|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 13, 2015 11:40:03 GMT -8
Are politics your thing? Politics and political pressure are usually at cause behind things that don't make sense to people. In this case, be the politician that kicked SDSU football to the curb without an extension that covers at least 5 years or until the bonds are paid off in 2027. The loss of SDSU football would cause SDSU basketball to find a new and lesser conference to join -- the citizens would not take kindly to that action. It is a well known secret in SD that should the Chargers leave, the City will turn to SDSU as one of the few entities in San Diego with enough money and need to make use of the whole property and have a positive economic impact on the City, County and State -- and all the City of San Diego has to do is let the university take control of the property. There doesn't even have to be a vote on it because it would not be for private development and entitlement would not be an issue. Do I think a P5 invite is possible? Yes. Is it probable? Not in the immediate future, but the conference re-alignment carousel is by no means done spinning. I believe that both the CFP will have to expand beyond the present 4 teams (my guess is to 8) and the other members of the P5 will compel the B12 to expand beyond its 10 members. My personal belief is the carousel will stop after the conferences try to expand to 16 -- (lessons learned from the WAC16) ... when that becomes unmanageable it will result in eight 10-team autonomy conferences each sending their champion to the quarter-finals of the CFP . It actually works out nicely for basketball too. That would be a total of 80 "P5's" You could argue for four 16-team conferences but who gets left out when you have to account for the 65th "P5" in Notre Dame? No, I think they will go to 72 or 80 teams rather than cut one out. You're being much too nice to dolt1963. If he's actually interested in reasonably debating whether SDSU has a chance for a P5 invitation - as opposed to being nothing more than a troll as I believe is the case - let him respond to this from a knowledgeable and OBJECTIVE source: frankthetank.me/2013/10/30/the-big-12-expansion-index-wake-me-up-when-its-all-over/Frank the Tank knows his stuff
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 13, 2015 11:43:39 GMT -8
Did you really just link frank the Tank? Listen, if you guys want to believe the Big 12 is going to expand, fine. Who knows what the future landscape holds. But I can tell you with certainty Texas does not want to expand. And Texas has to want to. And if they do, Texas would expand east and South to get some stroke back they lost with aggy to the SEC. Does that mean sdsu sucks and doesn't have some value? No. Only means you're going to have to jump a lot of schools to get the big 12 IF something changes and they do expand. PAC is a non starter, you guys know that. So don't get pissed at the obvious. And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91 Not wanting to expand and being forced to expand by the other P5 leagues are two separate things.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 11:48:06 GMT -8
Why would MTS move the bus yard to Gillespie Field? I thought the county had federal funds available to expand the airport. They would have to forfeit that federal govt. money, and lose the ability to expand the airport (which they said was so necessary, they had to close Cajon Speedway almost 10 years ago--nothing much has happened there since). Regarding anything the various governmental agencies proclaim that their current possessions are "vital"; consume it with either Pepto, or take a Valium. In the City's last impotent and otiose attempt to move Lindbergh, the Navy told them that the jets at Miramar MUST stay there, Miramar was absolutely critical to the Navy's "mission". Within a few years they moved them to Yuma/El Centro and the Marines rolled in with helicopters. Uh, that is not how any of that happened between Lindbergh field and NAS Miramar -- not even taking into account what happened with El Toro, Tustin, or Fallon and what how those affected Yuma/El Centro and Lemore. This also fails to take into account the transfer of control of Lindbergh field from the Port of San Diego to the a Regional Airport Authority and the change in alignment for Miramar from NAS to MCAS. As far as your rotary-wing (Helos and Ospreys) vs fixed-wing aircraft at Miramar, do you even know how and why Miramar is used or is important at all? You'd have a better case for moving the airport to Brown Field.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 13, 2015 12:14:32 GMT -8
Did you really just link frank the Tank? Listen, if you guys want to believe the Big 12 is going to expand, fine. Who knows what the future landscape holds. But I can tell you with certainty Texas does not want to expand. And Texas has to want to. And if they do, Texas would expand east and South to get some stroke back they lost with aggy to the SEC. Does that mean sdsu sucks and doesn't have some value? No. Only means you're going to have to jump a lot of schools to get the big 12 IF something changes and they do expand. PAC is a non starter, you guys know that. So don't get pissed at the obvious. And not hiding anything. I was born and raised in del Mar, Torrey Pines class of 91 Texas will do what is best for Texas earning power -- they were opposed to TCU for years and now they share a conference because that was best for Texas earning power. B12 expansion can look East and compete in markets with the ACC, B1G & SEC or it can expand West and compete in markets with just the Pac12. Kick off times for some West coast based B12 schools would be beneficial to B12 media partners in terms of competing with the P12 and providing more content later in the day -- a much easier task than competing for viewers in the East. An easy solution for the B12 to get to 14 is to add Cincinnati to give West Virginia a travel partner, and then 3 teams from the West -- would SDSU be among them? We are in the 8th largest city in the country, bring a good sports program and excellent recruiting grounds -- so yeah we have a good chance of making the cut.
