|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:48:30 GMT -8
And I do NOT buy the notion that Sterk's and Hirshman's silence on an Aztecs-only stadium has anything whatever to do with intelligent or even perspicacious "negotiating". They are academicians and horrible tacticians. They simply are out of their depth, and silence is their best play as opposed to initiating topics that leave them mouth-breathing. Or... they are being publicly silent/evasive exactly BECAUSE that is a very smart tactic... while playing all their cards quietly behind closed doors. If true, they are too sly, by half.
|
|
|
Post by gigglyforshrigley on Apr 21, 2015 9:53:24 GMT -8
That OSU pic looks awesome, I'd love to have that. Comparing us to Pac12 schools is an unfair comparison, we realistically dont have the resources that those schools have. The Q obviously isn't as good as a new great stadium that the Pac12 schools have, but for the MWC I think it gets criticized more than it deserves A recent poll on the conference message board asked the question,"who has the best and worst game day atmosphere in the conference?" Aside from the obvious worst (SJSU), guess who else was considered worst? These fans had no skin in the game either...its not just internally that the Q is viewed as possibly the worst setup. In fact, I would love someone to find a recent article from a reputable source stating the Q is a sufficient facility for any level of football. I mean if it's not as bad as we say there must be some empirical evidence of that fact, right? I'd bet my paycheck that the majority of people on that board are SDSU fans who want a new stadium.... we have by far the most active forums people in our conference
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:57:02 GMT -8
So, you would like me to gone your path of attempting to "prove" a negative? Right now, I only care about improvements-- major efforts--to football, correct. I hardly am moved by this minor coach or that minor assistant. If you put those on the same level, that's fine. But it also reveals to me, why you might be satisfied with the otiose administration and direction. so basically, what you are saying is that you don't have anything more than a gut-based dislike for the AD & University President, and nothing they do (short of sabotaging the Chargers) will satisfy the level of overt support for football that you require of SDSU. No, not at all. To clarify: I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams. I would like there to be some element of campus expansion at the site. I would like for Rocky to leave and AD Sterk to get some cajones and Hirshman to get out of the way. If the Chargers leave, Aztec D1 football will not last past the demolition of the Q, ESPECIALLY if the three men above are pretending.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 10:00:55 GMT -8
A recent poll on the conference message board asked the question,"who has the best and worst game day atmosphere in the conference?" Aside from the obvious worst (SJSU), guess who else was considered worst? These fans had no skin in the game either...its not just internally that the Q is viewed as possibly the worst setup. In fact, I would love someone to find a recent article from a reputable source stating the Q is a sufficient facility for any level of football. I mean if it's not as bad as we say there must be some empirical evidence of that fact, right? I'd bet my paycheck that the majority of people on that board are SDSU fans who want a new stadium.... we have by far the most active forums people in our conference Nope, a majority of MWC message board fans are not SDSU fans, and its not even close.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 10:04:48 GMT -8
I'd bet my paycheck that the majority of people on that board are SDSU fans who want a new stadium.... we have by far the most active forums people in our conference Nope, a majority of MWC message board fans are not SDSU fans, and its not even close. Their distaste for us probably equals, ours for BYU.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Apr 21, 2015 10:08:56 GMT -8
I've been all over, and the only structure that was worse for COLLEGE football was the Metrodome for the Gophers. Terrible sight lines, flat lower bowl, student section's front row is 20 feet above the field, complete concrete lot (good for NFL, bad for families bringing their kids to watch their college team), off campus (not a lot we can do right now, but immediate loss in ties to campus), wrong colors, no permanent signage. And I have been to some very meh stadiums. No one expects a college stadium to have the bells and whistles of NFL (Ole Miss has bleachers in their end zone FFS), but Qualcomm isn't at an NFL level anymore either. I would capitulate that some recruits would indeed like to play in an NFL stadium, but would they when a G5 is attempting to put bodies in an outdated stadium two times too big for it? Luster would wear off if they were even playing in a good stadium. Qualcomm is not even good in that regard. I think it is a stretch that we should use the Q as a selling point, let alone say it is the best in this already mediocre-facility conference. If we were to uproot MWC stadiums for Aztec use, keeping attendance the same, Qualcomm would be barely above Nevada's bleachers, in terms of the atmosphere it would create. Okay that may be a stretch, but not by much. The Metrodome? Hmmm...another multi-sport stadium. Just like the Q. How many college football programs play in a stadium that was designed for both football AND baseball? My seats at the Q are in Club Section 7. They sound like good seats, except there are times that I need to use binoculars to see things that might be going on along the NEAR sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Apr 21, 2015 10:11:10 GMT -8
