Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 19:13:16 GMT -8
Say goodbye to SDSU football within 5 years. I'm not sure why but it's comforting to me that you know as little about football as you know about politics. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 14, 2010 19:13:37 GMT -8
An on campus stadium will be used more than 10 times a year. 6-7 football games, bowl game, graduation - what else? |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 14, 2010 19:22:26 GMT -8
The newest building on campus, the Arts and Letters Building, cost 25 million a stadium likely 5-8 times that. I think we might be at a guns or butter, either/or, sophie's choice here. Can we justify building something that will be used 10 times a year over 5 or 6 buildings on campus? I'm getting to the point that our best option is downtown as a beggar to the chargers and spending 200 million building-up the school on the qualcolm lot. Chasing a football pipe dream might not be worth it in the long run. What about a 35K stadium shared with an MLS team that will be use a LOT more than that. I totally agree that a shared stadium largely built by an MLS expansion team is the best situation; also, I saw that the England USA game got an 11.5 in san diego - best in the country, so the fact there isn't an MLS team in San diego is silly, but I think the MLS plays 30 games, 15 home games, a couple preseason games, some touring team game, etc. If we are going to try to put 30 events on campus proper we're going to be in court, so that would have to be at the Q site. My point is, why the hell would we spend 150 million dollars to build a football stadium? If we can pay 50 or 75 with an MLS team that sound great, but MLS has added a team to seatlle, to Philly and Vancover (i think) in coming years, who knows if an MLS team is coming here. My other point is, unless something changes in Sacramento, we'll never get into the pac10, so if we have to choose 5 new academic buildings or a stadium I think the choice should be clear. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecinoz on Jun 14, 2010 19:29:31 GMT -8
What about a 35K stadium shared with an MLS team that will be use a LOT more than that. I totally agree that a shared stadium largely built by an MLS expansion team is the best situation; also, I saw that the England USA game got an 11.5 in san diego - best in the country, so the fact there isn't an MLS team in San diego is silly, but I think the MLS plays 30 games, 15 home games, a couple preseason games, some touring team game, etc. If we are going to try to put 30 events on campus proper we're going to be in court, so that would have to be at the Q site. My point is, why the hell would we spend 150 million dollars to build a football stadium? If we can pay 50 or 75 with an MLS team that sound great, but MLS has added a team to seatlle, to Philly and Vancover (i think) in coming years, who knows if an MLS team is coming here. My other point is, unless something changes in Sacramento, we'll never get into the pac10, so if we have to choose 5 new academic buildings or a stadium I think the choice should be clear. Only issue with this is MLS more than likely wouldn't allow it and it wouldn't benefit SDSU. MLS wouldn't allow it because they are focusing on expanding to cities that have an ownership group and city willing to build a soccer specific stadium. This means they wouldn't want to put goal post or football lines on it. It wouldn't benefit SDSU because we would still be renting from the MLS/developer of the stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jun 14, 2010 19:32:58 GMT -8
Was thinking of SDSU's buying of the Qualcomm lot that we bandied about here a while back. SDSU could develop the land and work with and MLS team. BTW, if San Diego doesn't come forward soon, they will be out of the MLS's future. I totally agree that a shared stadium largely built by an MLS expansion team is the best situation; also, I saw that the England USA game got an 11.5 in san diego - best in the country, so the fact there isn't an MLS team in San diego is silly, but I think the MLS plays 30 games, 15 home games, a couple preseason games, some touring team game, etc. If we are going to try to put 30 events on campus proper we're going to be in court, so that would have to be at the Q site. My point is, why the hell would we spend 150 million dollars to build a football stadium? If we can pay 50 or 75 with an MLS team that sound great, but MLS has added a team to seatlle, to Philly and Vancover (i think) in coming years, who knows if an MLS team is coming here. My other point is, unless something changes in Sacramento, we'll never get into the pac10, so if we have to choose 5 new academic buildings or a stadium I think the choice should be clear. Only issue with this is MLS more than likely wouldn't allow it and it wouldn't benefit SDSU. MLS wouldn't allow it because they are focusing on expanding to cities that have an ownership group and city willing to build a soccer specific stadium. This means they wouldn't want to put goal post or football lines on it. It wouldn't benefit SDSU because we would still be renting from the MLS/developer of the stadium. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 14, 2010 19:34:31 GMT -8
