|
Post by myownwords on Oct 3, 2012 13:56:33 GMT -8
It's not me who is advocating a 60K seat on-campus stadium. I think ~45k would be ideal and if this program ever gets where it should be on a continual basis, it would be at least 2/3 full for every game and sold out on occasion. I'd have to agree. A 45k stadium on campus (with the potential to build up) would be less than the Q, but being in Fresno this weekend made me realize, i'd rather have a 45k stadium near full, that sits close to the action, generates a ton of crowd noise, has our own SDSU signage, trophies, statues etc. and forces you to sit close to everyone rather than spread out in a huge Qualcomm. I found this tidbit pretty interesting today about the old Aztec Bowl and the intentions they had for it when it was built: Aztec Bowl hosted the San Diego State University Aztecs football team until they moved to Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. The stadium held 12,592 people at its peak and cost $500,000 to build. It was dedicated on October 3, 1936 before 7,500 people, after being completed earlier that year. The stadium was initially supposed to be expanded to 45,000 seats, but instead was only expanded once with 5,000 seats in 1948. Aztec Bowl was the only state college stadium in California at the time of its construction.[2]How do you get 45,000 people in and out on small surface/neighborhood streets? Remember, of the 35,000 or so students at SDSU, only a fraction of them show up at the same time and they leave all throughout the day.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Oct 3, 2012 14:21:25 GMT -8
How do you get 45,000 people in and out on small surface/neighborhood streets? Remember, of the 35,000 or so students at SDSU, only a fraction of them show up at the same time and they leave all throughout the day. It will be a hefty chore. No doubt. But, there are solutions. One thing i really liked about seeing Fresno's setup was how there were a few tailgate areas throughout the campus. For example, the SDSU designated tailgate/parking area was set out by the livestock and poultry. But obviously they have those type of farm animals on their campus. Basically, they had continuous campus shuttle buses that made stops at each lot/park/tailgate area every 10 minutes. or you could always make the walk which was not bad. Bottom line, some people will try to be at the game on time and leave on time. Some will tailgate early and stay all hours into the night like i do. Some will be students that live on or near campus that can walk. There is no ONE solution to make things smooth, But, If you want to be there, you'll make a way and deal with it. Its College football. Hell, its AZTEC football. It should be an all day thing anyways!
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Oct 3, 2012 14:31:23 GMT -8
It's not me who is advocating a 60K seat on-campus stadium. I think ~45k would be ideal and if this program ever gets where it should be on a continual basis, it would be at least 2/3 full for every game and sold out on occasion. I'd have to agree. A 45k stadium on campus (with the potential to build up) would be less than the Q, but being in Fresno this weekend made me realize, i'd rather have a 45k stadium near full, that sits close to the action, generates a ton of crowd noise, has our own SDSU signage, trophies, statues etc. and forces you to sit close to everyone rather than spread out in a huge Qualcomm. I found this tidbit pretty interesting today about the old Aztec Bowl and the intentions they had for it when it was built: Aztec Bowl hosted the San Diego State University Aztecs football team until they moved to Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. The stadium held 12,592 people at its peak and cost $500,000 to build. It was dedicated on October 3, 1936 before 7,500 people, after being completed earlier that year. The stadium was initially supposed to be expanded to 45,000 seats, but instead was only expanded once with 5,000 seats in 1948. Aztec Bowl was the only state college stadium in California at the time of its construction.[2]Yup... that is what I wish we would have done with the Aztec Bowl... 45,000 seat stadium where Viejas is. A 12,500 seat basketball arena could be built in a number locations on campus. Oh well...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2012 15:20:32 GMT -8
All the big time thinkers on this board want a 45,000 seat on campus stadium. We have 70,000 seats and we want to go back wards because we can't sell tickets. It is sad to have it all and being going backwards. +1000 Win..it's that easy
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 3, 2012 15:31:22 GMT -8
seattletimes.com/html/pac12confidential/2019330087_musing_on_the_downside_of_pac-12_tv.html"But then, you've got mitigating factors: The Huskies were still pretty much an unknown commodity. It was a 6 p.m. start, and that works a hardship on some people, getting to the stadium, parking and being there on time. And the fact it's in a stadium away from campus -- even if it is only a few miles away -- makes it unappealing to some. I had some friends tell me they went to the San Diego State game and weren't planning to go back, saying it wasn't at all like the college atmosphere they enjoy at the UW." An on Campus Stadium is necessary, be it be on Montezuma Mesa or the Q site is traded for the Adobe Falls property. But college football should be on Campus. I was asked the other day, who plays in a pro stadium defunt or in use. Temple - Former FNFL - Want a stadium but the city has too many Pitt - Are tied to the Ketchup Bottle Miami - have been making noise about a stadium USF - have been making noise about a stadium State Tulane - Want to build a stadium These may be the worst venues to see a game and they all have one thing in common.
