|
Post by standiego on Aug 25, 2015 11:24:07 GMT -8
There is very little if any leverage for SDSU . Need a strong alum group and there is not one here . Major Problem ! The city of San Diego is trying to do things to either keep NFL team here or like it or not try to get another one . Then the people DT want / need expansion of a convention center to keep Comic Con or get major conventions and flow of money to pay for other city needs . So do not look for money there . City will look at MV site to see how it can make the most money . SDSU in is the 8th largest City in USA and City needs come before a University team . Not many of the top 10 cities in the US have a Public College football team that is doing that well .
Any chance of getting a new facility for SDSU football is going to need to come from Private Money . Believe Sterk has made contacts but will take major investors . The other part is actually getting communities of San Diego to try to become actual fans of SDSU . It takes going into the communities and personal touch .
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2015 11:48:03 GMT -8
Can we be realist the Aztecs are a G5 team playing in the MW Conference. The second tier of college football . Sterk has very little leverage , and possibly not an over load of money to do things . If the Chargers leave city will be on the phone if it has not already done so, contacting NFL teams to move here, rumors Raiders have been contacted . He tried the BE/ AAC but it was BSU that bailed as they swung the money deal with MW . B12 is not going to expand unless it really wants to and then on its terms . BYU and others have Begged in public, still no invite for them. Our application is in the B12 office and Sterk will chat with WVU at Las Vegas T for MBB during Thanksgiving and Kansas when they come here for MBB. Sterk does a lot of the behind the scenes things he can do but can not always talk about . Hope he has stressed to Rocky that this is a very important year on the field for the team . W 's not Excuses . To whatever extent he has leverage, he has used none. He needs to be privately and publically promoting a new venue for the Aztecs---no matter whether it's with the Chargers or alone. There is a lot he could do. It's going to take enormous investments, especially from the public. Whatever options are eventually thrown down, he needs political and public momentum. Right now, we have NO momentum, especially not from playing field. If he doesn't ask for support, guess what, he won't get it during "crunch" time(sorry for the overused slang). He has been promoting a new venue for the Aztecs by saying it'll be one or the other (new Chargers; solo football facility). It's a win-win. It'd be stupid to thrown down on just one option without knowing how the whole Chargers situation is going to play out. You'd only alienate potential partners as a result, and right now Faulkner, et al are our allies. Once the Chargers situation plays out, and if they leave, we'll have time to gain momentum on the most viable stadium option.
Thankfully we have an AD who knows what needs to be done & is taking the right path until this all plays out.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 12:15:35 GMT -8
To whatever extent he has leverage, he has used none. He needs to be privately and publically promoting a new venue for the Aztecs---no matter whether it's with the Chargers or alone. There is a lot he could do. It's going to take enormous investments, especially from the public. Whatever options are eventually thrown down, he needs political and public momentum. Right now, we have NO momentum, especially not from playing field. If he doesn't ask for support, guess what, he won't get it during "crunch" time(sorry for the overused slang). Sterk, right now, in some people's eyes, is wrong whichever way he goes. If he says "We have a plan for the Qualcomm site", he alienates the Chargers and Charger fans. If he says nothing, other than stating he is waiting for the Chargers to make a decision, he is crucified for not saying what the university's plans are. I don't even know that SDSU has contingency plans for that site--but then again, I'm just a season ticket holder posting on a message board. It is just my opinion, but I think SDSU is stuck right now waiting for the Chargers to decide just what they are going to do, and as much as I would love SDSU to say what their plan is for football in the future, I think they are handling the situation the best way they can. If they get into a popularity contest with the Chargers and the NFL (as long as the Chargers have a chance of staying--however slim it may be), the Aztecs will lose. They can't afford to make that mistake. Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 12:21:21 GMT -8