I totally agree that a shared stadium largely built by an MLS expansion team is the best situation; also, I saw that the England USA game got an 11.5 in san diego - best in the country, so the fact there isn't an MLS team in San diego is silly, but I think the MLS plays 30 games, 15 home games, a couple preseason games, some touring team game, etc. If we are going to try to put 30 events on campus proper we're going to be in court, so that would have to be at the Q site. My point is, why the hell would we spend 150 million dollars to build a football stadium? If we can pay 50 or 75 with an MLS team that sound great, but MLS has added a team to seatlle, to Philly and Vancover (i think) in coming years, who knows if an MLS team is coming here. My other point is, unless something changes in Sacramento, we'll never get into the pac10, so if we have to choose 5 new academic buildings or a stadium I think the choice should be clear. Only issue with this is MLS more than likely wouldn't allow it and it wouldn't benefit SDSU. MLS wouldn't allow it because they are focusing on expanding to cities that have an ownership group and city willing to build a soccer specific stadium. This means they wouldn't want to put goal post or football lines on it. It wouldn't benefit SDSU because we would still be renting from the MLS/developer of the stadium. I'm not sure, but is Seattle building a soccer-only stadium? They had huge attendance last year at Quest |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Jun 14, 2010 19:39:04 GMT -8
Man as a UCSD grad I have tried to stay out of this whole academic argument. I learned my lesson to stay out of it trying to argue with my SDSU girlfriend and her friends why the academics of the two schools was not comparable. I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I have tons of friends from both camps. Socially I identify with the SDSU kids much more so than my UCSD brethren. However, you need to all get over it. State has some fairly smart well rounded students who like to party. UCSD has brilliant incredibly focused geniuses. The absolute best State student is your average B student at UCSD. There is NO comparison. It's a silly argument. SDSU is a state school which by definition has lower academic requirements than a UC.
The MWC is about athletics, State is best served not getting involved in the academic argument. Win some games and get buts in the seats - that's it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 19:40:34 GMT -8
Say goodbye to SDSU football within 5 years. I'm not sure why but it's comforting to me that you know as little about football as you know about politics. I've read all of your pontifications both here and on the MWC board and you've been uniformly wrong. But by all means, don't let that stop you from continuing to show your ass. FACT: The MWC will not be adding any more teams from an autobid. FACT: there are no more regional teams with a high enough athletic profile to expand AND strengthen the conference. FACT: BYU and TCU have presidents that no doubt recognize facts 1 and 2. FACT: No matter what they say at this point, both will be positioning their programs for the jump when it presents itself. FACT: It will be presented sooner rather than later. FACT: SDSU cannot sustain a program that plays in the WAC or Son of WAC when all of the big boys go to play with schools that place the same value on football success as they do. FACT: Boise is 2 bad recruiting classes or one NCAA violation from anonymity. All you really have to do is remove to SDSU blinders for a few minutes and you'll see that the arc of history is not in SDSU's favor. In 5 years, we'll be in the WCC and be known as a basketball school. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuballer on Jun 14, 2010 20:21:59 GMT -8
