Are we in 1998 again?
In that glorious year, the Padres pitched their way into the World Series and fans showed their appreciation by voting to approve a complicated deal between the franchise and city to build Petco Park.
Now, 11 years later, we find ourselves with the Chargers in need of a new stadium and might have a chance to energize the electorate the same way their baseball brethren did. The Bolts 20-17 victory over the Cowboys in Dallas, in a game that wasn't as close as the final result, established themselves as favorites along with the undefeated Colts to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. The Cowboys were as big a challenge as the they've had in a couple of months, and they came answered.
The fear coming into Sunday was the Chargers would be exposed as pretenders, with deficient lines or poor secondary play. No one is perfect, but those units played well enough to win. The final Chargers offensive possession too more than seven minutes off the board in the fourth quarter and resulted in Nate Kaeding's clinching field goal. They did it mostly running against a pretty good defense that knew the ball would remain on the ground. It seems like earlier in the season the Bolts couldn't run the ball even if the other team dropped 11 into pass coverage.
The Chargers are now solid contenders, not pretenders. And you know their history against the Colts, whether home or in Indianapolis. If they do go to the Super Bowl, and thrill the local fans, they might have a chance to get a ballot measure passed that includes taxpayer financing of their new digs. The Chargers now say taxpayer money will be needed if they're to build downtown, which appears to be the only available spot left in the county. In normal circumstances, they would have no chance. Coming off a Super Bowl appearance, such a proposition might pass.
"Might" is they key word. The argument in favor of spending taxpayer money on a new football palace is that it keeps the team in town -- the NFL is THE premier sports league and a franchise brings San Diego a significant national presence it can't afford to lose, and that the project will renew a blighted area, bringing tax dollars into city coffers that will cover for the initial capital expenditures.
All well and good, but the economy is down and city finances are in poor shape. It's hard to justify paying for a stadium, no matter how it pencils out, if libraries are being closed.
But you know those arguments. Here's two more:
1. The downtown site is quite close to Petco Park. The redevelopment of the East Village has essentially already occured, so any redevelopment or economic benefits of a new stadium will run into the law of diminishing returns.
2. Petco Park and the surrounding redevelopment might be fine for city coffers, developers and real estate agents. It's a lovely thing if you have a lot of extra cash immune to the economic downturn and can pay for $35 game tickets, $20 parking and expensive junk food. Otherwise, while Petco has been a pretty place to watch the Padres, it's been an economic drain on the average San Diego resident. How Average Joe feels about doing the same thing regarding the Chargers is questionable. The one escape valve the Bolts have is that the NFL has already priced itself out of reach of most common men. But it is common men who will be casting votes some day to fund a new stadium.
Yeah, it might be 1998 again, but the results of any resulting election might be different. If we can make the results of the Super Bowl different from the Padres WS experience, most of us would take it.
---
In the history of San Diego State athletics, Arizona has often been a marker. In football back in the 1970's glory days, the Aztecs struggled to beat good Wildcats teams in frequent meetings until they broke through in 1977 and 1979, the two best seasons in that decade.
Saturday, the basketball team finally broke through after years of frustration by crushing the Wildcats 63-46. SDSU won comfortably even though they didn't appear to play their best in front of a sellout crowd at Viejas Arena. There were a lot of sloppy turnovers and plenty of missed shots from close to the basket. The Aztecs could have won by 30. But no matter, the Cats never came close to making it a game. This isn't vintage Lute Olson Arizona -- they're now 4-5 with a very young team -- but they were the most athletic team on the schedule so far this year. That the Aztecs matched that athleticism, and raised them by a lot, is heartening for the rest of the season. Only Arizona State, next Saturday in Tempe, and UNLV can offer similar threats athletically.
The Aztecs are now 8-2. I'll make a dramatic prediction. They won't lose more than three games the rest of the regular season. They'll fall to either Arizona State or Drake, one of the UNLV games and one of the BYU games. No one else will touch them. Their top substitutes would start on most Mountain West teams. That gives them a final regular-season record of 25-5. That looks right, at least for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment