|
Post by myownwords on May 29, 2015 17:20:48 GMT -8
I think there are at least two issues that can help SDSU having access to a new NFL stadium. One is that there is now the technology (don't know the particulars)to allow different teams to have their customized look---it was discussed in the initial stages of the Carson deal. Second, virtually every college recruit and player has dreams of the NFL. Seeing, playing, in such a "glamorous" new facility--empty or full- must surely carry subconscious appeal to young minds. I believe Jets/Giants have the color set up you're referring to...that would awesome...but it makes you wonder the price tag for something like. Especially since we'll likely need to pay for that cost. Still feels like SDSU will have to thread a needle to come away with a suitable situation in a new NFL stadium. Yes, and new always has some pull with the early adopters/youth. But as long as we play in the MW it will be hard to pull more than the mid/low 40's for in-conference games, regardless of venue IMO. And that last statement, is nearly a truism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 17:27:16 GMT -8
I believe Jets/Giants have the color set up you're referring to...that would awesome...but it makes you wonder the price tag for something like. Especially since we'll likely need to pay for that cost. Still feels like SDSU will have to thread a needle to come away with a suitable situation in a new NFL stadium. Yes, and new always has some pull with the early adopters/youth. But as long as we play in the MW it will be hard to pull more than the mid/low 40's for in-conference games, regardless of venue IMO. And that last statement, is nearly a truism. I know I know. My point being that if we have a nice shiny new 65k NFL seat stadium, win a ton, but still only get 40k, it wont feel as 'full' as I would like. Atmosphere matters when drawing new fans and recruits. That's one of my biggest fears regarding a new 'state of the art' NFL venue.
|
|
|
Post by AzTex on May 29, 2015 18:00:13 GMT -8
And that last statement, is nearly a truism. I know I know. My point being that if we have a nice shiny new 65k NFL seat stadium, win a ton, but still only get 40k, it wont feel as 'full' as I would like. Atmosphere matters when drawing new fans and recruits. That's one of my biggest fears regarding a new 'state of the art' NFL venue. That can't be said often enough.* How many basketball recruits have said something to the effect that "I was at xxx game and WOW the crowd was electrifying." * This goes hand and hand with winning, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 18:28:02 GMT -8
I know I know. My point being that if we have a nice shiny new 65k NFL seat stadium, win a ton, but still only get 40k, it wont feel as 'full' as I would like. Atmosphere matters when drawing new fans and recruits. That's one of my biggest fears regarding a new 'state of the art' NFL venue. That can't be said often enough.* How many basketball recruits have said something to the effect that "I was at xxx game and WOW the crowd was electrifying." * This goes hand and hand with winning, of course. Yeah...and with Boise seating like 35k and getting a positive response from recruits about their home game atmosphere says a lot...same with Oregon back in the Harrington days when they still really hadn't reached the level they are now...west coast teams that aren't historically in the top half of the PAC or BYU are looking at a crowd in the 30's or 40's 9 out of 10 games IMO.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 29, 2015 18:40:54 GMT -8
I have a very strong gut instinct that tells me all the comments from Aztecs football coaches about the "benefits" of playing in the Q have a lot more to do with spin/PR than truth (i.e., "lipstick on a pig"). Parents' comments could likewise be viewed as a bit of confirmation bias. If playing in an NFL stadium was such a great thing, then why don't more universities play in their local NFL stadium? Answer: because it sucks (slight hyperbole, but not much). Same conclusion reached by Pitt and Miami. Recruits would LOVE a true college football stadium and the gameday atmosphere that comes with it. You are really starting to sound desperate and nervous about this. Settle down hoobs. I left you a question to answer in regards to one of your postsiin this thread and am awaiting a response. as far as the NFL Stadiums/College teams, MOST of the college teams who share a NFL Stadium are from lesser conferences, draw very few people, and really aren't that good. Temple GA State Tulane until they built there own stadium and then there are those Kickoff games that have been moved to the NFL Stadiums because of the $$$$ Cu/Csuck Cowboys Kickoff Classic Texas Kickoff - Houston Chick Fil A - Atlanta and now a new one in Charlotte Why doesn't Army/Navy play at their own fields? $$$$ Why is Penn State playing Maryland at the Ravens Stadium? If the new San Diego stadium doesn't work out for STATE then they can go build their own with all that $$ you and a few others say they have stashed. Seems to me, this would work out for State either way. Why worry? I find it odd that you think people who disagree with you must be desperate and nervous. Definitely not the case.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 29, 2015 19:20:46 GMT -8
1. I won't ever believe we can't get a big boy school to come to the Q until I hear Jim Sterk say he's offered several of them two fers and they've declined.
2. SJSU's stadium may be on or actually close to campus but it's basura.
|
|
|
Post by standiego on May 30, 2015 8:05:47 GMT -8
The focus should remain on what can be done on improving the players on the field and producing a Championship team . A new state of the art NFL facility( that has the ability to cover the upper deck to make it a smaller facility) could do that by bringing in better recruits . With the hope we could be a championship team and draw bigger crowds ,that is what makes things exciting for game day atmosphere . Good teams that win championships draw fans , not teams that do not get it done on the field . BSU won football games first , that brought the fans and sponsors . Same thing happening at UCLA . Focus on Winning Championships with quality players . If an NFL facility can help then you go with it .
