|
Post by hoobs on May 20, 2015 10:13:09 GMT -8
Hell, in a way the best thing for SDSU might be buying the 75 acres for campus expansion now. while having the city build the Chargers a stadium on the rest of the site... then in 10-15 years when the Spanos family (or whomever they sell the team to) wants to extort the city for even more upgrades/perks and wind up just moving the team to LA instead... the Aztecs can have the nice, pretty (slightly too large) stadium all to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by fredgarvinmp on May 20, 2015 10:23:10 GMT -8
Hell, in a way the best thing for SDSU might be buying the 75 acres for campus expansion now. while having the city build the Chargers a stadium on the rest of the site... then in 10-15 years when the Spanos family (or whomever they sell the team to) wants to extort the city for even more upgrades/perks and wind up just moving the team to LA instead... the Aztecs can have the nice, pretty (slightly too large) stadium all to themselves. Any deal will be probably a 30-year lease with no outs until that time.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 20, 2015 10:26:50 GMT -8
Not sure how much a new SDSU or Chargers stadium would do for recruiting but the fact remains, put a good exciting product on the field will draw fans and recruits. Many recruits have stated they liked the idea of playing in a NFL stadium. Imagine a new state of the art NFL Stadium vs. a good college stadium. Your comments are in contention with real world evidence...but don't let that stop you. and what "real" (your) world evidence to you have? You talk a good game but have nothing to back it up. Are you saying that recruits don't like playing in a NFL stadium? They don't like playing in front of a mostly empty stadium and whose fault is that?
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 20, 2015 10:28:51 GMT -8
Hell, in a way the best thing for SDSU might be buying the 75 acres for campus expansion now. while having the city build the Chargers a stadium on the rest of the site... then in 10-15 years when the Spanos family (or whomever they sell the team to) wants to extort the city for even more upgrades/perks and wind up just moving the team to LA instead... the Aztecs can have the nice, pretty (slightly too large) stadium all to themselves. The first line we'll agree for once. State should buy the 75 acres for the West Campus expansion/housing or whatever. Pony up Doc Hirshman After that, the proposal states that the Chargers must sign a 30 year (not 10-15 year) guarantee to keep the team in San Diego.
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 20, 2015 10:31:23 GMT -8
Not sure how much a new SDSU or Chargers stadium would do for recruiting but the fact remains, put a good exciting product on the field will draw fans and recruits. Many recruits have stated they liked the idea of playing in a NFL stadium. Imagine a new state of the art NFL Stadium vs. a good college stadium. I would rather have a good college stadium that is designed for the specific needs of SDSU; not the NFL. The Aztecs will be an afterthought in any new "San Diego" stadium. I understand that you and many others prefer that option. But playing in a new state of the art stadium suitable for Super Bowls isn't a bad alternative.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 20, 2015 10:33:48 GMT -8
Hell, in a way the best thing for SDSU might be buying the 75 acres for campus expansion now. while having the city build the Chargers a stadium on the rest of the site... then in 10-15 years when the Spanos family (or whomever they sell the team to) wants to extort the city for even more upgrades/perks and wind up just moving the team to LA instead... the Aztecs can have the nice, pretty (slightly too large) stadium all to themselves. The first line we'll agree for once. State should buy the 75 acres for the West Campus expansion/housing or whatever. Pony up Doc Hirshman After that, the proposal states that the Chargers must sign a 30 year (not 10-15 year) guarantee to keep the team in San Diego. I am going to bet the Chargers are going to negotiate that 30 yrs down to 20 yrs ...
|
|
|
Post by mnico213 on May 20, 2015 10:34:20 GMT -8
Saying this is simple economics is making a pretty big assumption that consumers would see SDSU football as a substitute good for Chargers football. Will there be any people that see it that way? Of course, but there is no way that it would have the same level of substitutability that RC Cola would have for Coke or Pepsi. College football and NFL football are very different products, especially college football at the level that SDSU plays. when was the last time we were treated to good Chargers football? With the local media stations having to fill time on newscasts -- San Diego could evolve into a nice college football town with more attention paid to the Aztecs and even the Toreros. Not sure why you put what I said in bold since I was referring to Chargers football as a good, not saying the quality of the football was good, but the Chargers were one game away from the playoffs last year and won a playoff game the year before. They beat the defending Super Bowl champs at the time (who went to the SB again) at home last year. When is the last time you could see something like that at a SDSU game?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 20, 2015 10:35:10 GMT -8
I would rather have a good college stadium that is designed for the specific needs of SDSU; not the NFL. The Aztecs will be an afterthought in any new "San Diego" stadium. I understand that you and many others prefer that option. But playing in a new state of the art stadium suitable for Super Bowls isn't a bad alternative. The reviews are that the stadium will be nice enough, but short of Superbowl worthy ...
