New Bobby Dodd Stadium survey from AA

All of the seats need to be chair back seats. We will have less seats but that is not a problem for the next few years. I do not understand the complaints about moving people's seats. Simply roll the season ticket holders back a row if necessary. Bench seats are uncomfortable and cheapen the stadium experience.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
All of the seats need to be chair back seats. We will have less seats but that is not a problem for the next few years. I do not understand the complaints about moving people's seats. Simply roll the season ticket holders back a row if necessary. Bench seats are uncomfortable and cheapen the stadium experience.
Click to expand...
You underestimate the complexity of installing seatbacks. If all we do is tear out benches and install chair back seats your knees will be pressing into the seat into the chair in front of you. To do chair backs property would be expensive which is why the survey is asking whether you would be willing to pay an extra $1000 or more for the privilege of leaning back. If they convert all the decent seats to chairback many of the folks will simply relocate to cheaper sections which would reduce revenue. The AA would then need to fill the chair back seats with new ticket holders which have been hard to come by in the past.
 
gtg970g said:
You underestimate the complexity of installing seatbacks. If all we do is tear out benches and install chair back seats your knees will be pressing into the seat into the chair in front of you. To do chair backs property would be expensive which is why the survey is asking whether you would be willing to pay an extra $1000 or more for the privilege of leaning back. If they convert all the decent seats to chairback many of the folks will simply relocate to cheaper sections which would reduce revenue. The AA would then need to fill the chair back seats with new ticket holders which have been hard to come by in the past.
Click to expand...

UNC did it for $6 million for 50k seats and a $6 per game fee. That wasn't too complex for them.

The pricing suggestions in the survey were absurd.
 
05GTCorndog said:
UNC did it for $6 million for 50k seats and a $6 per game fee. That wasn't too complex for them.

The pricing suggestions in the survey were absurd.
Click to expand...
Given the architecture and engineering capabilities available in our our student body and alumni base this should be a project we can accomplish with high quality and minimal cost.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
Given the architecture and engineering capabilities available in our our student body and alumni base this should be a project we can accomplish with high quality and minimal cost.
Click to expand...

GT almost never leverages the expertise it has on hand - everything goes out to the low bidder.

UNC screwed the pooch for years with the godawful bleacher backs they had before they ripped them out and put in seats. I dunno if they had an easier retrofit situation than we did. I guess you could chairback lower east the same way the club seats were done with relative ease. I wonder if the other areas would be the same or harder, and if that’s a change that would run afoul of the “if you change it you have to meet ADA” situation in the west.

JRjr
 
vapspwi said:
GT almost never leverages the expertise it has on hand - everything goes out to the low bidder.

UNC screwed the pooch for years with the godawful bleacher backs they had before they ripped them out and put in seats. I dunno if they had an easier retrofit situation than we did. I guess you could chairback lower east the same way the club seats were done with relative ease. I wonder if the other areas would be the same or harder, and if that’s a change that would run afoul of the “if you change it you have to meet ADA” situation in the west.

JRjr
Click to expand...
What is the insurmountable hurdle with the ADA requirements?
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
What is the insurmountable hurdle with the ADA requirements?
Click to expand...

The story I’ve always heard is that the west stands are somehow exempt from ADA (perhaps because they predate it), but if we ever touch it with construction (like to make it a bowl with the north stands), we’d have to bring it up to ADA standards, which would be kind of an expensive pain (thinking of those steep ramps into the bathrooms and the stands). Presumably it’s an expense we’d rather avoid.

I dunno if swapping out the seats would trigger that requirement, though. Just wondering if it might.

JRjr
 
vapspwi said:
The story I’ve always heard is that the west stands are somehow exempt from ADA (perhaps because they predate it), but if we ever touch it with construction (like to make it a bowl with the north stands), we’d have to bring it up to ADA standards, which would be kind of an expensive pain (thinking of those steep ramps into the bathrooms and the stands). Presumably it’s an expense we’d rather avoid.

I dunno if swapping out the seats would trigger that requirement, though. Just wondering if it might.

JRjr
Click to expand...
Again, we should have resources to assist with this. Given how politically correct the Hill is, I am amazed they are willing to have a major facility on campus that does not comply with the ADA. This has to be easier to deal with than the suggested expansion over Techwood.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
Again, we should have resources to assist with this. Given how politically correct the Hill is, I am amazed they are willing to have a major facility on campus that does not comply with the ADA. This has to be easier to deal with than the suggested expansion over Techwood.
Click to expand...

The west stands comply with ADA in that they've made every reasonable attempt to accommodate being it's a structure built prior to 1991. There's not too much they can really do other than make restroom stalls compliant and provide wheelchair seating.

