Too funny. Guy can't follow a simple post reply, talking about getting a clue. Classic:twitcy:
Will you please explain....
- Thread starter bringmagicback
- Start date
Too funny. Guy can't follow a simple post reply, talking about getting a clue. Classic:twitcy:
Wake up, man. It's not 2003. We've had at most 3,000 empty seats at any game.
Unless you're counting after halftime of blowouts.
It's a real simple question. It's all in black and white. You stated:
As far as '55k in JT each game'... NOBODY builds their stadiums to their minimum attendance. You typically build to a level near your highest end.
If bowling in the S. endzone does not ad capacity how does it help build to a level near your highest end, that you keep stating over and over. It doesn't so which is it.
Interesting you bring this up. I made it a point to actually count empty seats for both the TT and Utah game. It's pretty easy to establish a base line area by section and seating capacity and apply this to the entire stadium. Easily 5,000 empty seats. Also the first game had easily 7,000 empty seat.
Because for years we've been selling thousands of tickets into overflow areas (hillsides).
The problem is we have 2 different measures of capacity in JTS. Doing the bowl will not add to the actual capacity (possible tickets sold) in the stadium (which is whats important when youre looking at how many tickets we've been selling). However, it will add to the actual seating capacity, so we no longer have to have thousands in overflow sections for most games. We are deficient in actual seating capacity, and most teams would build up closer to the maximum number of tickets they could sell, as opposed to building to their minimum tickets sold.
The project is and has always been dependent on a major donor. Pollard has stated this repeatedly. He has also said that he can't justify taking on the whole financial burden to the Board of Regents in these economic times and with our current attendance levels.
If anyone wrote a check for $20 million, the project would happen.
It has nothing to do with any "powers that be" at Iowa State University deciding whether it's worth it or not.
If anyone wrote a check for $20 million, the project would happen.
It has nothing to do with any "powers that be" at Iowa State University deciding whether it's worth it or not.
Originally Posted by gwoodclone
No crickets, I don't disagree in full with what is stated. The only thing, I have never stated that attendence is the ONLY reason. Not having enough money is a given, who could argue that. When you look at the greater picture, one of the reasons ISU does not have money is because of poor attendence as a result of poor football. ISU does agree with me. At no time did I ever say it would never get bowled in. Obviously if they had the money they would do it. But sence they don't they have decided to invest it in other areas, which what I have been saying from day one. In the end they are taking the same position as me. At present it is not wise to bowl in the S. endzone given the current state of affairs. It's hard to be humble when you are correct like me. :yes:
You say this like we have the money for it right now, and the only reason it isn't being built right now is because (in your opinion) it doesn't make sense to build it until attendance goes up. That is obviously false. We have nowhere near enough money to build it right now. The second we do, Jamie will be getting a presentation put together for the Regents regardless of whether we're averaging 55k or 42k. So no, ISU does not agree with you.
Crickets from GoShow.
No crickets, I don't disagree in full with what is stated. The only thing, I have never stated that attendence is the ONLY reason. Not having enough money is a given, who could argue that. When you look at the greater picture, one of the reasons ISU does not have money is because of poor attendence as a result of poor football. ISU does agree with me. At no time did I ever say it would never get bowled in. Obviously if they had the money they would do it. But sence they don't they have decided to invest it in other areas, which what I have been saying from day one. In the end they are taking the same position as me. At present it is not wise to bowl in the S. endzone given the current state of affairs. It's hard to be humble when you are correct like me. :yes:
It has every thing to do with the powers that be. Don't kid yourself. Even if the money was available it still does not circumvent the process. Who else is responsible to guide the program, manage the program and present plans to the regents. It's all about the powers that be. Nothing get's done with out the guidence/approval from the powers that be at ISU.
You think money manages itself. :twitcy:
You're assuming the department has an extra $60 million that it has now decided to spend elsewhere instead of on stadium expansion.
No. That decision was NEVER made. The money was NEVER there to make a YES or NO decision.
[Insert smiley here so that I think my point is now made more convincingly]
What was ISU's average attendance in 1972/1973 when the stadium was was being designed? (Construction/groundwork started October 1973).
Initial capacity was 42,500 with no end-zone seating (Cyclones.com doesn't mention hill-side in info). With the exception of seats lost for suites, original seating capacity has not changed. All of the capacity changes have been the result of end-zone and hill-side changes and designations.
My take - bowling in the south end-zone changes the look from "temporary" seating to permanent (both the bleachers and hill-side). Will be bad for any future tractor pull events. :twitcy:
Yes, and in the end it doesn't get more fans into the game. It's not as critical to me whether a fan stands or sits. Who cares. The issue isn't capacity configuration. The issue is getting more fans to come to the games. Nevermind the upper corners still remain empty.
Only edit for spelling/grammer. Never change the intent or subject of post. Otherwise some grammer nazi who can't make any points refers to a silly typo etc.
I'm not assuming anything. What point ARE you trying to make. The decision has been made to not bowl in JTS for the time being. The decision has been made to invest money towards other areas in the football program.
No matter. to the point. In the end it has everything to do with the powers that be. Everything.
You didn't get mine,<--this guy=sarcasm
Ah, but I did get it. I think you should go tell JP in a sarcastic mannor that bowling in JTS is a stupid idea and show him the picture of the photo shop. Then write him a check to help facilitate it getting done. Simple really. Do you need another clue.
Don't you think it would be easier to get someone to pay $10 to have a reserved seat than pay $10 to stand on a grass slope in November? I think that we'd have better luck drawing people late in the year if they knew they could get a cheap seat where they'd be comfortable. Would it solve everything? No. But I'd bet a lot of money it would help those late season attendance figures.
GoShow your posts seem so pissy. When's the last time you got laid, buddy? 
cute: Also, when you edit your posts for grammatical errors, please correct the spelling of "since" and "sense" if you could. I agree with your argument for the most part and believe it can best be summed up as not prudent at this juncture.
I'd just like to throw this out there- granted Okie State had a billionaire in their pocket, were they filling their stadium consistently before they decided on expanding it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were far from regular sell-our crowds. I'd call it the "if you build it they will come" philosophy. It's a hell of a gamble, though. The Gophers & Hoosiers have new/updated facilities and not much to show for it on the field yet.
cute: Also, when you edit your posts for grammatical errors, please correct the spelling of "since" and "sense" if you could. I agree with your argument for the most part and believe it can best be summed up as not prudent at this juncture.I'd just like to throw this out there- granted Okie State had a billionaire in their pocket, were they filling their stadium consistently before they decided on expanding it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure they were far from regular sell-our crowds. I'd call it the "if you build it they will come" philosophy. It's a hell of a gamble, though. The Gophers & Hoosiers have new/updated facilities and not much to show for it on the field yet.
Last edited:
Actually, bowling in the endzone DOES increase capacity, because they've said that they'll do both levels at the same time (because it is less expensive than doing it in phases). That would put capacity at 60k+. Regardless, the reason why they haven't done it is because they don't have a lead donor. Still, the plans are sitting right there in the BOR docket for 2014. They evidently plan on doing it soon enough. IMO attendance DOES have something to do with it...but not nearly as much as getting a commitment from a lead donor.
You actually remind me of a poster on the HN board who argued against this project daily. Are you sure that you're not him? Because your style and constant arguing every time this subject comes up is VERY similar. Sure your name isn't Jeffrey Reninga?
