|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 5, 2012 8:38:03 GMT -8
Where to start.... 1. The stadium will not fill at the Q. It is a 70K behemoth that the Chargers can not fill. The Chargers themselves are now seeking a 55K stadium. But beyond that, you assume that all you need to do is add water shake and presto you have 70K people at the Q. That water is the coach and you need to recruit him. The first question that every coach has when they are interviewing for a job is what are your facilities what is your investment plan. Hoke asked about it and asked about a future stadium. All of the candidates asked that same question. So it is naive to think that Q is fine and dandy and does not hamper our ability to recruit a coach. Yes, we got Brady but we scooped him from Ball State. 2. We are a commuter school with a tiny fraction living on campus? BS, 15% of students reside in University Housing. That does not include all of the students that live in the private housing that surrounds the campus. More is being built and the percentage of students living within 2 miles of campus is ~50%. In addition, you must have never been to State on a Friday or Saturday night, there is plenty of action all around. To say dead zone is amazing. Perhaps I was unclear, or you intentionally distorted what I said. What does "fill" mean, in the context of such pathetic crowds we now have? Obviously, I was comparing to the days of Faulk, etc. when the crowd was great and loud and excited to cheer for a winner. We will be fine with the Q, especially since---as others have said---it would be at least 10 years before we'd ever see a new campus stadium Students on campus. Wow. I thought maybe 10% lived on and near campus, but SDSU's official information says 12%. Are you saying that's NOT a fraction of the 35,000 students AND an even smaller percentage of the 45,000 or 55,000-seat stadium on campus? THAT is why SDSU is referred to as a "commuter" school. Get it? 15% live in University Owned and Operated properties. 9/10 is a fraction as well as 1/8, so let's not go into sematics. What you fail to realize is that the vast majority of the students that live in and around campus do so in PRIVATE PROPERTY. You are quoting who live in UNIVERSITY OWNED Property. Marshall played at the Murph and it was far from perfect, so you are romantacising it just a tad. The Murph at that time only held 60K not 71K, but the the attendance and atmosphere was an issue back then as well.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 5, 2012 8:39:00 GMT -8
Interesting. UCLA is 20 miles from the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl is interesting that you park and tailgate on the golf course, but it doesn't have any collegiate feel. In any event, the Rose Bowl is certainly not the Q or Raymond James Stadium. It has an historical element that they get to play up. It makes due, but UCLA would do better if it had an on campus stadium. UCLA is somewhat nomadic as they used to share the Coliseum. SC, C'mon. maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=google+map+la+coliseum&fb=1&gl=us&hq=google+map+la+coliseum&hnear=google+map+la+coliseum&cid=0,0,10779184606615785492&ei=pvhuUM_9A4nD2QWF34GYDw&ved=0CGgQ_BIwAg The Coliseum is "on campus". It is very close to USC. It is not on campus. They rent, just like us. Never been to the Coliseum. I don't what it is like. I have been to the Rose Bowl and the Q is better. a. SC is the master lease holder. b. you literally cross the street and you are at the colliseum.
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Oct 5, 2012 8:51:38 GMT -8
1. State won't get an on-campus stadium for decades if ever. 2. State can win and win big in whatever stadium they share with the Chargers. Seems like Miami won an NC or two playing at the Orange Bowl; same goes for USC at the Coliseum. SDSU can definitely win at the Q. Thats not the point. The point is we've only packed that place out on 1 of 2 occasions. Skyshow and Marshall Faulk. Skyshow is once a season. Marshall is once a LIFETIME. Bottom line is, players and coaches win games, but if you want to build a program you need to have your own facilities. Unless you have decades of history and tradition like UCLA/USC or plan on breaking every NCAA rule like MIAMI, you need to build better campus facilities and transform SDSU from a commuter school to an on campus institution. The facts are that SDSU is slowly trying to do that. BTW have you seen Miami's crowds lately? Absolutely pathetic. The facts dont lie. The teams that play in NFL stadiums arent that many, and they arent exactly the best environments in College Football.
