|
|
Post by stayclassy on Jul 2, 2015 11:47:43 GMT -8
While we aren't Akron now, keep in mind that spending $60 million on a stadium (in 2009, in Ohio and not in California's tax, property value, and environmental climate) can seriously backfire if we don't get picked up by a Power conference. Best case scenario: we have a 40,000 seat stadium that can't keep up with demand for our West Virginia of the West. Worst case: we are stuck with an empty and expensive stadium for a team draining the general fund that's used seven times a year (maybe soccer will play a match there/we have a monster truck rally/Lady Gaga concerts). Keep in mind, Akron doesn't exactly have our beaches, weather, entertainment, or other distractions to keep people from showing up. This is Ohio, worst state ever, but also one of the most (literally) rabid football states. blutarsky.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/i-would-not-have-built-that-stadium/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 12:06:32 GMT -8
MAC and Sun Belt schools get some of the worst attendance in D1...so this is no surprise and honestly has nothing to do with SDSU or really any MW, except maybe SJSU. We play in an empty dump and still draw well compared to our G5 peers. A 40 to 50k seat stadium would only improve our fortunes and stature as one of the top G5 schools looking to move into the ranks of the P5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 2, 2015 12:49:49 GMT -8
While we aren't Akron now, keep in mind that spending $60 million on a stadium (in 2009, in Ohio and not in California's tax, property value, and environmental climate) can seriously backfire if we don't get picked up by a Power conference. Best case scenario: we have a 40,000 seat stadium that can't keep up with demand for our West Virginia of the West. Worst case: we are stuck with an empty and expensive stadium for a team draining the general fund that's used seven times a year (maybe soccer will play a match there/we have a monster truck rally/Lady Gaga concerts). Keep in mind, Akron doesn't exactly have our beaches, weather, entertainment, or other distractions to keep people from showing up. This is Ohio, worst state ever, but also one of the most (literally) rabid football states. blutarsky.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/i-would-not-have-built-that-stadium/Waste of time... MLS team in San Diego will be a tenant as well as US mens and El Tri friendlies, etc. A new stadium is going to happen, it will either be with the Chargers or our own, fantastic, stadium. I so wish. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 2, 2015 13:00:48 GMT -8
While we aren't Akron now, keep in mind that spending $60 million on a stadium (in 2009, in Ohio and not in California's tax, property value, and environmental climate) can seriously backfire if we don't get picked up by a Power conference. Best case scenario: we have a 40,000 seat stadium that can't keep up with demand for our West Virginia of the West. Worst case: we are stuck with an empty and expensive stadium for a team draining the general fund that's used seven times a year (maybe soccer will play a match there/we have a monster truck rally/Lady Gaga concerts). Keep in mind, Akron doesn't exactly have our beaches, weather, entertainment, or other distractions to keep people from showing up. This is Ohio, worst state ever, but also one of the most (literally) rabid football states. blutarsky.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/i-would-not-have-built-that-stadium/Waste of time... MLS team in San Diego will be a tenant as well as US mens and El Tri friendlies, etc. A new stadium is going to happen, it will either be with the Chargers or our own, fantastic, stadium. I so wish. When we have a new practice facility in which we've struggled mightily to fully pay for a $14 million structure, how will we find $250 million? Never mind, the millions it will cost just in design and legal work before we ever break ground. And all of that, with NO current obvious community support, NO momentum with excitement for the team or the coach, NO vocal leadership even expressing, often and loud, a need for a new stadium. How would this wonderful spectacle EVER occur? |
|
|
|
Post by stayclassy on Jul 2, 2015 13:13:07 GMT -8
Even if we managed to come up with extra events to fill the stadium, how much of that revenue would actually go back into SDSU's pockets (forget the athletic department pockets). We made a devil's bargain with the Associated Students to get Viejas financed, and that pales in comparison to a new football stadium. Ultimately it was worth the payoff, but has anyone ever been to Galen Center (USC)? Having a beautiful facility didn't build our basketball program, it was Fisher all the way. Sure, maybe we don't recruit as well to the Sports Arena, but Fisher made it happen. I'm also concerned about the PSLs in this new stadium--have we all already gotten over the price hikes at Viejas this season? Bottom line, telling the Chargers that they should take a hike isn't doing SDSU any favors. We should be hoping that if they leave the city will let us take over Qualcomm for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Jul 2, 2015 13:32:38 GMT -8
