Falling Behind. . .?
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 19075
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:16 am
- Location: An endless run of moguls
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I think you should build for capacity. I think that's a rule of thumb for any infrastructure project. If the largest attendance each year is homecoming, then you should build for that. You should also factor in growth. MSU will eventually have some down years, but you can't build for that. There are also bells-and-whistles factors like sky suites, concessions and other accommodations that need to proportionally fit.
MSU - 15 team National Champions (most recent 2021); 57 individual National Champions (most recent 2023).
toM StUber
toM StUber
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
If it was up to me, I would rebuild the east side, including the addition of skyboxes, in such a way so as to get the "official" capacity, without temp bleachers or SRO, up to about 20,000. I truly believe that our attendance may be close to "maxing out" for the time being at that range. Our attendance has been great this year...it will probably be the 2nd highest average attendance in history, but it is likely to be down slightly from last year, even if you exclude Cat-Griz from last year's numbers. That always skews things slightly between even numbered and odd numbered years. I think UM is seeing the same thing since they did their last expansion, as they've had numerous non-sellouts since then. As others have noted, I don't want to have a 25,000 seat stadium, with only 17,000-19,000 fans for most games, except for Cat-Griz and maybe Homecoming. That being said, if we begin to consistently sell out the 20,000 permanent seats, and again get into a situation where we have to add temp bleachers and sell SRO tickets for most games, then the next phase could be the other EZ, which would allow us to increase the capacity by up to another 5,000-7,000 (isn't the capacity of the south EZ about 7,200?).
-
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:49 am
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I think we have to consider the population of missoula vs bozeman. That is a huge factor of drawing the numbers they do. Of course both schools will get most of their fans from around the state, but missoula will pull in at least 5,000 fans a game from the local casual fan. Bozeman has a few, but the size of bozeman hinders us in that way. We will never be able to pack 25,000 every game.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I'd be hesitant to say "never". Just a few years ago, I'll bet most of us never thought that we'd be consistently drawing 18,000-20,000 for every game. And MIssoula County has a population of about 110,000 versus approximately 95,000 for Gallatin County, so there's no longer that much difference between the two. I agree that we won't get there (25,000 average) anytime real soon, but I'd stop short of saying "never".4thecats wrote:I think we have to consider the population of missoula vs bozeman. That is a huge factor of drawing the numbers they do. Of course both schools will get most of their fans from around the state, but missoula will pull in at least 5,000 fans a game from the local casual fan. Bozeman has a few, but the size of bozeman hinders us in that way. We will never be able to pack 25,000 every game.
And my point in bringing UM into this conversation, was only that they've always sort of had a "build it and they will come" mentality over there. I think they believed they could expand that stadium up to 30,000 and beyond, and they'd still continue to sell out every game. But I think they've learned that's not necessarily true, as evidenced by the fact that they no longer sell out every game, ever since the most recent expansion up to 25,000 plus.
- LongTimeCatFan
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8625
- Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Kalispell
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I'm going to disagree. If we have people that are willing to stand the whole game, we have people that would buy a ticket to sit.
We should build for 25k because it is likely we have demand for that. Our fan base continues to grow every year and I know for a fact that there are people who would like to go, but the tix are sold out before they can arrange to go. Not everybody can plan ahead as far as most of us can.
We should build for 25k because it is likely we have demand for that. Our fan base continues to grow every year and I know for a fact that there are people who would like to go, but the tix are sold out before they can arrange to go. Not everybody can plan ahead as far as most of us can.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
- Location: RNC Headquarters
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I agree with this. I'd add that its more important to maximize tickets sales than it is to have a stadium that looks sold out. That, financially, is what's best for MSU. For example: Averaging 22,000 in a 25,000 seat stadium brings in more revenue than averaging 19,000 in a 17,777 seat stadium.LongTimeCatFan wrote:I'm going to disagree. If we have people that are willing to stand the whole game, we have people that would buy a ticket to sit.
We should build for 25k because it is likely we have demand for that. Our fan base continues to grow every year and I know for a fact that there are people who would like to go, but the tix are sold out before they can arrange to go. Not everybody can plan ahead as far as most of us can.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8620
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
- Location: Great Falls MT
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Also, I think it's a matter of financial realities to some extent. I doubt that we'd be able to afford to rebuild the east bleachers with skyboxes, and also build new seating in the other end zone at the same time. Thus, my suggestion that we do the east side/skyboxes as soon as possible, and then potentially a new north EZ structure a few years further down the road.[cat_bracket] wrote:I agree with this. I'd add that its more important to maximize tickets sales than it is to have a stadium that looks sold out. That, financially, is what's best for MSU. For example: Averaging 22,000 in a 25,000 seat stadium brings in more revenue than averaging 19,000 in a 17,777 seat stadium.LongTimeCatFan wrote:I'm going to disagree. If we have people that are willing to stand the whole game, we have people that would buy a ticket to sit.
We should build for 25k because it is likely we have demand for that. Our fan base continues to grow every year and I know for a fact that there are people who would like to go, but the tix are sold out before they can arrange to go. Not everybody can plan ahead as far as most of us can.
