|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 13:56:30 GMT -8
It allows SDSU to take over the Q site and eliminates their top competition in the immediate area. As a Charger fan you don't see that a competiion exists but an economist would laugh at you. It also forces SDSU to either retrofit the Q or build their own stadium eventually. Stan, is this REALLY that hard to understand? Your premise that the competition is direct is just wrong. Here is an example using UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA. The Rams and Raiders left in 1994. In 1995, UCLA sold exactly 787 more season tickets, an increase of 2.7 percent, and per-game attendance actually decreased to 49,107, a drop of 4.6 percent. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6695960The only improvements UCLA and USC saw in attendance were when they made changes to their program and marketing. This proves Stan's point directly. The burden of success at SDSU is on the program, not other entities such as the Chargers. If you are going to play the zero sum game, then you have to support the idea that the football program suffers because of the success of the basketball program. If a fan only has so many dollars and has to choose one event or another then one will suffer. Obviously this has not been the case. Your UCLA info is interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to our situation. Both UCLA and USC were national brands decades before the NFL really got going (I consider that to be during the tenure of Pete Rozelle (1960-1989)). It's no surprise that the Bruins did not reap a bonanza of new fans who previously had been Rams or Raiders fans. They already had a very large and faithful fan base. (It is also important to remember that I am talking about a time during which UCLA and USC were nationally respected universities and we were still San Diego State College.) In the case of SDSU, the Aztecs took off about the same time that the Chargers moved to San Diego. In other words, the Aztecs did not already have a die-hard fan base. This can be seen by looking at the precipitous fall off in Aztec attendance when the program got in trouble in the '80s. The absence of an NFL franchise in San Diego would not automatically solve all of SDSU's problems. I have never said so, and I don't think anyone else has, either. But such a situation would help, certainly in the long run. If nothing else, it would eliminate the possibility of our having to play in yet another venue not suited to the program, but with the added handicap of being located much farther from campus. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 14:03:53 GMT -8
And, again, an NFL team brings a lot more than financial or economic gains to a city. There are a lot of intangibles that are impossible to quantify financially. Debatable, at the very least. I think we could compile a very long list of cities . . . small, medium, and large . . . that do not have an NFL franchise but are nonetheless eminently successful, great to live in placesl. Basically, pro sports benefits the upper classes (and the ink-stained wretches of the press). The tickets are very, very pricey, parking costs a bundle, and the food is dramatically over-priced. More and more, season tickets are bought either by the wealthy or by companies to be used as business bonuses and perks. The guy making $30,000 to $35,000 a year and raising a family of 3 or 4 can in no way afford to attend the games. And pro football is becoming more and more a TV operation; the big money comes from the networks. Now, imagine a factory coming to town, employing let's say 1000 workers. You really want to say that an NFL franchise means more to a city than that new factory? AzWm Absolutely. Is that factory going to galvanize most of the community the way an NFL team can? Is that factory going to improve morale in that city on a wide scale? Is that factory going to bring hundreds of thousands of disparate people together with a common interest and source of civic pride the way an NFL team can? No.
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Dec 17, 2014 14:11:26 GMT -8
And is anyone foolish enough to think that funding for a new Aztec football stadium is a given if the Chargers leave town? The Q is a money pit for the city of San Diego, and the Aztecs alone wouldn't warrant the tens of millions needed for renovations and repairs. Or the millions in annual upkeep and operating costs.
Does SDSU really have a quarter of a billion dollars to spend on a new stadium?
