(03-09-2017 09:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Is there any chance that the can just leave Qualcomm standing if the MLS thing doesn't work out?

Apparently not. There saying it's a giant money pit.

Cheers!

(03-09-2017 08:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2017 04:22 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I do not feel sorry SDSU and here are the reasons. They started playing there football games in Qualcomm Stadium in 1967. They have had 50 years to get ready and plan for the day when they had to face the situation they are in today. Qualcomm was build in a day when many cities were building multiuse stadiums. The writing has been on the wall for many years now on the fate of Qualcomm.

Three Rivers Stadium Gone
Riverfront Stadium Gone
Atlanta Stadium Gone
Veterans Stadium Gone
Busch Memorial Stadium Gone
RFK Stadium, About to lost last team DC United
Oakland Alameda County Coliseum, A's are the only team left and they want a new stadium.

Until recently, the Aztecs could have reasonably thought the Chargers would have a new stadium in San Diego before Qualcomm Stadium was torn down.

Most of your examples above -- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and the DC area -- built new stadiums for their NFL teams.

Pitt and Temple play in the new NFL stadiums in their cities.

Tampa built a new NFL stadium that is being utilized by South Florida football.

Miami built an NFL stadium that has been used by the Canes since the OB was torn down.

At the end of this past season there were what 6 FBS teams playing in NFL stadiums.
1. Pitt
2. Temple
3. South Florida
4. Miami
5. SDSU
6. Georgia State

Out of 130 FBS teams less than 5% play in NFL stadiums. With Georgia State moving to there own stadium this season less than 4% will be playing in NFL stadiums. Georgia State played there first game in 2010. Also Pitt own and played in there very own stadium up until it work demolished in 1999. Temple played in its own stadium until 1977. Stadium was used by Temple for sporting events until 2002. South Florida played there first football game in 1997. Miami played football in the Orange Bowl for 70 years. The Dolphins only played in the Orange Bowl for 21 years. The Dolphins played there last home game in the Orange Bowl in 1987. Miami moved there home games to Hard Rock Stadium where the Dolphins play in 2008.

Of the above 6 FBS teams the consecutive number of years they have play in an NFL stadium.

Georgia State 7 years
Miami 9 years
Temple 18 years
South Florida 20 years
Temple 40 years
SDSU 50 years

Now I know other FBS football teams play in stadiums they do not own such as UCLA, Southern Cal, UAB, and South Alabama but from what has been posted in this thread that is not an option for SDSU. SDSU knew if a replacement stadium was not approved Qualcomm Stadium could not be maintained if the Charger left which is way happen. Not they are up the creek without a paddle because they did not have a backup plan.

(03-08-2017 02:31 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  SDSU is a sleeping giant...with the Chargers gone...they a real chance to average 40k a game in the right venue.

Yep when you are in a top 10 market and only have MLB and AAA Ice Hockey to compete with for fans, you have a real chance to elevate your program.

If it were UC SD, and if that school had a similar athletic history to UCLA and was in the PAC .... then maybe.

Mountain West football? No.

(03-09-2017 11:04 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  Now I know other FBS football teams play in stadiums they do not own such as UCLA, Southern Cal, UAB, and South Alabama but from what has been posted in this thread that is not an option for SDSU. SDSU knew if a replacement stadium was not approved Qualcomm Stadium could not be maintained if the Charger left which is way happen. Not they are up the creek without a paddle because they did not have a backup plan.

The Aztecs DO have a backup plan. It's called dropping football, which I fear is the possible end game.

(03-08-2017 09:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 09:06 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I thought PetCo was basically off limits to football?

Based on what I've read, the Padres have offered to do a slight remodel so that a football field can fit inside their ballpark, and to ask the city to amend the no-football clause in their lease, so that the Holiday Bowl can be played there permanently and the Aztecs can play there for a year or two after Qualcomm Stadium is torn down. .

The Padres' primary owner, Ron Fowler, is the single biggest supporter of SDSU athletics. He also just donated $25 million to rename SDSU's business school after him.

