Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

SDSU is the biggest COWARD school in the MWC

Recommended Posts

http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/3129534/developers-behind-san-diego-mls-push-at-odds-with-sdsu-over-stadium

just saw this story and here's an outsiders opinion.

SDSU should just pay the 20 million and play in the new 32,000 seat stadium that's less than 10 mins from campus...unless you like driving 20 mins downtown to play at a baseball stadium.

petco_park_480x200_zps2340f962.jpg

it would cost SDSU at least 100 million to build something similar and you wouldn't have an MLS team helping with the bills. 

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
5 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

SDSU has exactly 2 options:

(1) status quo in the MWC, with probably a lower TV contract

(2) going Indy, and taking the risks associated with it for a short period until BOR is formed (all the while getting more $ from 3rd tier rights)

easy decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
6 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

just an outsiders opinion.

SDSU should just pay the 20 million and play in the new 32,000 seat stadium that's less than 10 mins from campus...unless you like driving 20 mins downtown to play at a baseball stadium.

petco_park_480x200_zps2340f962.jpg

it would cost SDSU at least 100 million to build something similar and you wouldn't have an MLS team helping with the bills. 

More like an outsider with an uninformed opinion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, you don't. (although playing at Petco would be pretty cool for a year or two)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
4 minutes ago, Dr. Dre said:

easy decision

I give you credit for wanting to improve SDSU and take some risks.  But I doubt SDSU leadership has the balls to dare do anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/3129534/developers-behind-san-diego-mls-push-at-odds-with-sdsu-over-stadium

just saw this story and here's an outsiders opinion.

SDSU should just pay the 20 million and play in the new 32,000 seat stadium that's less than 10 mins from campus...unless you like driving 20 mins downtown to play at a baseball stadium.

petco_park_480x200_zps2340f962.jpg

it would cost SDSU at least 100 million to build something similar and you wouldn't have an MLS team helping with the bills. 

Every dollar amount and financial assumption in that article was wrong.

Total development- $1B

State/Local tax increase for development- $0

SDSU's buy in- $100M

MLS helping with the bill $0, and all op costs and franchise fees are burdened by city (through land value deduction) and SDSU

 

So $100M +  O&M and SDSU does not receive full revenue from the "ownership" of the stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dr. Dre said:

More like an outsider with an uninformed opinion. You have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry, you don't. (although playing at Petco would be pretty cool for a year or two)

lol, did you take 'outsiders opinion' to mean that I did some term paper on it?

show me how SDSU is going to build a stadium for 20 million dollars. the MLS team is offering you 10 acres and a stadium for 20 million...I suggest you take it.

comment on the article:

Quote

Latest news on the agreement with the city is that FS have agreed to a 99 year land lease that will pay the city millions every year. A 10% annual payout based on "current value" of the land. It'll be small and first since the land is raw, increasing over time as the entertainment, residential, office, and retail goes in. If you buy the $13M-per-acre-in-30-years estimate that means city stands to net tens-of-millions of dollars per year once the thing is built out.

 

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
3 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

I give you credit for wanting to improve SDSU and take some risks.  But I doubt SDSU leadership has the balls to dare do anything.

The talk is getting louder with our stadium situation. SDSU will have to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
1 minute ago, UofMTigers said:

lol, did you take 'outsiders opinion' to mean that I did some term paper on it?

not at all, just that you wasted keystrokes typing an opinion on a subject you obviously know nothing about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dr. Dre said:

not at all, just that you wasted keystrokes typing an opinion on a subject you obviously know nothing about

^ that is the entire reason message boards exist...

giphy.gif

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, Dr. Dre said:

The talk is getting louder with our stadium situation. SDSU will have to listen.

I remember hearing something a while back that P5 schools will not schedule home-and-home with schools with small stadiums.  They want like a 45,000 to 50,000 seat stadium at the opposing school.   I'm not sure what the logic is behind that, but it does appear to be the case.  

For that reason, and so San Diego can host more bowl games, I hope that SDSU gets a new, minimum 45,000 seat stadium.   Ideally, 50,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

I remember hearing something a while back that P5 schools will not schedule home-and-home with schools with small stadiums.  They want like a 45,000 to 50,000 seat stadium at the opposing school.   I'm not sure what the logic is behind that, but it does appear to be the case.  

For that reason, and so San Diego can host more bowl games, I hope that SDSU gets a new, minimum 45,000 seat stadium.   Ideally, 50,000.

Some P5s PLAY in under 45K. 40K is a good starting point for SDSU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, UofMTigers said:

lol, did you take 'outsiders opinion' to mean that I did some term paper on it?

show me how SDSU is going to build a stadium for 20 million dollars. the MLS team is offering you 10 acres and a stadium for 20 million...I suggest you take it.

comment on the article:

 

No, seriously, that article is completely wrong.  That article is wrong in just about every conceivable way.  Look at the SD Union Tribune, or somewhere floating around is the actual initiative that correlates my figures in the earlier post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

I remember hearing something a while back that P5 schools will not schedule home-and-home with schools with small stadiums.  They want like a 45,000 to 50,000 seat stadium at the opposing school.   I'm not sure what the logic is behind that, but it does appear to be the case.  

For that reason, and so San Diego can host more bowl games, I hope that SDSU gets a new, minimum 45,000 seat stadium.   Ideally, 50,000.

why not just work into the deal the ability to play 1 game per season at Petco Park every 2 years (so you could do 1 big name home-home deal)? doesn't it hold over 42k? 

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, East Coast Aztec said:

No, seriously, that article is completely wrong.  That article is wrong in just about every conceivable way.  Look at the SD Union Tribune, or somewhere floating around is the actual initiative that correlates my figures in the earlier post.

it's ESPN...par for the course.

in my head i'm like "4 billion? they probably mean 1 billion...20 million? lol, they probably want more"

mem skyline sig.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that they are cowardly. They certainly seem indecisive.

