Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 14:15:17 GMT -8
The obvious follow up question is if the NFL stadiums are so good why aren't all major college football games played in NFL stadiums? Notice the majority of people wanting SDSU to rent from a NFL team are either outright Charger fans or express feelings of no longer having faith in the Aztec Athletic dept admin and/or the football team and its prospects. Draw from that what you will. Not true. Of course using a stereotype is an easier way to set up your strawman in the debate. Not true? You're living in a dream world...or you mistook the word majority for meaning all? |
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Jun 15, 2015 14:19:47 GMT -8
Of course it is not true. There are only two psoters on here that I would put into the camp you describe. The rest are alumni that truly believe a shared facility is the best fit for the university (AB and Afan come to mind). To paint them as something they are not is pretty low.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 14:31:05 GMT -8
Of course it is not true. There are only two psoters on here that I would put into the camp you describe. The rest are alumni that truly believe a shared facility is the best fit for the university (AB and Afan come to mind). To paint them as something they are not is pretty low. You are a charger fan right? Just because you are an Aztec fan does not trump your Charger fanhood. So once again I'll assert that the majority of those calling for a shared stadium are either Charger fans(or also Charger fans) and/or express feelings of no longer having faith in the Aztec Athletic dept admin and/or the football team and its prospects. Even if that weren't true though, it wouldn't change the fact that every real world example of a shared pro/college stadium today being an outright failure for the school involved. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 15, 2015 15:09:12 GMT -8
"Opened in 1921, 85,000-seat Stanford Stadium is among the oldest and largest college-football stadiums in the country. But what was once a source of pride—an arena large enough to attract a Super Bowl (as it did in 1985)—has become a liability, if not an embarrassment. As football crowds dwindled over the past two decades, athletics officials took measures to disguise the vast expanse of empty seats, installing a large tarp over entire sections. Last season, attendance at home games averaged about 36,000 and no game drew more than 40,000. “ For TV and recruiting, empty seats are a nightmare,” says Jim Rutter, ’86, a season-ticket holder for more than 30 years and editor of The Bootleg, a monthly magazine devoted to Cardinal sports. “This isn’t so much a downsizing as a right-sizing.” By removing the track that encircles the playing field and reducing overall capacity, designers can bring fans much closer to the action—the first row of seats will be just 50 feet from the sideline. Red-shirt senior linebacker Jon Alston says that will give Stanford’s players a home field advantage lacking in the current stadium. “The noise makes a difference when you’re out there. It heightens the whole football experience.” Leland says there also are economic reasons to reduce seating. “ Creating a ticket scarcity is a better financial model than having a ticket surplus.”alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=34154Those statements are almost identical to SDSU's situation at the Q. I think this is the best post on the issue I have seen to date. Way to make it rain 2003 Ditto. I'll add that ticket scarcity allows for increasing the cost (see Viejas Arena) whereas massive ticket surpluses mean the seller has to almost give them away as with SDSU football. Awright, I'm convinced. We should build a 40K seat stadium which is expandable to 50K+. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 15, 2015 15:26:37 GMT -8