SDSU has a lot of pull in town. The mayor and 4 of the 5 county supervisors are SDSU grads. They're not at the level of OSU in Columbus or UT in Austin, but they have more local political support than any American Conference school (except maybe ECU, but Greenville is tiny). I daresay that for the size of the market (3.5 million) they can swing more local things their way than any school in the country that hasn't won multiple national titles (in either of the two major sports).

Unfortunately because they're in California they have a lot of stupid to deal with at the state level, which complicates every single transaction they do. Hence their current stadium problems.

(03-10-2017 11:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it were UC SD, and if that school had a similar athletic history to UCLA and was in the PAC .... then maybe.

Mountain West football? No.

UCSD - 160,000 alums scattered around the globe
SDSU - 300,000 alums, mostly in San Diego (and in powerful positions)

UCSD basketball attendance - NCAA only gives the top 30 D-2 schools, and UCSD is not in the top 30. #30 has 1,200.
SDSU basketball attendance - over 12,000 and perennially in the top 30 of D1

SDSU is head and shoulders above UCSD in almost everything an athletic conference is looking for. UCSD has better academics, but SDSU is the unofficial flagship of the Cal State system and its academics are better than a lot of SEC and Big 12 schools.

The Pac-12 has no presence in San Diego. And it's a bigger market (3.5 million) than Utah (3 million). So it's a lot more reasonable to suggest SDSU than Hawai'i, UNLV, Kansas, or Texas Tech.

I can't see SDSU in the Pac-12, not because I don't think they couldn't do wonderful things there, but because I don't believe SDSU fits the Pac-12's image of itself.

(03-10-2017 01:16 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  SDSU has a lot of pull in town. The mayor and 4 of the 5 county supervisors are SDSU grads.

That makes sense because it looks to me like SDSU is basically threatening the would-be MLS owners like, "We may not have money, but we will use our clout to kill your deal unless you make it extremely favorable to us."

Captain Bearcat,

You have no clue what you are talking about with the Cal State schools. Even SDSU is basically a commuter school (and it is the least such after Cal Poly and Chico, which actually are residential due to their isolation).

Fundamentally California has a tier-1 system, which blows every other system in the nation out the water -- only Stanford, Ivy, UAA, MIT, Cal tech type schools have more difficult admission standards -- and a tier-3 commuter school system, CSU. This is a corrosive gap, the small number of residential students lead to flagging school spirit. SDSU is the closest of any to a 2nd tier school among the "mainstream" (Cal Poly actually has 2nd tier admission standards) CSU but it's not a flagship in anyone's mind but their own. And it's filled with commuters. The makes the effectiveness of the graduates low. I see similar in Silicon Valley with SJSU grads. Truth be told the most successful go on to grad schools at places like Stanford or a UC, and switch loyalty to those schools, who support their career development more. (My wife basically became a Santa Clara fan as a result of the support she got from grad school program). T

his is one of the factors that makes CSU grad numbers misleading. When you live at home and commute, scrape through and even work while going to college - often spending a couple years in Community College- the experience is not the same as the immersive UC or other residential system. For many it's more akin to going to a trade school. This is why the numbers lie, and why support is weak.

This teir-3 treatment by the State government (UC grads dominate the legislature, and the Governor is a strong supporter of elitism - I mean this quite independent of his political leanings), means there wont be any massive $200m transfer to fund athletics at SDSU. Jerry Brown when asked about any such athletics issues in the past (he was a dweeb, never a jock) has always responded along these lines, "if the students want it, let them pay for it." You can substitute parents for students when speaking of Oakland High School athletics in recent years. So don't expect any help from the CSU System.

Finally, there is close to zero home town support for college athletic in California. For awhile SJSU and Fresno lived off that, but it's a thing of the past. You have to live on student and alumni support these days.

All these factors are why city's like Sacramento and San Diego do not translate into College Sports markets like they do in the Midwest and South. I didn't even go into the demographic factor where only 40% of the population in the State is white, less than that at college age (Blacks are also low, around 4-5% ... this is why Texas produced 50% more athletes while California has 50% more people).


California is not the Midwest people. Different model, different demographic.