Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 13:42:49 GMT -8
Takes me an hour to get out of a basketball game. Then you must not have anything better to do than wait. Starting this season, my practice is to park at the Grantville station, take the five minute trolley ride to campus and then the five minute walk to Viejas. Reverse process after the game. This is so much preferable to the agonizing wait to get out of the parking buildings. Give it a try. AzWm Congratulations are your work-around for what is obviously an issue with campus access that promises to be several times worse should a football venue be located nearby. BTW: That trolley your riding cost the taxpayers in excess of $500 million dollars or $100million/mile for the 5 miles between The Q and Grossmont Center. Maybe they can set up a tailgate lot in Grantville
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 13:44:05 GMT -8
If I was even the slightest bit scared about the Aztecs football future without the Chargers in town I wouldn't be openly rooting for them to move to LA. Can't wait! Amen, brother. My sentiments exactly. Of course, you realize that we will both be targeted with emotional jihads from the Charger faithful, but so be it. AzWm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 13:46:48 GMT -8
afan posted this. . . you and I seem to be the only two that think downtown can be special for SDSU. Everyone else wants to imitate the East coast Sis Boom Bah college town experience.
Having to play downtown, in a too large stadium with elevated rental rates and no control over auxiliary money streams (parking, food, etc.), would be TERRIBLE for the Aztec football program. Take a look at Miami of Florida, a program many, many times more successful and prestigious than ours; they do not play on campus and they do NOT draw crowds commensurate with their status. In the future, Group of Five schools with the best chance of survival, may well be those with their own on-campus stadiums. Downtown may be fine for pro football. It would be a huge negative for the Aztecs. AzWm Miami plays in the 'hood, not downtown and if there's a major city in the US that supports its teams worse than SD, it's Miami Since there's been no design and nothing has been negotiated, the rest your post is not worth rebutting.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 14:02:11 GMT -8
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! ! ! A thousand times YES! This is a once in a century opportunity with enormous upside. We need leadership (Dr. Hirsch, are you listening?) to get this ball rolling. AzWm There is no C in his last name. Hirshman. Not Hirschman. If you want to make sure someone listens to you, the first step is spelling his name right. HIRSHMAN Sorry about that. In case you didn't know, Hirsch is the German word for deer. Since I was a German teacher, I tend to default to German spellings of words that have close English cognates. Regardless of the spelling of the president's family name, I stand by my suggestion that he needs to be the leader of a move to (A) build an on-campus stadium, or (B) absorb the Mission Valley site into the university. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 19, 2015 14:03:04 GMT -8
The agreement that authorized Petco forbids football. Plus, I understand that the dimensions are such that an American football field cannot be accommodated therin. If I am wrong on that second point, and if someway around the first one could be found, then playing a season at Petco while a new Aztec stadium is being build would be tolerable. Not ideal, not comfortable, but tolerable. Better to find a way to build a 40,000 seat stadium (with room for expansion to 50,000 or more) on campus while the Aztecs continue to use the Q.
But best of all, SDSU takes over the Mission Valley site to help make the school one of the nation's best universities.
AzWm
I don't know if Petco could fit a football field in it and have no desire to check and see if it would. I remember playing a couple of games against Long Beach State in the Angels ball park. I can assure you that a ball park is a lousy place to play football. You either have to run the field from home plate to center field where the outfield seats get progressively further away from the field. Or you run the field from home plate up the first or third base line. That way one side has decent sight lines, but the other side of the stadium becomes useless for watching the game. Playing there for only one season while a permanent Aztec stadium was being built would be barely tolerable, but only because we would know our own stadium would be available soon.
