|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 9:01:46 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 I've said this before ... Houston built TEDCU Stadium for $128M and would be a good model for the Aztecs to adopt Number of Seats - A minimum of 40,000 seats. Party Patios - Four (4) open-air lower bowl party decks with 24 armchairs (20 inches wide). Both the east and west lower bowl end zones contain a party deck with two located on the north lower bowl sideline. Premium Seating - Consists of 5,000 of the 40,000 seats in the TDECU Stadium. Additional Premium Seating- 2,778 armchair seats that are 20 inches wide and 1,210 benches with backs with the majority located in the lower bowl of TDECU Stadium. Club Seats - 766 armchair style padded club seats that are 22 inches wide and located in the lower bowl of TDECU Stadium. Club Area- The stylish club area is the ultimate Houston Football experience. With 12,400 square feet of multi-purpose club area overlooking the field of play, fans with access to the club area enjoy upscale food and drinks while receiving first-class hospitality on game days. The climate-controlled area also feature high-definition televisions and private restrooms. The area is also available to host special events, meetings and classes. Suites- Spanning from end zone to end zone on the south side of TDECU Stadium with a view of downtown Houston, 26 premium suites each containing 12 outside padded arm chairs, four inside bar stools and entertainment area. Houston fans enjoy comfort and style in these 325-square foot suites with individual upscale service and amenities. Suite Decks - Two (2) open-air party suites located on the suite level positioned at each end (east and west end) of the suites. Each open-air suite contains 60 padded armchairs (21 inches wide). Loge Boxes - 42 loge boxes each containing four seats and high-definition monitors located throughout the stadium. Video Board - State-of-the-art HD-video board located on the west end of TDECU Stadium. Sized at 2,584 square feet (38 feet high, 68 feet wide), the board was designed by Panasonic using Nichia technology. WiFi - Boingo Wireless, the leading DAS and Wi-Fi provider that serves consumers, carriers and advertisers worldwide, is TDECU Stadium's wireless network partner. Parking - Surface lots around the stadium contain 1,467 parking spaces while the stadium parking garage holds 2,268 spaces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:05:31 GMT -8
Sorry guys, no matter how aggressive and innervated you feel about a new Aztec-only stadium, I just don't feel it. To me, THE problem, and our ONLY "lifeline" is winning, and winning impressively over dregs and more-often-than-not, actually beating "top" schools. Do that, and the crowds WILL come (to any stadium), the energy will come, and the "atmosphere", and the recognition, and rankings and recruits. They will all come. But to do all that, we'll need either new leadership, or some vast infusion of personality adjustments in those "leaders". Sterky and Hirshy are obviously very happy with our current drift. I agree winning is necessary for a good vibe just about anywhere. But that also doesn't mean keeping a cavernous facility like the Q in place for a program attempting to rise form the grave is a good idea. Especially when a crowd of 50k plus there feels smaller than a crowd of 40k at other facilities. Effectively allowing programs with lower attendance to show recruits their home games have a better feel to them...
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:10:15 GMT -8
Sorry guys, no matter how aggressive and innervated you feel about a new Aztec-only stadium, I just don't feel it. To me, THE problem, and our ONLY "lifeline" is winning, and winning impressively over dregs and more-often-than-not, actually beating "top" schools. Do that, and the crowds WILL come (to any stadium), the energy will come, and the "atmosphere", and the recognition, and rankings and recruits. They will all come. But to do all that, we'll need either new leadership, or some vast infusion of personality adjustments in those "leaders". Sterky and Hirshy are obviously very happy with our current drift. I agree winning is a necessary for a good vibe just about anywhere. But that also doesn't mean keeping a cavernous facility like the Q in place for a program attempting to rise form the grave is a good idea. Especially when a crowd of 50k plus there feels smaller than a crowd of 40k at other facilities. Effectively allowing programs with lower attendance to show recruits their home games have a better feel to them... And if Sterk continues with these abominable home schedules, do you think we should lose to them, even if we played in Rocky's backyard? We've done fine in the past, and I simply do not agree that adding the end zone seats affects anything when you have 50,000 in the stands, certainly not the TV audience, and not the fans--in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:13:19 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?