I've been all over, and the only structure that was worse for COLLEGE football was the Metrodome for the Gophers. Terrible sight lines, flat lower bowl, student section's front row is 20 feet above the field, complete concrete lot (good for NFL, bad for families bringing their kids to watch their college team), off campus (not a lot we can do right now, but immediate loss in ties to campus), wrong colors, no permanent signage. And I have been to some very meh stadiums. No one expects a college stadium to have the bells and whistles of NFL (Ole Miss has bleachers in their end zone FFS), but Qualcomm isn't at an NFL level anymore either. I would capitulate that some recruits would indeed like to play in an NFL stadium, but would they when a G5 is attempting to put bodies in an outdated stadium two times too big for it? Luster would wear off if they were even playing in a good stadium. Qualcomm is not even good in that regard. I think it is a stretch that we should use the Q as a selling point, let alone say it is the best in this already mediocre-facility conference. If we were to uproot MWC stadiums for Aztec use, keeping attendance the same, Qualcomm would be barely above Nevada's bleachers, in terms of the atmosphere it would create. Okay that may be a stretch, but not by much. So, which school is better off, SJSU or SDSU? Which would be better, to build a 35,000 seat stadium on campus, even if it did not have all chair seating. . . or continue to pay rent for an outdated stadium that is in almost all respects unsuited for a mid-level D-I football program? AzWm I would take 35 k in a heartbeat. I haven't seen SJSU's in person, but it looks abysmal, however, if we had something similar, given today's climate of things (not the same as leaving Aztec Bowl for new Murph), we would invest in some renovations, and it would be a near perfect size. Put seatbacks in the premium areas, and sell the temp backs for the bleacher seats for those who want them. Coming from a school with grassy areas to tailgate, it does make a better atmosphere for families, and is aesthetically pleasing. I'll tailgate anywhere, but Qualcomm lot is pretty meh to do it at, if we were neutral party. No campus, no walkability, no close bar/restaurant scene, it's the lot and the stadium. I will continue to repeat that we have good attendance for what we are (a G5), in fact, we have some of the best for our level, even with a mundane schedule. If we threw up something that was similar to Houston's, it would be perfect. Would we lose Skyshow? Perhaps, but it is a piggyback event, and realistically, you could point speakers outside near a viewing area (the stadium wouldn't be as tall, and their could be a more open end zone). I won't act like we are reaching 45k averages any time soon. So, long way to a short answer, I would take SJSU's and look into renovating, 10/10.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 10:11:50 GMT -8
so basically, what you are saying is that you don't have anything more than a gut-based dislike for the AD & University President, and nothing they do (short of sabotaging the Chargers) will satisfy the level of overt support for football that you require of SDSU. No, not at all. To clarify: I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams. I would like there to be some element of campus expansion at the site. I would like for Rocky to leave and AD Sterk to get some cajones and Hirshman to get out of the way. If the Chargers leave, Aztec D1 football will not last past the demolition of the Q, ESPECIALLY if the three men above are pretending. So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 10:21:39 GMT -8
No, not at all. To clarify: I prefer the Chargers to stay with a brand new stadium, jointly used with the Aztecs. This would include a locker room for each home team. I would like the stadium to have the ability to change the seats, and other accoutrement, to Aztec colors--the same idea they've concocted in Carson for those disparate teams. I would like there to be some element of campus expansion at the site. I would like for Rocky to leave and AD Sterk to get some cajones and Hirshman to get out of the way. If the Chargers leave, Aztec D1 football will not last past the demolition of the Q, ESPECIALLY if the three men above are pretending. So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. You've restated what I said, but inferred more than I said, plus added hyperbole, but then I do that too. For instance, I did not, and would not say the Hirshman is an obstructionist, just apathetic. Sterk is just in over his head. They might both "prefer" to end up with a SDSU stadium, but only if it took little or no effort on their part. I do not think we'll find money in SDSU's or the state budget for the luxury of our stadium wishes, unless it's in the $100 million range, or less. I think there is a serious and growing movement afoot amongst the self-possessed academic cognoscente, to slowly "disengage" from football.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 21, 2015 10:24:20 GMT -8