Sterk, right now, in some people's eyes, is wrong whichever way he goes. If he says "We have a plan for the Qualcomm site", he alienates the Chargers and Charger fans. If he says nothing, other than stating he is waiting for the Chargers to make a decision, he is crucified for not saying what the university's plans are. I don't even know that SDSU has contingency plans for that site--but then again, I'm just a season ticket holder posting on a message board. It is just my opinion, but I think SDSU is stuck right now waiting for the Chargers to decide just what they are going to do, and as much as I would love SDSU to say what their plan is for football in the future, I think they are handling the situation the best way they can. If they get into a popularity contest with the Chargers and the NFL (as long as the Chargers have a chance of staying--however slim it may be), the Aztecs will lose. They can't afford to make that mistake. Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky. Disagree. Sterk went the CONTINUITY route when he selected Rocky from HOKE'S staff. That makes sense especially when you consider we returned Lindley and Hillman on offense and McFadden on Defense that year. As a hardcore Aztec fan I'm "sure" you are aware of this. Additionally, only a buffoon makes a bold statement without knowing how things are going to happen (i.e. Chargers final destination). You are asking our admin to needlessly place a target on their backs for the Chargers to aim at with no valid payoff for doing so. Your "opinion" is uninformed and illogical. But I'm "sure" that's not on purpose, right MOW?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 12:33:49 GMT -8
Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky. Disagree. Sterk went the CONTINUITY route when he selected Rocky from HOKE'S staff. That makes sense especially when you consider we returned Lindley and Hillman on offense and McFadden on Defense that year. As a hardcore Aztec fan I'm "sure" you are aware of this. Additionally, only a buffoon makes a bold statement without knowing how things are going to happen (i.e. Chargers final destination). You are asking our admin to needlessly place a target on their backs for the Chargers to aim at with no valid payoff for doing so. Your "opinion" is uninformed and illogical. But I'm "sure" that's not on purpose, right MOW? Look, I just disagree with you. We didn't "know" the results of hiring Hoke, but we took a chance and went bold. Sterk went lazy, job security. That's his choice. When it comes to football he looks for the easy path. And for some people--perhaps you--that is fine. It is not with me. That's all. Pretty simple.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2015 13:05:36 GMT -8
Sterk, right now, in some people's eyes, is wrong whichever way he goes. If he says "We have a plan for the Qualcomm site", he alienates the Chargers and Charger fans. If he says nothing, other than stating he is waiting for the Chargers to make a decision, he is crucified for not saying what the university's plans are. I don't even know that SDSU has contingency plans for that site--but then again, I'm just a season ticket holder posting on a message board. It is just my opinion, but I think SDSU is stuck right now waiting for the Chargers to decide just what they are going to do, and as much as I would love SDSU to say what their plan is for football in the future, I think they are handling the situation the best way they can. If they get into a popularity contest with the Chargers and the NFL (as long as the Chargers have a chance of staying--however slim it may be), the Aztecs will lose. They can't afford to make that mistake. Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky. One person's being "bold" is another's "deranged".
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2015 13:11:56 GMT -8
Disagree. Sterk went the CONTINUITY route when he selected Rocky from HOKE'S staff. That makes sense especially when you consider we returned Lindley and Hillman on offense and McFadden on Defense that year. As a hardcore Aztec fan I'm "sure" you are aware of this. Additionally, only a buffoon makes a bold statement without knowing how things are going to happen (i.e. Chargers final destination). You are asking our admin to needlessly place a target on their backs for the Chargers to aim at with no valid payoff for doing so. Your "opinion" is uninformed and illogical. But I'm "sure" that's not on purpose, right MOW? Look, I just disagree with you. We didn't "know" the results of hiring Hoke, but we took a chance and went bold. Sterk went lazy, job security. That's his choice. When it comes to football he looks for the easy path. And for some people--perhaps you--that is fine. It is not with me. That's all. Pretty simple. One person's "lazy hire" is another person's "smart decision". It wasn't lazy. It was looking at potential candidates, the current landscape of the program, importance of continuity & momentum, and potential upside of going outside vs. inside the organization & making the right choice.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 13:30:37 GMT -8
Valid points. I just disagree. This might have been a wise approach 10 years ago. The landscape has suffered seismic disruptions since then, and we can no longer afford to maintain a "wait and see" stance--in my opinion. Others around the country, who care nothing about the Chargers, may have at least one eye on us. If we want them to care at all, we have to make bold statements and take even bolder actions. To Sterk and Hirshman, it would appear that "bold", is just another 4-letter word. Just as Sterk took the low expectations route when he slipped us Rocky. One person's being "bold" is another's "deranged".
