SP's courtside luxury suites have finally been copied!

[Sean Miller Fan]

http://www.google.com/search?safe=a...-zCmvM:;RDF1eG3H-zCmvM:&imgrc=RDF1eG3H-zCmvM:

Avaya Stadium, the new home of the San Jose Earthquakes have pitch-side luxury suites very similar to SP's grand creation. San Jose did it right, however, because they elevated their suites to allow for 3 rows of PERMANENT seating so it doesn't look like crap on TV.

I'm not against the idea of courtside suites but they shouldn't be on the same level as the court so that you have 3 rows of temporary seating that looks goofy as heck.

It only took 15 years for SP's idea to get copied (which tells you it was a bad one). Luckily, for San Jose they didnt make the same mistake of putting the suites on the same level as the playing surface.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ah, SMF, people drool over the Cowboys (relatively) new stadium and it has field level suits as well. Personally I think those are awful seats for a football game, but the Cowboys need a wheelbarrow to get all the money they make from those suites to the bank.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

Ah, SMF, people drool over the Cowboys (relatively) new stadium and it has field level suits as well. Personally I think those are awful seats for a football game, but the Cowboys need a wheelbarrow to get all the money they make from those suites to the bank.

Even if I could afford them I wouldn't get them. I vastly prefer being higher up than field or court level because I like to be able to watch the movement of an entire team without having my view partly blocked by the nearer players, officials and coaches. Nose bleed seats are too high up but court or field level aren't good either for watching the flow of the game. Give me center court lower third of upper deck every time!!

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Ah, SMF, people drool over the Cowboys (relatively) new stadium and it has field level suits as well. Personally I think those are awful seats for a football game, but the Cowboys need a wheelbarrow to get all the money they make from those suites to the bank.

Yes and no. Those "seats" are "obstructed view seats" not really intended for fans to watch football......its fairly difficult to see over 6'6 300 lb football players on the same level as you. People dont buy those seats to watch football. I know a guy who was part of that Steeler Super Bowl lawsuit and were given seats there and he said it was beyond awful, one of the reasons for the lawsuit.

That section is basically a field level bar. So I dont count it as something similar to SP's creation.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Ok, so field level boxes at one arena/stadium are completely different than the field level boxes at a different venue. Sure.

If that's the standard we are going to use then why not pretend that no other place in the history of the world has done what Pitt did?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Ok, so field level boxes at one arena/stadium are completely different than the field level boxes at a different venue. Sure.

If that's the standard we are going to use then why not pretend that no other place in the history of the world has done what Pitt did?

Yes, of course its different, much much different. What are you talking about? Jerry has a field level in lieu of pavement behind the benches. I actually think its a great idea because although you cant see the game from the bar, its a cool place to watch it on TV. Its better than having empty pavement behind the benches.

That said, even if you count Jerry as someone who copied Pederson the Great, that would only make 2 of perhaps 100 or so pro and college arenas built since the Pete, 99 percent of them thought courtside luxury suites arent profitable enough.......or else they would have put them in. The market has spoken. Though maybe with the suites at Avaya Stadium, the courtside suite idea will gain more popularity, but i doubt you'll see anymore that use temporary seating built on risers.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

What are you talking about? The boxes at AT&T are the exact same thing as the boxes at the Pete. The first rows above the boxes start 15 feet (or whatever the exact distance is) above field level. Without those boxes there would have been more "regular" seats in that area. They did the same thing that we did, in effect they removed hundreds of "regular" seats that they could have sold for a good price and replaced them with boxes that they can sell for a lot more, even though there are less seats in total.

And I agree with you that those seats aren't actually any good. But so what? People (corporations) are willing to pay big money to sit there, just like people (corporations) are willing to pay Pitt big money to sit in those seats at the Pete. We may not like the fact that it is too frequently all about the money, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

You're wrong. The 1st Row of actual regular seating at AT&T starts the usual 10 feet above field level which is the standard at NFL stadiums, Heinz included. The boxes simply take the place of a cement wall covered by Cowboys banners. Those boxes didnt cost the stadium any regular seating.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The notion that they could not replace either of these field level suites with a few more rows of "regular" seats is both absurd and typical at the same time.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Your first picture shows endzone boxes similar to what the Steelers have now.