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 20, 2015 10:36:21 GMT -8
when was the last time we were treated to good Chargers football? With the local media stations having to fill time on newscasts -- San Diego could evolve into a nice college football town with more attention paid to the Aztecs and even the Toreros. Not sure why you put what I said in bold since I was referring to Chargers football as a good, not saying the quality of the football was good, but the Chargers were one game away from the playoffs last year and won a playoff game the year before. They beat the defending Super Bowl champs at the time (who went to the SB again) at home last year. When is the last time you could see something like that at a SDSU game? Meh, 1 playoff win in the last 5 years ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 10:39:58 GMT -8
Your comments are in contention with real world evidence...but don't let that stop you. and what "real" (your) world evidence to you have? You talk a good game but have nothing to back it up. Are you saying that recruits don't like playing in a NFL stadium? They don't like playing in front of a mostly empty stadium and whose fault is that? Yeah, your recruiting "theory" seems to be working well for Pitt...lol 247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=ACCPitt is in a P5 playing in a far newer stadium and can only manage to recruit slightly better than SDSU. Please show real world evidence that playing in a NFL stadium is good for recruiting. On top of that you still haven't provided a single G5 team that averages over 50k in attendance during conference play. This of course will be necessary for the Aztecs if they don't want to continue playing in a dead atmosphere. The fact remains that a 45k stadium makes far for more sense than 65k...even if we were in the B12 starting next year.
|
|
|
Post by mnico213 on May 20, 2015 10:44:20 GMT -8
Not sure why you put what I said in bold since I was referring to Chargers football as a good, not saying the quality of the football was good, but the Chargers were one game away from the playoffs last year and won a playoff game the year before. They beat the defending Super Bowl champs at the time (who went to the SB again) at home last year. When is the last time you could see something like that at a SDSU game? Meh, 1 playoff win in the last 5 years ... But it's not just playoff wins it's about the quality of the games being played here. What is SDSU's best home win during those past 5 years?
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 20, 2015 10:50:49 GMT -8
Meh, 1 playoff win in the last 5 years ... But it's not just playoff wins it's about the quality of the games being played here. What is SDSU's best home win during those past 5 years? dude, 1 playoff win since 2009 means that in that time the Chargers are mediocre at best -- losing as much as they have won ... if you want to compare it to the Aztecs winning records over the last 5 seasons, beating Boise St 2x in the last 3 tries and a conference title (shared) in 2012 then go right ahead all I said is we have not been treated to good chargers football in a long time
|
|
|
Post by ab on May 20, 2015 10:51:25 GMT -8
and what "real" (your) world evidence to you have? You talk a good game but have nothing to back it up. Are you saying that recruits don't like playing in a NFL stadium? They don't like playing in front of a mostly empty stadium and whose fault is that? Yeah, your recruiting "theory" seems to be working well for Pitt...lol 247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=ACCOn top of that you still haven't provided a single G5 team that averages over 50k in attendance during conference play. This of course will be necessary for the Aztecs if they don't want to continue playing in a dead atmosphere. The fact remains that a 45k stadium makes far for more sense than 65k...even if we were in the B12 starting next year. I don't have time to play your senseless games. Recruiting involves a lot more than a stadium and if Pitt's staff isn't doing a good job it's their fault and not the stadium. If you subscribe to rivals or scout, you would have read many recruits say how cool they thought it would be to play at the same stadium where the Chargers play. I've not read one who says they didn't want to play in a NFL stadium. They just don't want to play in an empty stadium, hence much of our football recruiting doesn't take place during home games unless it's the Sky Show. All these things you want me to provide for you have nothing to do with my past comments. Go do your own homework. You've got no experience w/ the media as I have, hence your failed logic on that subject. All this other crap you keep pulling out of your shorts means nothing. Any dumbass knows that in State's current football situation a 45k seat stadium would be better. Maybe they ought to schedule some 2-1 and get some schools in here that might sell tickets. Their recent contract w/ Stanford might help attendance. Bring in Ohio St as we should have, would have definitely sold tickets. So since you're saying no G5 team has averaged 50k means that we can't. Why not be the first?(if that's the case). A 45k seat stadium will NOT keep the Holiday Bowl as a major bowl. But then again, I'm looking at what's best for San Diego and NOT just SDSU. It doesn't appear that you are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 10:58:43 GMT -8