It would be up to the Pac12 to defend their market by inviting SDSU if the Aztecs get an offer from the B12, so I'd back off that "never gonna happen" idea. The choice to the PAC would be to invite SDSU or let the B12 into So Cal and erode P12network viewership even more, allowing any future B12network to charge carriage fees throughout Southern California -- because it works both ways in a footprint (if LA based Pac teams can claim the SD market, then a SD based B12 team can claim the LA market too).Again, nothing is in the immediate future ... but the B12 media contracts are going to be up for negotiation in 2022 (or there about) -- it will be interesting to see how the media landscape changes between now and then with all the other contracts also being negotiated in the interim (B1G, AAC, MWC) and the possible sale of a large stake in the P12network to a media partner as well. Ok; I am going to get a little off the OP topic… That is an interesting thought. P5 so far… SEC - 14 members B1G - 14 members ACC - 14 members + Notre Dame PAC 12 - 12 members BIG XII - 10 members If the BIG XII and PAC 12 decided to expand or were forced to expand to 14 members there a a variety of scenarios that could play out. If the BIG XII offered Cincinnati, BYU, Boise State & SDSU I could potentially see the PAC offering SDSU (and maybe Boise State). I'm not so sure they would offer BYU (I'll say unlikely due to the fact they are a faith-based school and won't play on Sunday - they definitely fit with the profile/culture of the BIG XII more - Baylor/TCU). If the PAC 12 wanted to (or were forced to) get to 14 and SDSU was offered by the BIG XII I guess the other MWC candidates would be UNLV, Colorado State or New Mexico. For simplicity lets say they take SDSU and Boise State. I could then see the BIG XII retaining BYU & Cincinnati and then adding UCF and one of USF, UConn, Memphis or Tulane. There are so many scenarios it will make your head spin. I feel that Houston should be in the conversation somewhere here as well.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 13, 2015 12:18:01 GMT -8
Why would MTS move the bus yard to Gillespie Field? I thought the county had federal funds available to expand the airport. They would have to forfeit that federal govt. money, and lose the ability to expand the airport (which they said was so necessary, they had to close Cajon Speedway almost 10 years ago--nothing much has happened there since). Regarding anything the various governmental agencies proclaim that their current possessions are "vital"; consume it with either Pepto, or take a Valium. In the City's last impotent and otiose attempt to move Lindbergh, the Navy told them that the jets at Miramar MUST stay there, Miramar was absolutely critical to the Navy's "mission". Within a few years they moved them to Yuma/El Centro and the Marines rolled in with helicopters. Yeah--that is a good point.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 12:25:36 GMT -8
Texas will do what is best for Texas earning power -- they were opposed to TCU for years and now they share a conference because that was best for Texas earning power. B12 expansion can look East and compete in markets with the ACC, B1G & SEC or it can expand West and compete in markets with just the Pac12. Kick off times for some West coast based B12 schools would be beneficial to B12 media partners in terms of competing with the P12 and providing more content later in the day -- a much easier task than competing for viewers in the East. An easy solution for the B12 to get to 14 is to add Cincinnati to give West Virginia a travel partner, and then 3 teams from the West -- would SDSU be among them? We are in the 8th largest city in the country, bring a good sports program and excellent recruiting grounds -- so yeah we have a good chance of making the cut.
