equal amount like water desal & reclamation or convention center expansion And yet you are unabashed in your desire to use money donated for the purpose of raising SDSU academically for the purpose of building a football stadium. Hypocritical much?Not in the least ... if the Chargers were to purchase the property and/or pay for the entire new stadium from their own funds or from capital raised by investors I would be all for it. I feel the same about SDSU, if it can purchase the property and/or pay for a new stadium from their own funds or from capital raised by investors (which they can do both) then I am all for it ... no hypocrisy As for donations, there are several different categories of donations -- the two main categories are restricted and unrestricted ... if your donation has a specific purpose, then it is restricted and goes directly toward the funds for that purpose academic (scholarships, department budgets, etc.) or non-academic (KPBS, JAM Center, Aztec Club, etc.) if your donation does not have a specific purpose, then it is UNRESTRICTED and may be used for any project that benefits the university, students, on-campus or in the community
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 3, 2015 8:36:25 GMT -8
And yet you are unabashed in your desire to use money donated for the purpose of raising SDSU academically for the purpose of building a football stadium. Hypocritical much? That wouldn't be necessary. Student fees, bonds, and a dedicated fund raising campaign explicitly for the purpose of building a stadium would be enough. But it's always good to have back up sources if necessary ...or partner with a MLS team on a stadium
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 10:50:10 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... That's fine but given the current state of things, the comparison wouldn't be the Q vs Pac schools, it would be new "Q" vice all other schools. In that scenario, the new "Q" would far exceed any other venue in terms of amenities, sight lines or whatever objective criteria you would care to use, except perhaps the color of the seats. And actually, yes. Pitt, shared stadium and all "ascended" from a falling apart BE to the ACC. And I never throw tantrums.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 10:54:47 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. 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. Then what is the goal? To be "good" but not too good? If the goal isn't to get into a P5 conference and compete with the big boys then what's the point?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:09:28 GMT -8
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... That's fine but given the current state of things, the comparison wouldn't be the Q vs Pac schools, it would be new "Q" vice all other schools. In that scenario, the new "Q" would far exceed any other venue in terms of amenities, sight lines or whatever objective criteria you would care to use, except perhaps the color of the seats. And actually, yes. Pitt, shared stadium and all "ascended" from a falling apart BE to the ACC. And I never throw tantrums.Look at your comment I was responding to and think again. You were way off base and now you just want to pivot to something unrelated. You are so see thru.
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Apr 3, 2015 11:18:04 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.
For the record, even though I was involved in a bitter marriage at the time, I still tried to focus on getting answers from the administration as to WHY they would shutter Aztec Bowl for a basketball arena when there were other options, (specifically leveling Peterson Gym and Smith Field for example). Nobody could give me any clear answers that made sense.
No, the problem, as I saw it, was the short sighted thinking that the Q would forever be the permanent home of Aztec and Charger football until the city and the university would be confronted with the reality that the Q, like all stadiums has a true shelf life. Aztec Bowl
was an empty shell that could have been shaped in just about any direction. Now it's payback time for both the university and the city that have sat with their collective thumbs up their collective asses for decades. And Aztec football's pathetic mediocrity over decades hasn't helped their cause for any real community support, (including mine as a proud alumnus).
Now State is reduced into hoping they can secure Mission Valley land. San Diego is a NOT a way station for aspiring college students. I am still of the mind set that other more lucrative offers would take precedent over anything State could offer. But, of course, that would depend on what the city leaders consider is best for the city and its residents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 11:27:51 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.
For the record, even though I was involved in a bitter marriage at the time, I still tried to focus on getting answers from the administration as to WHY they would shutter Aztec Bowl for a basketball arena when there were other options, (specifically leveling Peterson Gym and Smith Field for example). Nobody could give me any clear answers that made sense.
No, the problem, as I saw it, was the short sighted thinking that the Q would forever be the permanent home of Aztec and Charger football until the city and the university would be confronted with the reality that the Q, like all stadiums has a true shelf life. Aztec Bowl
was an empty shell that could have been shaped in just about any direction. Now it's payback time for both the university and the city that have sat with their collective thumbs up their collective asses for decades. And Aztec football's pathetic mediocrity over decades hasn't helped their cause for any real community support, (including mine as a proud alumnus).
Now State is reduced into hoping they can secure Mission Valley land. San Diego is a NOT a way station for aspiring college students. I am still of the mind set that other more lucrative offers would take precedent over anything State could offer. But, of course, that would depend on what the city leaders consider is best for the city and its residents. [/b] [/p][/quote] Hard to argue with that. Hopefully they will see it as an opportunity to have 2 world class Universities instead of one (UCSD). Although expanding the University and investing in it is no guarantee it will make it world class of course. However, just like in athletics, in education the talented folks go where the investment(money) and opportunity are...The Q site is more about the University at large...the FB program is of secondary concern when looking at the big picture. We have a top international business school and it would be nice to see our STEM programs benefit from any campus expansion, but who knows.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 3, 2015 11:57:13 GMT -8
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. Then what is the goal? To be "good" but not too good? If the goal isn't to get into a P5 conference and compete with the big boys then what's the point? Getting into a P5 conference is our goal. Getting into one will be very difficult. We certainly don't have to become an Alabama to do so (unrealistic expectation anyway). If we can become the elite program in the MWC (as Boise State had done) that is a realistic expectation.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 3, 2015 12:09:31 GMT -8
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. Then what is the goal? To be "good" but not too good? If the goal isn't to get into a P5 conference and compete with the big boys then what's the point? What kind of idiotic response is that? On the road for San Diego State to consistently compete on the same level as Alabama ... Would we not have to first get to the level of consistently competing with the likes of Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, TCU, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Utah & Washington State (who themselves are still trying to catch up to Alabama)? Would taking that first step not include having facilities and amenities on par with those schools? Bringing it back to the original premise, as it stands now ... the Q, even scaled back to a 50K capacity would have SDSU in good company as far as P5 stadiums go.
|
|