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 5, 2012 8:56:18 GMT -8
Perhaps I was unclear, or you intentionally distorted what I said. What does "fill" mean, in the context of such pathetic crowds we now have? Obviously, I was comparing to the days of Faulk, etc. when the crowd was great and loud and excited to cheer for a winner. We will be fine with the Q, especially since---as others have said---it would be at least 10 years before we'd ever see a new campus stadium Students on campus. Wow. I thought maybe 10% lived on and near campus, but SDSU's official information says 12%. Are you saying that's NOT a fraction of the 35,000 students AND an even smaller percentage of the 45,000 or 55,000-seat stadium on campus? THAT is why SDSU is referred to as a "commuter" school. Get it? 15% live in University Owned and Operated properties. 9/10 is a fraction as well as 1/8, so let's not go into sematics. What you fail to realize is that the vast majority of the students that live in and around campus do so in PRIVATE PROPERTY. You are quoting who live in UNIVERSITY OWNED Property. Marshall played at the Murph and it was far from perfect, so you are romantacising it just a tad. The Murph at that time only held 60K not 71K, but the the attendance and atmosphere was an issue back then as well. Romantisizing? I was at all of the games he played and I can tell you there is a universe of difference. I have no problem with an on-campus stadium--other than there is ZERO money for it and no administrative will to accomplish it. Without those two issues, there is ZERO hope of that happening. I would rather deal with the now, and the real world and spend energy correcting our new found "direction", down. Hell, we have people here saying we can't afford a $2million/year coach. Then how can we even pay for the design plans of a new stadium, much less the cost of building one?
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 5, 2012 9:02:40 GMT -8
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... Exactly right. The school bet that following the Chargers to a brand new 48,000 seat (at the time) stadium was the way to go. It now looks like a questionable move, but it would have taken a lot of foresight in 1967 to have said "no" to the new venue, one that the school could not have afforded to build. In those days we were years away from playing schools such as Notre Dame, UCLA, Washington, Michigan, and Ohio State. The basic problem is twofold; First, we are broke, and that means the state as well as the school. Second, land is at such a premium on the Mesa. Building an on-campus stadium may not be impossible, but if one is built, it will qualify as a near miracle. Still, I am not giving up hope. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 5, 2012 9:27:40 GMT -8
I keep hearing that there aren't many teams that play in NFL stadia.
AZ Cards - Played in Sun Devil Stadium for years (they had to get their own field) Atlanta - No D1 football school in atlanta Baltimore - No D1 football school Buffalo - UofBuffallo I guess has their own stadium Charlotte - Just joining D1a Bears - Northwestern on campus, and a decent distance from soldier field anyway Cincy - They play big games at the Bangles stadium Clevland - is their a big D1a school in clevland? Dallas - SMU on campus, they also have a bil + in their endowement Denver - no d1a football in denver Detroit - No d1a football Green Bay - no D1a football Houston - Houston played in the astrodome and elsewhere Indy - no D1a football Jaconsville - no d1a football Kansas CIty - no d1a football Miami - have used each others stadiums for years Minnesotta - used to used the metrodome New England - bC is in the suburbs, has own stadium New Orleans - Tulane I believe uses the superdome Giants/Jets - Rutgers isn't a bit away Raiders - shared a stadium with USC, Cal has own stadium Eagles - Temple uses Steelers - Pitt uses Rams - believe the rams, usc and ucla all shared the coliseum for a while - no d1a football team in St Louis Chargers - SDSU uses 49ers - no d1a football in SF/candlestick area, bit of a ways from san jose Seahawks - came after the huskies built a stadium Tampa Bay - USF uses Tennesse Titans - Vandy has a stadium they built long before the Titans/oilers moved there Washington Redskins - No D1a football in the beltway
SO, 16 of 32 NFL franchises also have an NFL team in the area of a D1a school.
Seattle, Nashville had stadiums in a major conference before football showed up
SMU has more money than God
Tampa, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Philly use stadiums full time
Chicago, Oakland/Berkeley have their own stadiums
Arizona, Minn, Houston, Tulane is supposed to have opened new stadiums, AZ for the NFL
Cincy plays games at the Bangles stadium
Buffallo I don't even care to look up
BC's stadium I think predates the Patriots, foxboro is quite a distance I think from BC
Double So, half the cities have to deal with this, and all have different reasons for their situations. I wonder if any are as landlocked as SDSU or an option as close as the Q. The Q or the Q site is really the only future for SDSU having it's 'own' stadium, otherwise we're following the Chargers around. It is really hard to imagine a stadium being built on campus
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2012 9:43:30 GMT -8
For reasons already articulated above, SDSU will never achieve its full football potential as long as we're stuck in Qualcomm. 1. State won't get an on-campus stadium for decades if ever. 2. State can win and win big in whatever stadium they share with the Chargers. Seems like Miami won an NC or two playing at the Orange Bowl; same goes for USC at the Coliseum. Miami won a lot of its title using a bunch of thugs who could never get admitted to SDSU. The Chancellor's Office would force SDSU president to fire any coach who brought in that kind of criminal element. (And yeah, I do know we've had a few bad character guys over the years but Miami was in another galaxy from us.) USC is literally across the street from the Coliseum. Also, since the thirties USC has had the top football program in the country west of Soonerville and Huskerville as as good as those two programs as well. Apples and oranges, John.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 5, 2012 9:47:25 GMT -8
I only hope that SDSU has at least begun to think seriously about planning for an on-campus stadium. Should the Chargers leave, and I think odds are no worse than 50/50 of that happening, we cannot assume that the Q will be there forever.
