|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 16, 2016 18:44:09 GMT -8
You have not been paying attention. Clearly, SDSU does not want to have to deal with the Chargers at all. Having to pay increased rental fees for a stadium that is too large and for which it gets no associated income (parking, concessions, etc.) is the LAST thing SDSU wants. Well, the last thing before having to play FCS Non-Sholarship football either in Escondido High's stadium or the one at Southwestern Collge. AzWm Dear lord. You guys live in an alternate reality. Don't tell me - tell the Mayor and the City Councilmen you don't want it. They keep including you guys. Holy hell people. And how do you know what your deal would be in a new stadium? You don't think you can negotiate the signage, parking and concessions? GMAFB. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 16, 2016 19:32:04 GMT -8
SDSU has had plans in place for years. I know I've said this 20 times in this thread alone - but if you had a plan - it would have been executed. SDSU buying Mission Valley solves almost all the problems and the City and Chargers can piggy back off SDSU to build a brand new stadium for you guys in the process. I know you'll tell me you "want" a smaller 40K stadium. That's fine. But you'd do just fine in a bigger stadium and tarping off the upper deck. Having your own locker room - your own signage - it would be like your own stadium. Tell me the downside to this? And leave me being a Chargers fan out of this. I am not trying to figure out a way to save the Chargers in this question. I am simply curious what the downside to this is and why SDSU hasn't come forward?
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? |
|
|
|
Post by mactec on Feb 16, 2016 19:35:57 GMT -8
I know I've said this 20 times in this thread alone - but if you had a plan - it would have been executed. SDSU buying Mission Valley solves almost all the problems and the City and Chargers can piggy back off SDSU to build a brand new stadium for you guys in the process. I know you'll tell me you "want" a smaller 40K stadium. That's fine. But you'd do just fine in a bigger stadium and tarping off the upper deck. Having your own locker room - your own signage - it would be like your own stadium. Tell me the downside to this? And leave me being a Chargers fan out of this. I am not trying to figure out a way to save the Chargers in this question. I am simply curious what the downside to this is and why SDSU hasn't come forward?
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? Pitt gets 45k a game |
|
|
|
Post by originalshow00 on Feb 16, 2016 19:44:43 GMT -8
Just build it over the sports Deck and the adjacent Practice Fields. No need to even touch Hardy. That is a good idea also.Or convert the sports deck into a stadium and put a track around the football field and have the soccer team play there as well.There is no need for a separate field for soccer and track.Close that street off and that is where the stands go on one side and modify the parking garage so the only entrance is from Montezuma Rd.The other side might not have as much room for seats but this set up will get the 30,000 we are looking for to start with.If we move to a better conference then expand more ten years from now.And that old shopping center with 4.0 deli and the sushi place knock it down and put a parking structure there with these businesses underneath the parking structure in brand new places to lease.Tell McDonalds to hit the road take that place out and the crap complex behind it and put another place for students to live. This would be the best solution not campus west that SDSU can not afford.Who came up with this campus west idea they should be deleated from this board. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Feb 16, 2016 20:21:42 GMT -8
You have not been paying attention. Clearly, SDSU does not want to have to deal with the Chargers at all. Having to pay increased rental fees for a stadium that is too large and for which it gets no associated income (parking, concessions, etc.) is the LAST thing SDSU wants. Well, the last thing before having to play FCS Non-Sholarship football either in Escondido High's stadium or the one at Southwestern Collge. AzWm Dear lord. You guys live in an alternate reality. Don't tell me - tell the Mayor and the City Councilmen you don't want it. They keep including you guys. Holy hell people. And how do you know what your deal would be in a new stadium? You don't think you can negotiate the signage, parking and concessions? GMAFB. I'm so happy to be in our situation rather than yours. |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 16, 2016 20:29:06 GMT -8
SDSU has had plans in place for years. However, unlike the Chargers, they are a public institution and thus must work in cooperation with the city, county and state before moving forward with any plans. SDSU won't initiate any plans until the Chargers decide if they are going to focus on downtown or Mission Valley. And then the Chargers will still have to get an initiative on the ballot and the electorate will have to pass said initiative.