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 21, 2015 9:15:40 GMT -8
Only one stadium will be built. The only question is will it be for the Chargers & AZTECS or just the AZTECS & possibly a MLS team? Best case scenario is the Chargers leave town & the AZTECS partner with MLS along with West Campus expansion for a stadium. 1 stadium for the Chargers and Aztecs will be built or no stadium will be built and the Aztecs will continue to play at the Q until they drop football, West campus will occur at about the same time aliens land a space ship filled with Unicorns and Leprechauns on the White House lawn and we all learn that Frosted Lucky Charms is people. When the Chargers leave SDSU has other options that will be pursued. Ultimately, SDSU will build a smaller SDSU specific stadium. If, as you believe, SDSU will not build a stadium and drop football if the Chargers leave we will loose membership in the Mountain West Conference and be relegated to the Big West or worse. In addition, we will also eliminate several women's sports due to the reduction of 85 men's football athletic scholarships. If you believe SDSU will allow that to happen you are seriously out of touch with the values and goals of San Diego State University. "Our intercollegiate athletic program is an important part of our university and the success of our football program is essential." - President Hirshman Know that SDSU is actively engaged on all fronts with regards to the future success of our Aztec football program. If, as you believe, SDSU will not or cannot build it's own stadium perhaps they don't deserve a division I football program.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:16:12 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:17:46 GMT -8
I agree winning is a necessary for a good vibe just about anywhere. But that also doesn't mean keeping a cavernous facility like the Q in place for a program attempting to rise form the grave is a good idea. Especially when a crowd of 50k plus there feels smaller than a crowd of 40k at other facilities. Effectively allowing programs with lower attendance to show recruits their home games have a better feel to them... And if Sterk continues with these abominable home schedules, do you think we should lose to them, even if we played in Rocky's backyard? We've done fine in the past, and I simply do not agree that adding the end zone seats affects anything when you have 50,000 in the stands, certainly not the TV audience, and not the fans--in my opinion. When you say, we did fine in the past, you do realize that past existed when the Q was still within its normal life span and before the expansion. The Q hasn't been "ok" since the late 90's...and everyone involved with the stadium has said as much.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:19:26 GMT -8
1 stadium for the Chargers and Aztecs will be built or no stadium will be built and the Aztecs will continue to play at the Q until they drop football, West campus will occur at about the same time aliens land a space ship filled with Unicorns and Leprechauns on the White House lawn and we all learn that Frosted Lucky Charms is people. When the Chargers leave SDSU has other options that will be pursued. Ultimately, SDSU will build a smaller SDSU specific stadium. If, as you believe, SDSU will not build a stadium and drop football if the Chargers leave we will loose membership in the Mountain West Conference and be relegated to the Big West or worse. In addition, we will also eliminate several women's sports due to the reduction of 85 men's football athletic scholarships. If you believe SDSU will allow that to happen you are seriously out of touch with the values and goals of San Diego State University. "Our intercollegiate athletic program is an important part of our university and the success of our football program is essential." - President Hirshman Know that SDSU is actively engaged on all fronts with regards to the future success of our Aztec football program. If, as you believe, SDSU will not or cannot build it's own stadium perhaps they don't deserve a division I football program. Sorry, evidence of this administration's true commitment to the football program requires more than cocktail conversations and perfunctory and vacuous bromides.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:21:15 GMT -8
And if Sterk continues with these abominable home schedules, do you think we should lose to them, even if we played in Rocky's backyard? We've done fine in the past, and I simply do not agree that adding the end zone seats affects anything when you have 50,000 in the stands, certainly not the TV audience, and not the fans--in my opinion. When you say, we did fine in the past, you do realize that past existed when the Q was still within its normal life span and before the expansion. The Q hasn't been "ok" since the late 90's...and everyone involved with the stadium has said as much. The added end zone seats---I feel---makes very little difference when there are 50,000 people IN THEIR SEATS. Just don't buy that excuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:21:32 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. famous last words. I'm sure they fell into the JAM on accident. I'm also sure they toured Stanford's facility and recent upgrade just for fun. The only one out of their depth is you...but that's only because you have a per-determined position established more by your own emotions than evidence. The sour is strong with you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:24:14 GMT -8
When you say, we did fine in the past, you do realize that past existed when the Q was still within its normal life span and before the expansion. The Q hasn't been "ok" since the late 90's...and everyone involved with the stadium has said as much. The added end zone seats---I feel---makes very little difference when there are 50,000 people IN THEIR SEATS. Just don't buy that excuse. I was at the only 50k game in recent memory...35k at albertsons in Boise felt like a bigger crowd. What other stadiums have you watched a football game at?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:28:11 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. famous last words. I'm sure they fell into the JAM on accident. I'm also sure they toured Stanford's facility and recent upgrade just for fun. The only one out of their depth is you...but that's only because you have a per-determined position established more by your own emotions than evidence. The sour is strong with you. It appears that you do not know that neither of these men started the JAM process. And--could be wrong--they still have not been able to raise the complete funds required. It was commenced by someone else. Just like they followed Boise to the Big East, and then chased them back to the detritus, called the MWC.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Apr 21, 2015 9:29:44 GMT -8
I'm just going to assume you've never experienced a game in a true college football atmosphere, or you are just a complete moron. Since you're here arguing with EVERYONE else on the matter, I'm going to say it's both. Reminds me of the old poker adage: "If, after the first 20 minutes, you don't know who the sucker at the table is, it's you." I happen to think, and not without evidence, that "atmosphere" has almost nothing to do with the building and almost everything to do with the people in it, or not in it as the case may be. Are you referring to the Chargers?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 9:32:12 GMT -8