Your 2nd picture shows the field level sideline bar. You watch the game on TV in the bar because you cant see over the players' heads. As I've said, the first row of regular seating on the sidelines is about 10 feet above the field which is par for the course for NFL stadiums.

The only difference between your 2nd picture and Heinz Field is that Heinz and every other NFL stadium have a cement wall covered by team banners. Instead of the wall, Jerry has a bar/club/box. They take up 0 regular seats.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

The first picture shows end zone field level boxes that have seats that extend down to about three feet off field level, a heck of a lot lower to the field than the ten feet that you claim is some sort of NFL rule. The second picture shows the sideline boxes that shows that if they extended the seats down as low as they do in the end zone, which you claim that they aren't allowed to do and yet somehow they have done it, there would be enough space for at least a couple more rows of seats.

Seriously, one of the best thing about you is that even when you are confronted with evidence that you position on something is completely wrong you still find ways to pretend that you were right all along. It's a great shtick on a message board, I just hope you don't carry that over into the "real world", because that could get kind of scary.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Do you honestly not understand the point I'm making?

Lets try this again. Forget the endzone suites. They are relevant to this conversation. Heck, even the Rooneys have them now. The Seahawks have them also. Endzone seats can be much lower off the ground in NFL stadiums because you dont have to see over players' heads. Even before the new stuff at Heinz, they had endzone seats a few feet above field level.

As I've said 10 times now, Jerry's field level bar ONLY ONLY ONLY takes the place of a cement wall. He couldn't put regular seats in there because they have to be elevated high enougu off ground to see over players' heads.
Your endzone suites don't prove whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[levance2]

As I've said 10 times now, Jerry's field level bar ONLY ONLY ONLY takes the place of a cement wall. He couldn't put regular seats in there because they have to be elevated high enougu off ground to see over players' heads.
Your endzone suites don't prove whatever point you are trying to make.

If all you are arguing about is that dugout bar in the second photo, then that isn't at all similar to what is at the Pete. The Pete is exactly like the first photo, and there are not a bunch of people standing in front of them at the Pete either.

I'm not sure what your point was in the first place. If the suites make Pitt money, then they are a success. Who cares if we're the only place on the planet that does it?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

If all you are arguing about is that dugout bar in the second photo, then that isn't at all similar to what is at the Pete. The Pete is exactly like the first photo, and there are not a bunch of people standing in front of them at the Pete either.

I'm not sure what your point was in the first place. If the suites make Pitt money, then they are a success. Who cares if we're the only place on the planet that does it?

Thank you. I was trying to say that Jerry's field level bar isnt like our courtside luxury suites for 2 reasons:

1. You cant watch the game from them. You have to watch on TV inside if you care at all about football.

2. They didnt replace any regular seating. The bar is in place of a cement wall.

Thirdly, my point is that the market has spoken and the idea of getting rid of 500 high priced premium seats for 6 corporate suites was a bad idea financially. Its better to have the 500 high priced premium "regular" suites than the 6 suites. If that were not true, more teams would have copied Pederson.

 

[levance2]

Thirdly, my point is that the market has spoken and the idea of getting rid of 500 high priced premium seats for 6 corporate suites was a bad idea financially. Its better to have the 500 high priced premium "regular" suites than the 6 suites. If that were not true, more teams would have copied Pederson.

You're assuming:

1. Those 6 suites don't make a lot of money
2. The 6 suites actually displaced 500 high priced seats
   
3. Those 500 high priced seats don't still exist somewhere else
   
4. Those 500 people buying the seats don't pay something somewhat less somewhere else
5. That Pitt is losing money overall
6. Pedersen unilaterally conceived this idea and overruled any financial analysis to the contrary

If those 6 items are all true, then you are correct. As usual, however, you are making wild accusations with little factual information presented.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I think we all agree that thise suites look really awful as the TV background but lets forget that for a second.

Here's what I know, industry experts study arena constructions. I remember SP and co. Studied several new constructions at the time, Bud Walton at Ark was one. The Pete has to have been looked at and NOBODY....except maybe the SJ Earthquakes copied the idea. If you're looking for proof that those suites aren't a good idea, mostly for financial arenas, the fact that nobody copied it tells us all we need to know.