The north stands being new construction after 1991 means they had to be designed and built in full compliance. The club seats and lounge, same thing.

The east, north, and west stands are considered separate "items" that make up BDS.
 
georgia_tech_swagger said:
Better seats command more fans and dollars.
Click to expand...
I agree that seat quality has a marginal effect on interest in sitting in said seat. But c'mon, the stadium will never be as "comfortable" as home – but it can always be more "atmospheric" than home. We should be working a lot more on atmosphere and a lot less on comfort, food quality, etc.

And what is 'atmosphere'?, you ask... It's having a coherent vision for use of the P.A. It's having an engaged student body. It's having high quality opponents that generate competitive (i.e., hard-to-win) games. It's having security processes that are quick and friendly and willing to make allowances for unusual situations. (It is *OK* to grant an exception to that elderly lady.)

Every organization struggles how to balance retaining existing customers who like xy&z, while attracting new customers who like pq&r. I agree with @athensjacket that the central issue is good football – that's the one thing the existing customers and the new customers always agree on. But unfortunately, the primary issue in winning games is a once-every-five-years crapshoot on head coach hiring.
 
Just think about where we could be right now if we'd taken the money previously spent on stadium renovations/additions and put it toward the recruiting budget, coach's salaries, weight rooms and the like. Then we might be ready to expand.
 
Not a popular opinion but for whatever reason, Tech fans are not good football fans. We can discuss "winning cures attendance problems" but I do not think that to be accurate at Tech. The Dodd years were considered some of the most successful yet go back and look at attendance. Rarely a sellout. Look at 1990, the week after upsetting #1 UVA in Charlottesville, returning home to face VT and the attendance was just over 43,000, which was 6,000 less than the Clemson game earlier that year. The indication is that attendance at Grant Field depends on the opponent bringing a large contingent.

I do not have the answer to the problem. I am a sidewalk fan that has held season tickets for many years but have ceased to enjoy the experience and have given up the tickets. Honestly, not just at GT but think the game has passed me by and I think that to be generally true for the older generation.
 
cbee said:
Not a popular opinion but for whatever reason, Tech fans are not good football fans. We can discuss "winning cures attendance problems" but I do not think that to be accurate at Tech. The Dodd years were considered some of the most successful yet go back and look at attendance. Rarely a sellout. Look at 1990, the week after upsetting #1 UVA in Charlottesville, returning home to face VT and the attendance was just over 43,000, which was 6,000 less than the Clemson game earlier that year. The indication is that attendance at Grant Field depends on the opponent bringing a large contingent.

I do not have the answer to the problem. I am a sidewalk fan that has held season tickets for many years but have ceased to enjoy the experience and have given up the tickets. Honestly, not just at GT but think the game has passed me by and I think that to be generally true for the older generation.
Click to expand...
Also the Clemson game in 2014, senior night (afternoon) and playing for a change to go the ACC Championship. Couldn't get 50k to show up. I was in the stands thinking to myself "where the hell is everybody?".
 
cbee said:
Not a popular opinion but for whatever reason, Tech fans are not good football fans. We can discuss "winning cures attendance problems" but I do not think that to be accurate at Tech. The Dodd years were considered some of the most successful yet go back and look at attendance. Rarely a sellout. Look at 1990, the week after upsetting #1 UVA in Charlottesville, returning home to face VT and the attendance was just over 43,000, which was 6,000 less than the Clemson game earlier that year. The indication is that attendance at Grant Field depends on the opponent bringing a large contingent.

I do not have the answer to the problem. I am a sidewalk fan that has held season tickets for many years but have ceased to enjoy the experience and have given up the tickets. Honestly, not just at GT but think the game has passed me by and I think that to be generally true for the older generation.
Click to expand...

Your memory of 1990 isn't entirely accurate. After the ball got rolling that year, by the end of September, attendance was at or near capacity. The stadium was purported to hold 46,000 at the time, but later (after capacity was increased to 55,000) GT officials admitted it had only held around 43,000. I don't know how they crammed 46,000 in for Clemson and South Carolina, but according to the official figures, they did. The crowd in attendance for the VT game might have been disappointing, but ticket sales were very near capacity.

Winning sporadically won't pack the house, but winning consistently will. What won't work is wasting a lot of money adding distractions and frills to the game experience and jacking ticket prices out of sight in an attempt to pay for them. At some point, if we start packing the house we have, then would be the time to start considering adding to it. The only money we should be considering spending on the stadium at this point is maybe chairbacks, IMO. And I could take them or leave them. All I ask is a winner on the field.