I hope they pull the trigger and go Indy. Most of their fans have been miserable about this conference ever since we lost Utah and TCU. And yeah, the conference sucks. Not a lot of other options besides Indy. And if they really actually venture out, good luck to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2017 at 7:08 PM, #1Stunner said:

Someone has to point this out.  SDSU, the entire school, and everything associated with it, is a COWARD institution.

I've noticed that SDSU constantly rips on the MWC TV contract (they are always stuck on CBS Sports), late start times (they get repeatedly screwed....In the MWC tourney, they had a game start at 10 pm), and being in a conference they don't like.  They also get no respect from Hair Thompson, and get a fraction of the TV money that Boise gets...All while being in the best MWC city.  They don't get anything from the MWC, and they are the best overall school.

And you know what?  SDSU fans are right.  They deserve a better situation.  They have the best overall football, basketball, and baseball.  The undisputed best location.  Best basketball arena.   Best baseball stadium.  3rd best looking coeds.  2nd best ice cream.   And now a pending new football stadium.

HOWEVER..... SDSU---the school, the fans, the athletics department, the city, the show, the president, the hot coeds, the local burrito establishments, Hammond's---they are ALL of them, ALL TALK.  They threaten to leave the MWC, but are too chicken sh$@ to ever do so.  They are too scared.

SDSU will be in the MWC for a long, long, long time.  They are too scared to take any risks.  

@SleepingGiantsFan. I'm calling you out.  Your school will never leave the MWC.  Get used to it.

You're slipping a little there Stunner. You made this one an obvious effort of trolling. You have to sell it like you really believe what you're saying. Trying too hard is always pretty obvious. And capitalizing entire key words is trying too hard.  

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working hard to climb to the top of the heap of the trolls.

I thought there was an intelligent post about the fact that the new president of SDSU is not going to last long if the direction of the athletic department is against SJSU and Fresno State.  Perhaps the long standing current SDSU president could get away with bucking the chancellor but there is no way a new chancellor who needs money for a football stadium is going to fight with the other university president's who also want money for better football facilities.  That is not how the game is played.

If the CSU chancellor was certain that the SDSU president was spending significant time working to sabotage/undermine other campuses that president won't continue in that position.  SDSU needs an invite from the Big 12 and hopefully they can build a stadium that would make that possible.  If not, they have to get along with everyone in the CSU system and going independent is a distinct middle finger to the rest of the university system.  A new university president isn't doing that.  CSU presidents also don't seem to last long recently (e.g. SJSU).

BYU is a private university so going independent is feasible.  In this day and age, private universities can justify this much more easily than a public university.  Army was historically independent and that has continued but I don't think anyone think's Army's schedule is all that exciting and I doubt it would be possible to equal that schedule if you were independent.

The conference is mutually beneficial.  It's just sports.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dr. Dre
3 minutes ago, Bruininthebay said:

Working hard to climb to the top of the heap of the trolls.

I thought there was an intelligent post about the fact that the new president of SDSU is not going to last long if the direction of the athletic department is against SJSU and Fresno State.  Perhaps the long standing current SDSU president could get away with bucking the chancellor but there is no way a new chancellor who needs money for a football stadium is going to fight with the other university president's who also want money for better football facilities.  That is not how the game is played.

If the CSU chancellor was certain that the SDSU president was spending significant time working to sabotage/undermine other campuses that president won't continue in that position.  SDSU needs an invite from the Big 12 and hopefully they can build a stadium that would make that possible.  If not, they have to get along with everyone in the CSU system and going independent is a distinct middle finger to the rest of the university system.  A new university president isn't doing that.  CSU presidents also don't seem to last long recently (e.g. SJSU).

BYU is a private university so going independent is feasible.  In this day and age, private universities can justify this much more easily than a public university.  Army was historically independent and that has continued but I don't think anyone think's Army's schedule is all that exciting and I doubt it would be possible to equal that schedule if you were independent.

The conference is mutually beneficial.  It's just sports.

 

this post is complete bullshit, next time try without typing war and peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, UofMTigers said:

http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/story/3129534/developers-behind-san-diego-mls-push-at-odds-with-sdsu-over-stadium

just saw this story and here's an outsiders opinion.

SDSU should just pay the 20 million and play in the new 32,000 seat stadium that's less than 10 mins from campus...unless you like driving 20 mins downtown to play at a baseball stadium.

petco_park_480x200_zps2340f962.jpg

it would cost SDSU at least 100 million to build something similar and you wouldn't have an MLS team helping with the bills. 

As a couple commenters said, that article is junk. One, SDSU doesn't itself have a "board" of anything. It's under the auspices of the CSU board of trustees appointed by the governor but McCrory isn't on that board, as a former city manager he was recently hired by SDSU as a consultant on this issue. Also, FSI's new proposal doesn't add jack to the land which would be available to SDSU unless you consider the 12 acres of "land under the stadium" to be an additional concession.

On the latter point, it seems that one of the disagreements SDSU had with the FSI plan when it was announced publicly is that although SDSU assumed that under the parties' conceptual agreement it would receive not just the stadium after 10 years but also the land it would sit on, FSI meant SDSU would simply get the improvement on the land, IOW the stadium. One of the things I have against so-called small government people is they don't think public agencies should spend a dime more than absolutely necessary. To my knowledge everybody who had been speaking for SDSU was an employee of the university and therefore none had the kind of expertise necessary to handle a project of this complexity. (I'd love to be able to question the FSI and SDSU folks under oath about exactly what went on in those discussions.) Not blaming them, however. FSI comes off as La Jolla's version of snake oil salesmen.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...