Okay.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 13:41:07 GMT -8
Look, I just disagree with you. We didn't "know" the results of hiring Hoke, but we took a chance and went bold. Sterk went lazy, job security. That's his choice. When it comes to football he looks for the easy path. And for some people--perhaps you--that is fine. It is not with me. That's all. Pretty simple. One person's "lazy hire" is another person's "smart decision". It wasn't lazy. It was looking at potential candidates, the current landscape of the program, importance of continuity & momentum, and potential upside of going outside vs. inside the organization & making the right choice.
I understand the "company line". That's what we were fed at the time. I simply disagree. The results of the Rocky Bomb are that we are perhaps watching the Big Boy Train chasing the vanishing point, while we're still scheduling USD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 13:49:00 GMT -8
One person's "lazy hire" is another person's "smart decision". It wasn't lazy. It was looking at potential candidates, the current landscape of the program, importance of continuity & momentum, and potential upside of going outside vs. inside the organization & making the right choice.
I understand the "company line". That's what we were fed at the time. I simply disagree. The results of the Rocky Bomb are that we are perhaps watching the Big Boy Train chasing the vanishing point, while we're still scheduling USD. You're getting off topic and your last point has nothing to do with your first one. You wouldn't be trolling now would you?!?! You seem to have really "thought" about your take on this issue. If you were AD back in late 2010 who would you have chosen to replace Hoke, I am genuinely curious since this seems to be one of your biggest complaints.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 14:08:51 GMT -8
I understand the "company line". That's what we were fed at the time. I simply disagree. The results of the Rocky Bomb are that we are perhaps watching the Big Boy Train chasing the vanishing point, while we're still scheduling USD. You're getting off topic and your last point has nothing to do with your first one. You wouldn't be trolling now would you?!?! You seem to have really "thought" about your take on this issue. If you were AD back in late 2010 who would you have chosen to replace Hoke, I am genuinely curious since this seems to be one of your biggest complaints. Sir, I am whatever you want me to be. Second question about Rocky: At the time, fresh on the heels of Hoke's Holiday Bowl win over Navy, I thought we were finally headed to national relevance. So much attention poured over us, because of the Hoke turnaround, and Michigan gambit. We were in the news frequently. I think that we could have made a fantastic hire. Nobody was chasing Rocky, so we should have hired him as interim coach, then commenced a search. We could have made major strides in coaching, recruiting (the next year), and reaching the Top 20. Before Hoke left, we'd already risen to 26 or 27. We've never been close to that since. The disappointment with Rocky's hiring, was followed the next year with a bad bowl loss and departure from the Big East. We were officially going backwards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 14:22:31 GMT -8
You're getting off topic and your last point has nothing to do with your first one. You wouldn't be trolling now would you?!?! You seem to have really "thought" about your take on this issue. If you were AD back in late 2010 who would you have chosen to replace Hoke, I am genuinely curious since this seems to be one of your biggest complaints. Sir, I am whatever you want me to be. Second question about Rocky: At the time, fresh on the heels of Hoke's Holiday Bowl win over Navy, I thought we were finally headed to national relevance. So much attention poured over us, because of the Hoke turnaround, and Michigan gambit. We were in the news frequently. I think that we could have made a fantastic hire. Nobody was chasing Rocky, so we should have hired him as interim coach, then commenced a search. We could have made major strides in coaching, recruiting (the next year), and reaching the Top 20. Before Hoke left, we'd already risen to 26 or 27. We've never been close to that since. The disappointment with Rocky's hiring, was followed the next year with a bad bowl loss and departure from the Big East. We were officially going backwards. I see your point but it seems to be devoid of one harsh and limiting reality...Athletic Budgets. If we wanted a proven coach at that point we weren't going to be able to afford him. So we would've still had to take a chance on an "unproven" from lower ranks of CFB or a coordinator looking to try their hand as HC. So ultimately your complaint is that we didn't take the risk you wanted...a question of the devil you know versus the one you don't?!? I'll give you this, you sure think highly of your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 14:44:07 GMT -8