It would be up to the Pac12 to defend their market by inviting SDSU if the Aztecs get an offer from the B12, so I'd back off that "never gonna happen" idea. The choice to the PAC would be to invite SDSU or let the B12 into So Cal and erode P12network viewership even more, allowing any future B12network to charge carriage fees throughout Southern California -- because it works both ways in a footprint (if LA based Pac teams can claim the SD market, then a SD based B12 team can claim the LA market too).Again, nothing is in the immediate future ... but the B12 media contracts are going to be up for negotiation in 2022 (or there about) -- it will be interesting to see how the media landscape changes between now and then with all the other contracts also being negotiated in the interim (B1G, AAC, MWC) and the possible sale of a large stake in the P12network to a media partner as well. Ok; I am going to get a little off the OP topic… That is an interesting thought. P5 so far… SEC - 14 members B1G - 14 members ACC - 14 members + Notre Dame PAC 12 - 12 members BIG XII - 10 members If the BIG XII and PAC 12 decided to expand or were forced to expand to 14 members there a a variety of scenarios that could play out. If the BIG XII offered Cincinnati, BYU, Boise State & SDSU I could potentially see the PAC offering SDSU (and maybe Boise State). I'm not so sure they would offer BYU (I'll say unlikely due to the fact they are a faith-based school and won't play on Sunday - they definitely fit with the profile/culture of the BIG XII more - Baylor/TCU). If the PAC 12 wanted to (or were forced to) get to 14 and SDSU was offered by the BIG XII I guess the other MWC candidates would be UNLV, Colorado State or New Mexico. For simplicity lets say they take SDSU and Boise State. I could then see the BIG XII retaining BYU & Cincinnati and then adding UCF and one of USF, UConn, Memphis or Tulane. There are so many scenarios it will make your head spin. I feel that Houston should be in the conversation somewhere here as well. I would make a couple of adjustments to your theory in that the B12 would probably cut into the P12 footprint by adding Colorado St, BYU and San Diego St. -- the Pac 12 would probably offer membership to SDSU and Hawaii. I would guess that the Pac would have no trouble splitting Utah and Colorado with the B12, but would draw the line in CA. After that it would be a matter of adding a 14th member and would choose from Nevada, UNLV & Hawaii, while the B12 takes Boise St or Memphis when it loses SDSU. I think the Pac really likes the idea of Hawaii as the gateway to the Pacific and Asia. That's my $.02
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 13, 2015 12:26:29 GMT -8
Ok; I am going to get a little off the OP topic… That is an interesting thought. P5 so far… SEC - 14 members B1G - 14 members ACC - 14 members + Notre Dame PAC 12 - 12 members BIG XII - 10 members If the BIG XII and PAC 12 decided to expand or were forced to expand to 14 members there a a variety of scenarios that could play out. If the BIG XII offered Cincinnati, BYU, Boise State & SDSU I could potentially see the PAC offering SDSU (and maybe Boise State). I'm not so sure they would offer BYU (I'll say unlikely due to the fact they are a faith-based school and won't play on Sunday - they definitely fit with the profile/culture of the BIG XII more - Baylor/TCU). If the PAC 12 wanted to (or were forced to) get to 14 and SDSU was offered by the BIG XII I guess the other MWC candidates would be UNLV, Colorado State or New Mexico. For simplicity lets say they take SDSU and Boise State. I could then see the BIG XII retaining BYU & Cincinnati and then adding UCF and one of USF, UConn, Memphis or Tulane. There are so many scenarios it will make your head spin. I feel that Houston should be in the conversation somewhere here as well. I would make a couple of adjustments to your theory in that the B12 would probably cut into the P12 footprint by adding Colorado St, BYU and San Diego St. -- the Pac 12 would probably offer membership to SDSU and Hawaii. I would guess that the Pac would have no trouble splitting Utah and Colorado with the B12, but would draw the line in CA. After that it would be a matter of adding a 14th member and would choose from Nevada, UNLV & Hawaii, while the B12 takes Boise St or Memphis when it loses SDSU. I think the Pac really likes the idea of Hawaii as the gateway to the Pacific and Asia. That's my $.02 It's going to be an interesting ride; that is for certain.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jun 13, 2015 13:15:29 GMT -8
