Actually having 60k seats is better. Because for some games you will sell all 60k of those seats. In addition the extra 4,000 people buy programs, concessions, and parking. If you are going to do an expansion then you need to add some seats for revenue purposes. You simply can not just keep raising prices on existing seats. That is the surest way to empty the stadium as you will get to a point where you will price many people out. An extra 4,000 seats at $250 a season ticket is $1 million. And not having to raise the other ticket prices at all.
Question about Rhoads' comments regarding stadium upgrades
- Thread starter Newell
- Start date
Actually having 60k seats is better. Because for some games you will sell all 60k of those seats. In addition the extra 4,000 people buy programs, concessions, and parking. If you are going to do an expansion then you need to add some seats for revenue purposes. You simply can not just keep raising prices on existing seats. That is the surest way to empty the stadium as you will get to a point where you will price many people out. An extra 4,000 seats at $250 a season ticket is $1 million. And not having to raise the other ticket prices at all.
This.
Seriously though... where is it written in stone that we won't offer the SAME season ticket pricing even with the SEZ bowled in? Don't we already have more people trying to buy south endzone season tickets than we have available?
I don't get it. I'm no econ guy, but it would seem logical to this engineer that getting more people into the stadium, cheaply or not, increases the number of "chances" you have to sell your product and get these folks to donate and move up the seating food chain. From a marketing perspective, why limit your exposure to potential buyers?
I would love to do something like Mississippi State is doing (the only time those words will be uttered by anyone). They essentially have the same stadium as us, and they are expanding capacity from 55,082 to 61,337.
The north end of their endzone is sweet, I think the Jake will look out of place. You want to make sure everything "flows" together, like its not just thrown together. I also hope we put in new bleacher tops, it will look awkward to have brand new cardinal and gold seats and then pink and light yellow in the rest of the stadium.
My question is...if we build a 65k stadium... and only 55k show up...is that quieter than a 55k stadium that is full? There is no scenario where having a larger capacity makes it quieter. (within reason)
The simple fact of bowling it in should actually make it a little louder. Obviously you don't go to 70 or 80k because we'd never fill it...but adding extra capacity will be great for those games that we do sell out right now. We'll have Iowa at home that first year(2015)...I'd think that would sell out at 65k or close to it.
The simple fact of bowling it in should actually make it a little louder. Obviously you don't go to 70 or 80k because we'd never fill it...but adding extra capacity will be great for those games that we do sell out right now. We'll have Iowa at home that first year(2015)...I'd think that would sell out at 65k or close to it.
Maybe if fans see an emptier stadium they get it in their head that the demand is not that high for the game, and they are not as likely to be as loud or uninhibited? Obviously that would be subconscious. But being in a place that is packed to the brim does make you think like everyone is on the same page as you and makes you buy in to the fact that what you are watching is a big deal.
Just a devils advocate. I think 56k at Jack Trice is a lot louder than 56k at The Colleseum or at Texas or anywhere else that holds 100,000. That's obviously an extreme example.
Obviously you have never sat beside me when the stadium is clearing out toward the end of a game or at a game that is poorly attended.
I really think you are reaching here.
It is pretty obvious that it is better to have a full stadium at a certain number than to have a half empty stadium at that number, though. The more people in close proximity to you yelling, the more likely you are to be yelling. I think that makes sense. There has to be some explanation.
Hell, look at all the crap everyone gives Baylor for The Tarp. A bigger stadium didn't do them any good.
But I think it is a moot point since we aren't going big enough for this to be a problem anyway.
Its going to be a disaster the seats will be miles from the field unless 10% of the current sidelines are removed. (Or the field will have to be shifted 20 yards south there is no other option.)
Building a bigger and better bleacher that is higher and steep is the only smart idea. Maybe a 2-3 teired stand replacing the bleacher too so you can have seats on the upper half that are GA, some premium club seats in the middle, and at the bottom have what is currently there.
Don't underestimate how many people only want to go if they can get in for 10 or 20 bucks.
"Bowling it in" is a waste of money. A nice stand that is double capacity of the current bleachers with a couple different levels and a few club seats in the middle is perfect.
Building a bigger and better bleacher that is higher and steep is the only smart idea. Maybe a 2-3 teired stand replacing the bleacher too so you can have seats on the upper half that are GA, some premium club seats in the middle, and at the bottom have what is currently there.
Don't underestimate how many people only want to go if they can get in for 10 or 20 bucks.
"Bowling it in" is a waste of money. A nice stand that is double capacity of the current bleachers with a couple different levels and a few club seats in the middle is perfect.
Yep, a bigger metal bleacher definitely sounds awesome and will look legit
No offense, but you aren't giving me anything concrete. With what you just said, I could easily reply, "Watch what happens when we get to a bowl game again next year, then win 9 the next year after that. 65,000 might not be enough.
Again, I understand what you are saying, but also your mentality really says, don't bowl it in at all. In fact, remove one of the upper decks because at this rate, we'll be lucky to get 30,000 in the stands.
It's this mentality of a good amount of the fanbase that has basically kept us where we were at. I remember a lot of people saying when we got rid of Mac, "You can't do any better than him." It's just a terribly defeatist attitude that really doesn't do anyone any good.
I do think though, for now, that 55K is too low and 65K is too high. You get somewhere in between those and you won't notice a few butts missing here or there. Make the endzone tickets the cheaper tickets and they will always be full.
Yes, it is also moot since no one has proposed that ISU double the size of the stadium. Having a couple thousand seats empty now and then is worth it when you have a some head room to sell for most of the other games.
I bet recruits will be excited about our bigger bleachers. Haha
I'm glad you aren't on the planning committee.
The last plan that was released included removing some of the existing seating on the W and E sides to allow the curve to start earlier and keep the SEZ seating closer to the action. I'm sure that will continue to be part of the plan.