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Dec 17, 2014 14:17:58 GMT -8
Or an expanded university with say 300 new relatively high-paying professorships...another 300 or so staffers...plus the revenue of and additional 10-15K out-of-town students adding tuition, housing, and discretionary spending to the local economy...add into that the construction work for 3-5 years building out a new "west campus"...and finally the benefit of having another 10-15K college graduates in our community each year to either join or start new businesses. This fiscal impact would dwarf the potential to bring in a SB every 10 years...and other than SBs...the Chargers are just sucking money out of our community and giving it to the Spanos family and to players who generally reside in other places in the off-season. The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. I can't address SDSU's professor recruiting...but what I do know is that SDSU has record admission applications showing the unsatisfied demand from freshmen and transfer student to attend SDSU. So there is no debating "if we build it they will come"...we already know they will come based on the current applications. The Chargers do suck more money out of our economy than they add to it...almost all of the season ticket holders are from local fans who plop down $1000 (or more) each season for each seat...plus parking and concessions...(working on the math...70,000 seats x $1000 = $70M + probably another $30M - at least - from parking and concessions...plus all of the merchandising licensing fees that go back to the Chargers when local fans buy gear (maybe a total of $120M / year when you total it all up)...that's a lot of money leaving the pockets of San Diegans and deposited in the pockets of the Chargers. The Chargers do pay the city rent for the stadium and do employee a variety of staffers to help with the team's operations...plus all the revenue that goes into local tavern owners who get a boost from locals going to bars on Sundays (although...it could be argued that this revenue would continue whether the Chargers moved to a another city) Kevin OC is a part of the local media whose livelihood is dependent on having a local team to report on...plus I'm certain that he is a huge football fan in general so anything that he might say would be self-serving. Agreed...SDSU would not become an instant San Diego fan-favorite (and maybe never at all)...but having the State build a "west campus" would indeed benefit San Diego more (both financially and intellectually) than spending any tax-payer money trying to keep the Chargers in San Diego (or attracting a SB or two in the next 25 years)... The argument isn't about converting Charger fans into Aztec fans...but rather doing what is best for San Diego as a whole...and in a much lesser degree...giving the Aztecs a new place to play football and possibly attract new recruits and fans in the process. Building a new tax-payer financed stadium for the Chargers simply doesn't give a high enough ROI for the city in lieu of other investments...
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Dec 17, 2014 14:27:58 GMT -8
Actually, we started yakking about SDSU taking over the Q as a western campus on the precursors of this chat board in the mid-to-late '90s. In fact, wouldn't surprise me if the folks at SDSU got the idea from reading Aztectalk. I know I began psotting about it and advocating it long before any school official or politician ever mentioned it. Probabaly about a decade before. Glad to see they've caught up in their thinking at least.
And, yes, a western campus would deliver 1,000x the economic value to the city than the Chargers could ever dream of delivering. Heck, you'd even have to add several more zeros to 1,000x to get the correct magnitude. Just look at UCSD. It's an economic juggernaut. Without it, 90% of the high-tech firms in town wouldn't be here. SDSU doesn't quite have the economic punch that UCSD does mostly because it's not a major research university on the scale of UCSD, but it is still economically vital to the continued growth and development of knowledge workers and high wages in town.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Dec 17, 2014 14:28:21 GMT -8
Again what does the Chargers leaving San Diego help the Aztecs football team on the field ?
Chargers are a business that employ quite a few people who live here all year . Plus at least 75 people who are here at least 6 to 9 months . They spend money for homes/apt and other items in the city. People who work at the stadium at least 10 times during the year . Also those that have companies/ employees who deal in products related . Also money that is brought in when fans and teams,networks, come to visit San Diego . Any business leaving San Diego hurts San Diego , plus the PR that comes on game day showing San Diego , in such a positive way .
Doubt any of these posts change any ones opinions do hope , we stay on the key issue improving the SDSU football team .
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 14:34:13 GMT -8
The school has a very had time getting professos because the lack of available affordable housing. Adding projects like the current mixed use under construction by campus on Montezuma is what SDSU needs to increase it's desirability for top professors. To expand SDSU needs a large chunk of land. Don't think for a second that the current Stadium land will go unused as SDSU will emplement the idea to negotiate with the City to acquire the area to develope.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 14:44:40 GMT -8
We need to clarify our thinking on the issue of the future of SDSU football. Really, it's the future of the entire university that should be our focus. SDSU has made great strides academically in recent years and has the potential to make even greater strides in the coming years. That despite the ill-will and obstructionism of the University of California system. Among other challenges that stand in the way of SDSU's rise in the world of American universities one stands out in my mind.
I refer to the limited land available to the university. Practically speaking, SDSU has expanded about as much as it can at its present site. But there is one way that this problem could be solved with enormous benefit to the school and to the community at large. That would be SDSU's taking over the Qualcomm site. Such a move would offer endless possibilities, both for San Diego State's academic mission as well as for Aztec athletics. I won't bother to discuss in any detail those possibilities since the issue has been discussed at some length on AztecMesa in the past. Suffice it to say that expansion of SDSU to Mission Valley represents one occasion when the expression The Chance of a Lifetime is appropriate. Such an opportunity, if not taken advantage of, will never come again. Not in this city.