Regarding anything the various governmental agencies proclaim that their current possessions are "vital"; consume it with either Pepto, or take a Valium. In the City's last impotent and otiose attempt to move Lindbergh, the Navy told them that the jets at Miramar MUST stay there, Miramar was absolutely critical to the Navy's "mission". Within a few years they moved them to Yuma/El Centro and the Marines rolled in with helicopters. Uh, that is not how any of that happened between Lindbergh field and NAS Miramar -- not even taking into account what happened with El Toro, Tustin, or Fallon and what how those affected Yuma/El Centro and Lemore. This also fails to take into account the transfer of control of Lindbergh field from the Port of San Diego to the a Regional Airport Authority and the change in alignment for Miramar from NAS to MCAS. As far as your rotary-wing (Helos and Ospreys) vs fixed-wing aircraft at Miramar, do you even know how and why Miramar is used or is important at all? You'd have a better case for moving the airport to Brown Field. I beg your pardon---and we'll let you have the last word--but, regarding the point I made, I was in the room with the base commander who made that comment. So pettifog until you weep, but I'll stand by the conversation, in which I participated.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 13, 2015 13:27:25 GMT -8
Uh, that is not how any of that happened between Lindbergh field and NAS Miramar -- not even taking into account what happened with El Toro, Tustin, or Fallon and what how those affected Yuma/El Centro and Lemore. This also fails to take into account the transfer of control of Lindbergh field from the Port of San Diego to the a Regional Airport Authority and the change in alignment for Miramar from NAS to MCAS. As far as your rotary-wing (Helos and Ospreys) vs fixed-wing aircraft at Miramar, do you even know how and why Miramar is used or is important at all? You'd have a better case for moving the airport to Brown Field. I beg your pardon---and we'll let you have the last word--but, regarding the point I made, I was in the room with the base commander who made that comment. So pettifog until you weep, but I'll stand by the conversation, in which I participated. I was with the Port of San Diego while we were in control of Lindbergh field and know exactly our relationship with both the Marine Corps and the Navy prior to the RAA assuming control. I know exactly what attitude they came in with and how they tried to use the BRAC to exert influence. It really was a shame too, as their actions caused the USMC to scuttle the deal for part of the Recruit Depot on Pacific Hwy that the Port had negotiated to expand the East side of Lindbergh field. It really showed a lack of understanding of the bigger picture on the part of the RAA to realize what the closure of El Toro and Tustin meant to the movement of air units to the Marine Corps and why the Navy was moving their units to Fallon and Lemore in order to make room for the Marines to take over Miramar.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 13, 2015 13:40:17 GMT -8
AccessBowlTime - I was answering how I was connected to San Diego. Have said multiple times I am a Colorado alum '95.
HighNTight -- I appreciate the color on how SDSU is going to keep their football program and what is planned for the Q when the Chargers leave. It was the explanation I was asking for at the very start. I'll take responsibility for this thread devolving in some train wreck quasi flame war, but didn't enter as my intention. Will say it again, I was simply shocked to read the take of Aztec fans on the stadium matter.