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? Yes, I read your response and chose not to bother arguing that spin. Doesn't matter if SDSU is a public school. There is no way that would preclude them telling the Mayor, City and Chargers what they're ready to do and their preference. None. As for what current college football program is sharing with a NFL team. Other than Miami and Pitt, I can't think of a school that has to. Miami keeps talking about building their own stadium, they've yet to do it. And yes, they struggle to draw a crowd. UCLA, USC, Washington and Arizona State have their own stadiums. The Cardinals and Sun Devils used to share a stadium obviously. But I would never tell you guys to share a stadium with the Chargers if you could build on your own. Never. I'm simply not wearing Red and Black glasses and don't believe your school is ready to finance your own stadium. I think while not ideal - your schools "preference" is to get a good deal in a brand new City/Chargers built stadium in Mission Valley. Now if the City/Chargers land downtown - regardless of the vote - I fully expect SDSU to try and get it done in Mission Valley with the plan you guys are hoping for. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 16, 2016 20:41:29 GMT -8
You have not been paying attention. Clearly, SDSU does not want to have to deal with the Chargers at all. Having to pay increased rental fees for a stadium that is too large and for which it gets no associated income (parking, concessions, etc.) is the LAST thing SDSU wants. Well, the last thing before having to play FCS Non-Sholarship football either in Escondido High's stadium or the one at Southwestern Collge. AzWm Dear lord. You guys live in an alternate reality. Don't tell me - tell the Mayor and the City Councilmen you don't want it. They keep including you guys. Holy hell people. And how do you know what your deal would be in a new stadium? You don't think you can negotiate the signage, parking and concessions? GMAFB. Sure--we can "negotiate", but the only thing we might end up getting would be from whatever ads we could sell inside the stadium--which might just cover the increased rent that SDSU would have to pay for a shared facility with the Chargers. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 16, 2016 22:39:54 GMT -8
SDSU has had plans in place for years. However, unlike the Chargers, they are a public institution and thus must work in cooperation with the city, county and state before moving forward with any plans. SDSU won't initiate any plans until the Chargers decide if they are going to focus on downtown or Mission Valley. And then the Chargers will still have to get an initiative on the ballot and the electorate will have to pass said initiative.
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? Pitt gets 45k a game Pitts average attendance has declined since moving to Heinz Field… www.cardiachill.com/2014/6/9/5791832/pitt-football-attendance-heinz-field-pitt-stadium-three-rivers-stadium-pittsburgh-panthersSite AvgAtt Heinz Field 41,788Pitt Stadium 45,417 Three Rivers Stadium 49,741 www.cardiachill.com/2015/1/19/7556547/pitt-stadium-on-campus-university-of-pittsburgh-panthers-football-heinz-field-oakland"While I can certainly appreciate the perks of playing in an NFL stadium, the overwhelming amount of space on the north side, etc., saying the game day experience has improved is a very big reach. You lose so much by not playing a game on campus. "
"It's hard to feel that the move didn't fall at least a little short of what was being sold at the time"triblive.com/sports/robrossi/6952873-74/pitt-football-thursdayPlaying more attractive opponents won't make Pitt games more interesting in these parts. "It's about where those opponents go. It's about where Pitt plays.
Pitt doesn't have a football problem. Pitt football has a positioning problem. Fix that, and nights like Thursday will look a lot different. College football is about everything that Pitt football isn't: atmosphere, emotions and connection. There was none of that at Heinz Field. There won't be the next time Pitt plays at home, either.There's only one place where nights like Thursday are going to become special for Pitt. That place is Oakland, where the students are, were and always will be. It won't be easy. It won't be cheap. It won't be for a while. It's time, though. Even the Riverhounds have their own place to play." It's time to hail a new Pitt Stadium. SDSU and Pitt have the same problem - we share an NFL stadium. Except Pitt has one huge advantage over SDSU - they are in the P5 - ACC. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 16, 2016 22:46:41 GMT -8
SDSU has had plans in place for years. However, unlike the Chargers, they are a public institution and thus must work in cooperation with the city, county and state before moving forward with any plans. SDSU won't initiate any plans until the Chargers decide if they are going to focus on downtown or Mission Valley. And then the Chargers will still have to get an initiative on the ballot and the electorate will have to pass said initiative.
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? Pitt gets 45k a game     |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 16, 2016 23:13:30 GMT -8
If Pitt is averaging 41k, that's pretty damn impressive in Steeler town, considering that they're not a big time football program.
However, I don't understand why teams in that situation don't tarp off the nosebleed seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 16, 2016 23:21:13 GMT -8
SDSU has had plans in place for years. However, unlike the Chargers, they are a public institution and thus must work in cooperation with the city, county and state before moving forward with any plans. SDSU won't initiate any plans until the Chargers decide if they are going to focus on downtown or Mission Valley. And then the Chargers will still have to get an initiative on the ballot and the electorate will have to pass said initiative.