-
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:49 am
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
John K wrote:I'd be hesitant to say "never". Just a few years ago, I'll bet most of us never thought that we'd be consistently drawing 18,000-20,000 for every game. And MIssoula County has a population of about 110,000 versus approximately 95,000 for Gallatin County, so there's no longer that much difference between the two. I agree that we won't get there (25,000 average) anytime real soon, but I'd stop short of saying "never".4thecats wrote:I think we have to consider the population of missoula vs bozeman. That is a huge factor of drawing the numbers they do. Of course both schools will get most of their fans from around the state, but missoula will pull in at least 5,000 fans a game from the local casual fan. Bozeman has a few, but the size of bozeman hinders us in that way. We will never be able to pack 25,000 every game.
And my point in bringing UM into this conversation, was only that they've always sort of had a "build it and they will come" mentality over there. I think they believed they could expand that stadium up to 30,000 and beyond, and they'd still continue to sell out every game. But I think they've learned that's not necessarily true, as evidenced by the fact that they no longer sell out every game, ever since the most recent expansion up to 25,000 plus.
Very good point. Never, was the wrong choice of words. I do wish we would consolidate our entire football program facilities into one area. Weightroom /coaches offices/lockerroom/practice facility. ..etc. the Washington state university did this with their most recent $60million renovation. There is something great about having it all in the same place.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
- Location: RNC Headquarters
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Yes, barring a huge single donation, it needs to be done in phases.John K wrote:Also, I think it's a matter of financial realities to some extent. I doubt that we'd be able to afford to rebuild the east bleachers with skyboxes, and also build new seating in the other end zone at the same time. Thus, my suggestion that we do the east side/skyboxes as soon as possible, and then potentially a new north EZ structure a few years further down the road.[cat_bracket] wrote:I agree with this. I'd add that its more important to maximize tickets sales than it is to have a stadium that looks sold out. That, financially, is what's best for MSU. For example: Averaging 22,000 in a 25,000 seat stadium brings in more revenue than averaging 19,000 in a 17,777 seat stadium.LongTimeCatFan wrote:I'm going to disagree. If we have people that are willing to stand the whole game, we have people that would buy a ticket to sit.
We should build for 25k because it is likely we have demand for that. Our fan base continues to grow every year and I know for a fact that there are people who would like to go, but the tix are sold out before they can arrange to go. Not everybody can plan ahead as far as most of us can.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:35 am
- Location: RNC Headquarters
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Currently the "Level of Service" being delivered to the fans doesn't meet demand. A) there isn't enough seating, B) the east grandstand does provide a good experience due to tight rows and delapidation. The services, restrooms/concessions, may be inadequate on the east side also.
-
- BobcatNation Redshirt
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:14 am
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I wouldn't say that UM was pressured by MSU to install lights because you guys installed them first... Before MSU had installed lights, UM for several years already had the funds to install lights. The main reason that both UM and MSU installed lights was mostly because of the ROOT Sports deal. We were the only two schools in the BSC that didn't have lights, and without them, ROOT Sports wouldn't have signed the deal to broadcast BSC games.Darth Yoda wrote:I see this as the opposite and see MSU being in the leadership position. On the last few rounds, we've been putting pressure on um by installing the lights first and then the weight room. The weight room was really interesting because we shook loose $1.3 million in a very short amount of time, and again, that has put some pressure on um.
As for EWU, the whole thing is a pipe dream. I'll start paying attention if they ever break ground, but until then, I think the whole thing is a placeholder for a situation where there is a reorganization of DI football. They will absolutely want to be at the same level as MSU and um and will need to execute on that plan if/when the reorganization happens.
It's going to be a big game changer once we get the new weight/locker rooms built. The current ones are absolutely terrible. The worst in the Big Sky, and possibly one of the worst in the FCS. I agree with your comment on EWU. If the whole division reclassification goes down, EWU will need to get those new stadium plans executed fast, or they'll be on the outside looking in.
Last edited by GetEm_Griz on Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
- allcat
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8688
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm
- Location: 90 miles from Nirvana (Bobcat Stadium)
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
They will have to change , but they will be given several years to complete upgrades.GetEm_Griz wrote:I wouldn't say that UM wasn't pressured by MSU to install lights because you guys installed them first... Before MSU had installed lights, UM for several years already had the funds to install lights. The main reason that both UM and MSU installed lights was mostly because of the ROOT Sports deal. We were the only two schools in the BSC that didn't have lights, and without them, ROOT Sports wouldn't have signed the deal to broadcast BSC games.Darth Yoda wrote:I see this as the opposite and see MSU being in the leadership position. On the last few rounds, we've been putting pressure on um by installing the lights first and then the weight room. The weight room was really interesting because we shook loose $1.3 million in a very short amount of time, and again, that has put some pressure on um.
As for EWU, the whole thing is a pipe dream. I'll start paying attention if they ever break ground, but until then, I think the whole thing is a placeholder for a situation where there is a reorganization of DI football. They will absolutely want to be at the same level as MSU and um and will need to execute on that plan if/when the reorganization happens.