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 19, 2015 14:12:18 GMT -8
If I was even the slightest bit scared about the Aztecs football future without the Chargers in town I wouldn't be openly rooting for them to move to LA. Can't wait! Amen, brother. My sentiments exactly. Of course, you realize that we will both be targeted with emotional jihads from the Charger faithful, but so be it. AzWm Emotional jihads huh? I have not resorted to name calling in this discussion. What I have been advocating is what I think is best not just for SDSU, but for San Diego as a region. Unfortunately the tone from some is "SDSU Uberalles" and anything else makes you a Honk or something of lesser value to the "real" Aztec fans. What I have yet to hear is a clear answer on how any of the improvements for a west campus gets paid for and how there is certainty that a football stadium would be part of it. You dont have to be a Charger fan to realize that the Chargers leaving San Diego may adversely impact the SDSU FB program. As in terminate it. This in conjunction with the basic fact that San Diego needs a new stadium for so much more than just the Chargers makes me wonder at those that want the NFL gone from our City. As a side note, it also makes me wonder how you expect to grow the SDSU FB fan base with the attitudes that you have towards any that are not purely devoted to SDSU athletics. It is another point that I bring up and is never addressed. The vitriol that put spewed out by some on this board towards the Chargers will never get Charger fans to an Aztec game. If you are really interested in helping the program grow I would think you would want to be reaching out to the community rather than shutting yourself in praying for a new conference, new coach, new season, etc.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 14:26:01 GMT -8
afan posted this. . . you and I seem to be the only two that think downtown can be special for SDSU. Everyone else wants to imitate the East coast Sis Boom Bah college town experience.
Having to play downtown, in a too large stadium with elevated rental rates and no control over auxiliary money streams (parking, food, etc.), would be TERRIBLE for the Aztec football program. Take a look at Miami of Florida, a program many, many times more successful and prestigious than ours; they do not play on campus and they do NOT draw crowds commensurate with their status. In the future, Group of Five schools with the best chance of survival, may well be those with their own on-campus stadiums. Downtown may be fine for pro football. It would be a huge negative for the Aztecs. AzWm Miami plays in the 'hood, not downtown and if there's a major city in the US that supports its teams worse than SD, it's Miami Since there's been no design and nothing has been negotiated, the rest your post is not worth rebutting.
The Hurricanes play in a pro stadium that is 20 years newer than the Q (Sun Life Stadium, opened in '87) and I imagine has all the bells and whistles. The neighborhood may not be the best (I am unfamiliar with Miami), but there's nothing wrong with the stadium. Well, what's wrong with it is that it is at least 20 miles from the school (or 24 miles, depending on the route you choose.) I can't help but think that Miami of FLA would be better off with an on-campus stadium, just as would SDSU.
My main point, however, stands. Namely, that SDSU needs either an on-campus stadium or continued use of the Mission Valley site. The other big issue is the capacity of the stadium. Obviously, 71,000 seats are about 25,000 too many.
AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Feb 19, 2015 14:42:59 GMT -8
Amen, brother. My sentiments exactly. Of course, you realize that we will both be targeted with emotional jihads from the Charger faithful, but so be it. AzWm Emotional jihads huh? I have not resorted to name calling in this discussion. What I have been advocating is what I think is best not just for SDSU, but for San Diego as a region. Unfortunately the tone from some is "SDSU Uberalles" and anything else makes you a Honk or something of lesser value to the "real" Aztec fans. What I have yet to hear is a clear answer on how any of the improvements for a west campus gets paid for and how there is certainty that a football stadium would be part of it. You dont have to be a Charger fan to realize that the Chargers leaving San Diego may adversely impact the SDSU FB program. As in terminate it. This in conjunction with the basic fact that San Diego needs a new stadium for so much more than just the Chargers makes me wonder at those that want the NFL gone from our City. As a side note, it also makes me wonder how you expect to grow the SDSU FB fan base with the attitudes that you have towards any that are not purely devoted to SDSU athletics. It is another point that I bring up and is never addressed. The vitriol that put spewed out by some on this board towards the Chargers will never get Charger fans to an Aztec game. If you are really interested in helping the program grow I would think you would want to be reaching out to the community rather than shutting yourself in praying for a new conference, new coach, new season, etc. Sorry about the failed attempt at humor. But, seriously, I have been the recipient of some negative comments following my declaration of non-loyalty to the Chargers. I see the Chargers as a strictly commercial enterprise that has attempted, successfully sometimes, to get the taxpayers to give them benefits that other businesses do not receive. If the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, or money from other private sources, all well and good. But I really do not want to have to have some of my tax money going to them. And as a resident of unincorporated Fallbrook, I really bridle at the suggestion that the whole county should get involved in building a new stadium that will be great for the Chargers but, should they be forced to use it, would be a detriment to the Aztecs. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by rebar619 on Feb 19, 2015 14:47:02 GMT -8
