|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 8, 2017 8:32:21 GMT -8
The playoffs really don't start until October. They will know the Padres scheduled for September well ahead of time. I assume they could play a late August home game and another two or three home games in September when the Padres are on the road. They could then go on the road for 4-5 weeks in October (including a bye or two in there) and then finish off in November and December. Not great but not bad either. The Padres have said they do not want to do that for more than 1 season. If they share with SDSU a 2nd (or 3rd) season SDSU could not start playing until ALL POSSIBLE games are over, which is November. This isn't the Q - the field is not easily interchangeable between baseball & football. |
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jun 8, 2017 8:41:06 GMT -8
Here is this years Padres schedule this year as an example and how the Aztecs could work around it.
Sat. Aug 26 - Padres on the road vs Miami - SDSU could start early with a home game at Petco.
Sat Sept 2 - Padres at home - SDSU plays home opener or 2nd game on the road.
Sat. Sept 9 - Padres on the road vs Arizona - SDSU plays at Petco
Sat. Sept 16 - Padres on the road vs Colorado - SDSU plays home game at Petco
Sat. Sept 23 - Padres are at home - SDSU plays non-conference road game.
Sat. Sept 30 - Padres on the road vs SF - SDSU plays home game at Petco.
October 7 - November 11 - SDSU plays on the road with a bye or two.
Last two weekends in November and 1st weekend in December are open for home games.
So in essence SDSU could play 4 home games in August/September with 2 road games. then Play 4 road games in October/November with 2 byes. Then play the final 2 home games in November/December. So its doable.
|
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jun 8, 2017 8:43:51 GMT -8
The playoffs really don't start until October. They will know the Padres scheduled for September well ahead of time. I assume they could play a late August home game and another two or three home games in September when the Padres are on the road. They could then go on the road for 4-5 weeks in October (including a bye or two in there) and then finish off in November and December. Not great but not bad either. The Padres have said they do not want to do that for more than 1 season. If they share with SDSU a 2nd (or 3rd) season SDSU could not start playing until ALL POSSIBLE games are over, which is November. This isn't the Q - the field is not easily interchangeable between baseball & football. Then if that is the case it straight up can't be done. Although its not easily interchangeable under my scenario all home games by SDSU would still give the Padres multiple DAYS until their return from road games to get the field ready. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 8, 2017 8:44:42 GMT -8
Here is this years Padres schedule this year as an example and how the Aztecs could work around it. Sat. Aug 26 - Padres on the road vs Miami - SDSU could start early with a home game at Petco. Sat Sept 2 - Padres at home - SDSU plays home opener or 2nd game on the road. Sat. Sept 9 - Padres on the road vs Arizona - SDSU plays at Petco Sat. Sept 16 - Padres on the road vs Colorado - SDSU plays home game at Petco Sat. Sept 23 - Padres are at home - SDSU plays non-conference road game. Sat. Sept 30 - Padres on the road vs SF - SDSU plays home game at Petco. October 7 - November 11 - SDSU plays on the road with a bye or two. Last two weekends in November and 1st weekend in December are open for home games. So in essence SDSU could play 4 home games in August/September with 2 road games. then Play 4 road games in October/November with 2 byes. Then play the final 2 home games in November/December. So its doable. Again, the field is not easily interchangeable. The Padres have said SDSU cannot start playing there until after the last possible game, which is November. We could book contingency games at home in late October but if the Pads are still playing we'd have to move at the last minute, which basically means playing on the opponents field. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 8, 2017 8:45:18 GMT -8
Disagree. That puts a horrible strain on a football team and is a terrible option for even 1 year. Doing it more than a year would be a joke. Yea, it's 'doable' but at what cost to your football program? Also, keep in mind the WS doesn't even start until late October & runs into November, so we most likely couldn't schedule anything in SD prior to at least the 2nd weekend of November. Even if you get the last 4 games at home you may have cost your team the conference championship before you even get there. You could book the "October Opener" but it'd be conditional upon the Padres season being over in October, and if it's not you'd most likely would need to cancel and/or move any and all "conditional" games to the opposition's field. Or here we come Grossmont. Unless the Pads are willing to operate in 2020 in the same manner as 2019, which they've said is an issue for more than 1 year, the new stadium needs to be resolved very soon or we need to strong arm the city into justify extending the lease. Bottom line, if we care about our football program we're using Petco for just 1 year & ideally we're breaking ground somewhere by January, 2019. PS. Do you really think the Rams, with another tenant already, would affordably rent their stadium to another tenant? We'd basically be giving up all the financial benefits of having a home & home with UCLA in the first place. Fun for the fans, but not something we can afford. Switching years would make more sense, assuming they go for it. I'd rather see us move games to Carson than Inglewood. Pads and WS?  The only way Kroenke opens up his stadium to a 3rd tenant is if they had artificial turf. I don't expect that's the case though. Everything I have read has said that Kroenke will indeed have artificial turf in KroenkeWorld. |