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 30, 2015 8:51:18 GMT -8
The main concern of mine is that we have to improve our financial situation if we are to support the new stadium. I am still in the camp of SDSU redeveloping the Qualcomm site. I have not thought or looked deeply into the finances of that option. If we can get some kind of favorable terms on a giant new stadium I would take it. Our task then would be to fill it up and that can be done. Why limit yourself with a smaller on campus venue that would take many years to get through the political maze before the first shovel of dirt is turned? AB has made a good case for why the Chargers should stay in town. I am really not that interested in them, but I see his points. I am more in tune now that downtown seems to be out of the picture.
I am wondering why Sterk has been silent on this entire issue. Makes me wonder if we have some other plan.
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on May 30, 2015 11:56:26 GMT -8
SDSU has studied the feasibility of building a stadium on campus and I'm sure that's also true of gutting the Q and remodeling it for the Aztecs. However, you have to think there is a list of contingencies which doesn't become relevant until the Chargers finally s**t rather than just sitting on the pot.
I was once very concerned a new stadium for the Chargers would be built downtown and SDSU would cheap out and just follow them there. That would have been the death knell for SDSU football IMO. However, as you say Win, a downtown stadium is now totally out of the question. Although I'd rather the Aztecs have their own stadium, I think a Mission Valley house with seven grand less seats than the Q all of which are closer to the field and a canopy which holds in crowd noise could finally give us a home field advantage. But the damn Chargers need to treat us like part of the family and not just tenants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2015 12:20:31 GMT -8
The main concern of mine is that we have to improve our financial situation if we are to support the new stadium. I am still in the camp of SDSU redeveloping the Qualcomm site. I have not thought or looked deeply into the finances of that option. If we can get some kind of favorable terms on a giant new stadium I would take it. Our task then would be to fill it up and that can be done. Why limit yourself with a smaller on campus venue that would take many years to get through the political maze before the first shovel of dirt is turned? AB has made a good case for why the Chargers should stay in town. I am really not that interested in them, but I see his points. I am more in tune now that downtown seems to be out of the picture. I am wondering why Sterk has been silent on this entire issue. Makes me wonder if we have some other plan. The inside baseball is that there is a push to put a new sports Arena in MV, creating an "MV Live" atmosphere with hotels and entertainment developments surrounding the venues. The Arena would bring more people into the area more often, making the surrounding land more desirable. Also, folks need to keep in mind that AG Spanos is a development company. They may well step up to the plate and purchase the yet to be entitled land. There are hundreds of ways this thing can break.
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 31, 2015 16:43:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 31, 2015 17:23:48 GMT -8
1. I won't ever believe we can't get a big boy school to come to the Q until I hear Jim Sterk say he's offered several of them two fers and they've declined. 2. SJSU's stadium may be on or actually close to campus but it's basura. If I not mistaken, Spartan stadium is about a mile from the SJSU campus. That's within walking distance. It's a pretty antiquated stadium for sure. But at least it's theirs. I would like to see just how much of the Aztec FB budget goes to paying rent for a place to play. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on May 31, 2015 17:36:58 GMT -8
"No, they’re saying that there are literally zero electronic or paper communications between Carson’s elected officials and the NFL." Heck if the Carson city officials and NFL & team folks were able to actually pull off making a "deal" through just phone and in-person discussions... that's sorta brilliant. But it could just be that any/all "written" documents are all attorney-client privileged.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 31, 2015 17:46:42 GMT -8
The main concern of mine is that we have to improve our financial situation if we are to support the new stadium. I am still in the camp of SDSU redeveloping the Qualcomm site. I have not thought or looked deeply into the finances of that option. If we can get some kind of favorable terms on a giant new stadium I would take it. Our task then would be to fill it up and that can be done. Why limit yourself with a smaller on campus venue that would take many years to get through the political maze before the first shovel of dirt is turned? AB has made a good case for why the Chargers should stay in town. I am really not that interested in them, but I see his points. I am more in tune now that downtown seems to be out of the picture. I am wondering why Sterk has been silent on this entire issue. Makes me wonder if we have some other plan. I see two possible scenarios for Aztec football....... One: The Chargers cannot find a way to move to Los Angeles County (which I think is their preference). This would put the Chargers in a bind, since they have hinted or flat out said over and over that the Q is inadequate for long term NFL use. If LA falls through, they must either work a deal for a new stadium or swallow their pride and stay in the Q. So would the Aztecs continue to play in the Q, but that would only be a continuation of their present situation. The Aztecs, don't forget, are not the ones crying for a new stadium. Now, if a new stadium is built, it will no doubt be much too big and much too expensive for SDSU. That can only cause trouble for Aztec football. (Incidental question: where do the Chargers and Aztecs play football while a new Mission Valley stadium is being built? The present site would get awfully crowded, I would think.) Two: The Chargers leave town. That would mean the Aztecs would continue to play in Qualcomm, but would also probably have to develop a long term plan regarding a venue, since it's by no means certain how long the city would leave the Q sitting there with just the Aztecs as tenants. In any case, the school had better have solid contingency plans ready to put into action regardless of which of the two scenarios becomes fact. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbolt on May 31, 2015 17:56:16 GMT -8
The Chargers and Aztecs would continue playing in Qualcomm Stadium while a new stadium is being built right next to it.