When the Chargers leave SDSU has other options that will be pursued. Ultimately, SDSU will build a smaller SDSU specific stadium. If, as you believe, SDSU will not build a stadium and drop football if the Chargers leave we will loose membership in the Mountain West Conference and be relegated to the Big West or worse. In addition, we will also eliminate several women's sports due to the reduction of 85 men's football athletic scholarships. If you believe SDSU will allow that to happen you are seriously out of touch with the values and goals of San Diego State University. "Our intercollegiate athletic program is an important part of our university and the success of our football program is essential." - President Hirshman Know that SDSU is actively engaged on all fronts with regards to the future success of our Aztec football program. If, as you believe, SDSU will not or cannot build it's own stadium perhaps they don't deserve a division I football program. Sorry, evidence of this administration's true commitment to the football program requires more than cocktail conversations and perfunctory and vacuous bromides. What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? Is it the lack of overt attempts to sabotage the City's negotiations with the Chargers? I know you don't care about the improvements to Peterson Gym, the Softball stadium or any program that is not football ... but they increased the training table for all athletes, added cost of attendance stipends, hired a full-time special teams coach for special teams & scheduled 8 years of Pac-12 opponents -- compared to where football was even in the last decade (2000-2010) the program has improved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:37:19 GMT -8
famous last words. I'm sure they fell into the JAM on accident. I'm also sure they toured Stanford's facility and recent upgrade just for fun. The only one out of their depth is you...but that's only because you have a per-determined position established more by your own emotions than evidence. The sour is strong with you. It appears that you do not know that neither of these men started the JAM process. And--could be wrong--they still have not been able to raise the complete funds required. It was commenced by someone else. Just like they followed Boise to the Big East, and then chased them back to the detritus, called the MWC. Sterk arrived in 2010, Hirshman in 2011, Jam broke ground in 2014. Never said they started the program...but I'm also pretty sure they weren't on auto-pilot and the AD and President most definitely made sure they went from concept to completion with no public funds.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Apr 21, 2015 9:38:29 GMT -8
Sorry, evidence of this administration's true commitment to the football program requires more than cocktail conversations and perfunctory and vacuous bromides. What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? Is it the lack of overt attempts to sabotage the City's negotiations with the Chargers? I know you don't care about the improvements to Peterson Gym, the Softball stadium or any program that is not football ... but they increased the training table for all athletes, added cost of attendance stipends, hired a full-time special teams coach for special teams & scheduled 8 years of Pac-12 opponents -- compared to where football was even in the last decade (2000-2010) the program has improved. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 9:40:24 GMT -8
Sorry, evidence of this administration's true commitment to the football program requires more than cocktail conversations and perfunctory and vacuous bromides. What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? Is it the lack of overt attempts to sabotage the City's negotiations with the Chargers? I know you don't care about the improvements to Peterson Gym, the Softball stadium or any program that is not football ... but they increased the training table for all athletes, added cost of attendance stipends, hired a full-time special teams coach for special teams & scheduled 8 years of Pac-12 opponents -- compared to where football was even in the last decade (2000-2010) the program has improved. Yeah, looks like a case of selective memory... I'll refer you to my chart.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Apr 21, 2015 9:42:19 GMT -8
What exactly is your evidence to the contrary? Is it the lack of overt attempts to sabotage the City's negotiations with the Chargers? I know you don't care about the improvements to Peterson Gym, the Softball stadium or any program that is not football ... but they increased the training table for all athletes, added cost of attendance stipends, hired a full-time special teams coach for special teams & scheduled 8 years of Pac-12 opponents -- compared to where football was even in the last decade (2000-2010) the program has improved. 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.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Apr 21, 2015 9:42:50 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.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 21, 2015 9:43:08 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. Have you all been to San Jose State's stadium? I was there in '06. Believe me, that is sort of a weird place, with newer sections tacked onto the original bowl. I think that most of the seating is still bench type. Quaint is a kind word for it. It only holds 30,000, although the Spartans rarely draw more than 20,000. On the other hand, there is a grass area next to the stadium itself where tailgating is routinely held. As far as I know, the university owns the stadium. It's not on campus, but is only a mile (or a bit less) from it. 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? Other than the Sky Show, how often do we have more than 30,000 human being in the seats for a game? Yes, we would like to draw 40K, 50K, or more. The trouble is, we have been trying unsuccessfully for decades to create a program capable of that level of support. With a modest stadium owned by the school, the Aztec program would likely be on more solid financial footing that it now is. (Another thought: if SDSU were able to build a stadium, why couldn't selected games be held either at the Q or at a new "Chargers" stadium? Such a shifting to Mission Valley could be done for the Sky Show or if, unlikely as it may seem, we could actually get a name school to play here. Incidentally, that happened in 1966 when the Aztecs played several games in Balboa Stadium.) In any case, the school, in my view, needs to be bold and commit publicly to a course of action regarding football. I would hate for the AD and president to issue a joint press release saying that SDSU is happy with the current level of success and does not have the resources to challenge more successful programs. That would come close to the kiss of death for most Aztec fans, but at least it would be honest. One hopes that instead of that, such an announcement would commit the school to take all reasonable steps designed to maximize the potential of the football program, including opting for an on-campus stadium instead of forever being dependent on the cooperation of the Chargers. The problem at present is, as I see it, that the school is just sitting back and basically doing nothing. They seem to be hoping that somehow, some way, when the stadium issue is resolved, the result will not be too harmful to Aztec football. Talk about ineffectual! AzWm
|
|