As for the success of the football program, I think that even 8-10 win seasons back to back will not be enough to push attendance beyond the 45,000-50,000 level. If we were in the Pac-12 (virtually 0 chance of that), home games against UCLA, USC, Washington, etc., might push the attendance well past 50,000. Central Florida and UConn, even if both they and we are having good seasons, will still not draw anywhere near 71,000 fans. I agree that the Q is simply way to big for us, but we will be stuck with it until somebody on the Mesa takes the bull by the horns and initiates an on-campus stadium drive. Or perhaps pursues the suggestion that the university take over the Q site and develop it for housing/classes AND a new, smaller stadium.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 5, 2012 9:53:18 GMT -8
15% live in University Owned and Operated properties. 9/10 is a fraction as well as 1/8, so let's not go into sematics. What you fail to realize is that the vast majority of the students that live in and around campus do so in PRIVATE PROPERTY. You are quoting who live in UNIVERSITY OWNED Property. Marshall played at the Murph and it was far from perfect, so you are romantacising it just a tad. The Murph at that time only held 60K not 71K, but the the attendance and atmosphere was an issue back then as well. Romantisizing? I was at all of the games he played and I can tell you there is a universe of difference. I have no problem with an on-campus stadium--other than there is ZERO money for it and no administrative will to accomplish it. Without those two issues, there is ZERO hope of that happening. I would rather deal with the now, and the real world and spend energy correcting our new found "direction", down. Hell, we have people here saying we can't afford a $2million/year coach. Then how can we even pay for the design plans of a new stadium, much less the cost of building one? All I hear is defeatism. Similar to the howls we heard when COX was put up on the agenda. Handwringing, we are broke, the team sucks, what is wrong with the SA, where is the money going to come from? You have no idea of the administrative will on the subject. I listened to Elliot discuss Capital Projects past, current, future, and hopeful jus the other month. So, keep on hating, keep on wanting State to be a Commuter school.
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Oct 5, 2012 9:58:09 GMT -8
I keep hearing that there aren't many teams that play in NFL stadia. AZ Cards - Played in Sun Devil Stadium for years (they had to get their own field) Atlanta - No D1 football school in atlanta Baltimore - No D1 football school Buffalo - UofBuffallo I guess has their own stadium Charlotte - Just joining D1a Bears - Northwestern on campus, and a decent distance from soldier field anyway Cincy - They play big games at the Bangles stadium Clevland - is their a big D1a school in clevland? Dallas - SMU on campus, they also have a bil + in their endowement Denver - no d1a football in denver Detroit - No d1a football Green Bay - no D1a football Houston - Houston played in the astrodome and elsewhere Indy - no D1a football Jaconsville - no d1a football Kansas CIty - no d1a football Miami - have used each others stadiums for years Minnesotta - used to used the metrodome New England - bC is in the suburbs, has own stadium New Orleans - Tulane I believe uses the superdome Giants/Jets - Rutgers isn't a bit away Raiders - shared a stadium with USC, Cal has own stadium Eagles - Temple uses Steelers - Pitt uses Rams - believe the rams, usc and ucla all shared the coliseum for a while - no d1a football team in St Louis Chargers - SDSU uses 49ers - no d1a football in SF/candlestick area, bit of a ways from san jose Seahawks - came after the huskies built a stadium Tampa Bay - USF uses Tennesse Titans - Vandy has a stadium they built long before the Titans/oilers moved there Washington Redskins - No D1a football in the beltway SO, 16 of 32 NFL franchises also have an NFL team in the area of a D1a school. Seattle, Nashville had stadiums in a major conference before football showed up SMU has more money than God Tampa, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Philly use stadiums full time Chicago, Oakland/Berkeley have their own stadiums Arizona, Minn, Houston, Tulane is supposed to have opened new stadiums, AZ for the NFL Cincy plays games at the Bangles stadium Buffallo I don't even care to look up BC's stadium I think predates the Patriots, foxboro is quite a distance I think from BC Double So, half the cities have to deal with this, and all have different reasons for their situations. I wonder if any are as landlocked as SDSU or an option as close as the Q. The Q or the Q site is really the only future for SDSU having it's 'own' stadium, otherwise we're following the Chargers around. It is really hard to imagine a stadium being built on campus So you are saying that there just a few college teams that play in NFL stadiums?