|
|
|
Post by namssa on Jun 8, 2017 9:10:52 GMT -8
I find it hard to believe if the Aztecs have a stadium plan in place and are actually building it but need an extra year at Petco that Moores won't accommodate for an additional year.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 8, 2017 9:21:51 GMT -8
I find it hard to believe if the Aztecs have a stadium plan in place and are actually building it but need an extra year at Petco that Moores won't accommodate for an additional year. You mean Fowler. It's just what he's said (1 year only). 1 year is giving a lot, given the complexities involved. More than that... They're targeting 2019 and beyond to be good. If they fall flat again next year & are bad in 2019, the year they've agreed to assist, then maybe they are more open to mid October dates to start. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 8, 2017 9:47:00 GMT -8
I find it hard to believe if the Aztecs have a stadium plan in place and are actually building it but need an extra year at Petco that Moores won't accommodate for an additional year. You mean Fowler. It's just what he's said (1 year only). 1 year is giving a lot, given the complexities involved. More than that... They're targeting 2019 and beyond to be good. If they fall flat again next year & are bad in 2019, the year they've agreed to assist, then maybe they are more open to mid October dates to start. Hopefully, Fowler and Seidler will come to their senses and not spend millions trying to figure out how to cram a football field into Petco, and adding seats for football to make up for the useless (for football) field level seats. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 8, 2017 9:58:05 GMT -8
You mean Fowler. It's just what he's said (1 year only). 1 year is giving a lot, given the complexities involved. More than that... They're targeting 2019 and beyond to be good. If they fall flat again next year & are bad in 2019, the year they've agreed to assist, then maybe they are more open to mid October dates to start. Hopefully, Fowler and Seidler will come to their senses and not spend millions trying to figure out how to cram a football field into Petco, and adding seats for football to make up for the useless (for football) field level seats. Not sure I understand. Are you saying you would prefer they just outright reject any chance of the Aztecs ever playing at Petco? If so, I'm smh . . . |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 8, 2017 10:20:29 GMT -8
Hopefully, Fowler and Seidler will come to their senses and not spend millions trying to figure out how to cram a football field into Petco, and adding seats for football to make up for the useless (for football) field level seats. Not sure I understand. Are you saying you would prefer they just outright reject any chance of the Aztecs ever playing at Petco? If so, I'm smh . . . Yea, I'm confused as well. That said, I do understand Fowler being open to 1 year but I completely understand balking on additional years. It's foolish to convert that stadium in season, and should only be done after the Pads have completed their season in full. It should be a 1-time conversion in late October/early November, leading up to the Holiday Bowl. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 8, 2017 12:27:15 GMT -8
Hopefully, Fowler and Seidler will come to their senses and not spend millions trying to figure out how to cram a football field into Petco, and adding seats for football to make up for the useless (for football) field level seats. Not sure I understand. Are you saying you would prefer they just outright reject any chance of the Aztecs ever playing at Petco? If so, I'm smh . . . Basically, I am saying that an alternative will show itself--whether it be the continued short-term use of the Q (I still don't see the Q going away after 2018 as some have suggested) or a new facility in MV (NOT Soccer City). I would still like to see how the Padres plan to cram a football field within the walls of Petco Park, and how and where they add seating. Or if they would even plan to add seating. |
|
|
|
Post by AccessBowlTime on Jun 8, 2017 14:17:52 GMT -8
Not sure I understand. Are you saying you would prefer they just outright reject any chance of the Aztecs ever playing at Petco? If so, I'm smh . . . Basically, I am saying that an alternative will show itself--whether it be the continued short-term use of the Q (I still don't see the Q going away after 2018 as some have suggested) or a new facility in MV (NOT Soccer City). I would still like to see how the Padres plan to cram a football field within the walls of Petco Park, and how and where they add seating. Or if they would even plan to add seating. Here's AT&T Park for football farm3.static.flickr.com/2280/2152609117_24eb47d803.jpgAs with AT&T, Petco Park's outfield dimensions are deep and asymetrical. If AT&T can accommodate football, Petco should be able to. |
|
|
|
Post by matteosandiego on Jun 8, 2017 14:23:39 GMT -8