Emotional jihads huh? I have not resorted to name calling in this discussion. What I have been advocating is what I think is best not just for SDSU, but for San Diego as a region. Unfortunately the tone from some is "SDSU Uberalles" and anything else makes you a Honk or something of lesser value to the "real" Aztec fans. What I have yet to hear is a clear answer on how any of the improvements for a west campus gets paid for and how there is certainty that a football stadium would be part of it. You dont have to be a Charger fan to realize that the Chargers leaving San Diego may adversely impact the SDSU FB program. As in terminate it. This in conjunction with the basic fact that San Diego needs a new stadium for so much more than just the Chargers makes me wonder at those that want the NFL gone from our City. As a side note, it also makes me wonder how you expect to grow the SDSU FB fan base with the attitudes that you have towards any that are not purely devoted to SDSU athletics. It is another point that I bring up and is never addressed. The vitriol that put spewed out by some on this board towards the Chargers will never get Charger fans to an Aztec game. If you are really interested in helping the program grow I would think you would want to be reaching out to the community rather than shutting yourself in praying for a new conference, new coach, new season, etc. Sorry about the failed attempt at humor. But, seriously, I have been the recipient of some negative comments following my declaration of non-loyalty to the Chargers. I see the Chargers as a strictly commercial enterprise that has attempted, successfully sometimes, to get the taxpayers to give them benefits that other businesses do not receive. If the Spanos family wants to build a stadium using their own money, or money from other private sources, all well and good. But I really do not want to have to have some of my tax money going to them. And as a resident of unincorporated Fallbrook, I really bridle at the suggestion that the whole county should get involved in building a new stadium that will be great for the Chargers but, should they be forced to use it, would be a detriment to the Aztecs. AzWm Setting the Chargers aside for a moment, do you agree that a new stadium would be used for much more than just the Chargers and would be a benefit to the City and asset to the region? Also, do you think that SDSU FB is totally insulated from this and will survive no matter what? If so, I would like to know why. The reason I ask is that so much of the dialogue against a stadium is driven by a disdain for the Chargers when they are only part of the whole issue. Yes, they are the catalyst for it right now due to the LA situation, but we would be having this conversation anyway in the near term just because of the decaying state of the Q.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 19, 2015 14:55:05 GMT -8
We would not be able to operate financially playing in a 4,500 seat stadium. So, unfortunately, it is either the City Builds chargers a new stadium, we get our own stadium built if chargers leave, or we discontinue football. We would have no choice, unless the Padres want to share their stadium with us, but I doubt that. That would probably be brought up if situation A and B don't happen, and athletics is in desperation mode. But, who knows if they would allow us.
The agreement that authorized Petco forbids football. Plus, I understand that the dimensions are such that an American football field cannot be accommodated therin. If I am wrong on that second point, and if someway around the first one could be found, then playing a season at Petco while a new Aztec stadium is being build would be tolerable. Not ideal, not comfortable, but tolerable. Better to find a way to build a 40,000 seat stadium (with room for expansion to 50,000 or more) on campus while the Aztecs continue to use the Q.
But best of all, SDSU takes over the Mission Valley site to help make the school one of the nation's best universities.
AzWm
You are correct--a football field will not fit in Petco, even if football were allowed to be played there.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 19, 2015 15:00:15 GMT -8
The agreement that authorized Petco forbids football. Plus, I understand that the dimensions are such that an American football field cannot be accommodated therin. If I am wrong on that second point, and if someway around the first one could be found, then playing a season at Petco while a new Aztec stadium is being build would be tolerable. Not ideal, not comfortable, but tolerable. Better to find a way to build a 40,000 seat stadium (with room for expansion to 50,000 or more) on campus while the Aztecs continue to use the Q.
But best of all, SDSU takes over the Mission Valley site to help make the school one of the nation's best universities.
AzWm
I don't know if Petco could fit a football field in it and have no desire to check and see if it would. I remember playing a couple of games against Long Beach State in the Angels ball park. I can assure you that a ball park is a lousy place to play football. You either have to run the field from home plate to center field where the outfield seats get progressively further away from the field. Or you run the field from home plate up the first or third base line. That way one side has decent sight lines, but the other side of the stadium becomes useless for watching the game. Playing there for only one season while a permanent Aztec stadium was being built would be barely tolerable, but only because we would know our own stadium would be available soon. It won't fit.
|
|
|
Post by azteceric on Feb 19, 2015 15:12:21 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:18:39 GMT -8
Miami plays in the 'hood, not downtown and if there's a major city in the US that supports its teams worse than SD, it's Miami Since there's been no design and nothing has been negotiated, the rest your post is not worth rebutting.