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Oct 3, 2012 15:50:17 GMT -8
All the big time thinkers on this board want a 45,000 seat on campus stadium. We have 70,000 seats and we want to go back wards because we can't sell tickets. It is sad to have it all and being going backwards. +1000 Win..it's that easy The longer we're in that oversize ashtray, the deeper the valleys will be and the less robust the peaks. In short, The Q's gotta go -- and we've got to make our own identity.
|
|
|
Post by manicwater on Oct 3, 2012 17:39:19 GMT -8
If UNLV can pull it's football team together and if I could only have Gisele Bundchen's phone # We were every bit as shtty as they are so it's definitely possible. How sick is CSU's stadium drawing. Looks awesome with the walk-in view of the open stadium.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Oct 3, 2012 19:27:54 GMT -8
How are any of the comments, outside of 1 or 2, off-topic. Back 'on topic' from the SD is "anti-development" debate. I read you post and think you mis typed. Tell us about the sports developments in San Diego, California in recent decades. And, lets be clear, we are NOT talking about residential development here.
|
|
|
Post by badfish on Oct 3, 2012 19:44:22 GMT -8
Win and they will come, this is SD.
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Oct 3, 2012 20:43:03 GMT -8
The UNLV stadium will never get built. I believe that UNLV's stadium or a version of it will get built. Nevada is NOT California and has nowhere near the anti-development mentality in its citizenry or the legislature. This school is Nevada's "prize" and "pride and joy" AND its in Las Vegas. There IS money available and they WILL use it. laaztec, what do you mean that the UNLV Stadium will never get built? What do you have to back that up that statement? As myownwords has stated, UNLV will get built, you can be sure that the Vegas casinos will make sure it does!
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Oct 3, 2012 21:05:49 GMT -8
I hope UNLV's stadium gets built. I'm looking forward to making fun of them when they play in a one-third filled stadium like they have made fun of us for that for so Long. Making fun of us for playing in a one-third rilled stadium? $#!+, their games are rarely 1/3rd full as it is. There is another thing to consider. With a new Stadium (60k) that could be what UNLV needs to improve their recruiting, and start getting better players in football. Then, you may see better teams, and possible conference champs going to bowl games. Plus, the current Vegas Bowl could be moved there as opposed to playing in Sam Boyd Stadium which only holds about 36,000, and is not worth much.
|
|
|
Post by quickdraw on Oct 3, 2012 21:35:52 GMT -8
I believe that UNLV's stadium or a version of it will get built. Nevada is NOT California and has nowhere near the anti-development mentality in its citizenry or the legislature. This school is Nevada's "prize" and "pride and joy" AND its in Las Vegas. There IS money available and they WILL use it. laaztec, what do you mean that the UNLV Stadium will never get built? What do you have to back that up that statement? As myownwords has stated, UNLV will get built, you can be sure that the Vegas casinos will make sure it does! 2 years ago a modest outline and proposal was submitted to the Nevada Legislature toward the end of their session and it was defeated. This time around millions have gone into planning, traffic studies and getting the support of all of the important players at UNLV, the Board of Regents and the big Las Vegas players. It is still far from certain but it is being done right this time around.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Oct 3, 2012 22:10:39 GMT -8
I read you post and think you mis typed. Tell us about the sports developments in San Diego, California in recent decades. And, lets be clear, we are NOT talking about residential development here. "sports development" is a very stark difference to development in general. California is anti "sports giveaway" (not development) because our state isn't full of a bunch of hillbilly rubes who only cling to sports for local identity and pride. Thank God. Residential, retail, and office development have everything to do with "sports development". There is no profit or tax revenue to be made on the operations of sports facilities. The profit is in the ancilary developments, luxury boxes & media rights (which exclusively belong to the billionaire owners), and local tax redirection that reduce capital costs (like the UNLV case)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2012 7:12:24 GMT -8