The newest building on campus, the Arts and Letters Building, cost 25 million a stadium likely 5-8 times that. I think we might be at a guns or butter, either/or, sophie's choice here. Can we justify building something that will be used 10 times a year over 5 or 6 buildings on campus? I'm getting to the point that our best option is downtown as a beggar to the chargers and spending 200 million building-up the school on the qualcolm lot. Chasing a football pipe dream might not be worth it in the long run. What about a 35K stadium shared with an MLS team that will be use a LOT more than that. It can be used for college graduations, High School graduation, future World Cup (off site) to new downtown stadium, CIF football, Marching band competitions, Religious events, Concerts, MLS, Nike Camps, Hoke Camps, Political ralies, freshmen orientation, emergency evacuation, NCAA soccer tournament, etc,etc,etc |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 14, 2010 20:27:17 GMT -8
I find it difficult to hold an unshakeable my way or the highway opinion in the face of all this. The last week should demonstrate the difficulty with blind opinions or the continuing validity of the Yogi Theorem that it ain't over tll the fat lady sings. I don't think I will be totally surprised if any of these wildly competing views come to pass. Absent hard facts--ie, an understanding of the real finances--I am left with my "gut" feeling. As previously stated my gut tells me this does not end well for us. Keep the faith though, we may make it through this. I hope. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 20:40:30 GMT -8
The absolute best State student is your average B student at UCSD. Your quote above is simply a foolish generalization which is obviously untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecdew on Jun 14, 2010 20:57:09 GMT -8
Too much gloom and doom on this Board. It's very simple, we need to take care of business on the field and on the court ... and we'll be fine. The future is in our hands (well, Weber, Sterk, coaches, donors, fans ... and of course our athletes). We need to be on "the same page". Focus on what we can control ... not what we can't.
I believe the Chargers will get its stadium built (with a little help of CCDC - redevelopment arm of the City of San Diego). Although, we still need to be actively working on a backup plan. With winning programs at a major desirable university (note how many folks apply and don't get in), good campus facilities, a new pro stadium to play in one tof he most beautiful cities in the U.S. ... things will take care of itself.
I, like most of you, continue to ask the question why we just can't catch a break. Well it starts with us ... there just isn't any reason why we can't be a major player in college football, basketball and baseball.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 22:07:33 GMT -8
I'm not sure why but it's comforting to me that you know as little about football as you know about politics. I've read all of your pontifications both here and on the MWC board and you've been uniformly wrong. But by all means, don't let that stop you from continuing to show your ass. FACT: The MWC will not be adding any more teams from an autobid. FACT: there are no more regional teams with a high enough athletic profile to expand AND strengthen the conference. FACT: BYU and TCU have presidents that no doubt recognize facts 1 and 2. FACT: No matter what they say at this point, both will be positioning their programs for the jump when it presents itself. FACT: It will be presented sooner rather than later. FACT: SDSU cannot sustain a program that plays in the WAC or Son of WAC when all of the big boys go to play with schools that place the same value on football success as they do. FACT: Boise is 2 bad recruiting classes or one NCAA violation from anonymity. All you really have to do is remove to SDSU blinders for a few minutes and you'll see that the arc of history is not in SDSU's favor. In 5 years, we'll be in the WCC and be known as a basketball school. I'll make you a proposition. If SDSU no longer has a football team in 2015, I'll leave this message board or any other which replaces it forever. However, if SDSU DOES have a football team in 2015, you will leave never to return. Deal? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecinoz on Jun 14, 2010 23:21:51 GMT -8
Only issue with this is MLS more than likely wouldn't allow it and it wouldn't benefit SDSU. MLS wouldn't allow it because they are focusing on expanding to cities that have an ownership group and city willing to build a soccer specific stadium. This means they wouldn't want to put goal post or football lines on it. It wouldn't benefit SDSU because we would still be renting from the MLS/developer of the stadium. I'm not sure, but is Seattle building a soccer-only stadium? They had huge attendance last year at Quest From my understanding they are still doing some research regarding how big to make it (or I could be about a year behind too). |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 15, 2010 6:07:26 GMT -8