Clearly, making this happen would not be easy. On the contrary, it would require inspired, persistent leadership on the part of the school's administration as well as influential local citizens . . . many of whom are SDSU grads. As challenging as the project would be, we should not let this chance of a lifetime slip through our fingers.
On another point, let me tell you that if there were a county-wide vote to hand millions to the Spanos gang, I would personally lead an effort to defeat that proposition. If the Spanoses want to build a new stadium, they should buy land and build it at their own expense. I do not want to have to pay taxes to help people who are worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.
And let's not kid ourselves. In terms of a playing venue, SDSU football needs either an on-campus stadium or a rebuilt Qualcomm Stadium. A downtown stadium far from campus and in which we will be play the role of the unloved stepchild would be a very bad deal.
Finally, on the question of what impact on Aztec attendance the absence of the Chargers would play, it must be said that it would only help us. No, the vast majority of current Charger fans would not immediately sign-up for Aztec season tickets. But over time, SDSU would be seen as the #1 football program in San Diego County. Of course, the quality of Aztec teams would be crucial; if we go into another 11 year drought, nothing can save us. But as young kids grow up seeing SDSU win championships and going to bowl games, they will, at least many of them, become Aztec fans.
And, yes, SDSU has to do a much better job marketing the team. But if, out of 60,000 who pay an arm and a leg to watch the Chargers, only 10% become Aztec fans, we will have been given a huge boost. Do you not think that 5,000 or 6,000 more fans attending the games would be a plus? Of course it would. And those 5K or 6k might not actually be current Charger fans. They would be people who are very young at present or not even born; people who would grow up in a community in which the Aztecs would be the big show in town.
One more thing. As far as recruiting is concerned, I'm sure that other schools' recruiters are not telling H.S. seniors that they would be foolish to play college football in Norman, Tuscaloosa, State College, Lincoln, or Eugene on the grounds that those cities lack an NFL franchise.
We should think of San Diego State's priorities, and not those of billionaires who dabble in pro sports the way people of modest means dabble in fantasy football.
Azwm So, you agree with me. We should tear down Qualcomm tomorrow if not sooner as the city has NO business owning and operating any facility that is being exploited by billionaires for profit. That's the campaign I'll be leading.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 14:55:24 GMT -8
The school has a very had time getting professos because the lack of available affordable housing. Adding projects like the current mixed use under construction by campus on Montezuma is what SDSU needs to increase it's desirability for top professors. To expand SDSU needs a large chunk of land. Don't think for a second that the current Stadium land will go unused as SDSU will emplement the idea to negotiate with the City to acquire the area to develope. No, that is not the case at all. SDSU has not been able to hire new professors because the school flatly does not have the money to do so. The money SDSU puts into the CSU system goes to other universities and does not come back to SDSU at the same rate that it goes out. Until the state gets its fiscal house in order this will continue to be the case. This is one of the reasons there have been discussions of SDSU departing the CSU, but that is a whole different discussion...