Speaking of Stanford's new stadium, I'm a bit surprised that they reduced the capacity so much. From 80K to 50K is a reduction of over one third. Fifty thousand seats is not trivial, but I would think that Stanford could draw more than that quite a bit of the time. Okay, maybe 80,000 is too big, but if you play the videos linked by another poster you will see a number of photos of the old stadium filled to capacity. Giving up 30,000 seats is, potentially, leaving a lot of money on the table. I would have thought that a capacity of 60,000 would have made more sense. As for SDSU, if we were ever fortunate enough to build our own stadium, 40,000 to 45,000 would be just fine. But Stanford is a P5 school and one that seems capable of winning despite its tough entrance requirements. I just don't understand making do with a stadium that is considerably smaller than that of most successful P5 schools, AzWm "Opened in 1921, 85,000-seat Stanford Stadium is among the oldest and largest college-football stadiums in the country. But what was once a source of pride—an arena large enough to attract a Super Bowl (as it did in 1985)—has become a liability, if not an embarrassment. As football crowds dwindled over the past two decades, athletics officials took measures to disguise the vast expanse of empty seats, installing a large tarp over entire sections. Last season, attendance at home games averaged about 36,000 and no game drew more than 40,000. “ For TV and recruiting, empty seats are a nightmare,” says Jim Rutter, ’86, a season-ticket holder for more than 30 years and editor of The Bootleg, a monthly magazine devoted to Cardinal sports. “This isn’t so much a downsizing as a right-sizing.” By removing the track that encircles the playing field and reducing overall capacity, designers can bring fans much closer to the action—the first row of seats will be just 50 feet from the sideline. Red-shirt senior linebacker Jon Alston says that will give Stanford’s players a home field advantage lacking in the current stadium. “The noise makes a difference when you’re out there. It heightens the whole football experience.” Leland says there also are economic reasons to reduce seating. “ Creating a ticket scarcity is a better financial model than having a ticket surplus.”alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=34154Those statements are almost identical to SDSU's situation at the Q. ***should be marked as required reading*** Well done, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Jun 15, 2015 17:35:51 GMT -8
Did bringing in a highly motivated coach , who could recruit quality players and raise the quality of the football team have anything to do with the Stanford team doing so well - Winning and thus bringing fans into the stadium . Winning attracts fans , If you do not win fans are not going to come to games. It is the same for every sport .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 17:43:06 GMT -8
Did bringing in a highly motivated coach , who could recruit quality players and raise the quality of the football team have anything to do with the Stanford team doing so well - Winning and thus bringing fans into the stadium . Winning attracts fans , If you do not win fans are not going to come to games. It is the same for every sport . Historical attendance data says otherwise |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 15, 2015 18:41:15 GMT -8
Did bringing in a highly motivated coach , who could recruit quality players and raise the quality of the football team have anything to do with the Stanford team doing so well - Winning and thus bringing fans into the stadium . Winning attracts fans , If you do not win fans are not going to come to games. It is the same for every sport . And Stanford building the new stadium is what allowed them (& Harbaugh) to bring in the better recruits & improve the quality of the team. You think Fisher has the same success w/o Viejas arena? Viejas at least gave him a fighting chance.
Harris was recruiting to OLD Stanford stadium; Harbaugh to NEW Stanford stadium & a rejuvenated fan base as a result with newer, prettier seats. People showed up during the losing seasons to enjoy the new stadium & investment, and having a smaller stadium made it look even more appealing (even during the smaller crowds). WHOLE major difference. Harbaugh could go 4-8 & 5-7 those 1st 2 seasons and still attract good recruits given that facility & a "more fun" stadium.
Making investments and having a fan base that partners with the football program to make an impression on recruits is how you build a program, that means putting people in seats. You fill the stadium, create an ambiance that sells, and you'll get better talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris92065 on Jun 17, 2015 22:09:09 GMT -8
Please explain to me how sdsu is going to afford over 500 million for a new stadium? Including buying part of Qualcomm?
And then explain to me how you are going to fill that brand new stadium?