As for expansion, what makes sense, TV markets, academic profile, etc. I have a very good grasp of what is at play.
Can you make a solid case for SDSU? Sure, absolutely. Especially if the stadium situation works itself out.
Will the Big 12 expand? Something would have to change drastically. You have to understand Texas. They like lording over their little fiefdom. They like rarely leaving the State of Texas to play football. And they like having a small conference they can control easier. They and Oklahoma are the only two schools with the stroke to blow the conference up. If the PAC Presidents had to do it over again, they may have taken Oklahoma and Lite. The excuse was Lite's academic profile. The reality was they had just inked their at the time record breaking TV deal and had no interest in a cluster **** 14 team conference. Especially breaking up the original PAC 8. Just didn't get any traction and in the end it never actually got to a vote. Rambled there - point being even Oklahoma didn't have the stroke to move on their own to the PAC.
Going forward? The B1G will get to 16. Probably the SEC too. How do they get there? Picking apart the Big 12 and ACC? Or elevating a group of G5 schools? If something is going to happen anytime soon, its going to be with the B1G and their new TV contract in a couple years. Will that cause the last round of musical chairs? Will they be able to pull it off? We'll see soon enough.
But from the Big 12's perspective -- TV gave Texas a sweetheart deal to keep the Big 12 standing. Texas makes more money of LHN than anyone. Oklahoma has a good sized T3 rights deal. The other schools claim in the media they have good deals, but they're adding a bunch of oranges to their apples. Best example being West Virginia announcing their IMG deal as T3. It includes radio, stadium signage, coaches shows and sponsorships.
There is not a combination of schools outside Florida State and Clemson that would add to the conference distribution. Texas and Oklahoma will get the playoff nod if they're in contention. They have no reason to expand.
Now if you tell me the P5 are going to break off from the NCAA and force their own set of rules. That TV is going to turn the NCAA into the NFL. That academic profiles and conference branding are going to go by the wayside. Sure -- its going to be wild ride.
Bottom line, I have nothing against SDSU. I really didn't think not getting a PAC or Big 12 invite was all that controversial. Knew it wouldn't be popular, but not controversial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 14:31:16 GMT -8
AccessBowlTime - I was answering how I was connected to San Diego. Have said multiple times I am a Colorado alum '95. HighNTight -- I appreciate the color on how SDSU is going to keep their football program and what is planned for the Q when the Chargers leave. It was the explanation I was asking for at the very start. I'll take responsibility for this thread devolving in some train wreck quasi flame war, but didn't enter as my intention. Will say it again, I was simply shocked to read the take of Aztec fans on the stadium matter. As for expansion, what makes sense, TV markets, academic profile, etc. I have a very good grasp of what is at play. Can you make a solid case for SDSU? Sure, absolutely. Especially if the stadium situation works itself out. Will the Big 12 expand? Something would have to change drastically. You have to understand Texas. They like lording over their little fiefdom. They like rarely leaving the State of Texas to play football. And they like having a small conference they can control easier. They and Oklahoma are the only two schools with the stroke to blow the conference up. If the PAC Presidents had to do it over again, they may have taken Oklahoma and Lite. The excuse was Lite's academic profile. The reality was they had just inked their at the time record breaking TV deal and had no interest in a cluster **** 14 team conference. Especially breaking up the original PAC 8. Just didn't get any traction and in the end it never actually got to a vote. Rambled there - point being even Oklahoma didn't have the stroke to move on their own to the PAC. Going forward? The B1G will get to 16. Probably the SEC too. How do they get there? Picking apart the Big 12 and ACC? Or elevating a group of G5 schools? If something is going to happen anytime soon, its going to be with the B1G and their new TV contract in a couple years. Will that cause the last round of musical chairs? Will they be able to pull it off? We'll see soon enough. But from the Big 12's perspective -- TV gave Texas a sweetheart deal to keep the Big 12 standing. Texas makes more money of LHN than anyone. Oklahoma has a good sized T3 rights deal. The other schools claim in the media they have good deals, but they're adding a bunch of oranges to their apples. Best example being West Virginia announcing their IMG deal as T3. It includes radio, stadium signage, coaches shows and sponsorships. There is not a combination of schools outside Florida State and Clemson that would add to the conference distribution. Texas and Oklahoma will get the playoff nod if they're in contention. They have no reason to expand. Now if you tell me the P5 are going to break off from the NCAA and force their own set of rules. That TV is going to turn the NCAA into the NFL. That academic profiles and conference