|
|
|
Post by retiredaztec on Dec 17, 2014 14:56:24 GMT -8
Your premise that the competition is direct is just wrong. Here is an example using UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA. The Rams and Raiders left in 1994. In 1995, UCLA sold exactly 787 more season tickets, an increase of 2.7 percent, and per-game attendance actually decreased to 49,107, a drop of 4.6 percent. sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=6695960The only improvements UCLA and USC saw in attendance were when they made changes to their program and marketing. This proves Stan's point directly. The burden of success at SDSU is on the program, not other entities such as the Chargers. If you are going to play the zero sum game, then you have to support the idea that the football program suffers because of the success of the basketball program. If a fan only has so many dollars and has to choose one event or another then one will suffer. Obviously this has not been the case. Your UCLA info is interesting, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to our situation. Both UCLA and USC were national brands decades before the NFL really got going (I consider that to be during the tenure of Pete Rozelle (1960-1989)). It's no surprise that the Bruins did not reap a bonanza of new fans who previously had been Rams or Raiders fans. They already had a very large and faithful fan base. (It is also important to remember that I am talking about a time during which UCLA and USC were nationally respected universities and we were still San Diego State College.) In the case of SDSU, the Aztecs took off about the same time that the Chargers moved to San Diego. In other words, the Aztecs did not already have a die-hard fan base. This can be seen by looking at the precipitous fall off in Aztec attendance when the program got in trouble in the '80s. The absence of an NFL franchise in San Diego would not automatically solve all of SDSU's problems. I have never said so, and I don't think anyone else has, either. But such a situation would help, certainly in the long run. If nothing else, it would eliminate the possibility of our having to play in yet another venue not suited to the program, but with the added handicap of being located much farther from campus. AzWm You mean the Chargers move to San Diego about the same time Don Coryell was hired as the Aztecs head football coach?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 14:56:55 GMT -8
The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. I can't address SDSU's professor recruiting...but what I do know is that SDSU has record admission applications showing the unsatisfied demand from freshmen and transfer student to attend SDSU. So there is no debating "if we build it they will come"...we already know they will come based on the current applications. The Chargers do suck more money out of our economy than they add to it...almost all of the season ticket holders are from local fans who plop down $1000 (or more) each season for each seat...plus parking and concessions...(working on the math...70,000 seats x $1000 = $70M + probably another $30M - at least - from parking and concessions...plus all of the merchandising licensing fees that go back to the Chargers when local fans buy gear (maybe a total of $120M / year when you total it all up)...that's a lot of money leaving the pockets of San Diegans and deposited in the pockets of the Chargers. The Chargers do pay the city rent for the stadium and do employee a variety of staffers to help with the team's operations...plus all the revenue that goes into local tavern owners who get a boost from locals going to bars on Sundays (although...it could be argued that this revenue would continue whether the Chargers moved to a another city) Kevin OC is a part of the local media whose livelihood is dependent on having a local team to report on...plus I'm certain that he is a huge football fan in general so anything that he might say would be self-serving. Agreed...SDSU would not become an instant San Diego fan-favorite (and maybe never at all)...but having the State build a "west campus" would indeed benefit San Diego more (both financially and intellectually) than spending any tax-payer money trying to keep the Chargers in San Diego (or attracting a SB or two in the next 25 years)... The argument isn't about converting Charger fans into Aztec fans...but rather doing what is best for San Diego as a whole...and in a much lesser degree...giving the Aztecs a new place to play football and possibly attract new recruits and fans in the process. Building a new tax-payer financed stadium for the Chargers simply doesn't give a high enough ROI for the city in lieu of other investments... Any time money changes hands, it stimulates the economy. By your thinking, Vons "sucks money out of the economy" because I spend money there and that money goes elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion not FACT that an expanded SDSU campus is a net benefit to the community. In MY opinion, you're more likely to see a CSU Chula Vista long before you will see what is essentially a new campus being built for SDSU. If not chula Vista, one of the other under served communities throughout the state that would like to host the next CSU.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 17, 2014 14:59:42 GMT -8
Or an expanded university with say 300 new relatively high-paying professorships...another 300 or so staffers...plus the revenue of and additional 10-15K out-of-town students adding tuition, housing, and discretionary spending to the local economy...add into that the construction work for 3-5 years building out a new "west campus"...and finally the benefit of having another 10-15K college graduates in our community each year to either join or start new businesses. This fiscal impact would dwarf the potential to bring in a SB every 10 years...and other than SBs...the Chargers are just sucking money out of our community and giving it to the Spanos family and to players who generally reside in other places in the off-season. The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. Okay, I don't get this. If the Chargers leave, who else would be the premier football program in San Diego? AzWm
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 15:06:03 GMT -8
Again what does the Chargers leaving San Diego help the Aztecs football team on the field ? Chargers are a business that employ quite a few people who live here all year . Plus at least 75 people who are here at least 6 to 9 months . They spend money for homes/apt and other items in the city. People who work at the stadium at least 10 times during the year . Also those that have companies/ employees who deal in products related . Also money that is brought in when fans and teams,networks, come to visit San Diego . Any business leaving San Diego hurts San Diego , plus the PR that comes on game day showing San Diego , in such a positive way . Doubt any of these posts change any ones opinions do hope , we stay on the key issue improving the SDSU football team . Chargers leaving probably doesn't do a ton for the Aztecs in the short run but SDSU would get the revenue from advertising and sky boxes that the Chargers pocket. I would say there might be a much bigger pool of money avaliable for dontaions and corporate sponsorships, and corporate ticket sales... in the long run SDSU would add housing and classrooms. The increase in the number of students and grad students would add to the student fees pool that goes to athetics, as well as long term donors and a bigger pool of fan base. Also a 10's of millions of reasearch dollars comming in, possibly of new fortune 500 companies and multimillionaire executives. The Chargers are a buisness, but the economic impact they create can probably be offset by opening 10 McDonald's or Office Depots. Stadium consessions is contracted by a company outside California, so that revenue is immediately taken from the San Diego economy. The players buy houses and cars, but probably most don't live inside the City, and therfore thier impact isn't much, and can be of set by a couple hundred families added to the City.