Sir, I am whatever you want me to be. Second question about Rocky: At the time, fresh on the heels of Hoke's Holiday Bowl win over Navy, I thought we were finally headed to national relevance. So much attention poured over us, because of the Hoke turnaround, and Michigan gambit. We were in the news frequently. I think that we could have made a fantastic hire. Nobody was chasing Rocky, so we should have hired him as interim coach, then commenced a search. We could have made major strides in coaching, recruiting (the next year), and reaching the Top 20. Before Hoke left, we'd already risen to 26 or 27. We've never been close to that since. The disappointment with Rocky's hiring, was followed the next year with a bad bowl loss and departure from the Big East. We were officially going backwards. I see your point but it seems to be devoid of one harsh and limiting reality...Athletic Budgets. If we wanted a proven coach at that point we weren't going to be able to afford him. So we would've still had to take a chance on an "unproven" from lower ranks of CFB or a coordinator looking to try their hand as HC. So ultimately your complaint is that we didn't take the risk you wanted...a question of the devil you know versus the one you don't?!? I'll give you this, you sure think highly of your own opinion. Highly? I should place yours higher? Sterk had choices, he was lazy. We could have had Rocky for a song as interim coach and let him put his hat into the ring. Where was he going? Plus Sterk had just been given $5 million from Fowler---originally, I think to keep Hoke---and he could have started a fund for a larger salary base, while putting together the search team again. Rocky wasn't a proven anything, accept a place holder---in my opinion. And in the opinion of--evidently--every other major football program in the country. Assuming we left nothing to Sterk, I had high confidence that the search team could have found another Hoke. But now, five critical years have passed, we've had fewer wins each of the last three years, recruiting is the same, will still have Rocky, we have no more money, and we seem to have no will to change that path.
|
|
|
Post by McQuervo on Aug 25, 2015 14:49:34 GMT -8
This forum needs an Ignore mode.
Update, It works perfect.THANK YOU!
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Aug 25, 2015 15:01:03 GMT -8
I see your point but it seems to be devoid of one harsh and limiting reality...Athletic Budgets. If we wanted a proven coach at that point we weren't going to be able to afford him. So we would've still had to take a chance on an "unproven" from lower ranks of CFB or a coordinator looking to try their hand as HC. So ultimately your complaint is that we didn't take the risk you wanted...a question of the devil you know versus the one you don't?!? I'll give you this, you sure think highly of your own opinion. Highly? I should place yours higher? Sterk had choices, he was lazy. We could have had Rocky for a song as interim coach and let him put his hat into the ring. Where was he going? Plus Sterk had just been given $5 million from Fowler---originally, I think to keep Hoke---and he could have started a fund for a larger salary base, while putting together the search team again. Rocky wasn't a proven anything, accept a place holder---in my opinion. And in the opinion of--evidently--every other major football program in the country. Assuming we left nothing to Sterk, I had high confidence that the search team could have found another Hoke. But now, five critical years have passed, we've had fewer wins each of the last three years, recruiting is the same, will still have Rocky, we have no more money, and we seem to have no will to change that path. It probably would have cost even more to get a replacement for Hoke at the time that wasn't named Rocky Long. It's already pretty much a balancing act financially with the Athletic Dept budget, and it would have been even worse financially for the program going after someone new at that time. SDSU just doesn't have the resources to make that big money hire. But as some have said on this board, I would think that this is year the football program either sh*ts or gets off the pot.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Aug 25, 2015 15:09:35 GMT -8
Highly? I should place yours higher? Sterk had choices, he was lazy. We could have had Rocky for a song as interim coach and let him put his hat into the ring. Where was he going? Plus Sterk had just been given $5 million from Fowler---originally, I think to keep Hoke---and he could have started a fund for a larger salary base, while putting together the search team again. Rocky wasn't a proven anything, accept a place holder---in my opinion. And in the opinion of--evidently--every other major football program in the country. Assuming we left nothing to Sterk, I had high confidence that the search team could have found another Hoke. But now, five critical years have passed, we've had fewer wins each of the last three years, recruiting is the same, will still have Rocky, we have no more money, and we seem to have no will to change that path. It probably would have cost even more to get a replacement for Hoke at the time that wasn't named Rocky Long. It's already pretty much a balancing act financially with the Athletic Dept budget, and it would have been even worse financially for the program going after someone new at that time. SDSU just doesn't have the resources to make that big money hire. But as some have said on this board, I would think that this is year the football program either sh*ts or gets off the pot. It's all about priorities. We can raise (almost)$15 million for a basketball practice facility, but not improve salaries?. Ron Fowler ponied up $5 million to increase our competiveness in the football program, but evidently Mr. Sterk has not been able to work his "magic" for more similar donations. Or, is this too in the "Secret Society" cloisters? This, on top of many here assuming that a $200 million dollar on-campus stadium is a foregone conclusion. If we don't dramatically improve the on-field accomplishments of the football program, there won't be any stadium.