The Hurricanes play in a pro stadium that is 20 years newer than the Q (Sun Life Stadium, opened in '87) and I imagine has all the bells and whistles. The neighborhood may not be the best (I am unfamiliar with Miami), but there's nothing wrong with the stadium. Well, what's wrong with it is that it is at least 20 miles from the school (or 24 miles, depending on the route you choose.) I can't help but think that Miami of FLA would be better off with an on-campus stadium, just as would SDSU.
My main point, however, stands. Namely, that SDSU needs either an on-campus stadium or continued use of the Mission Valley site. The other big issue is the capacity of the stadium. Obviously, 71,000 seats are about 25,000 too many.
AzWm
SunLife is in the 'hood. I'm sure the fans would like an OCS and just like SDSU, it's in a urban setting that presents some very difficult challenges. But that's where the similarities break down. Trust me when I tell you that those who attended The U, prefer not to venture into the neighborhood around SunLife. Whether or not the stadium is newer than the Q is immaterial to whatever the other issues are related to their attendance. A downtown stadium would in fact NOT be in the 'hood and would NOT be 20 miles from campus. Instead, it would be located in an area that is the entertainment hub of the city, a short trolley ride from the campus. I'm not a fan of drawing comparisons to other locales and other programs. SD has a unique populace and unique geography. SDSU is one of the very few major universities with d1 football that is in fact located so centrally in a dense urban setting. It's understandable to look to the Georgia's and Oklahoma's of the world and admire/ want to emulate their popularity and success. I get that. They have an OCS and gameday traditions surrounding the campus that are enviable. But we simply cannot emulate those programs no matter how much we want to and how much money we spend. To me, the path forward is to take the differences between Norman, Athens and SD that are perceived by many to be detriments ( ONLY in the context of college football) and turn them into assets. Part of that approach could be full buy in to some of what attracts so many to SD as tourists and convention goers and even sports fans; the weather and downtown San Diego and the built in party atmosphere. Different is not always bad. Different can be good. It's about attitude.
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Feb 19, 2015 15:20:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by SDAztec on Feb 19, 2015 15:25:05 GMT -8
More and more current and former City and State leaders are starting to float the idea publicly... It will get done and the Chargers will go Downtown or move elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 15:32:35 GMT -8
Interesting... to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 19, 2015 15:32:49 GMT -8
I don't know if Petco could fit a football field in it and have no desire to check and see if it would. I remember playing a couple of games against Long Beach State in the Angels ball park. I can assure you that a ball park is a lousy place to play football. You either have to run the field from home plate to center field where the outfield seats get progressively further away from the field. Or you run the field from home plate up the first or third base line. That way one side has decent sight lines, but the other side of the stadium becomes useless for watching the game. Playing there for only one season while a permanent Aztec stadium was being built would be barely tolerable, but only because we would know our own stadium would be available soon. It won't fit. Good.
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 19, 2015 15:42:35 GMT -8
It doesn't matter anyway, as the MOU between the Padres and the city forbids football.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on Feb 19, 2015 15:48:33 GMT -8
It doesn't matter anyway, as the MOU between the Padres and the city forbids football. Also good.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Feb 19, 2015 16:16:37 GMT -8
Bottom line what is important is that Aztec football is regularly at the top of the MW , winning championships ( or hope we get invite to B12 - another story). To do that we need quality recruits . What attracts those recruits so we may get a few more 4* star guys and being able to out recruit BSU and possibly PAC schools .( yes we did get 2 of the 4 star guys this year ).
some believe an on campus facility will do it . and all the revenue from owning the facility , plus feel will draw 30 to 40 thousand fans . To draw a majority of average fans it will first take a championship team , nice facility with parking for fans , easy in and out . Some of us feel a totally state of the art facility that even may have an NFL team , with great locker rooms , incredible scoreboard , with the extra sizzle could set us apart from every other MW team or even some PAC schools . Recruits / players are what produce a winning team . I asked some students at the last few games , about having a stadium on campus to play football . Their answer was what we really want is more buildings , for classrooms and more housing , other facilities and safety on campus . football is not a priority for us .
We first need a high quality football team on the field and need to go over what helps us get those high quality recruits. The enemy are the P5 conferences that hold the Aztecs back from joining them not the Chargers . No guarantee that Charger fans are going to college football games in SDSU , unless there is sizzle from the team or the stadium .
|
|