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 15:08:18 GMT -8
The school has a very had time getting professos because the lack of available affordable housing. Adding projects like the current mixed use under construction by campus on Montezuma is what SDSU needs to increase it's desirability for top professors. To expand SDSU needs a large chunk of land. Don't think for a second that the current Stadium land will go unused as SDSU will emplement the idea to negotiate with the City to acquire the area to develope. No, that is not the case at all. SDSU has not been able to hire new professors because the school flatly does not have the money to do so. The money SDSU puts into the CSU system goes to other universities and does not come back to SDSU at the same rate that it goes out. Until the state gets its fiscal house in order this will continue to be the case. This is one of the reasons there have been discussions of SDSU departing the CSU, but that is a whole different discussion... Both explations are part of the bigger problem... still if SDSU is allowed to separate it still will need the land and expand to provide housing.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 15:16:04 GMT -8
The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. I can't address SDSU's professor recruiting...but what I do know is that SDSU has record admission applications showing the unsatisfied demand from freshmen and transfer student to attend SDSU. So there is no debating "if we build it they will come"...we already know they will come based on the current applications. The Chargers do suck more money out of our economy than they add to it...almost all of the season ticket holders are from local fans who plop down $1000 (or more) each season for each seat...plus parking and concessions...(working on the math...70,000 seats x $1000 = $70M + probably another $30M - at least - from parking and concessions...plus all of the merchandising licensing fees that go back to the Chargers when local fans buy gear (maybe a total of $120M / year when you total it all up)...that's a lot of money leaving the pockets of San Diegans and deposited in the pockets of the Chargers. The Chargers do pay the city rent for the stadium and do employee a variety of staffers to help with the team's operations...plus all the revenue that goes into local tavern owners who get a boost from locals going to bars on Sundays (although...it could be argued that this revenue would continue whether the Chargers moved to a another city) Kevin OC is a part of the local media whose livelihood is dependent on having a local team to report on...plus I'm certain that he is a huge football fan in general so anything that he might say would be self-serving. Agreed...SDSU would not become an instant San Diego fan-favorite (and maybe never at all)...but having the State build a "west campus" would indeed benefit San Diego more (both financially and intellectually) than spending any tax-payer money trying to keep the Chargers in San Diego (or attracting a SB or two in the next 25 years)... The argument isn't about converting Charger fans into Aztec fans...but rather doing what is best for San Diego as a whole...and in a much lesser degree...giving the Aztecs a new place to play football and possibly attract new recruits and fans in the process. Building a new tax-payer financed stadium for the Chargers simply doesn't give a high enough ROI for the city in lieu of other investments... Jimmy, the university has grown over the past decade tremendously. As an example, the College of Engineering has experienced a greater amount of growth than most others at the university. The department has not been able to replace those professors that have retired, let alone the additional faculty that is needed due to growth alone. It is a state funding issue, not a growth issue. Regarding your comment on the Chargers sucking money out of our economy, as I have said to others, this is not a zero sum game. Just because the Chargers are out of the equation does not mean those dollars will flow in whole or in part to SDSU FB. The branding, product, experience, etc is totally different. If the Chargers left and SDSU dropped football, would USD see an increase in demand for their football program? Would you be lining up to see their games? As far as the Q site being used as a west campus, I love the idea, but it is not a slam dunk to occur (I am having visions of Skylar's failed dunk against Long Beach last week). Lastly, until we get the formal proposal we do not know what the ROI will be for the City. It is likely though that the funding will be a tax paid by tourists, not residents. It is very relevant to the conversation who the tax payers are in the discussion. The fact of the matter is that this is not an either or proposition. There is absolutely no reason the Aztecs, Chargers, Padres, Soccers and any other sports entertainment cannot be successful in San Diego. They do not succeed at the expense of the other.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Dec 17, 2014 15:26:26 GMT -8
