[quote=âC49er, post:18, topic:28035â][quote=â919R, post:14, topic:28035â][quote=âGassman, post:13, topic:28035â]I listened to the interview. He seemed to throw expansion out there like there was no doubt in his mind. Thatâs good.
I thought it interesting that he said he was really pleased with the two lines. For him to come out and say that, they must be a lot better than he though he would have at this stage. You know how coaches like to poor mouth all the time.
He name checked Hunter at WR and Hogan at LB so I guess that is who he is looking out for as the leaders in those areas. Makes sense considering their experience.[/quote]
What am I missing? I have listened to the interview twice and have not heard any mention of the stadium at all. ???[/quote]
[font=verdana][font=Verdana][size=1em]The Chancellor and Judy - they'll have to make a decision on the stadium. Do we expand it next year? Do we wait another year?[/size][/font][/font]
[/quote]
IDK, maybe the recording I am getting is different for some reason. Iâm telling you, I have listened start to finish twice and nothing like that was said.
[quote=â919R, post:21, topic:28035â][quote=âC49er, post:18, topic:28035â][quote=â919R, post:14, topic:28035â][quote=âGassman, post:13, topic:28035â]I listened to the interview. He seemed to throw expansion out there like there was no doubt in his mind. Thatâs good.
I thought it interesting that he said he was really pleased with the two lines. For him to come out and say that, they must be a lot better than he though he would have at this stage. You know how coaches like to poor mouth all the time.
He name checked Hunter at WR and Hogan at LB so I guess that is who he is looking out for as the leaders in those areas. Makes sense considering their experience.[/quote]
What am I missing? I have listened to the interview twice and have not heard any mention of the stadium at all. ???[/quote]
[font=verdana][font=Verdana][size=1em]The Chancellor and Judy - they'll have to make a decision on the stadium. Do we expand it next year? Do we wait another year?[/size][/font][/font]
[/quote]
IDK, maybe the recording I am getting is different for some reason. Iâm telling you, I have listened start to finish twice and nothing like that was said. :([/quote]
I think the expansion has to be done over both off-seasons due to the duration of the expansion project. I donât think they could do it in one off-season depending upon the complexity.
i have no problem with us doing what JMU did and have âlopsidedâ stadium. I just hope we donât become complacent with that and never expand the opposite side.
They can build a deck in one offseason. JMUâs went up in 1 offseason. We built an entire stadium in 1 year.[/quote]
If we split it between two offseasons, the alumni side gets built first, that would be the side they will make money off of. If they just expand the student side, ticket revenue wonât change.
They can build a deck in one offseason. JMUâs went up in 1 offseason. We built an entire stadium in 1 year.[/quote]
If we split it between two offseasons, the alumni side gets built first, that would be the side they will make money off of. If they just expand the student side, ticket revenue wonât change.[/quote]
You really think when they build that deck over the student side it will continue to be student only seating? Lol.
They can build a deck in one offseason. JMUâs went up in 1 offseason. We built an entire stadium in 1 year.[/quote]
If we split it between two offseasons, the alumni side gets built first, that would be the side they will make money off of. If they just expand the student side, ticket revenue wonât change.[/quote]
You really think when they build that deck over the student side it will continue to be student only seating? Lol.[/quote]
Exactly. You wonât see too many more seats offered to students than whatâs already set in stone. As much as current students are paying in fees I do hope that their demand to see games is always met.
They can build a deck in one offseason. JMUâs went up in 1 offseason. We built an entire stadium in 1 year.[/quote]
If we split it between two offseasons, the alumni side gets built first, that would be the side they will make money off of. If they just expand the student side, ticket revenue wonât change.[/quote]
You really think when they build that deck over the student side it will continue to be student only seating? Lol.[/quote]
Exactly. You wonât see too many more seats offered to students than whatâs already set in stone. As much as current students are paying in fees I do hope that their demand to see games is always met.[/quote]
Right now students have thrown more money at this thing than FSLâs and Jerry Richardson*, maybe even combined. Theyâll get more seats, maybe not 1:1 ratio like Halton Arena, but theyâll get more.
assumes $200 fee increase x 25k students x 3 years of it running
At one of the feasibility sessions when a question was asked about how many tickets should be available for students it was said that on average about 1/3 of your student body would want to attend the game.
I assume based on the fees charged that they would get more tickets, however I would expect to stay somewhere inline with the 1/3 of the student population. So maybe another 1,000 to 2,500 seats based on current size and immediate increase. I also think it is VERY important to have seats available for recent graduates so we can really start building a connected alumni base. Kids that go to football games as students and roll right into season ticket holders.
They can build a deck in one offseason. JMUâs went up in 1 offseason. We built an entire stadium in 1 year.[/quote]
If we split it between two offseasons, the alumni side gets built first, that would be the side they will make money off of. If they just expand the student side, ticket revenue wonât change.[/quote]
You really think when they build that deck over the student side it will continue to be student only seating? Lol.[/quote]
Exactly. You wonât see too many more seats offered to students than whatâs already set in stone. As much as current students are paying in fees I do hope that their demand to see games is always met.[/quote]
Right now students have thrown more money at this thing than FSLâs and Jerry Richardson*, maybe even combined. Theyâll get more seats, maybe not 1:1 ratio like Halton Arena, but theyâll get more.
assumes $200 fee increase x 25k students x 3 years of it running[/quote]
If be surprised to see their 7k grow to more than 10k for a 25k stadium. To be honest they almost have 50% of the seating. That will not hold during expansion. The student fee portion isnât supposed to last and as has been presented in the past our student athletic fee isnât that outrageous compared to other ADs in the region.
I thought we had one of the highest athletics fees in the state SF? I was under the impression the only schools with higher fees were UNCA and the HBCUâs.
One of the main reasons to expand is to offer more seats to visiting teams. Some of our conference-mates are going to want more than the 2000 seat minimum the conference requires, and OOC home and home contests against the likes of ECU or App will definitely require it.
Last I saw, we may have had higher then some other schools, but it wasnât anything substantial. I may be wrong, but student fees were merely a placeholder, so how do you allow them to be reduced, or remain consistent while other schools catch up? You give them less seating and more to the paying customer.
Also important to point out here that âathletics feesâ are a part of âstudent feesâ. We may well have the highest athletics fees and still not have the most student fees in the system.
Correct and as I like to remind peopleâthese fees are paid right along with tuition, meal plans, etc. and we are still cheaper than most schools when you consider the TOTAL cost of attendance.
