Also, WVU in the last 10 years, renovated their stadium, added some more luxury suites but reduced capacity from 68K to 60K
Attendance
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Also, WVU in the last 10 years, renovated their stadium, added some more luxury suites but reduced capacity from 68K to 60K
the U begs to differ...they never seemed to whine (or lose or win based on) incessantly about empty seats in cavernous stadiums...
The Rooneys have to say "yes to the mess". Pitt would have to pay for the tarps, the tarping & removal. And who decides when to tarp, or not??
Don't see why steelers would care. Pitt would have to pay, but could be some advertising value vs empty seat zero revenue. The AD could easily decide.
Not a problem at all.
Steelers would not care as long as they are removed for their home game.
The new AD should now undertake a study to decide what sections should be tarped for seating reductions and Pitt may be able to sell advertising on the tarps to earn extra money for TV games.
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Attendance the same as it was in the 80s, with a much newer stadium, better parking, roads, etc. Should tell people something, but they prefer to use the attendance from the horrible 1990s teams as evidence.
Roc who else! I actually think he's been running the athletic dept for the last ten years?
Right about where we should be if we had some leadership. They're in the middle of a "hell hole" Morgantown and we're in Pittsburgh should be advantage PITT!
Not necessarily. I think that the total undergraduate alumni at the Seattle campus is comparable to the total undergrad alumni from Pitt main.
It is more than just the attendance during the horrible 1990's era. It is attendance historically. There is not evidence to back your claim that attendance would be higher with an on campus stadium.
I don't claim that there is evidence it would be higher and have long argued that one of the big problems with Heinz Field is that it's too large for Pitt's fan base. It's much better to have 5k empty seats in a 50k stadium, then 25k employ seats in a 70k stadium. I'd argue that it makes it more difficult to build a winning program and grow the fan base when the games often have large sections of empty bright yellow seats, harming the gameday atmosphere and program's reputation.
The local media that cover Pitt part-time aren't Pitt friendly. The fact that Pitt's attendance issues found it's way to the front page of the sports section during another PSU scandal ridden week is not a mistake. The new AD was good cover. But Pitt will always be unfairly compared to cow pasture land because that's somehow better.
The answer always will be the same: Winning football. Listen to it roll off your tongue. Winning football. Stop scheduling a murderous OOC schedule, finance Narduzzi properly, and average 10 wins. Winning football.
It's not that difficult.
The answer always will be the same: Winning football. Listen to it roll off your tongue. Winning football. Stop scheduling a murderous OOC schedule, finance Narduzzi properly, and average 10 wins. Winning football.
It's not that difficult.
You don't even need physical tarps. Just dont sell tickets in the upper deck endzone and non-TV upper sideline.
Also, by limiting capacity, demand goes up and you can charge a little more for tickets.
I had to pay $120 for a USA vs Paraguay ticket at the Linc. Nothing cheaper on Stubhub so i bought at the gate. They didnt use 1 upper deck section and announced a "sellout" of 50K. The place was alive and jumping even though there were literally 0 people in the non-TV upper deck. By limiting capacity, they inflated the ticket value and created an environment where all the rest of the seats had people in them.
Also, by limiting capacity, demand goes up and you can charge a little more for tickets.
I had to pay $120 for a USA vs Paraguay ticket at the Linc. Nothing cheaper on Stubhub so i bought at the gate. They didnt use 1 upper deck section and announced a "sellout" of 50K. The place was alive and jumping even though there were literally 0 people in the non-TV upper deck. By limiting capacity, they inflated the ticket value and created an environment where all the rest of the seats had people in them.
It is pretty difficult. Not many program do it on an annual basis for long periods.
This should be one of Lyke's key obectives to address the issues with the local media!
Maybe should visits them with one of her softball bats. You know the one that generates the most bat speed!
Being nice to them didn't work! The being nice approach rarely works these days!
"Fairly similar" will be goalposts that continually move, but UCLA gets 70k+. If you limit the number of schools all the way down to "NFL city, major conference, similar student body, little success over past 30 years, plays in NFL stadium, colors are blue and gold..." then you won't have many to pick from in the first place. GT, UCLA, Minne. Uh, any others that you classify as "similar to Pitt?" Miami does not have a comparable student body. If Miami is like Pitt, then so are Southern Cal, UT-Austin, OSU, etc.
Ok I agree with that but that is not what you were initially saying/implying in your posts. Maybe I am wrong, but you were implying that attendance was hurt by Heinz field.
Nope. But Pitt is in a position to accomplish it if they can get their act together. They play in a very winnable division. You schedule winnable OOC games and win all but 1 or 2 in the conference, there you go.
OK:
NFL market
not a diploma mill (inotherwords, undergraduate enrollment similar to Pitt)
not a historical powerhouse that regularly competes for NC's
How many of those programs are getting 70K? Maybe UCLA and Washington qualify but I'd have to see their undergraduate enrollment numbers.
The fact is these programs are 40K-50K max programs. We should not be aiming to sell 70K tickets, greatly deflating the value in doing so.
That's what I've been saying AIM HIGH and end up in a good place!Could this graph provide a potential answer?
Or deploy the typical PITT strategy AIM LOW AND END UP LOWER! Quitters!
The reason this potential hasn't been tapped is because of a string of incompetent PITT Athletic Dept executives and PITT admin people who aren't holding themselves accountable for the failures in PITT athletics!