The university is struggling to be able to replace the professors that are retiring now. How exactly do you expect them to add 300? Assuming that it is a given that SDSU would occupy the Q site is not prudent. Listening to Kevin OC on 1090 today discuss the situation does not give an SDSU fan the warm and fuzzys that a future place for SDSU football to play is a slam dunk. I feel pretty confident in saying that he would know the details of the situation better than most on this board do. One common theme that I am noticing with those cheering the Chargers out of San Diego is that they base their arguments on false premises. When the final plan is presented to the community I would expect it to be a fair proposal that allows the City to obtain a return on any investment that is made. It will not be a plan that allows the Chargers to "suck money out of our community". Also, the real world example of UCLA and USC when the NFL left LA shows us that SDSU will NOT be the premier football attraction. To suggest otherwise is baseless. I can understand the logic, but the example we have does not bear it out. Heck, do you expect Aztec baseball to have an uptick in attendance if you remove the Padres? Of course not. I have said it before and I will say it again. SDSU will need to reach out to those that support the Chargers at one point or another. To burn bridges instead of build them is short sighted and foolish. Okay, I don't get this. If the Chargers leave, who else would be the premier football program in San Diego? AzWm Quite frankly San Diego would not have a premier football program. As I mentioned before, if SDSU was to escalate to the PAC12 or Big12, then they may rise to a level to be considered premier. Referring back to the ESPN article I linked to, USC did not grow after the NFL left LA. They grew in popularity and attendance after they changed their marketing and success on the field. The product MUST be able to stand on its own to succeed. Removing competition does not make a product successful. Close every other fast foot restaurant but McDonalds and I still will not eat there because the food is crap. Keep in mind that we buy our SDSU football season tickets because we are alumni and support the program. It sure as hell isn't because of the quality opponents that come into town or in your opinion, the superior coaching that comes from our sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by Ambivalent_Fan on Dec 17, 2014 15:38:31 GMT -8
I can't address SDSU's professor recruiting...but what I do know is that SDSU has record admission applications showing the unsatisfied demand from freshmen and transfer student to attend SDSU. So there is no debating "if we build it they will come"...we already know they will come based on the current applications. The Chargers do suck more money out of our economy than they add to it...almost all of the season ticket holders are from local fans who plop down $1000 (or more) each season for each seat...plus parking and concessions...(working on the math...70,000 seats x $1000 = $70M + probably another $30M - at least - from parking and concessions...plus all of the merchandising licensing fees that go back to the Chargers when local fans buy gear (maybe a total of $120M / year when you total it all up)...that's a lot of money leaving the pockets of San Diegans and deposited in the pockets of the Chargers. The Chargers do pay the city rent for the stadium and do employee a variety of staffers to help with the team's operations...plus all the revenue that goes into local tavern owners who get a boost from locals going to bars on Sundays (although...it could be argued that this revenue would continue whether the Chargers moved to a another city) Kevin OC is a part of the local media whose livelihood is dependent on having a local team to report on...plus I'm certain that he is a huge football fan in general so anything that he might say would be self-serving. Agreed...SDSU would not become an instant San Diego fan-favorite (and maybe never at all)...but having the State build a "west campus" would indeed benefit San Diego more (both financially and intellectually) than spending any tax-payer money trying to keep the Chargers in San Diego (or attracting a SB or two in the next 25 years)... The argument isn't about converting Charger fans into Aztec fans...but rather doing what is best for San Diego as a whole...and in a much lesser degree...giving the Aztecs a new place to play football and possibly attract new recruits and fans in the process. Building a new tax-payer financed stadium for the Chargers simply doesn't give a high enough ROI for the city in lieu of other investments... Any time money changes hands, it stimulates the economy. By your thinking, Vons "sucks money out of the economy" because I spend money there and that money goes elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion not FACT that an expanded SDSU campus is a net benefit to the community. In MY opinion, you're more likely to see a CSU Chula Vista long before you will see what is essentially a new campus being built for SDSU. If not chula Vista, one of the other under served communities throughout the state that would like to host the next CSU. Yes...this is my EXACT thinking...Von's (and Cheveron...and SDG&E...and Verizon for other examples) send the bulk of the revenue that is created when San Diegans purchase their products and send the money to places other than San Diego...the net flow from these operations is negative