Just back from a trip to Austin. What a wonderful city that is. Growing by leaps and bounds. Progressive with priorities firmly in mind. Culture everywhere, including some of the most die hard football fans anywhere. Watching local sports news was a trip. Every freaking Longhorn sport was professionally covered. Had me thinking of what SDSU could be if the Charges decided to take their toys to LA. Is it possible that State and SD as a whole would be better served putting that money towards City improvements? Would the city and county rally to support SDSU if they were the only true football game in town? I don't hate the Chargers, but if I had to make a choice between keeping the chargers and giving SDSU a real chance at making the jump to county and national prominence, I choose SDSU. I am from Texas so maybe I am biased, but I believe in investing in schools and football. Seeing Austin again reminded me that cities not only survive without pro football, they actually can thrive with the right leadership. Perhaps this is the wrong place to post this, but it was the highest seated post so... Feel free to move it if necessary. The Credit Cards ARE going to move. To Inglewood.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Apr 21, 2015 10:36:28 GMT -8
Anyone who thinks the Q is fine for college have probably not been to many College Stadiums ... If your basis for comparison is a few of the older ones like the Rose Bowl, Coliseum or Memorial Stadium at Cal, then you have half an idea as to what the experience should be ... If you've been to Husky Stadium, Reser, Autzen or Sun Devil Stadium -- you have a much better idea of what it should be like. Reser is indeed a great place to see a football game despite the fact it's almost OFF campus. That fact pretty much defeats the contention of some that SDSU's buying the Qualcomm site and building a more intimate facility to house the Aztecs still wouldn't improve the game day atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 10:40:13 GMT -8
So your opinion is: Aztecs football under Rocky Long, Jim Sterk and Elliot Hirshman has not improved from the last decade (2000-2010) in recruiting, performance or any other measurement ... that the AD has no cajones and Hirshman is an obstructionist. You feel that all 3 are merely pretenders. That the sustained success of Aztec football from 2010-2014 is a fluke and only if SDSU and the Athletic department insert themselves into the stadium debate with stadium demands of their own would you consider the leadership on the Mesa to be remotely competent. It is your conjecture that if the Chargers leave that SDSU football will collapse and by extension so would rest of the athletics programs on campus (without football, an equal number of scholarships for women's sports would be lost as well as membership in the MWC). In summary, you think that Sterk and Hirshman are okay with that outcome because they don't support football the way you think they need to. You've restated what I said, but inferred more than I said, plus added hyperbole, but then I do that too. For instance, I did not, and would not say the Hirshman is an obstructionist, just apathetic. Sterk is just in over his head. They might both "prefer" to end up with a SDSU stadium, but only if it took little or no effort on their part. I do not think we'll find money in SDSU's or the state budget for the luxury of our stadium wishes, unless it's in the $100 million range, or less. I think there is a serious and growing movement afoot amongst the self-possessed academic cognoscente, to slowly "disengage" from football. What I am hearing from you is fear ... fear that the slow and steady building of a solid football program is an illusion fear that a rise in academics will correspond with a disengagement from athletics and football fear that without the Chargers and an NFL stadium, SDSU doesn't have the resources or desire to construct a football stadium fear because you don't know what the contingency plans are regarding Aztec football, stadium and facilities -- should the Mission Valley site not go to SDSU if/when the Chargers leave fear because you don't like / trust Long, Sterk and Hirshman to keep investing in, and improving Aztecs football
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 10:44:44 GMT -8
Anyone who thinks the Q is fine for college have probably not been to many College Stadiums ... If your basis for comparison is a few of the older ones like the Rose Bowl, Coliseum or Memorial Stadium at Cal, then you have half an idea as to what the experience should be ... If you've been to Husky Stadium, Reser, Autzen or Sun Devil Stadium -- you have a much better idea of what it should be like. Reser is indeed a great place to see a football game despite the fact it's almost OFF campus. That fact pretty much defeats the contention of some that SDSU's buying the Qualcomm site and building a more intimate facility to house the Aztecs still wouldn't improve the game day atmosphere. No it doesnt. How many schools have an on campus trolley that will give students free rides to their free seats? If you haven't been paying attention SDSU actually has pretty good student attendance at FB games. Its the general public thats the issue(as well as quality and size of venue), so on campus or not, a better stadium will equal a better atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Apr 21, 2015 10:48:38 GMT -8