Even if we managed to come up with extra events to fill the stadium, how much of that revenue would actually go back into SDSU's pockets (forget the athletic department pockets). We made a devil's bargain with the Associated Students to get Viejas financed, and that pales in comparison to a new football stadium. Ultimately it was worth the payoff, but has anyone ever been to Galen Center (USC)? Having a beautiful facility didn't build our basketball program, it was Fisher all the way. Sure, maybe we don't recruit as well to the Sports Arena, but Fisher made it happen. I'm also concerned about the PSLs in this new stadium--have we all already gotten over the price hikes at Viejas this season? Bottom line, telling the Chargers that they should take a hike isn't doing SDSU any favors. We should be hoping that if they leave the city will let us take over Qualcomm for the time being. Regarding an on-campus stadium, I believe State pretty much shot its wad when it decided to put a big hole in a bigger hole. But here's the thing. In my opinion a program doesn't have to justify its existence when it's playing in it's own back yard. Even if the team sucks I believe people would be inclined to enjoy the "college experience" and all that goes with it, (from tailgates to "reminiscing the good times"), the game almost being secondary, (unless they were actually good). That's the traditional "game day experience" that so many campuses enjoy. Driving to the concrete jungle that be the Q, again, in my opinion, was always a hindrance in generating community support for Aztec football. (The fact that the program didn't have much to offer was no help either. Even if, some how, a stadium was built in MV for Aztec football, the same challenge would continue to exist. If it's the same show, attendance will continue to suffer, (30-35,000). Pretty pointless when you're talking hundreds of millions, huh? Maybe it just gets back to the same old tired argument. Win football games that matter. (And to think about it further, while UCLA is still able to parlay off the "Terry Donahue experience", State attendance has pretty much slowly gone south after the departure of Claude Gilbert). |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jul 2, 2015 13:48:07 GMT -8
While we aren't Akron now, keep in mind that spending $60 million on a stadium (in 2009, in Ohio and not in California's tax, property value, and environmental climate) can seriously backfire if we don't get picked up by a Power conference. Best case scenario: we have a 40,000 seat stadium that can't keep up with demand for our West Virginia of the West. Worst case: we are stuck with an empty and expensive stadium for a team draining the general fund that's used seven times a year (maybe soccer will play a match there/we have a monster truck rally/Lady Gaga concerts). Keep in mind, Akron doesn't exactly have our beaches, weather, entertainment, or other distractions to keep people from showing up. This is Ohio, worst state ever, but also one of the most (literally) rabid football states. blutarsky.wordpress.com/2015/06/30/i-would-not-have-built-that-stadium/Akon/=/SDSU. Even when we were in the abyss, we still had over 25k paying customers averages. But sure, paying rent and getting no return is somehow better than owning/operating/leveraging an OCS (or an owned stadium, regardless of location)  . In reality, we should conduct a CBA (with pos/neg returns also) to determine financial feasibility, and then figure intangible costs as well. Otherwise no one is actually "right" in this argument. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jul 2, 2015 14:00:12 GMT -8
From Union Jack:
"I am disappointed to learn no one is currently playing in the Rubber Bowl. I have always wanted the two USC’s to meet in a early season kickoff game. The promotion of it would have been epic.
Cocks vs. Trojans – Rubber Bowl. Coming in Akron 2015."
|
|
|
|
Post by Boise Aztec on Jul 2, 2015 15:48:33 GMT -8
Waste of time... MLS team in San Diego will be a tenant as well as US mens and El Tri friendlies, etc. A new stadium is going to happen, it will either be with the Chargers or our own, fantastic, stadium. I so wish. When we have a new practice facility in which we've struggled mightily to fully pay for a $14 million structure, how will we find $250 million? Never mind, the millions it will cost just in design and legal work before we ever break ground. And all of that, with NO current obvious community support, NO momentum with excitement for the team or the coach, NO vocal leadership even expressing, often and loud, a need for a new stadium. How would this wonderful spectacle EVER occur? If everyone viewed things like you then we would never do anything. The BB facility was pretty easy. Most likely scenario would be as part of a ~$1b expansion of campus into the valley. There are other ways. There are a lot of people that can do thing that others think impossible or improbable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 16:19:10 GMT -8
Waste of time... MLS team in San Diego will be a tenant as well as US mens and El Tri friendlies, etc. A new stadium is going to happen, it will either be with the Chargers or our own, fantastic, stadium. I so wish. How many times will you be corrected about this before you stop posting it again and again? |
|
|
|
Post by Zuma on Jul 2, 2015 16:24:50 GMT -8
From Union Jack: "I am disappointed to learn no one is currently playing in the Rubber Bowl. I have always wanted the two USC’s to meet in a early season kickoff game. The promotion of it would have been epic. Cocks vs. Trojans – Rubber Bowl. Coming in Akron 2015." Trojans cover. Easily |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 2, 2015 17:02:17 GMT -8
At present, I think the best outcome would be . . .