in terms of local GNP Whereas companies like Nassco, Qualcomm and SAIC receive money from other places and use that money to produce high paying jobs for the citizens of San Diego to use to buy goods and services, homes (that are created by local tradesmen). Now with that said...we know full-well that any community needs certain goods and services to survive regardless of whether the profits are going somewhere else besides our own community...we don't have (or want) oil drilling and refining in San Diego owned and operated by local companies... We make up for those lost dollars by bringing in revenue in terms of tourist dollars...defense dollars...high-tech / pharma dollars...etc. I was making the point that the Chargers are a net negative on our community in terms of financial impact (they take more dollars from the local economy than they return)...whereas an expanded university (or new university in Chula Vista) adds to the overall economy (although I suspect that the fiscal impact of CS Chula Vista would be less to the economy because it would probably be more of a commuter school than SDSU which attracts more out-of-state students - who pay higher tuition and whose money is from outside of San Diego). You can try to argue that the money spent on a Charger's jersey from a local fan helps the local economy...but when you break down the $50 purchase...$10 goes to a manufacturer in China...$20 goes to the NFL and Chargers...$20 goes to the retailer who pays his employees minimum wage...rents his mall space from Westfield (an out of town operation)...and makes a profit for himself to buy a local house and groceries from Von's, gas from Cheveron, and cellphone service from Verizon (with most of that money leaving San Diego as well)... I'm sorry...but the Chargers just don't add much to the economy of San Diego overall as compared to other enterprises who are not looking to get tax-payer subsidies...
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Dec 17, 2014 15:46:28 GMT -8
Any time money changes hands, it stimulates the economy. By your thinking, Vons "sucks money out of the economy" because I spend money there and that money goes elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion not FACT that an expanded SDSU campus is a net benefit to the community. In MY opinion, you're more likely to see a CSU Chula Vista long before you will see what is essentially a new campus being built for SDSU. If not chula Vista, one of the other under served communities throughout the state that would like to host the next CSU. Yes...this is my EXACT thinking...Von's (and Cheveron...and SDG&E...and Verizon for other examples) send the bulk of the revenue that is created when San Diegans purchase their products and send the money to places other than San Diego...the net flow from these operations is negative in terms of local GNP Whereas companies like Nassco, Qualcomm and SAIC receive money from other places and use that money to produce high paying jobs for the citizens of San Diego to use to buy goods and services, homes (that are created by local tradesmen). Now with that said...we know full-well that any community needs certain goods and services to survive regardless of whether the profits are going somewhere else besides our own community...we don't have (or want) oil drilling and refining in San Diego owned and operated by local companies... We make up for those lost dollars by bringing in revenue in terms of tourist dollars...defense dollars...high-tech / pharma dollars...etc. I was making the point that the Chargers are a net negative on our community in terms of financial impact (they take more dollars from the local economy than they return)...whereas an expanded university (or new university in Chula Vista) adds to the overall economy (although I suspect that the fiscal impact of CS Chula Vista would be less to the economy because it would probably be more of a commuter school than SDSU which attracts more out-of-state students - who pay higher tuition and whose money is from outside of San Diego). You can try to argue that the money spent on a Charger's jersey from a local fan helps the local economy...but when you break down the $50 purchase...$10 goes to a manufacturer in China...$20 goes to the NFL and Chargers...$20 goes to the retailer who pays his employees minimum wage...rents his mall space from Westfield (an out of town operation)...and makes a profit for himself to buy a local house and groceries from Von's, gas from Cheveron, and cellphone service from Verizon (with most of that money leaving San Diego as well)... I'm sorry...but the Chargers just don't add much to the economy of San Diego overall as compared to other enterprises who are not looking to get tax-payer subsidies... Spot On... I have yet to read any study that says a stadium or arena is a sound financial investment. The teams stadiums house bring Civic pride, but financially stadiums are a drain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 16:08:25 GMT -8