And you never answered this question... Consequently, what current college football program is doing "just fine" sharing with an NFL team? Pitt gets 45k a game College football teams can pretty much announce any figure they want. In the case of the Aztecs, I believe the actual attendance for football is normally roughly 2/3 of the announced attendance. |
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 16, 2016 23:49:50 GMT -8
If Pitt is averaging 41k, that's pretty damn impressive in Steeler town, considering that they're not a big time football program. However, I don't understand why teams in that situation don't tarp off the nosebleed seats. … and here is what an appropriate sized college stadium does for your atmosphere… Oregon State averages about 36,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium…  Houston averages about 35,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium…  Utah averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium…  Cincinnati averages about 40,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium…  Baylor averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium…  |
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Feb 16, 2016 23:59:43 GMT -8
College football teams can pretty much announce any figure they want. In the case of the Aztecs, I believe the actual attendance for football is normally roughly 2/3 of the announced attendance. Announcing tickets sold isn't a new phenomenon and just for college athletics. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on Feb 17, 2016 0:30:55 GMT -8
If Pitt is averaging 41k, that's pretty damn impressive in Steeler town, considering that they're not a big time football program. However, I don't understand why teams in that situation don't tarp off the nosebleed seats. … and here is what an appropriate sized college stadium does for your atmosphere… Oregon State averages about 36,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Houston averages about 35,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium… Utah averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Cincinnati averages about 40,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium… Baylor averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Pitt should definitely tarp off the uppder deck. It would look rocking if they did. SDSU should do the same. I don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 6:36:58 GMT -8
Pitt used to be a very good football program and attendance as a whole for CFB has been declining.
As for negotiating your deal if the city decides in Mission Valley, you guys will do better than just signage.
There is no question SDSU would be better off in your own smaller stadium. The question is whether you have the means and the numbers pencil out. If the city goes downtown or a vote in Mission Valley fails, we'll get to see if you can. We'll know within the next 30 months or so. Much sooner than that if mission Valley is as far along as some of you believe
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 17, 2016 7:39:51 GMT -8
College football teams can pretty much announce any figure they want. In the case of the Aztecs, I believe the actual attendance for football is normally roughly 2/3 of the announced attendance. Announcing tickets sold isn't a new phenomenon and just for college athletics. I never said it was. Just pointing that tidbit out. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 17, 2016 7:42:20 GMT -8
Pitt used to be a very good football program and attendance as a whole for CFB has been declining. As for negotiating your deal if the city decides in Mission Valley, you guys will do better than just signage. There is no question SDSU would be better off in your own smaller stadium. The question is whether you have the means and the numbers pencil out. If the city goes downtown or a vote in Mission Valley fails, we'll get to see if you can. We'll know within the next 30 months or so. Much sooner than that if mission Valley is as far along as some of you believe If the Aztecs end up sharing with the Chargers in a new facility, the Aztecs definitely will NOT do better than just signage. |
|
|
|
Post by bolt1963 on Feb 17, 2016 8:37:02 GMT -8
Pitt used to be a very good football program and attendance as a whole for CFB has been declining. As for negotiating your deal if the city decides in Mission Valley, you guys will do better than just signage. There is no question SDSU would be better off in your own smaller stadium. The question is whether you have the means and the numbers pencil out. If the city goes downtown or a vote in Mission Valley fails, we'll get to see if you can. We'll know within the next 30 months or so. Much sooner than that if mission Valley is as far along as some of you believe If the Aztecs end up sharing with the Chargers in a new facility, the Aztecs definitely will NOT do better than just signage. OK. Sure thing. Guess all those city connections I keep hearing about are garbage huh? SDSU would be getting in from jump. Either as a partner or tenant. It will be a decent deal and more than likely pencil out more favorably than bonding hundreds millions in your own. |
|
|
|
Post by MontezumaPhil on Feb 17, 2016 9:13:56 GMT -8
It's starting to look as though this discussion doesn't matter anymore. Had the NFL chosen the Carson plan--which we now know they never intended to do in the first place--the Los Angeles Chargers would have a ticket office open for business today. But having Kroenke for a landlord is clearly something Spanos wants no part of. The two men are not on speaking terms. So San Diego looks like a good deal to the Chargers again, even it means staying in Mission Valley.
If I had to make a prediction I would say that what I call the Enberg Plan (only because he narrated the video) is likely to happen. It will face much less resistance than any downtown plan would, the financing for it is achievable, the mayor wants it, the hotel guys are cut out of the loop, and it's a continuation of what the city has been accustomed to for half a century. And Spanos is suddenly saying enthusiastic things about it.
No, it wouldn't be the dream scenario for SDSU. But welcome to reality. We're in San Diego, we're in California, we're in tight economic times, and we're in a situation where real estate is at a premium. Our school will never be able to do what the old land-grant colleges could do.
I know for a fact that the Albert site would hold a beautiful 40K stadium, and eventually we could push it through legally. But Sterk and Hirshman will be content to let the county, city and NFL build a house for them if they are willing to do it. Sure, the seats would be yellow and blue, but the new LED signage technology they're touting would make the place glow Aztec red on game nights. I'm afraid that will have to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Feb 17, 2016 9:14:53 GMT -8
… and here is what an appropriate sized college stadium does for your atmosphere… Oregon State averages about 36,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Houston averages about 35,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium… Utah averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Cincinnati averages about 40,000 in their 40,000 seat stadium… Baylor averages about 45,000 in their 45,000 seat stadium… Pitt should definitely tarp off the uppder deck. It would look rocking if they did. SDSU should do the same. I don't get it. Better yet, SDSU should build its own 40,000 seat college stadium. That would be rockin'! Screw the tarps. |
|
