|
Replies: 16
| visibility 4
|
All-TigerNet [14751]
TigerPulse: 93%
49
Posts: 22551
Joined: 2003
|
If DV were expanded to 90K would it sell out for
Aug 16, 2014, 10:52 AM
|
|
the big games like FSU, UGA, SC?
I know this isn't likely to happen because we often don't fill up for the lesser or even medium opponents, so it comes off as wasted effort. But isn't it lost revenue in the bigger and some medium games?
Why not paint the top few rows of each upper deck orange and not even sell those seats for the lesser games, essentially making two tiers of capacity with this expansion. 90K for the big games, and 80-82K for the lesser games. It will "appear" full for TV with the paint scheme, but the least attractive seats won't be used.
The expanded seats would come in the form of quality seats in a second tier in the west endzone and some fill in of the corners, and perhaps some on the other end as well beside the hill.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [5977]
TigerPulse: 100%
39
|
Re: If DV were expanded to 90K would it sell out for
Aug 16, 2014, 11:18 AM
|
|
Yes. and the past two years even the least game has been packed. Last year ScState game was even full. We even had a commit mention that was one of the reasons he was coming to Clemson because we sold out the ScState game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5330]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
Posts: 10336
Joined: 2002
|
We may have sold out the SC game but I wouldn't have called
Aug 16, 2014, 11:26 AM
|
|
it full that day...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5330]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
Posts: 10336
Joined: 2002
|
SC State****
Aug 16, 2014, 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12506]
TigerPulse: 100%
47
Posts: 10500
Joined: 2011
|
It would sell out for the big games even at 100k
Aug 16, 2014, 11:25 AM
|
|
The problem is, where do you put the new seats? Unless you're going to build stands over top where the hill is, I don't see another viable option that won't cost ridiculous amounts of money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1265]
TigerPulse: 95%
27
|
Re: It would sell out for the big games even at 100k
Aug 16, 2014, 11:26 AM
|
|
stack some fold up chairs along the top of the upper deck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [84709]
TigerPulse: 100%
62
Posts: 47723
Joined: 2007
|
Would wrap more upper deck over the corners and close in
Aug 16, 2014, 9:39 PM
|
|
the WEZ. Don't think you can ever touch the hill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5330]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
Posts: 10336
Joined: 2002
|
It would definitely sell out for the big games I think
Aug 16, 2014, 11:26 AM
|
|
especially since South Carolina would probably buy up the extra tickets even if we didn't for their game.
But for most games, 78,000 in a 90,000 seat stadium would look terrible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11934]
TigerPulse: 100%
46
Posts: 16363
Joined: 1998
|
We built the stadium with those sorts of games in mind, and
Aug 16, 2014, 1:20 PM
|
|
while having seating for 80K-100K is a great thing, the WAY we built the upper decks was a big mistake.
In retrospect, we'd have been much better off to have built a complete horseshoe upper deck with the top rows considerably closer to the field.
At the time, the conventional wisdom was that side line seats are more desirable and that's true in theory, but loses credibility once you get to a certain height.
The popularity of the WEZ seating proves that people will pay big money to sit in what was formerly considered inferior locations.
Too late to turn back the clock, but personally, I'd love to see about 15-20 rows "shaved" off the top of the upper decks and somehow moved to the WEZ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Elite [5125]
TigerPulse: 100%
38
|
Would be a huge mistake to expand. IMO.
Aug 16, 2014, 9:27 PM
|
|
It would only sell out for maybe 2 games a year. Parking would be worse. Concessions and restrooms would be worse. Traffic can't get worse...
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [10857]
TigerPulse: 100%
45
Posts: 11014
Joined: 2007
|
Yes. Not for GT/UNC/Lville/NC St/etc unless prices lowered***
Aug 16, 2014, 9:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3258]
TigerPulse: 100%
34
|
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Don't mess with perfection.***
Aug 16, 2014, 9:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gridiron Giant [15975]
TigerPulse: 98%
50
Posts: 18636
Joined: 2009
|
I don't think we need to expand until we sell out all games
Aug 16, 2014, 9:49 PM
|
|
Way in advance. Even then I'm not sure it makes sense outside of adding more WEZ club seating to try and promote the big donors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Tiger [38595]
TigerPulse: 100%
56
Posts: 33260
Joined: 2011
|
Re: I don't think we need to expand until we sell out all games
Aug 16, 2014, 11:54 PM
|
|
The upper decks were added at different times , not together. They are steep, which makes the Valley so intimidatingly loud and looming.
I think the upper decks of Memorial Stadium in Clemson are the cats roar ...not meow ... ROAR !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mascot [24]
TigerPulse: 100%
3
|
Re: I don't think we need to expand until we sell out all games
Aug 17, 2014, 12:20 AM
|
|
There is a fine line between adding revenue from extra tickets sold and losing money because the supply is too great for the demand. Sometimes programs have too many seats and too many tickets available. That can limit the donation requirements for certain tickets and affect how much you can charge for tickets because the supply is too high. They end up with a net loss overall, even if they can have a higher attendance for a couple of games. That's why UNC is likely going to lower capacity for their basketball arena. They can sell out for Duke and a handful of big games but they rarely sell out for the typical weeknight game. In addition to adding more club and suites when they renovate or build a new arena, they may actually make more money because they can make it a tougher ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson Icon [26531]
TigerPulse: 100%
54
Posts: 14925
Joined: 2011
|
Let us win another NC, and 90,000 seat capacity won't
Aug 17, 2014, 7:49 AM
|
|
be enough!
50 years from now and DV will be seating over 120,000...and I'll repost to tell you I said so! Which is a pretty bodacious comment, considering that I'm 67. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1099]
TigerPulse: 53%
25
|
go General Admission
Aug 17, 2014, 9:40 AM
|
|
for lesser games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 4
|
|
|
50