branding are going to go by the wayside. Sure -- its going to be wild ride. Bottom line, I have nothing against SDSU. I really didn't think not getting a PAC or Big 12 invite was all that controversial. Knew it wouldn't be popular, but not controversial. You have a very difficult time understanding the issue, what is controversial here is you and your delivery. You just did it again above. Everyone here understands the situation SDSU is in.... odd that you would not expect there would be homers (or people that want to be positive) here. You come in acting as if you know what will happen in the future... you don't. It seems you should be old enough to realize the only constant in this world is change. Things will change, no knows how or when for sure. When you come to an Aztec fan board and tell everyone here multiple times in various ways that getting a P5 invite will never happen it's gonna be controversial. Seems obvious to everyone here but you. Not popular... hahahaha... sure. Go predict the future elsewhere it may be less controversial there.
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Jun 13, 2015 14:35:55 GMT -8
Fair enough. You're right in that I thought everyone here understood, but it wasn't reading that way. Regardless, it's not my place to say anything. Nice to see how strongly you guys support the program. I don't agree with a lot of the takes about the Chargers leaving would be a benefit to the Aztecs, but shouldn't have been so annoyed by it. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 14, 2015 10:43:44 GMT -8
Foolish as foolish is. For whatever reason people like you choose to not look at all the benefits to the City of San Diego and for that matter the County, in having a new NFL stadium vs. NOT having a NFL stadium. Numbers have been presented but I guess your eyes fail to see them. and to answer your question...Not a damn dime because I believe we (San Diegans) are better off with the Chargers staying in San Diego and the Aztecs playing in a new NFL quality stadium rather than an erector set style stadium with bench seats. As I have said, I have no problem with the Chargers building a new stadium in San Diego so long as they pay for it themselves. The beauty of this whole process that is playing out is that you get to voice your opinion and I get to voice my opinion with a vote at the ballot box. Come December 15th, if in fact any proposal is reached between the city and the Chargers and they are actually able to get it on a ballot, both you and I get to vote on it. May the majority rule! Good luck at the polls! Assuming the Chargers depart San Diego, which at this point looks like the most likely scenario, will you support a San Diego State University stadium campaign? If your definition of support means donating money, we'll just have to wait and see. I've "supported" plenty of efforts on campus by donating my time and money and quite frankly don't feel a need to do much else.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 14, 2015 11:12:38 GMT -8
As I have said, I have no problem with the Chargers building a new stadium in San Diego so long as they pay for it themselves. The beauty of this whole process that is playing out is that you get to voice your opinion and I get to voice my opinion with a vote at the ballot box. Come December 15th, if in fact any proposal is reached between the city and the Chargers and they are actually able to get it on a ballot, both you and I get to vote on it. May the majority rule! Good luck at the polls! Assuming the Chargers depart San Diego, which at this point looks like the most likely scenario, will you support a San Diego State University stadium campaign? If your definition of support means donating money, we'll just have to wait and see. I've "supported" plenty of efforts on campus by donating my time and money and quite frankly don't feel a need to do much else. "We'll just have to wait and see" for what? I sincerely appreciate your previous support of time and money on behalf of San Diego State University.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 14, 2015 15:09:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 14, 2015 15:52:19 GMT -8
Only one thing in that poll is good news for Dino and Fibiani: that 44% said they didn't even bother to vote on Petco when the matter was submitted to them. The Spanoi will spend megabucks communicating by email, snail mail, telephone, door-to-door solicitation, Pony Express and every other type of personal contact to urge known supporters to approve the stadium deal reached. (And there WILL be a stadium deal reached since the city fathers and muthas will cave.) On the other side of the coin, there will be about a buck fitty spent urging citizens to vote no. My prediction is therefore that the very carefully worded question will be approved by about 52-48. Oh and BTW . . . considering how tenuous polls show the chances of approval should be, if they actually expected the Aztecs would continue to share a stadium with them, doncha think the Chargers would be trying to get SDSU on board to support the idea? Since at least to this point there is absolutely zero public acknowledgement that the Chargers are so doing, I for one have to think the Chargers have asked SDSU about that and been told the university has no interest in helping them get a deal done for a new stadium.