 

[levance2]

If you're looking for proof that those suites aren't a good idea, mostly for financial arenas, the fact that nobody copied it tells us all we need to know.

Again, I don't care about anyone else. Does it make Pitt more money than the alternative? If yes, then I'm glad. Whether it is viable for anyone outside of Pitt is meaningless to me. I don't imagine anyone is modeling a new venue after Cameron Indoor either, but it works for Duke for many reasons that can't be copied.

 

[DT_PITT]

Excuse me for asking, but why is this an issue?

 

[NTOP]

If all you are arguing about is that dugout bar in the second photo, then that isn't at all similar to what is at the Pete. The Pete is exactly like the first photo, and there are not a bunch of people standing in front of them at the Pete either.

I'm not sure what your point was in the first place. If the suites make Pitt money, then they are a success. Who cares if we're the only place on the planet that does it?

Actually, those seats at the Pete are simple little stands, with the "club" area at court level behind them. That first pic from JTPF shows justs an extension, at ground level, of a couple rows. Those would be awful sideline seats. This is fun, can we pound in a couple bars of Sweet Caroline or the SP-shortened "Victory Song", then all run for the busses???

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Actually, those seats at the Pete are simple little stands, with the "club" area at court level behind them. That first pic from JTPF shows justs an extension, at ground level, of a couple rows. Those would be awful sideline seats. This is fun, can we pound in a couple bars of Sweet Caroline or the SP-shortened "Victory Song", then all run for the busses???

And I'm saying they'd make more money with 500 high priced mega donor seats there. Remember, because of the Zoo seats, there are no true sideline courtside sections (besides the VIP 2 rows). I would think that a lot of rich people would spend quite a bit to sit 2 rows behind Dixon or Coach K. In a pro sports town, Pitt has found it difficult to even sell all the luxury suites to begin with. I remember one year, one of the courtside suites was left unsold. Even now, the upper suites are hard to sell. You can walk past them and see the sign for who owns the suite. Several are owned by Pitt schools or departments which is the equivalent of punting becauseno big corps would buy them. We probably have too many.

As for Cameron Indoor, Pitt, actually modeled their student section after that. Pitt gave up the high priced courtside seats to make a better student section instead of just sitting them behind the basket like at most places. I agree with this.

 

[levance2]

There are absolutely not 500 people who would greatly overpay to sit a few feet closer at the Pete, nor are there 500 general fans to offset the movement of those big donors from higher seats.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

There are absolutely not 500 people who would greatly overpay to sit a few feet closer at the Pete, nor are there 500 general fans to offset the movement of those big donors from higher seats.

OK. I would appreciate if you could answer these 2 very direct questions.

1. Your best guess. Does Pitt make more money off the courtside luxury suites than they would by not having them and having an estimated 500 extra "premium courtside seats."

2. If yes, why do you think every other college or pro arena built since the Pete has decided to make less money by not having courtside luxury suites.

 

[levance2]

OK. I would appreciate if you could answer these 2 very direct questions.

1. Your best guess. Does Pitt make more money off the courtside luxury suites than they would by not having them and having an estimated 500 extra "premium courtside seats."

2. If yes, why do you think every other college or pro arena built since the Pete has decided to make less money by not having courtside luxury suites.

1) I have no idea how much those suites cost, but I imagine they are expensive. I also imagine the people to sit in your premium seats already pay a premium for courtside seats or club seats, so the increased margin of a few rows of new seats is probably not all that much.

2) I think other schools probably have more donors who are willing to pay for those type of seats than Pitt does, and/or don't have the student arrangement of the Zoo, so they probably stand to make more money by offering those premium seats all the way around.

I have been very clear in this thread, I have no idea what the revenue looks like, nor do you. If it ends up positive for Pitt, then it is a great idea. If it doesn't, then it is not. Someone must have thrown it out as an interesting new option for them, and some financial analysis was performed, and that's what they did. I obviously have far less evidence than they did when making the decision. Whether it is correct now in hindsight is immaterial.

There are not 500 rich donors who want to pay $10K for seats there, but boycott because suites exist. They still donate and buy other seats.