... the Chargers head north.
... SDSU negotiates a deal with the city to use part of the MV property to build a West Campus.
... SDSU continues to play in the Q for the time being, but now with a cut of the concessions.
... a serious evaluation of the condition of the Q is made, with proposals for renovating same IF POSSIBLE.
... the school decides whether to renovate the Q (possibly removing the eastern end expansion) or to plan on eventually building a new stadium to replace the Q.
That last point is crucial. The school is going to have to decide whether Aztec football is going to continue long term. For a long time, the program has been nickel and dimed. That will not do any longer. If the school cannot make a serious commitment to the program, it should simply cancel it. I'd hate to see that, but we should go all out one way or another. If the program is to continue, the school needs to fashion a project to replace the Q with a much smaller stadium. How that can be done logistically is a big question. If part of the property has been turned into campus expansion, I would think that keeping the Q for a season while the new venue is under construction would be difficult. But you hire experts to figure out such questions.
I think the best bet is to emphasize expansion of the campus first. Who is going to oppose that? At the same time, figure out a way to build a smaller stadium while the Q still stands. I wonder if it would be possible to start construction of a replacement by tearing down either the north or south stands, using the remaining stands for game seating. 71,000 cut in half leaves 35,000 seats, which would not be too far below the capacity we seek. Are there any architects among AztecMesa members? If so, maybe they could report whether that idea is feasible or totally ridiculous.
Of course, the problem would be solved if there were an alternate venue available. Maybe they could move the Rubber Bowl here, piece by piece, and set it up on some vacant property leased for a year or two! Remember, they moved the London Bridge to Arizona!
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 2, 2015 17:07:20 GMT -8
When we have a new practice facility in which we've struggled mightily to fully pay for a $14 million structure, how will we find $250 million? Never mind, the millions it will cost just in design and legal work before we ever break ground. And all of that, with NO current obvious community support, NO momentum with excitement for the team or the coach, NO vocal leadership even expressing, often and loud, a need for a new stadium. How would this wonderful spectacle EVER occur? If everyone viewed things like you then we would never do anything. The BB facility was pretty easy. Most likely scenario would be as part of a ~$1b expansion of campus into the valley. There are other ways. There are a lot of people that can do thing that others think impossible or improbable.z You seem to be confusing "can do" spirit with reality. SDSU has shown zero leadership for that which you are irrationally hanging onto hope. |
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Jul 2, 2015 17:10:19 GMT -8
When we have a new practice facility in which we've struggled mightily to fully pay for a $14 million structure How many times will you be corrected about this before you stop posting it again and again? I suggest you check your facts. And in either case my point remains: it was a struggle. |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jul 2, 2015 17:33:07 GMT -8
At present, I think the best outcome would be . . . ... the Chargers head north. ... SDSU negotiates a deal with the city to use part of the MV property to build a West Campus. ... SDSU continues to play in the Q for the time being, but now with a cut of the concessions.