Man as a UCSD grad I have tried to stay out of this whole academic argument. I learned my lesson to stay out of it trying to argue with my SDSU girlfriend and her friends why the academics of the two schools was not comparable. I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I have tons of friends from both camps. Socially I identify with the SDSU kids much more so than my UCSD brethren. However, you need to all get over it. State has some fairly smart well rounded students who like to party. UCSD has brilliant incredibly focused geniuses. The absolute best State student is your average B student at UCSD. There is NO comparison. It's a silly argument. SDSU is a state school which by definition has lower academic requirements than a UC. You make me laugh. And, conveniently, you also disprove your hypothesis by your act of posting it. The absolute best student at SDSU if every bit the equal of the very best student at UCSD. The top 10% at SDSU is very much equal to UCSD. That comparison probably drop off at some point, but your comment is arrogant and intensely mis-informed. |
|
|
|
Post by HAM on Jun 15, 2010 7:03:13 GMT -8
SDSU is a state school which by definition has lower academic requirements than a UC. Hogwash. This is 100% wrong. It is easier to get into UC, a State of California school, than SDSU which is in the top one percent in national research, by-the-by. Having hired two hundred or more kids from UC and Cal State, I will never hire another UC lazy bum again. HAM |
|
|
|
Post by steveaztec on Jun 15, 2010 11:00:24 GMT -8
SDSU is a state school which by definition has lower academic requirements than a UC. Hogwash. This is 100% wrong. It is easier to get into UC, a State of California school, than SDSU which is in the top one percent in national research, by-the-by. Having hired two hundred or more kids from UC and Cal State, I will never hire another UC lazy bum again. HAM Beautiful HAM, I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 11:55:53 GMT -8
Man as a UCSD grad I have tried to stay out of this whole academic argument. I learned my lesson to stay out of it trying to argue with my SDSU girlfriend and her friends why the academics of the two schools was not comparable. I know I'm going to take a lot of heat for this, but I have tons of friends from both camps. Socially I identify with the SDSU kids much more so than my UCSD brethren. However, you need to all get over it. State has some fairly smart well rounded students who like to party. UCSD has brilliant incredibly focused geniuses. The absolute best State student is your average B student at UCSD. There is NO comparison. It's a silly argument. SDSU is a state school which by definition has lower academic requirements than a UC. The MWC is about athletics, State is best served not getting involved in the academic argument. Win some games and get buts in the seats - that's it! It’s true that UCSD is considered a better school only because it’s part of the UC System. In case you aren’t aware, both the UC and CSU Systems differ in their academic mission, hence the lower academic requirements for SDSU. In case you’re not aware, average gpa for SDSU's incoming freshmen hovers above 3.5 with ¼ of students having a gpa of 3.75 and higher. But because of our lower admission requirement, SDSU must abide by the CSU rule of admitting students with gpa between 2.5 – 2.99, lowering our average. Incidentally, I had professors who told me that SDSU’s academic programs are comparable to many UC schools; that if there’s no limit to having one UC school per city/county, SDSU would be the other UC school in San Diego. I was admitted to UCI and UCSB but my preference was SDSU for many reasons. Moreover, I have quite a few SDSU friends who were also admitted to UCSD and other UC schools but chose to attend SDSU. I’m sure there are many other SDSU students who could’ve gone to a UC school too but due to whatever circumstances and likings went to SDSU. So, everyone has their reason for going to the school they attended. In short, the absolute best State students are just as good as the best of UCSD students. So please, get off your high horse ‘coz your argument was silly. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2010 12:31:48 GMT -8
In my mind there is no question that SDSU's academic attributes are far better than what many people perceive to be true. Does any knowledgeable person seriously think that UCR, UCSB, and UCSC are better schools than SDSU?
It's also wise to keep in mind that each school in a university is ranked according to how it stacks up with similar schools in other colleges and universities. One institution might be outstanding in math and chemistry but relatively weak in sociology and history.
Finally, reputations take a long time to build and sometimes linger on long past their expiration dates. That works both for good as well as for bad reputations.
AzWm
|
|