Any time money changes hands, it stimulates the economy. By your thinking, Vons "sucks money out of the economy" because I spend money there and that money goes elsewhere. It's a matter of opinion not FACT that an expanded SDSU campus is a net benefit to the community. In MY opinion, you're more likely to see a CSU Chula Vista long before you will see what is essentially a new campus being built for SDSU. If not chula Vista, one of the other under served communities throughout the state that would like to host the next CSU. Yes...this is my EXACT thinking...Von's (and Cheveron...and SDG&E...and Verizon for other examples) send the bulk of the revenue that is created when San Diegans purchase their products and send the money to places other than San Diego...the net flow from these operations is negative in terms of local GNP Whereas companies like Nassco, Qualcomm and SAIC receive money from other places and use that money to produce high paying jobs for the citizens of San Diego to use to buy goods and services, homes (that are created by local tradesmen). Now with that said...we know full-well that any community needs certain goods and services to survive regardless of whether the profits are going somewhere else besides our own community...we don't have (or want) oil drilling and refining in San Diego owned and operated by local companies... We make up for those lost dollars by bringing in revenue in terms of tourist dollars...defense dollars...high-tech / pharma dollars...etc. I was making the point that the Chargers are a net negative on our community in terms of financial impact (they take more dollars from the local economy than they return)...whereas an expanded university (or new university in Chula Vista) adds to the overall economy (although I suspect that the fiscal impact of CS Chula Vista would be less to the economy because it would probably be more of a commuter school than SDSU which attracts more out-of-state students - who pay higher tuition and whose money is from outside of San Diego). You can try to argue that the money spent on a Charger's jersey from a local fan helps the local economy...but when you break down the $50 purchase...$10 goes to a manufacturer in China...$20 goes to the NFL and Chargers...$20 goes to the retailer who pays his employees minimum wage...rents his mall space from Westfield (an out of town operation)...and makes a profit for himself to buy a local house and groceries from Von's, gas from Cheveron, and cellphone service from Verizon (with most of that money leaving San Diego as well)... I'm sorry...but the Chargers just don't add much to the economy of San Diego overall as compared to other enterprises who are not looking to get tax-payer subsidies... $10? You are being generous! =) But, I agree with you, wherever the difference goes it's not to the retailer that's for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2014 16:35:44 GMT -8
Yes...this is my EXACT thinking...Von's (and Cheveron...and SDG&E...and Verizon for other examples) send the bulk of the revenue that is created when San Diegans purchase their products and send the money to places other than San Diego...the net flow from these operations is negative in terms of local GNP Whereas companies like Nassco, Qualcomm and SAIC receive money from other places and use that money to produce high paying jobs for the citizens of San Diego to use to buy goods and services, homes (that are created by local tradesmen). Now with that said...we know full-well that any community needs certain goods and services to survive regardless of whether the profits are going somewhere else besides our own community...we don't have (or want) oil drilling and refining in San Diego owned and operated by local companies... We make up for those lost dollars by bringing in revenue in terms of tourist dollars...defense dollars...high-tech / pharma dollars...etc. I was making the point that the Chargers are a net negative on our community in terms of financial impact (they take more dollars from the local economy than they return)...whereas an expanded university (or new university in Chula Vista) adds to the overall economy (although I suspect that the fiscal impact of CS Chula Vista would be less to the economy because it would probably be more of a commuter school than SDSU which attracts more out-of-state students - who pay higher tuition and whose money is from outside of San Diego). You can try to argue that the money spent on a Charger's jersey from a local fan helps the local economy...but when you break down the $50 purchase...$10 goes to a manufacturer in China...$20 goes to the NFL and Chargers...$20 goes to the retailer who pays his employees minimum wage...rents his mall space from Westfield (an out of town operation)...and makes a profit for himself to buy a local house and groceries from Von's, gas from Cheveron, and cellphone service from Verizon (with most of that money leaving San Diego as well)... I'm sorry...but the Chargers just don't add much to the economy of San Diego overall as compared to other enterprises who are not looking to get tax-payer subsidies... Spot On... I have yet to read any study that says a stadium or arena is a sound financial investment. The teams stadiums house bring Civic pride, but financially stadiums are a drain. So then you and William are with me. I say let's tear down Qualcomm TODAY! Giant waste of money and Billionaires are exploiting it for profit! I'd rather salt the Earth than put one more dollar in 5the Spanos pocket! I say San Diego needs neither football or a stadium! Who's with me?
|
|