We're so used to things blowing up PITT fans don't understand what success looks or feels like.
Bring on the Tarpers - the best we can do is 45k.
Well with that thought process it will be 25k before your know what hit you.
Lots of young alums out there with good/great jobs and families. That should be the target demographic, not people who might be room temp in a few years!
yep, If Pitt good just have a cozy stadium built for only 300 or 400 million they could mirror the success of Boston College..
You nailed it. Not allowing 25,000-30,000 tickets to be sold is the answer.
View those 25-30,000 seats as a way to say to any school at any time next year, if you want them, you can buy all of them at $20 per seat. All or nothing.
I could care less if my section has zero Penn State Fans a year from now but they have 25-30,000 segregated away from me. Buy as much beer, hot dogs and Pepsi as you want to fill our athletic fund. Same goes for Louisville, WVU, Clemson, etc.... it's a great view of the City. We will take that donation and have our 45-50,000 fans all wearing blue and gold.
What's the downside. Win on the field, take their money.
UCLA home attendance is in the mid 60,000 in a stadium that seats 91,000.
Penn State has a student body of approximately 90,000 (includes branch campuses) compared to Pitt with a student body of about 35,000. Alums to attend games are 3 to 1 in Penn States favor so you would expect Penn State to have more alums attending football games (numbers related).
HAIL TO PITT!!!!
Limiting supply does not increase demand. If that doesn't work, do you tarp another 10,000? Come on.
I don't want to be "crowded" if it can be avoided. Last year at the GT game, half our crew had seats up in the 500 end zone section, and the other half had seats right below in the 200 end zone section, it was great, we sat up top, not at all crowded, able to stretch out, no lines for beer or the bathroom, then in the 2nd half, we wandered downstairs, there where empty seats near our other buddies, so we sat down there the second half, the winning FG kicked right at us. I think things are great as is! I don't want to be "crowded" to "create atmosphere" for appearances.
Agree. This would cost absolutely zero to Pitt, Steelers, or Stadium Authority. The sections are well separated to even allow TV to easily keep it pretty hidden.
The only reasons not to do it: (1) the ACC dictates a minimum capacity somehow (doubtful) ; or (2) if Pitt did marketing studies to show selling only 40000 lower/ club at a higher price (for all but marquee games, for which they could sell separate high priced packages that includes the upper decks) simply wouldn't raise as much money as selling 70000 every game at a rock bottom price as they do now. I highly doubt they have done such, since it would inevitably have leaked (if only to give Pgh media another opportunity to mock Pitt). If true chalk it up to typical Pitt short-sightedness and laziness about managing sports.
So u think 30k empty seats isn't weak? Pitt's fan base is what it is. You might see a gradual bump if they win, but nowhere enough to justify a stadium that needs more than 55k seats.
You should probably have stayed awake in economics class. Supply only matters when there's a shortage.
Well if you reduce demand.....aren't you creating that? I am thinking you may have fell asleep.
So reducing demand to create a shortage automatically causes panic buying? Probably should tell that to the guy trying to sell horse saddles to the everyday commuter.
He meant reducing supply can create a shortage and that drives up the market price.
The fewer available tickets, the more you can charge. How much more is an answer nobody knows. It would certainly drive up the value of the ticket but I am unsure on how much.
For example, I am not advocating this but I like to use extreme examples to make economic points:
Pitt announces it is reducing capacity to 25K. Its only using the lower bowl and under no circumstances would it open the upper deck, not even if we were 11-0 and playing for a NC. They also state they are raising the ticket price of lower bowl tickets to $500 each.
What this does is shortens the supply below the demand curve. There are now far more prospective ticket buyers than there are seats available. Not only can Pitt charge more because most of us diehards are going to pay the extra few hundred to be there, but it greatly increases the value of the ticket on the secondary market. For several reasons:
1. Only lowers available, dont have to compete with thousands of tickets selling for the stubhub minimum of $6
2. Reduced supply on the secondary market. Diehards go to most games
3. The reduction in available season tickets mean there are an extra 10K-20K prospective Pitt fans that cant buy single game tickets. Their only way in is through the secondary market. Secondary market demand goes way up.
So instead of not bothering to list a Pitt/GT ticket for $10, you quickly learn how to use Stubhub because you can get $75 each for them now. There's way more incentive to ensure somebody is in your seat. This means mostly all 25K seats are filled for every game.
Now, 25K is too small. You go up to 45K and this all applies but there is a greater supply and lower demand. You go to 70K and you have the disaster we currently have.
I don't want the prices to go up and I don't want it to be harder to get a ticket. It's hard to get Steelers tickets, I usually try to get tickets to the Steelers on a Sunday, where there is a Pitt game on Saturday, it's harder to get the Steelers ticket, so after I get that, I want it to be SUPER EASY to get the Pitt tickets. I'm not going to root against my personal interests.
The easier it is for you to get Pitt tickets, the worse the team is. See the correlation?
Talking about demand etc is getting off track. Just try and make it look better somehow.
And just because they try something doesn't mean they have to keep it forever.
Frankly, Steve should have tried something from day one. Would have been a lot easier to 'expand' the available seating over time if needed.
And just because they try something doesn't mean they have to keep it forever.
Frankly, Steve should have tried something from day one. Would have been a lot easier to 'expand' the available seating over time if needed.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Tune in tomorrow (Thursday) morning for a big site announcement!- Latest: OnCampusStadium
-
-