Executive summary: UofM has told city they'd like to add a significant number of chairback seats at LBMS, Ehrhart seems to be saying no.


Stukenborg's article here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/t...l_68499271

A blog I wrote on the subject, here: http://bballjones.com/2015/01/10/u-of-m-...n-stadium/

Yet another one of those intangibles that does not have a line item on a spreadsheet but it sure does have an impact on the university and holds us back.

Smfh

He makes some very legitimate points in his argument. While the most the other side can come up with is waaa waaa waaa someone else is making a decision and we are not getting to. Only a fool would argue against what he is saying without something substantial to support their position. Sounds like the same group of we want an OCS group looking for something else to ***** about.

The folks who own the bowl simply want the opportunity to sell 60k tickets. Reduced capacity threatens their max revenue.

Renovate the press/sky box first...just buy one of these:

3 things:

1. How much seating capacity would be lost due to the chairbacks?

2. What would the chairbacks look like? In other words, would their be a Tiger logo on each one?

3. When is the last time the Liberty Bowl game was Standing Room Only? In fact, when is the last time the LB was in a position where the total butts in seats > Liberty Bowl Capacity minus the chairback reduction in capacity. In other words, if chairbacks reduce the capacity of the LB to say 56,000, when is the last time the Liberty Bowl actually had 56,000 attend the game in person?

I have been to a few Liberty Bowls and seen virtually every one on TV. I have NEVER seen the Liberty Bowl be at Standing Room Only.

Seems to me we could come up with a revenue-sharing deal with Earhardt to appease him.

This is simple math:
[5yr avg seating per game (Tiger Season, LB, SHC) x estimated new avg ticket price] - [5yr avg seating per game (Tiger Season, LB, SHC) x current avg ticket price.
**If this is positive do the deal.

People get worked up about a possible B12 invite and whether reduced capacity would inhibits inclusion or attractiveness of othe events ie LB or SHC. The answer is no for variety of reasons:
1) look at avg stadium size of B12
2) reduces supply for known demand = prices go up (plus you should be able to charge more for chair backs).

Maybe fat people don't like chairbacks. Like tall people at the Pyramid.

(01-10-2015 10:34 AM)ddramone Wrote:  3 things:

1. How much seating capacity would be lost due to the chairbacks?

2. What would the chairbacks look like? In other words, would their be a Tiger logo on each one?

3. When is the last time the Liberty Bowl game was Standing Room Only? In fact, when is the last time the LB was in a position where the total butts in seats > Liberty Bowl Capacity minus the chairback reduction in capacity. In other words, if chairbacks reduce the capacity of the LB to say 56,000, when is the last time the Liberty Bowl actually had 56,000 attend the game in person?

I have been to a few Liberty Bowls and seen virtually every one on TV. I have NEVER seen the Liberty Bowl be at Standing Room Only.

Seems to me we could come up with a revenue-sharing deal with Earhardt to appease him.

There have been 5 crowds in excess of 58K in the last 15 years.

So compromise and only do more chair backs on the home side. Add 10k to the home side and leve the other side untouched. It reduces the capacity less and makes an impact on the side the majority of our fans like to sit on.

(01-10-2015 12:15 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  Executive summary: UofM has told city they'd like to add a significant number of chairback seats at LBMS, Ehrhart seems to be saying no.


Stukenborg's article here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/t...l_68499271

A blog I wrote on the subject, here: http://bballjones.com/2015/01/10/u-of-m-...n-stadium/

Ehrhart is just posturing, If he is for the chair backs he has to argue with the city to get them and possibly chip in part of the expenses, if he opposes the chair backs and gets 'talked into it' he pays nothing AND gets something for acquiescing .

At the end of the day the Liberty Bowl ain't going anywhere, they are NO THREAT to leave, same with the SHC. How do I know this? Any city that wants a bowl just starts one, why would they have to lure the LB? Same with the SHC.

The city should be accommodating to them, but not capitulate.

(01-10-2015 11:58 AM)BinghamptonNed Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:15 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  Executive summary: UofM has told city they'd like to add a significant number of chairback seats at LBMS, Ehrhart seems to be saying no.


Stukenborg's article here: http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/t...l_68499271

A blog I wrote on the subject, here: http://bballjones.com/2015/01/10/u-of-m-...n-stadium/

Ehrhart is just posturing, If he is for the chair backs he has to argue http://csnbbs.com/images/smilies/03-nutkick.gifwith the city to get them and possibly chip in part of the expenses, if he opposes the chair backs and gets 'talked into it' he pays nothing AND gets something for acquiescing .

At the end of the day the Liberty Bowl ain't going anywhere, they are NO THREAT to leave, same with the SHC. How do I know this? Any city that wants a bowl just starts one, why would they have to lure the LB? Same with the SHC.

The city should be accommodating to them, but not capitulate.

If they do the chair backs, they need to update the Press box at the same time. But the real question is can "The city afford to do this?"