If sdsu truly has a few hundred million dollars lying around, let's bring in a real coach and win a few games that matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 18, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 18, 2015 19:12:36 GMT -8
50,000 seat Stanford Stadium - University of Stanford Cardinals /Construction%20Leaders%20Today/Archives/Vance%20Brown%20Photos/Vance%20Brown%20Stanford%20Stadium/Stanford%20Stadium%201.jpg) |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 18, 2015 19:15:22 GMT -8
35,000 - 50,000 seat ____________________ Stadium - San Diego State University Aztecs Can't Wait! Here is the field courtesy of USDfan (aka SDFF)…  |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jun 18, 2015 19:28:52 GMT -8
Please explain to me how sdsu is going to afford over 500 million for a new stadium? Including buying part of Qualcomm? And then explain to me how you are going to fill that brand new stadium? If sdsu truly has a few hundred million dollars lying around, let's bring in a real coach and win a few games that matter. I think it's been a pretty unanimous notion that acquiring land is first and foremost about campus expansion. We shouldn't combine the two so close. The land is 300, and that would solv a space issue looking forward. Leave the crumbling stadium up and build around it, and try to do some capital raising a new/redo for as long as needed for all I care. Land is the biggest asset. A stadium is distant second in that convo. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jun 18, 2015 19:41:21 GMT -8
Please explain to me how sdsu is going to afford over 500 million for a new stadium? Including buying part of Qualcomm? And then explain to me how you are going to fill that brand new stadium? If sdsu truly has a few hundred million dollars lying around, let's bring in a real coach and win a few games that matter. I think it's been a pretty unanimous notion that acquiring land is first and foremost about campus expansion. We shouldn't combine the two so close. The land is 300, and that would solv a space issue looking forward. Leave the crumbling stadium up and build around it, and try to do some capital raising a new/redo for as long as needed for all I care. Land is the biggest asset. A stadium is distant second in that convo. Yup, campus expansion is HUGE. There are a number of ways financing can occur. High N Tight has covered them in detail in the past; so I will defer to him. FYI, the new 40,000 seat Colorado State Stadium requires less than 20 acres of land. www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/csu/football/2015/06/18/colorado-state-football-stadium/28932383/ |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 18, 2015 20:24:47 GMT -8
I think it's been a pretty unanimous notion that acquiring land is first and foremost about campus expansion. We shouldn't combine the two so close. The land is 300, and that would solv a space issue looking forward. Leave the crumbling stadium up and build around it, and try to do some capital raising a new/redo for as long as needed for all I care. Land is the biggest asset. A stadium is distant second in that convo. Yup, campus expansion is HUGE. There are a number of ways financing can occur. High N Tight has covered them in detail in the past; so I will defer to him.FYI, the new 40,000 seat Colorado State Stadium requires less than 20 acres of land. www.coloradoan.com/story/sports/csu/football/2015/06/18/colorado-state-football-stadium/28932383/I will keep this short and sweet, The city will probably have no issue regarding an interim lease with SDSU for the entire property at a very low rate while the entities involved (City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority, State of California and the Univeristy) negotiate the details of the land transfer (purchase, lease-purchase, land swap or eminent domain). Site improvements will be done in a variety of methods, specific to each structure and based on similar projects on the Mesa over the last decade that were self-financed like parking structures, financed by the builder at no cost to the university in exchange for management rights (like dorms), in cooperation with sponsors (research labs) and through donors (academic halls). There is the possibility of working with companies (in partnership) to create a retail and social activities space like an Annex Village featuring shops, restaurants and possibly a campus hotel to accommodate visiting teams, guest lecturers and recruits that is operated in association with the School of Hospitality & Tourism. Local colleges (like a law school) could be invited to locate itself on campus in exchange for a Joint Doctorate agreement with SDSU. Funds for this undertaking can come from a variety of sources including investments by the State of California in the form of land swaps, eminent domain or grants, CSU-System Bonds, Federal Green Technology Grants, Sponsorship, Donations, Campanile Foundation, President's Leadership Fund, Student Fees, Public-Private Partnerships, City of San Diego Cooperative Development (River Park), SanDAG infrastructure investment and more ... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2015 7:47:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sgvaztec on Jun 20, 2015 10:54:33 GMT -8
46.000 is my personal magic number. Not too big, but big enough.
