How BIG Could this Week Be?

[orangeandbrown]

Doyt Perry Field at 5/3 Stadium could be in our future.

This is, indeed, how something like that would get done. It is the wave of the future.

I would pick Schadenfreude Stadium.

[transfer2BGSU]

I would pick Schadenfreude Stadium.

Actually when I did my contribution to the university, I informed the people in the Foundation that I wanted the football stadium to be named the Rice Bowl and they could keep the filed as Doyt L. Perry Field.

I doubt they'll have listened to me.

[Schadenfreude]

I would pick Schadenfreude Stadium.

It does have a ring to it, eh?

If I had Sebo's money -- and then some -- maybe we could get this done.

[Falconboy]

We better not be taking out the north endzone seating! :ugh: That , in my mind would be a very stupid thing for us to do. We need all the wind blockage that we can get for November games. Why on earth would we reduce our capacity again? :coo-coo: In fact in the very near future we need to upgrade the north endzone to stadium seating anyway. South endzone seating could come alot later if need be. Sort of a mini "Horshoe" effect. When other teams are enlarging their staduims why would we downsize even more?

falconboy

[transfer2BGSU]

When other teams are enlarging their staduims why would we downsize even more?

We can afford to take out some of the seats since we don't sell out our games.

Decreasing the size of the satadium by a few hundred seats is not going to hurt us. Besides, that makes the available seats that much more valuable which means the general public will be paying more for their tickets and that generates REVENUE (is this a Republican concept? Oops! I injected politics into a football thread).

But seriously, building the SAC in the north end zone would be the block you need for the wind at that end of the stadium. I t will be interesting to see if they have some seating attached to the building.

[BGSU33]

I think with the SAC going in the north end zone (yes, the seats will be taken out from there), they should put in a nice, new, smaller section of seats somewhere in the south end zone. I think once the SAC gets built, BG is going to have one of the better stadiums/facilities in the MAC.

[Falconboy]

With our football team getting better and better each year , why would we reduce stadium size to what was in the 80's?? :shrug: Shouldn't we be planning for more people to be coming as the team gets even better?? I'm sure the SAC will look nice but , I dont' see how an athletic center is going to make the Doyt look better. If the north seating is taken out , I'm afraid its going have a Glass Bowl look, which looks dumb. Besides , upgrading the north endzone seats to a staduim style would be alot cheaper than doing a double decker upgrade on the west and east sides ,at least right now anyway.

[Flipper]

They can always add a few seats in the South end zone if needed. Spending the $$ on improving training facilities and offices makes more sense than spending money on seating when we've never had a season with an average attendance above the "smaller" capacity. I think we can live with a capacity of 25,000 or so in the near term.

If we need to raise capacity, we can always pull a Michigan and make the bleacher "seats" a few inches narrower.....it works in Ann Arbor and it works for the airlines.

[transfer2BGSU]

With our football team getting better and better each year , why would we reduce stadium size to what was in the 80's?? :shrug:

Ah young grass hopper, there is still so much for you to learn.

Bigger is not always better.

Why do you think all of those major league baseball teams are building stadiums that seat 35,000-45,000 instead of those stadiums of my generation that would seat 55,000+.

Bigger is not always better.

Let's put a quality product on the field in a great looking stadium that fills up (and a full stadium looks great on TV). Why have 35,000+ seats and then show a stadium that has only 25,000 people in it?

Put a quality product out on the field in a stadium with capacity for 25,000. Then you can charge a higher amount for those tickets available to the general public. Create own sort-of "supply and demand" scenario.

Bigger is not always better.

[bgbrandon]

I sure hope its Mr. Rogers

[TG1996]

We better not be taking out the north endzone seating! :ugh: That , in my mind would be a very stupid thing for us to do. We need all the wind blockage that we can get for November games.

You're right. A stretch of rickety wooden bleachers does a much better job blocking the wind than a large stone building. WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!?!?!

And I'm with the other opinions here that until we average 30,000 a year, we don't need 30,000 seats. As long as the powers that be and the budget are ready to put up permanent south endzone seats when and if the need arises, the bleachers don't need to be there, especially when the option is the beautiful SAC!

[orangeandbrown]

With our football team getting better and better each year , why would we reduce stadium size to what was in the 80's?? :shrug:

Put a quality product out on the field in a stadium with capacity for 25,000. Then you can charge a higher amount for those tickets available to the general public. Create own sort-of "supply and demand" scenario.

Bigger is not always better. [/color]

Right. You charge more, you get people to buy reserve tickets who today are getting by on reserved tickets due to all the open seats, and you get people to buy season tickets (due to scarcity) rather than letting them wake up and check out the weather before they buy tickets. Fewer seats will net us better revenue.

[redskins4ever]

Last year BG could've sold an additional 6-8,000 seats... so why limit your product?

You cant get 2-1's if you cant pay your opponent.

I think that if they horse shoe the north end that leaves BG in much better shape long term then elimintating those 2500 seats from the north endzone