|
|
|
Post by myownwords on Oct 5, 2012 10:01:01 GMT -8
Romantisizing? I was at all of the games he played and I can tell you there is a universe of difference. I have no problem with an on-campus stadium--other than there is ZERO money for it and no administrative will to accomplish it. Without those two issues, there is ZERO hope of that happening. I would rather deal with the now, and the real world and spend energy correcting our new found "direction", down. Hell, we have people here saying we can't afford a $2million/year coach. Then how can we even pay for the design plans of a new stadium, much less the cost of building one? The satdium All I hear is defeatism. Similar to the howls we heard when COX was put up on the agenda. Handwringing, we are broke, the team sucks, what is wrong with the SA, where is the money going to come from? You have no idea of the administrative will on the subject. I listened to Elliot discuss Capital Projects past, current, future, and hopeful jus the other month. So, keep on hating, keep on wanting State to be a Commuter school. Hating?? Defeatism? Try, reality. How do you manage these leaps in logic or English? YOU injected the word "hate". Why? If English is not your first language then please have someone else read my post to you again with appropiate translations. We have control over our destiny with coaching and recruiting. And we have evidence of that very recently. We have little or no control over a new stadium on campus. Too many outside influences and not enough "juice".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2012 10:04:02 GMT -8
So you are saying that there just a few college teams that play in NFL stadiums? Yo no comprendo tambien.
|
|
|
Post by SDSU-Alum2003 on Oct 5, 2012 10:31:35 GMT -8
I only hope that SDSU has at least begun to think seriously about planning for an on-campus stadium. Should the Chargers leave, and I think odds are no worse than 50/50 of that happening, we cannot assume that the Q will be there forever. As for the success of the football program, I think that even 8-10 win seasons back to back will not be enough to push attendance beyond the 45,000-50,000 level. If we were in the Pac-12 (virtually 0 chance of that), home games against UCLA, USC, Washington, etc., might push the attendance well past 50,000. Central Florida and UConn, even if both they and we are having good seasons, will still not draw anywhere near 71,000 fans. I agree that the Q is simply way to big for us, but we will be stuck with it until somebody on the Mesa takes the bull by the horns and initiates an on-campus stadium drive. Or perhaps pursues the suggestion that the university take over the Q site and develop it for housing/classes AND a new, smaller stadium. AzWm I actually sent Jim Sterk a letter regarding the stadium and various other concerns in September of 2011. Here was his response... "Thank you for your message. Please know we are working on stadium possibilities for both if the Chargers say in SD or if they leave. It will take significant resources to control our own destiny on the stadium front however I am confident we can get it done. Hope you are looking forward to the rest of the season." Go Aztecs! Jim It is apparent that SDSU has contingency plans in the works based on what the Chargers do. What those plans are only the SDSU Administration knows. If the Chargers stay I don't see anything changing. If they leave that will trigger the 5 year SDSU lease clause. SDSU and the city if San Diego would have 5 years to determine where SDSU would continue to play football at that time. Former SDSU Athletic Director Jeff Schemmel said... “We'd have five years to figure that out,” Schemmel said. “Clearly we'd build a stadium somewhere. We'd like to find a place on campus or close to campus if we had to.” www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/may/20/1s20azlease23858-sdsus-new-qualcomm-lease-would-ha/SDSU won't do anything if the Chargers stay. So, I hope they leave. Only then will SDSU, the state of California (CSU system) and the city of San Diego be forced to resolve this stadium issue.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 5, 2012 11:12:21 GMT -8
Romantisizing? I was at all of the games he played and I can tell you there is a universe of difference. I have no problem with an on-campus stadium--other than there is ZERO money for it and no administrative will to accomplish it. Without those two issues, there is ZERO hope of that happening. I would rather deal with the now, and the real world and spend energy correcting our new found "direction", down. Hell, we have people here saying we can't afford a $2million/year coach. Then how can we even pay for the design plans of a new stadium, much less the cost of building one? All I hear is defeatism. Similar to the howls we heard when COX was put up on the agenda. Handwringing, we are broke, the team sucks, what is wrong with the SA, where is the money going to come from? You have no idea of the administrative will on the subject. I listened to Elliot discuss Capital Projects past, current, future, and hopeful jus the other month. So, keep on hating, keep on wanting State to be a Commuter school. I really don't understand this response. He just basically stated the facts. I don't think anyone wants the campus to be a commuter school, where did this assumption come from? Facts: 1. There is no money for a stadium, currently 2. A stadium is not on any facilities master plan or capital project list, at any level (this is public information, look it up, doesn't require some special meeting) 3. We have no money for design, planning, feasibility (unless a private firm steps in and funds something) 4. There is a huge backlog of projects that would take precedence over a new stadium 5. 