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Aug 25, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -8
In the long run, financially, would it be better for the Aztecs, assuming that it could be done, to have their own stadium or share one with an NFL team? Over the years I've heard about the lost revenue to the Aztecs from paying rent, not getting money from parking fees (I think) and several other situations where the NFL team seems to reap the financial rewards. Just a question from someone who has no idea about these issues.
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Aug 25, 2015 15:15:40 GMT -8
In the long run, financially, would it be better for the Aztecs, assuming that it could be done, to have their own stadium or share one with an NFL team? Over the years I've heard about the lost revenue to the Aztecs from paying rent, not getting money from parking fees (I think) and several other situations where the NFL team seems to reap the financial rewards. Just a question from someone who has no idea about these issues. Our own stadium OR a deal where we split control of signage, parking, etc. with the NFL team. Since the latter won't happen, I'd say the former.
There's no doubt SDSU wants the Chargers to Bolt, from a selfish perspective.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 25, 2015 15:39:35 GMT -8
Can we be realist the Aztecs are a G5 team playing in the MW Conference. The second tier of college football . Sterk has very little leverage , and possibly not an over load of money to do things . If the Chargers leave city will be on the phone if it has not already done so, contacting NFL teams to move here, rumors Raiders have been contacted . He tried the BE/ AAC but it was BSU that bailed as they swung the money deal with MW . B12 is not going to expand unless it really wants to and then on its terms . BYU and others have Begged in public, still no invite for them. Our application is in the B12 office and Sterk will chat with WVU at Las Vegas T for MBB during Thanksgiving and Kansas when they come here for MBB. Sterk does a lot of the behind the scenes things he can do but can not always talk about . Hope he has stressed to Rocky that this is a very important year on the field for the team . W 's not Excuses . To whatever extent he has leverage, he has used none. He needs to be privately and publically promoting a new venue for the Aztecs---no matter whether it's with the Chargers or alone. There is a lot he could do. It's going to take enormous investments, especially from the public. Whatever options are eventually thrown down, he needs political and public momentum. Right now, we have NO momentum, especially not from playing field. If he doesn't ask for support, guess what, he won't get it during "crunch" time(sorry for the overused slang). Perhaps you should write Sterk a detailed letter/email outlining all your brilliant insight and advice on this topic and post it on AztecMesa for all to see.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Aug 25, 2015 15:45:45 GMT -8
In the long run, financially, would it be better for the Aztecs, assuming that it could be done, to have their own stadium or share one with an NFL team? Over the years I've heard about the lost revenue to the Aztecs from paying rent, not getting money from parking fees (I think) and several other situations where the NFL team seems to reap the financial rewards. Just a question from someone who has no idea about these issues. Our own stadium and its not even close. Finances aside; one of the primary benefits of a stadium that is actually designed for SDSU (not the NFL) is the creation of a true college game-day atmosphere/environment. Sterk eluded to this in the interview and referenced how Viejas has had a significant positive impact on the basketball program with regards to the player, coach and fan experience.
|
|