Also, elevate the field level seats at least 6 feet off the ground. It totally screws everything up when the people behind the bench have to stand just to see anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jun 20, 2015 16:41:55 GMT -8
I will keep this short and sweet, The city will probably have no issue regarding an interim lease with SDSU for the entire property at a very low rate while the entities involved (City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority, State of California and the Univeristy) negotiate the details of the land transfer (purchase, lease-purchase, land swap or eminent domain). Site improvements will be done in a variety of methods, specific to each structure and based on similar projects on the Mesa over the last decade that were self-financed like parking structures, financed by the builder at no cost to the university in exchange for management rights (like dorms), in cooperation with sponsors (research labs) and through donors (academic halls). There is the possibility of working with companies (in partnership) to create a retail and social activities space like an Annex Village featuring shops, restaurants and possibly a campus hotel to accommodate visiting teams, guest lecturers and recruits that is operated in association with the School of Hospitality & Tourism. Local colleges (like a law school) could be invited to locate itself on campus in exchange for a Joint Doctorate agreement with SDSU. Funds for this undertaking can come from a variety of sources including investments by the State of California in the form of land swaps, eminent domain or grants, CSU-System Bonds, Federal Green Technology Grants, Sponsorship, Donations, Campanile Foundation, President's Leadership Fund, Student Fees, Public-Private Partnerships, City of San Diego Cooperative Development (River Park), SanDAG infrastructure investment and more ... Wow. That would be spectacular. Would love to see this prior to my demise! |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Jun 21, 2015 9:57:01 GMT -8
I will keep this short and sweet, The city will probably have no issue regarding an interim lease with SDSU for the entire property at a very low rate while the entities involved (City of San Diego, San Diego Water Authority, State of California and the Univeristy) negotiate the details of the land transfer (purchase, lease-purchase, land swap or eminent domain). Site improvements will be done in a variety of methods, specific to each structure and based on similar projects on the Mesa over the last decade that were self-financed like parking structures, financed by the builder at no cost to the university in exchange for management rights (like dorms), in cooperation with sponsors (research labs) and through donors (academic halls). There is the possibility of working with companies (in partnership) to create a retail and social activities space like an Annex Village featuring shops, restaurants and possibly a campus hotel to accommodate visiting teams, guest lecturers and recruits that is operated in association with the School of Hospitality & Tourism. Local colleges (like a law school) could be invited to locate itself on campus in exchange for a Joint Doctorate agreement with SDSU. Funds for this undertaking can come from a variety of sources including investments by the State of California in the form of land swaps, eminent domain or grants, CSU-System Bonds, Federal Green Technology Grants, Sponsorship, Donations, Campanile Foundation, President's Leadership Fund, Student Fees, Public-Private Partnerships, City of San Diego Cooperative Development (River Park), SanDAG infrastructure investment and more ... Wow. That would be spectacular. Would love to see this prior to my demise! I don't know when your demise is scheduled for -- but if the Chargers depart before 2020, you will at least see the unveiling of a site master plan that will be worked out with all of the interested parties within 5 years. I imagine the most important projects will be addressed first, and oddly, I think those would be the River Park and a couple of parking structures along the route of the trolley line that will address flood-plain mitigation for the site & provide storm-water collection as well -- and in addition to providing the necessary parking spaces that will be lost ... both from the river park and as new buildings are constructed. The next buildings of importance to the university will be dorms and residence halls -- those can be financed by the builder at no cost to the university (in exchange for management rights for the residences). Once the residences are completed, student support services will be next. This will be done in partnership with local business wanting access to campus (retail, restaurant, entertainment, banking and lodging) for which the university will lease out the space and the businesses will build to suit their needs, also at no cost to the university. The last to be addressed will be the academic buildings, which require a larger degree of funding support from donors, sponsors and bonds (provided through CSU, Campanile Foundation & PLF) . They will be planned out in advance, but much like the Prebys Student Union or Jacobs JAM center ... they won't break ground until a majority of the funding is secured. This is where partnerships with local companies for research labs and degree programs will come into play. For example. a $20M investment by the university to partner with a local law school for a building on campus that would provide future students with a law degree program would pay huge dividends for SDSU. Stadium replacement or reconstruction would probably be addressed a decade or so into the development of the Annex ... I imagine that $300M or more could be achieved after a decade of fundraising and should significantly reduce the cost of the project. I don't know if the university would want to keep the stadium in the center of the campus and rebuild it in phases or construct a new one somewhere else on the site and demo the Q. In either case it will get underway about a decade after the Chargers leave. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 21, 2015 11:34:07 GMT -8
Maybe it's too big. Average attendance last season was the lowest ever, at 27,461. But I do like the idea of a stadium of this size (or slightly larger) for SDSU. |
|