5 years should be ample time to consider our options (which I guarantee have been considered), make a decision, and take action. I'd recommend giving this whole topic a rest. Until the chargers decide something we are in limbo. Even if we find some generous donor, marquee sponsor, and private sector interest, we will still be worlds away funding wise. The current and immediate future student bodies are getting hit with tuition hikes (with more coming), so unless AS can quickly, and quietly, pass another SFR we are at a stand still.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 5, 2012 11:44:28 GMT -8
All I hear is defeatism. Similar to the howls we heard when COX was put up on the agenda. Handwringing, we are broke, the team sucks, what is wrong with the SA, where is the money going to come from? You have no idea of the administrative will on the subject. I listened to Elliot discuss Capital Projects past, current, future, and hopeful jus the other month. So, keep on hating, keep on wanting State to be a Commuter school. I really don't understand this response. He just basically stated the facts. I don't think anyone wants the campus to be a commuter school, where did this assumption come from? Facts: 1. There is no money for a stadium, currently 2. A stadium is not on any facilities master plan or capital project list, at any level (this is public information, look it up, doesn't require some special meeting) 3. We have no money for design, planning, feasibility (unless a private firm steps in and funds something) 4. There is a huge backlog of projects that would take precedence over a new stadium 5. 5 years should be ample time to consider our options (which I guarantee have been considered), make a decision, and take action. I'd recommend giving this whole topic a rest. Until the chargers decide something we are in limbo. Even if we find some generous donor, marquee sponsor, and private sector interest, we will still be worlds away funding wise. The current and immediate future student bodies are getting hit with tuition hikes (with more coming), so unless AS can quickly, and quietly, pass another SFR we are at a stand still. Give the Should-the-Aztecs-build-a-new-stadium? topic a rest? ? ? Well, that will happen as soon as members give up starting new Who-should-be-our-head-football-coach? threads. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 5, 2012 11:51:56 GMT -8
I keep hearing that there aren't many teams that play in NFL stadia. AZ Cards - Played in Sun Devil Stadium for years (they had to get their own field) Atlanta - No D1 football school in atlanta Baltimore - No D1 football school Buffalo - UofBuffallo I guess has their own stadium Charlotte - Just joining D1a Bears - Northwestern on campus, and a decent distance from soldier field anyway Cincy - They play big games at the Bangles stadium Clevland - is their a big D1a school in clevland? Dallas - SMU on campus, they also have a bil + in their endowement Denver - no d1a football in denver Detroit - No d1a football Green Bay - no D1a football Houston - Houston played in the astrodome and elsewhere Indy - no D1a football Jaconsville - no d1a football Kansas CIty - no d1a football Miami - have used each others stadiums for years Minnesotta - used to used the metrodome New England - bC is in the suburbs, has own stadium New Orleans - Tulane I believe uses the superdome Giants/Jets - Rutgers isn't a bit away Raiders - shared a stadium with USC, Cal has own stadium Eagles - Temple uses Steelers - Pitt uses Rams - believe the rams, usc and ucla all shared the coliseum for a while - no d1a football team in St Louis Chargers - SDSU uses 49ers - no d1a football in SF/candlestick area, bit of a ways from san jose Seahawks - came after the huskies built a stadium Tampa Bay - USF uses Tennesse Titans - Vandy has a stadium they built long before the Titans/oilers moved there Washington Redskins - No D1a football in the beltway SO, 16 of 32 NFL franchises also have an NFL team in the area of a D1a school. Seattle, Nashville had stadiums in a major conference before football showed up SMU has more money than God Tampa, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Philly use stadiums full time Chicago, Oakland/Berkeley have their own stadiums Arizona, Minn, Houston, Tulane is supposed to have opened new stadiums, AZ for the NFL Cincy plays games at the Bangles stadium Buffallo I don't even care to look up BC's stadium I think predates the Patriots, foxboro is quite a distance I think from BC Double So, half the cities have to deal with this, and all have different reasons for their situations. I wonder if any are as landlocked as SDSU or an option as close as the Q. The Q or the Q site is really the only future for SDSU having it's 'own' stadium, otherwise we're following the Chargers around. It is really hard to imagine a stadium being built on campus So you are saying that there just a few college teams that play in NFL stadiums? Every team in our situation plays or has played in an NFL facility. I can't envision another D1a school other than UCla and SC that are as landlocked as we are.
|
|