Not sure I understand. Are you saying you would prefer they just outright reject any chance of the Aztecs ever playing at Petco? If so, I'm smh . . . Basically, I am saying that an alternative will show itself--whether it be the continued short-term use of the Q (I still don't see the Q going away after 2018 as some have suggested) or a new facility in MV (NOT Soccer City). I would still like to see how the Padres plan to cram a football field within the walls of Petco Park, and how and where they add seating. Or if they would even plan to add seating. |
|
|
|
Post by tonatiuh on Jun 8, 2017 21:06:03 GMT -8
This announcement kind of surprised me as I thought Padre management stated when Petco opened that they would not allow a football game to be played in their park, ever. Now this comes out. What happened? Never thought I would hear anything like this.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 8, 2017 21:41:20 GMT -8
Basically, I am saying that an alternative will show itself--whether it be the continued short-term use of the Q (I still don't see the Q going away after 2018 as some have suggested) or a new facility in MV (NOT Soccer City). I would still like to see how the Padres plan to cram a football field within the walls of Petco Park, and how and where they add seating. Or if they would even plan to add seating. A really pretty picture. Not much room beyond the end lines, and still lots of useless field level seats. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 8, 2017 21:43:34 GMT -8
Basically, I am saying that an alternative will show itself--whether it be the continued short-term use of the Q (I still don't see the Q going away after 2018 as some have suggested) or a new facility in MV (NOT Soccer City). I would still like to see how the Padres plan to cram a football field within the walls of Petco Park, and how and where they add seating. Or if they would even plan to add seating. Here's AT&T Park for football farm3.static.flickr.com/2280/2152609117_24eb47d803.jpgAs with AT&T, Petco Park's outfield dimensions are deep and asymetrical. If AT&T can accommodate football, Petco should be able to. Petco is not nearly as deep as it was, and was never as deep than Alphabet Park. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 9, 2017 9:41:20 GMT -8
This announcement kind of surprised me as I thought Padre management stated when Petco opened that they would not allow a football game to be played in their park, ever. Now this comes out. What happened? Never thought I would hear anything like this. $$$ opportunities. Petco has been sensational at using the park for other activities (driving range, winter festival, etc.). Converting AFTER the season is over for the holiday bowl is just another $$$ opportunity and something they've been evaluating for some time. SDSU has been talking to Fowler about this as a 1-year contingency for 2-3 years I believe. Every since the Chargers "eliminated" MV from contention. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 9, 2017 9:51:15 GMT -8
This announcement kind of surprised me as I thought Padre management stated when Petco opened that they would not allow a football game to be played in their park, ever. Now this comes out. What happened? Never thought I would hear anything like this. $$$ opportunities. Petco has been sensational at using the park for other activities (driving range, winter festival, etc.). Converting AFTER the season is over for the holiday bowl is just another $$$ opportunity and something they've been evaluating for some time. SDSU has been talking to Fowler about this as a 1-year contingency for 2-3 years I believe. Every since the Chargers "eliminated" MV from contention. The lower part of the lower level seating bowl at Petco would be useless for football. There is a reason it was built the way it was. But if Fowler/Seidler want to spend the money to screw it up--go for it. |
|
|
|
Post by sdcoug on Jun 9, 2017 9:54:06 GMT -8
$$$ opportunities. Petco has been sensational at using the park for other activities (driving range, winter festival, etc.). Converting AFTER the season is over for the holiday bowl is just another $$$ opportunity and something they've been evaluating for some time. SDSU has been talking to Fowler about this as a 1-year contingency for 2-3 years I believe. Every since the Chargers "eliminated" MV from contention. The lower part of the lower level seating bowl at Petco would be useless for football. There is a reason it was built the way it was. But if Fowler/Seidler want to spend the money to screw it up--go for it. Just like the lower part of the Q is useless. Definitely not the best, but I went to a game at AT&T. I've seen worse. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Jun 9, 2017 10:01:59 GMT -8
The lower part of the lower level seating bowl at Petco would be useless for football. There is a reason it was built the way it was. But if Fowler/Seidler want to spend the money to screw it up--go for it. Just like the lower part of the Q is useless. Definitely not the best, but I went to a game at AT&T. I've seen worse. And that game is no longer at AT&T. I have always wondered why they built that park the way they did with deep dimensions. Petco was built with deep dimensions as well, but for reasons not associated with football--hence the "no American football shall be played at the park" language in the MOU. And yes, I know it can be changed, but it would be a mistake, IMO. |
|