Yeah, your recruiting "theory" seems to be working well for Pitt...lol 247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CompositeTeamRankings?Conference=ACCOn top of that you still haven't provided a single G5 team that averages over 50k in attendance during conference play. This of course will be necessary for the Aztecs if they don't want to continue playing in a dead atmosphere. The fact remains that a 45k stadium makes far for more sense than 65k...even if we were in the B12 starting next year. I don't have time to play your senseless games. Recruiting involves a lot more than a stadium and if Pitt's staff isn't doing a good job it's their fault and not the stadium. If you subscribe to rivals or scout, you would have read many recruits say how cool they thought it would be to play at the same stadium where the Chargers play. I've not read one who says they didn't want to play in a NFL stadium. They just don't want to play in an empty stadium, hence much of our football recruiting doesn't take place during home games unless it's the Sky Show. All these things you want me to provide for you have nothing to do with my past comments. Go do your own homework. You've got no experience w/ the media as I have, hence your failed logic on that subject. All this other crap you keep pulling out of your shorts means nothing. Any dumbass knows that in State's current football situation a 45k seat stadium would be better. Maybe they ought to schedule some 2-1 and get some schools in here that might sell tickets. Their recent contract w/ Stanford might help attendance. Bring in Ohio St as we should have, would have definitely sold tickets. So since you're saying no G5 team has averaged 50k means that we can't. Why not be the first?(if that's the case). A 45k seat stadium will NOT keep the Holiday Bowl as a major bowl. But then again, I'm looking at what's best for San Diego and NOT just SDSU. It doesn't appear that you are. I have a rivals account and can barely ever recall the Q being mentioned by recruits as a deciding factor in their decision making process. The fact that you mention tOSU coming to SDSU on the road shows how little you know about scheduling. Take a look at tOSU, Michigan, and other blue bloods of football. Check how many OOC road games they even play most years...then check how many of those are against G5 teams. SDSU's recruiting has improved over the last 5 years because we started winning...not because of the Q...but in spite of it. As a formed SDSU athlete who lived next door to Kirk and others on the Blackshirt Dz(oh the parties we had) back in the day they never really made a big deal about playing in the Q. Thats just some garbage for people in denial about the state the Q is in to chew on and believe. You're funny, you say I have nothing to back it up, I provide evidence in the form of Pitt's awful recruiting, and then you get all flustered. The bowls will stay when the Chargers get the DT stadium they really want and not the MV they are pretending they are ok with for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by aztech on May 20, 2015 10:59:06 GMT -8
I don't believe so. If the Aztecs were in the pac fudge then maybe. The chances of us getting into the pac fudge slim to none. The early estimates are in and buying land from Qualcomm is 3 mil per acre. A decent stadium is 250 mil. Do the Aztecs really want to spend that much coin for a sport? Will it be even profitable? I don't the Chargers being here has much of an impact on the Aztecs as people think. I think the greatest impact has been the inability to establish a history of winning. I don't question whether it'll happen or not, but if SDSU had its own stadium that's the only way it'll maximize revenue from football. Paying rent to the city and not having parking and concession revenues, are killers. To add further insult we have a shit TV contract to boot. The only way we can overcome our present situation is to perform the way Boise State has over the years. It pains me to say this, but with our history and the lack of admin support you can forget about that. We're stuck with these goats and without that support I highly doubt we'll ever end up being their shepherd so to speak.
At this point in time I think this administration is taking a wait and see approach on how the college football landscape is going to change. So any thoughts about a stadium is really off the table, whether it's the Charger's or our own. IMO their only concern at present is having a stadium to play in. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on May 20, 2015 11:01:52 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 11:05:42 GMT -8
Which is a clear sign someone is probably moving...I say the Rams, but who else?
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on May 20, 2015 11:26:34 GMT -8
Which is a clear sign someone is probably moving...I say the Rams, but who else? I think the Rams and Raiders are coming back to LA.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on May 20, 2015 11:32:41 GMT -8
Which is a clear sign someone is probably moving...I say the Rams, but who else? I think the Rams and Raiders are coming back to LA. Would that put the Chargers in St. Louis or sharing a stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers? You know, because the NFL only wants 2 teams in all of Southern California ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 11:32:42 GMT -8
Which is a clear sign someone is probably moving...I say the Rams, but who else? I think the Rams and Raiders are coming back to LA. That would contradict prior comments from the NFL that they only wanted 2 SoCal teams. I would have to guess the Spanos' would raise hell about that one...especially if they don't end up in downtown SD. I could see the Rams staying put, Kroenke purchasing the raiders and then moving them to LA though.
|
|