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 14, 2015 15:58:06 GMT -8
Only one thing in that poll is good news for Dino and Fibiani: that 44% said they didn't even bother to vote on Petco when the matter was submitted to them. The Spanoi will spend megabucks communicating by email, snail mail, telephone, door-to-door solicitation, Pony Express and every other type of personal contact to urge known supporters to approve the stadium deal reached. (And there WILL be a stadium deal reached since the city fathers and muthas will cave.) On the other side of the coin, there will be about a buck fitty spent urging citizens to vote no. My prediction is therefore that the very carefully worded question will be approved by about 52-48. Oh and BTW . . . considering how tenuous polls show the chances of approval should be, if they actually expected the Aztecs would continue to share a stadium with them, doncha think the Chargers would be trying to get SDSU on board to support the idea? Since at least to this point there is absolutely zero public acknowledgement that the Chargers are so doing, I for one have to think the Chargers have asked SDSU about that and been told the university has no interest in helping the Chargers get a deal done for a new stadium.I would think the reply from SDSU was along the lines of: what's in it for us? The Chargers would respond: basically nothing but increased rent to play in our stadium SDSU replies: We'll get back to you
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 14, 2015 17:13:33 GMT -8
Only one thing in that poll is good news for Dino and Fibiani: that 44% said they didn't even bother to vote on Petco when the matter was submitted to them. The Spanoi will spend megabucks communicating by email, snail mail, telephone, door-to-door solicitation, Pony Express and every other type of personal contact to urge known supporters to approve the stadium deal reached. (And there WILL be a stadium deal reached since the city fathers and muthas will cave.) On the other side of the coin, there will be about a buck fitty spent urging citizens to vote no. My prediction is therefore that the very carefully worded question will be approved by about 52-48. Oh and BTW . . . considering how tenuous polls show the chances of approval should be, if they actually expected the Aztecs would continue to share a stadium with them, doncha think the Chargers would be trying to get SDSU on board to support the idea? Since at least to this point there is absolutely zero public acknowledgement that the Chargers are so doing, I for one have to think the Chargers have asked SDSU about that and been told the university has no interest in helping the Chargers get a deal done for a new stadium.I would think the reply from SDSU was along the lines of: what's in it for us? The Chargers would respond: basically nothing but increased rent to play in our stadium SDSU replies: We'll get back to you Very cogent comments, gentlemen. Actually, the Spanoses may NOT have contacted SDSU, realizing that the Aztecs would certainly refuse to support them. My opinion is that SDSU understands that a new NFL-type stadium deal would in no way benefit its football program. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 14, 2015 17:22:39 GMT -8
You guys are assuming the Chargers want to be here. Every indication since probably 2006 would lead me to believe otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Jun 14, 2015 18:36:19 GMT -8
Whether they really want to be here or not, no one knows. What we do know right now is that they have no where to go. And there's probably a better chance of them moving to South Africa over Carson right now. Inglewood is getting built.
|
|