... a serious evaluation of the condition of the Q is made, with proposals for renovating same IF POSSIBLE. ... the school decides whether to renovate the Q (possibly removing the eastern end expansion) or to plan on eventually building a new stadium to replace the Q. That last point is crucial. The school is going to have to decide whether Aztec football is going to continue long term. For a long time, the program has been nickel and dimed. That will not do any longer. If the school cannot make a serious commitment to the program, it should simply cancel it. I'd hate to see that, but we should go all out one way or another. If the program is to continue, the school needs to fashion a project to replace the Q with a much smaller stadium. How that can be done logistically is a big question. If part of the property has been turned into campus expansion, I would think that keeping the Q for a season while the new venue is under construction would be difficult. But you hire experts to figure out such questions. I think the best bet is to emphasize expansion of the campus firsts. Who is going to oppose that? At the same time, figure out a way to build a smaller stadium while the Q still stands. I wonder if it would be possible to start construction of a replacement by tearing down either the north or south stands, using the remaining stands for game seating. 71,000 cut in half leaves 35,000 seats, which would not be too far below the capacity we seek. Are there any architects among AztecMesa members? If so, maybe they could report whether that idea is feasible or totally ridiculous. Of course, the problem would be solved if there were an alternate venue available. Maybe they could move the Rubber Bowl here, piece by piece, and set it up on some vacant property leased for a year or two! Remember, they moved the London Bridge to Arizona! AzWm Since we don't get the concessions at the Q now, why would we in the future? I've always felt that it's important for SDSU to get this privilege, even more than the parking. SDSU sorority and fraternity students will feel involved working the concession stands and I'm sure they'll do a much better job, and enthusiastically. They'll indirectly encourage their friends to show up when they're working and that's what we need. It might seem insignificant, but anything that makes students feel they're part of the game day atmosphere is a plus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 17:56:21 GMT -8
From Union Jack: "I am disappointed to learn no one is currently playing in the Rubber Bowl. I have always wanted the two USC’s to meet in a early season kickoff game. The promotion of it would have been epic. Cocks vs. Trojans – Rubber Bowl. Coming in Akron 2015." Trojans cover. Easily Bravo |
|
|
|
Post by sdsudevil on Jul 2, 2015 17:57:18 GMT -8
If everyone viewed things like you then we would never do anything. The BB facility was pretty easy. Most likely scenario would be as part of a ~$1b expansion of campus into the valley. There are other ways. There are a lot of people that can do thing that others think impossible or improbable.z You seem to be confusing "can do" spirit with reality. SDSU has shown zero leadership for that which you are irrationally hanging onto hope. Successful Campaign, new engineering building, Storm and Nassitar, South Campus Plaza, BB Practice Facility, Softball Clubhouse. I don't know, seems the leaders have been doing pretty well.  A SDSU West campus would be a phenomenal undertaking for absolutely anyone. But if you can't see that there have been good things happening, that can and should be credited to our leaders, then either you have near improbable standards, or you have not been paying attention. Heck, in the last decade the reputation, performance, and student profile have 180'd. Again, attributable to leadership that some seem to say is lackluster. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2015 18:18:44 GMT -8
When we have a new practice facility in which we've struggled mightily to fully pay for a $14 million structure How many times will you be corrected about this before you stop posting it again and again? You have to recognize progess when you see it, you seem to want it all immediately. The truth is it wasn't just 2/3 weeks ago when MOW was insisting that it wasn't even fully funded. He now has come to grips with fact that it has been paid for... 'struggling mightily' might not be how you'd like it described but it is a positive step in your battle to win him over to your way of thinking! |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Jul 2, 2015 18:46:11 GMT -8
Miracles happen on campus every day.
But they ARE Miracles…
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Jul 2, 2015 19:09:37 GMT -8
You seem to be confusing "can do" spirit with reality. SDSU has shown zero leadership for that which you are irrationally hanging onto hope. Successful Campaign, new engineering building, Storm and Nassitar, South Campus Plaza, BB Practice Facility, Softball Clubhouse. I don't know, seems the leaders have been doing pretty well. A SDSU West campus would be a phenomenal undertaking for absolutely anyone. But if you can't see that there have been good things happening, that can and should be credited to our leaders, then either you have near improbable standards, or you have not been paying attention. Heck, in the last decade the reputation, performance, and student profile have 180'd. Again, attributable to leadership that some seem to say is lackluster. Don't forget the Aztec Student Union and Love Library renovations; Tennis complex, Aquaplex... The list goes on... |
|
. In reality, we should conduct a CBA (with pos/neg returns also) to determine financial feasibility, and then figure intangible costs as well. Otherwise no one is actually "right" in this argument.
A SDSU West campus would be a phenomenal undertaking for absolutely anyone. But if you can't see that there have been good things happening, that can and should be credited to our leaders, then either you have near improbable standards, or you have not been paying attention. Heck, in the last decade the reputation, performance, and student profile have 180'd. Again, attributable to leadership that some seem to say is lackluster. 