Anyone who thinks the Q is fine for college have probably not been to many College Stadiums ... If your basis for comparison is a few of the older ones like the Rose Bowl, Coliseum or Memorial Stadium at Cal, then you have half an idea as to what the experience should be ... If you've been to Husky Stadium, Reser, Autzen or Sun Devil Stadium -- you have a much better idea of what it should be like. Reser is indeed a great place to see a football game despite the fact it's almost OFF campus. That fact pretty much defeats the contention of some that SDSU's buying the Qualcomm site and building a more intimate facility to house the Aztecs still wouldn't improve the game day atmosphere. Nearly every college football campus has it's athletics facilities on the edge of campus. It takes away nothing from the fact that you still ARE on campus. Plus, factor in that DT Corvallis is very walkable, and you can see how gameday atmosphere would not diminish. Qualcomm is not walkable to anything similar. The point is completely invalid. If you want to find comparable, I would offer NC State, about a mile off campus, on the state fairgrounds. But, it is also in the south, and has a lot of field area to hang out for families. You want to compare Qualcomm with something, Temple. But alas, even they recently built an entertainment location about 4 blocks away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 11:03:56 GMT -8
Nope, a majority of MWC message board fans are not SDSU fans, and its not even close. Their distaste for us probably equals, ours for BYU. Nope, they just feel the same as pretty much everyone who has an opinion on the topic, except for about 4 or 5 AM posters who still think the Q is an adequate facility.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 11:33:03 GMT -8
You've restated what I said, but inferred more than I said, plus added hyperbole, but then I do that too. For instance, I did not, and would not say the Hirshman is an obstructionist, just apathetic. Sterk is just in over his head. They might both "prefer" to end up with a SDSU stadium, but only if it took little or no effort on their part. I do not think we'll find money in SDSU's or the state budget for the luxury of our stadium wishes, unless it's in the $100 million range, or less. I think there is a serious and growing movement afoot amongst the self-possessed academic cognoscente, to slowly "disengage" from football. What I am hearing from you is fear ... fear that the slow and steady building of a solid football program is an illusion fear that a rise in academics will correspond with a disengagement from athletics and football fear that without the Chargers and an NFL stadium, SDSU doesn't have the resources or desire to construct a football stadium fear because you don't know what the contingency plans are regarding Aztec football, stadium and facilities -- should the Mission Valley site not go to SDSU if/when the Chargers leave fear because you don't like / trust Long, Sterk and Hirshman to keep investing in, and improving Aztecs football If your replaced "fear" with "disapprobation and reality", you might be closer to the mark.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 12:04:40 GMT -8
What I am hearing from you is fear ... fear that the slow and steady building of a solid football program is an illusion fear that a rise in academics will correspond with a disengagement from athletics and football fear that without the Chargers and an NFL stadium, SDSU doesn't have the resources or desire to construct a football stadium fear because you don't know what the contingency plans are regarding Aztec football, stadium and facilities -- should the Mission Valley site not go to SDSU if/when the Chargers leave fear because you don't like / trust Long, Sterk and Hirshman to keep investing in, and improving Aztecs football If your replaced "fear" with "disapprobation and reality", you might be closer to the mark. Nope ... Fear fits you well and helps to contextualize your posts -- you can try to disguise it as anything you like, but morality and reality are not where you are coming from
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 12:24:40 GMT -8
If your replaced "fear" with "disapprobation and reality", you might be closer to the mark. Nope ... Fear fits you well and helps to contextualize your posts -- you can try to disguise it as anything you like, but morality and reality are not where you are coming from That's your persuasion and you're entitled to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 12:27:50 GMT -8
Nope ... Fear fits you well and helps to contextualize your posts -- you can try to disguise it as anything you like, but morality and reality are not where you are coming from That's your persuasion and you're entitled to it. What section are your season tix in? I'm curious where you sit since you seem to think so highly of the Q.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 12:36:46 GMT -8
That's your persuasion and you're entitled to it. What section are your season tix in? I'm curious where you sit since you seem to think so highly of the Q. Would you please find a quote wherein I claimed Qualcomm Stadium as my "Happy Place"?
|
|