The City is losing over $10 million per year with the current condition of the Q. They're not going to keep it up just for the Aztecs.
I don't know about a new stadium being too expensive for the Aztecs. The CSAG proposal had the Aztecs rent contribution around $40 million total over 30 years. Is it worse to pay a higher rent or shell out hundreds of millions on top of purchasing the land for their own stadium? Seems to me, the less expensive option is to pay the rent in a new stadium, by far.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2015 17:57:24 GMT -8
"No, they’re saying that there are literally zero electronic or paper communications between Carson’s elected officials and the NFL." Heck if the Carson city officials and NFL & team folks were able to actually pull off making a "deal" through just phone and in-person discussions... that's sorta brilliant. But it could just be that any/all "written" documents are all attorney-client privileged. It is sort of strange. You would think that something exists on paper. No attorney-client privilege if it is between the parties or their lawyers I would think.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 31, 2015 18:10:18 GMT -8
The Chargers and Aztecs would continue playing in Qualcomm Stadium while a new stadium is being built right next to it. The City is losing over $10 million per year with the current condition of the Q. They're not going to keep it up just for the Aztecs. I don't know about a new stadium being too expensive for the Aztecs. The CSAG proposal had the Aztecs rent contribution around $40 million total over 30 years. Is it worse to pay a higher rent or shell out hundreds of millions on top of purchasing the land for their own stadium? Seems to me, the less expensive option is to pay the rent in a new stadium, by far. The rent you cite, which I have also read, is a lot higher than what the school is now paying. Add to that the additional cost of stipends . . . stipends for ALL scholarship athletes in all sports, don't forget . . . and you are talking about a lot more money that will have to be spent. Of course, the cost of fielding DI teams is going up no matter what. But paying a lot more for a venue that the school would never build even if it had unlimited funds (why build a 65,000 seat stadium when a 45,000 stadium would be adequate?) has to be considered a negative. As for the Q, the city has said that it would give SDSU five years grace after a hypothetical Chargers departure. Personally, I fee certain that the city would extend that for a year or two if SDSU's contingency plan were under way but could not quite meet the 5 year deadline. As I have already indicated, SDSU had better have contingency plans on the drawing board right now. We can't take a "Let's see what happens and hope for the best" approach. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 31, 2015 20:16:02 GMT -8
The main concern of mine is that we have to improve our financial situation if we are to support the new stadium. I am still in the camp of SDSU redeveloping the Qualcomm site. I have not thought or looked deeply into the finances of that option. If we can get some kind of favorable terms on a giant new stadium I would take it. Our task then would be to fill it up and that can be done. Why limit yourself with a smaller on campus venue that would take many years to get through the political maze before the first shovel of dirt is turned? AB has made a good case for why the Chargers should stay in town. I am really not that interested in them, but I see his points. I am more in tune now that downtown seems to be out of the picture. I am wondering why Sterk has been silent on this entire issue. Makes me wonder if we have some other plan. The inside baseball is that there is a push to put a new sports Arena in MV, creating an "MV Live" atmosphere with hotels and entertainment developments surrounding the venues. The Arena would bring more people into the area more often, making the surrounding land more desirable. Also, folks need to keep in mind that AG Spanos is a development company. They may well step up to the plate and purchase the yet to be entitled land. There are hundreds of ways this thing can break. The city had the chance to do that before Petco Park was built. The Padres originally wanted their park in Mission Valley. The mayor at the time, Fat Susie, wanted the Padres to build it downtown. The area in the valley that was available was the land where Costco, IKEA and Lowe's now sits. Everything could have been together, similar to what Philadelphia has (football, baseball and arena).
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 1, 2015 8:59:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ab on Jun 1, 2015 16:46:38 GMT -8
You are really starting to sound desperate and nervous about this. Settle down hoobs. I left you a question to answer in regards to one of your postsiin this thread and am awaiting a response. as far as the NFL Stadiums/College teams, MOST of the college teams who share a NFL Stadium are from lesser conferences, draw very few people, and really aren't that good. Temple GA State Tulane until they built there own stadium and then there are those Kickoff games that have been moved to the NFL Stadiums because of the $$$$ Cu/Csuck Cowboys Kickoff Classic Texas Kickoff - Houston Chick Fil A - Atlanta and now a new one in Charlotte Why doesn't Army/Navy play at their own fields? $$$$ Why is Penn State playing Maryland at the Ravens Stadium? If the new San Diego stadium doesn't work out for STATE then they can go build their own with all that $$ you and a few others say they have stashed. Seems to me, this would work out for State either way. Why worry? I find it odd that you think people who disagree with you must be desperate and nervous. Definitely not the case. Not true. Just you and a couple others.
|
|