seattletimes.com/html/pac12confidential/2019330087_musing_on_the_downside_of_pac-12_tv.html"But then, you've got mitigating factors: The Huskies were still pretty much an unknown commodity. It was a 6 p.m. start, and that works a hardship on some people, getting to the stadium, parking and being there on time. And the fact it's in a stadium away from campus -- even if it is only a few miles away -- makes it unappealing to some. I had some friends tell me they went to the San Diego State game and weren't planning to go back, saying it wasn't at all like the college atmosphere they enjoy at the UW." An on Campus Stadium is necessary, be it be on Montezuma Mesa or the Q site is traded for the Adobe Falls property. But college football should be on Campus. I was asked the other day, who plays in a pro stadium defunt or in use. Temple - Former FNFL - Want a stadium but the city has too many Pitt - Are tied to the Ketchup Bottle Miami - have been making noise about a stadium USF - have been making noise about a stadium State Tulane - Want to build a stadium These may be the worst venues to see a game and they all have one thing in common. I would have thought there were a few more schools playing in defunct or in use NFL stadiums but maybe that is all there are. Not going to look it up but IIRC, Tulane has already approved a new stadium and the plan shows why Tulane football is a dumpster fire. Something like 25K seats built on the cheap. Why bother, I say. It's tiring reading the occasional article about how some recruits are impressed with the Aztecs playing in an NFL stadium. My guess is those are always marginal kids who think Qualcomm beats the hell out of something like Spartan Stadium, which IS "spartan." As said above, build something new with an overhanging very vertical deck with an overhang above it like the stadium the Seahawks play in and we would actually have a home field advantage. Instead we're stuck in a multipurpose dinosaur with seats the color of Chargers' navy blue. The main reason for the huge growth of Aztecs basketball in the last 14 years has been Steve Fisher. However, playing in Viejas Arena rather than Peterson Gym or the Sport Aroma also had a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Oct 4, 2012 7:32:58 GMT -8
You can cry about politics, I'll look at results. You know, like those real world new buildings and structures everywhere. To say SDSU is anti-development after what has happened to that campus is beyond ridiculous. I have no doubt there are lots of political factors in play but don't let it twist your mind on the obvious. Or maybe you're just butt hurt over losing a SDSU bid. ..Sent from my Samsung GS3.. Wow, it would take way too much time to school you. I was not speaking of the microscopic world of one college campus. I was talking about development in San Diego County, but more specifically California. You may not understand this yet, but there is a world beyond you. Take care. Oh, I wasn't aware that SDSU isn't in San Diego county or the State of California. That must be the reason for all of the development. Thank you for enlightening me. In case you didn't notice this thread is about college campuses. As it relates to SDSU, a campus that's located in San Diego county. Nobody gives a $#!+ about your inability to develop a strip mall in El Centro. ..Sent from my Samsung GS3..
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Oct 4, 2012 7:53:31 GMT -8
The main reason for the huge growth of Aztecs basketball in the last 14 years has been Steve Fisher. However, playing in Viejas Arena rather than Peterson Gym or the Sport Aroma also had a lot to do with it. Exactly. They go hand in hand. You don't have AZTEC basketball success without Coach Fisher, but you DEFINITELY don't have AZTEC basketball success without Viejas Arena. You Reap what you sow. If SDSU invests in itself, it will most likely reap great rewards.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 4, 2012 8:09:18 GMT -8
Qualcolm isn't Peterson, Peterson is Aztec Bowl. There is no reason we can't be successful at the Q
|
|
|
Post by sleepy on Oct 4, 2012 8:32:45 GMT -8
Qualcolm isn't Peterson, Peterson is Aztec Bowl. There is no reason we can't be successful at the QI think we're running on something like 33 out of the past 35 seasons why what you typed there just ain't so.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 4, 2012 9:01:14 GMT -8
Qualcolm isn't Peterson, Peterson is Aztec Bowl. There is no reason we can't be successful at the QI think we're running on something like 33 out of the past 35 seasons why what you typed there just ain't so. So, the stadium is why we've lost? Maybe it's the black uniforms, or playing at night, or being named Aztecs, or not having Zuma, or playing in San Diego, or not being called CSU, San Diego
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 4, 2012 9:10:38 GMT -8
I think we're running on something like 33 out of the past 35 seasons why what you typed there just ain't so. So, the stadium is why we've lost? Maybe it's the black uniforms, or playing at night, or being named Aztecs, or not having Zuma, or playing in San Diego, or not being called CSU, San Diego It's about assets. I don't think you are able to hire a coach like fisher without Cox. I don't think Fish is able to recruit kids to play in Peterson or the SA, so he would pass on the job. Qualcomm is not nearly the anchor as Peterson, but it is still an anchor. Imagine how unimpressed you are when you show up to see 25-35K at the Q and now apply that to a 18 year old kid. It has an impact. And as we all now, recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. JMO.
|
|