(01-10-2015 10:12 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 06:31 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 03:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  He makes some very legitimate points in his argument. While the most the other side can come up with is waaa waaa waaa someone else is making a decision and we are not getting to. Only a fool would argue against what he is saying without something substantial to support their position. Sounds like the same group of we want an OCS group looking for something else to ***** about.

The "other side" would get substantially more revenue from chair back seats, plays 75% of the games in the stadium, paid for a lot of the amenities, and would benefit from not having 60,000 seats. That Rick Johnson guy sure is an idiot.

If reductions in seating would effects the Big XII relationship with the bowl then it would certainly be a factor in possible expansion.

Seat backs would not bring one extra dime to the program but would instead DECREASE revenue to the program. You will be reducing the number of seats in the highest price range and replace them with lower cost seating. For every row you install seat back you will have eliminate a row of seating in that section. Which mean you will have to double to cost of those seats just to break even. Only a buffoon would think that if you reduce the number of top dollar seating and move those same people to a less expensive seat that you will increase funding.

It will increase revenue. The seats will be much more expensive.

(01-10-2015 08:01 AM)3601 Wrote:  The folks who own the bowl simply want the opportunity to sell 60k tickets. Reduced capacity threatens their max revenue.

The chair backs should fetch a lot more money.

(01-10-2015 12:46 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 08:01 AM)3601 Wrote:  The folks who own the bowl simply want the opportunity to sell 60k tickets. Reduced capacity threatens their max revenue.

The chair backs should fetch a lot more money.

I understand that, but I don't know if the average bowl game attendee would want to pay the price. Plus, there might be a max ticket cost in the contracts with the SEC and Big XII.

Chair backs would be nice but I think there are other things they need to do first.

(01-10-2015 12:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 10:12 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 06:31 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 03:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  He makes some very legitimate points in his argument. While the most the other side can come up with is waaa waaa waaa someone else is making a decision and we are not getting to. Only a fool would argue against what he is saying without something substantial to support their position. Sounds like the same group of we want an OCS group looking for something else to ***** about.

The "other side" would get substantially more revenue from chair back seats, plays 75% of the games in the stadium, paid for a lot of the amenities, and would benefit from not having 60,000 seats. That Rick Johnson guy sure is an idiot.

If reductions in seating would effects the Big XII relationship with the bowl then it would certainly be a factor in possible expansion.

Seat backs would not bring one extra dime to the program but would instead DECREASE revenue to the program. You will be reducing the number of seats in the highest price range and replace them with lower cost seating. For every row you install seat back you will have eliminate a row of seating in that section. Which mean you will have to double to cost of those seats just to break even. Only a buffoon would think that if you reduce the number of top dollar seating and move those same people to a less expensive seat that you will increase funding.

It will increase revenue. The seats will be much more expensive.

It should also encourage folks to move out of the fun zone seats. There are plenty of people that buy fun zone seats rather than seats between the 30s since the sight lines in the end zones are good enough and much cheaper than a seat in the upper half of each sideline.

With more seat backs, more people with pay the extra money to get a more comfortable seat and move to the sidelines. I'd go ahead and tarp a couple thousand seats in the other end zone for Tiger games as well. See if we can get capacity down to 50K and have a chance at creating some real demand for season tickets.

More chair backs also means increased donation requirements for those seats.

(01-10-2015 02:26 PM)pkptigers07 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 12:44 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 10:12 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 06:31 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-10-2015 03:48 AM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  He makes some very legitimate points in his argument. While the most the other side can come up with is waaa waaa waaa someone else is making a decision and we are not getting to. Only a fool would argue against what he is saying without something substantial to support their position. Sounds like the same group of we want an OCS group looking for something else to ***** about.

The "other side" would get substantially more revenue from chair back seats, plays 75% of the games in the stadium, paid for a lot of the amenities, and would benefit from not having 60,000 seats. That Rick Johnson guy sure is an idiot.

If reductions in seating would effects the Big XII relationship with the bowl then it would certainly be a factor in possible expansion.

Seat backs would not bring one extra dime to the program but would instead DECREASE revenue to the program. You will be reducing the number of seats in the highest price range and replace them with lower cost seating. For every row you install seat back you will have eliminate a row of seating in that section. Which mean you will have to double to cost of those seats just to break even. Only a buffoon would think that if you reduce the number of top dollar seating and move those same people to a less expensive seat that you will increase funding.

It will increase revenue. The seats will be much more expensive.

It should also encourage folks to move out of the fun zone seats. There are plenty of people that buy fun zone seats rather than seats between the 30s since the sight lines in the end zones are good enough and much cheaper than a seat in the upper half of each sideline.

With more seat backs, more people with pay the extra money to get a more comfortable seat and move to the sidelines. I'd go ahead and tarp a couple thousand seats in the other end zone for Tiger games as well. See if we can get capacity down to 50K and have a chance at creating some real demand for season tickets.

More chair backs also means increased donation requirements for those seats.

With some of the games on the schedule, you could actually create a demand if you got capacity down to 50k. When arenas hold music concerts, they will often make seats behind the stage available when all of the original seats sell out. You always have the option of removing the tarps for big games.

LB game wasn't even close to full this years game.