It's going to be a big game changer once we get the new weight/locker rooms built. The current ones are absolutely terrible. The worst in the Big Sky, and possibly one of the worst in the FCS. I agree with your comment on EWU. If the whole division reclassification goes down, EWU will need to get those new stadium plans executed fast, or they'll be on the outside looking in.
Geezer. Part Bionic,. Part Iconic
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I don't believe this is correct. In the plans that came out in around 2008, the east side would have lost seating, however matching the east side with the SEZ, which has greater density because of the angle of the seating, will give us close to what is there now.Mr Lisle wrote:I don't know, maybe I wasn't making myself clear. I wasn't saying let's build bigger than we need for the sake of bigness, I'm saying let's not take the bigness we currently have and build something less big for the sake of building something even though it's bigness is less big than the bigness we have now.4thecats wrote:Bigger is not always better. I would rather have a 20,000 seat stadium full than have a 25000 seat stadium with open seats. Make it the hardest ticket to get in mt. Be to a point where we have a waiting list. Because I hate to say it, but some day may come that we won't be able to fill 17,000. Sports are cyclical. We are hot right know but will we always be hot? Don't over build.Mr Lisle wrote:I believe I heard the plans for the new east side , which will match up nicely with the new end zone will actually produce FEWER seats than are currently in place even though the structure is larger. If so, what kind of progress it that? I'm all for aesthetics and fine design, but the end result in a growing program should be MORE seats. Seems like a no-brainer.
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
- ewuranger29
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:57 pm
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
This is correct. It is a roughly $70 million project.Rich K wrote:As far as I can tell, EWU has entered a "quiet phase" of their expansion plans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ewuranger29
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:57 pm
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
WTF are you talking about? EWU has made several improvements just in the past few years. Outside of the stadium itself, EWU is light years ahead of UM in terms of facilities (weight rooms, academic center, etc).BadlandsGrizFan wrote:What is an IPF? And don't worry about EWU...I would be surprised if they started anything within the next 5-7 years...that school is incompetent and can never gain any local traction!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- catgrad05
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:51 am
- Location: North Central Montna
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Academic center improvements??????? New coloring books that use something other than red or black?ewuranger29 wrote:WTF are you talking about? EWU has made several improvements just in the past few years. Outside of the stadium itself, EWU is light years ahead of UM in terms of facilities (weight rooms, academic center, etc).BadlandsGrizFan wrote:What is an IPF? And don't worry about EWU...I would be surprised if they started anything within the next 5-7 years...that school is incompetent and can never gain any local traction!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Has your Athletic Director started taking flack over the "quiet phase" yet? If he hasn't we can send over a few hundred fans to help out that are good at that sort of thing when they don't get what they want immediately (whether on or not on a silver spoon)ewuranger29 wrote:This is correct. It is a roughly $70 million project.Rich K wrote:As far as I can tell, EWU has entered a "quiet phase" of their expansion plans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
- ewuranger29
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 5:57 pm
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
Oh yes...lots of it. Two years into it and apparently we're "right on schedule". Continuous references to UW and how it took them 8 years from flash to bang. In the end, if it ends up even being half as good as what it's being sold as I guess I'll be happy. It does suck waiting though.codecat wrote:Has your Athletic Director started taking flack over the "quiet phase" yet? If he hasn't we can send over a few hundred fans to help out that are good at that sort of thing when they don't get what they want immediately (whether on or not on a silver spoon)ewuranger29 wrote:This is correct. It is a roughly $70 million project.Rich K wrote:As far as I can tell, EWU has entered a "quiet phase" of their expansion plans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- codecat
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2656
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:38 pm
- Location: Laurel
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
It does suck waiting, but I guess if I cannot pony-up all the funds myself then I don't have much room to complainewuranger29 wrote:Oh yes...lots of it. Two years into it and apparently we're "right on schedule". Continuous references to UW and how it took them 8 years from flash to bang. In the end, if it ends up even being half as good as what it's being sold as I guess I'll be happy. It does suck waiting though.codecat wrote:Has your Athletic Director started taking flack over the "quiet phase" yet? If he hasn't we can send over a few hundred fans to help out that are good at that sort of thing when they don't get what they want immediately (whether on or not on a silver spoon)ewuranger29 wrote:This is correct. It is a roughly $70 million project.Rich K wrote:As far as I can tell, EWU has entered a "quiet phase" of their expansion plans.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
London Bridge is falling down, falling down, falling down, London Bridge is falling down, Bye-Bye Fauci!
- cat_stache_fever
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:30 pm
- Location: dirt falls, montana
- Contact:
Re: Falling Behind. . .?
I think it be sweet if there was a BIG "football building" (weight room, locker room, offices, ect) to wall in the north end zone, ala Oklahoma State(and Miss State, i think?) Could have deck/SRO seating on top of it. Expand upwards on the SEZ, and duplicate the west side stands/suites on the east.
This may be a ways down the trail.....
This may be a ways down the trail.....
well.......we gonna pitch it!
"we gonna put something/somebody(?) on they ass...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXf-VrzznY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"we gonna put something/somebody(?) on they ass...."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXf-VrzznY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;