2019 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team - Wikipedia
 
athensjacket said:
Your memory of 1990 isn't entirely accurate. After the ball got rolling that year, by the end of September, attendance was at or near capacity. The stadium was purported to hold 46,000 at the time, but later (after capacity was increased to 55,000) GT officials admitted it had only held around 43,000. I don't know how they crammed 46,000 in for Clemson and South Carolina, but according to the official figures, they did. The crowd in attendance for the VT game might have been disappointing, but ticket sales were very near capacity.

Winning sporadically won't pack the house, but winning consistently will. What won't work is wasting a lot of money adding distractions and frills to the game experience and jacking ticket prices out of sight in an attempt to pay for them. At some point, if we start packing the house we have, then would be the time to start considering adding to it. The only money we should be considering spending on the stadium at this point is maybe chairbacks, IMO. And I could take them or leave them. All I ask is a winner on the field.

2019 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I'll stick by the numbers as printed. The only time we come close to capacity is when the opponent brings a large crowd. In 1990 it was USCe and Clemson. Was at the VT game and am not privy to sales but had the same reaction as gtg970g
athensjacket said:
Your memory of 1990 isn't entirely accurate. After the ball got rolling that year, by the end of September, attendance was at or near capacity. The stadium was purported to hold 46,000 at the time, but later (after capacity was increased to 55,000) GT officials admitted it had only held around 43,000. I don't know how they crammed 46,000 in for Clemson and South Carolina, but according to the official figures, they did. The crowd in attendance for the VT game might have been disappointing, but ticket sales were very near capacity.

Winning sporadically won't pack the house, but winning consistently will. What won't work is wasting a lot of money adding distractions and frills to the game experience and jacking ticket prices out of sight in an attempt to pay for them. At some point, if we start packing the house we have, then would be the time to start considering adding to it. The only money we should be considering spending on the stadium at this point is maybe chairbacks, IMO. And I could take them or leave them. All I ask is a winner on the field.

2019 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
I'll stick with the numbers as printed. I was at the VT game in 1990 and had much the same reaction that gtg970g mentions about Clemson 2014, "where the heck is everybody"! Of course, maybe you are privy to ticket sales on that day, I was not and know it was a cold, windy day but coming off a big, come from behind win in Charlottesville you would think we could pack out a small stadium. As to your statement that my memory isn't entirely accurate, I would disagree but not argue. The numbers show that there were only two sell outs that year, Clemson and South Carolina. That tells me that without a large crowd attending from our opponent, we will not sell out no matter how good the product on the field is.
 
cbee said:
I'll stick by the numbers as printed. The only time we come close to capacity is when the opponent brings a large crowd. In 1990 it was USCe and Clemson. Was at the VT game and am not privy to sales but had the same reaction as gtg970g

I'll stick with the numbers as printed. I was at the VT game in 1990 and had much the same reaction that gtg970g mentions about Clemson 2014, "where the heck is everybody"! Of course, maybe you are privy to ticket sales on that day, I was not and know it was a cold, windy day but coming off a big, come from behind win in Charlottesville you would think we could pack out a small stadium. As to your statement that my memory isn't entirely accurate, I would disagree but not argue. The numbers show that there were only two sell outs that year, Clemson and South Carolina. That tells me that without a large crowd attending from our opponent, we will not sell out no matter how good the product on the field is.
Click to expand...
According to this, and I believe it to be accurate, capacity at Bobby Dodd was 43,719 in 1990.

Bobby Dodd Stadium - Wikipedia


Capacity55,000 (2003–present)
43,719 (1989–2002)

As I said, "The crowd in attendance for the [cold and windy] VT game might have been disappointing, but ticket sales were very near capacity." Ticket sales were 43,263 for that game - a mere 456 under capacity. This for what was at that time a non-conference game. I am not "privy" to ticket sales for that game. That information is online, and I linked the website above.
 
The weather was sunny for the Virginia Tech game, but saying it was cold and windy does not do the weather justice that day. Wind was a steady thirty mph with gusts above forty and the temperature was never out of the forties. Watching Sisson try to kick that day was entertaining, to say the least. The Tech fans that traveled to Atlanta and then Orlando that year were awesome.

The disappointment was the next year. Before we could come home and celebrate the championship we had lost to Penn State. The rest of the year was OK, then Ross left and B*** L**** came in and the opportunity to really grow ticket demand was gone quickly.
 
we had two games of over 46,000 that year making a capacity of 43,263 impossible.
 
cbee said:
we had two games of over 46,000 that year making a capacity of 43,263 impossible.
Click to expand...
There may have been some cooking of the books going on. At the time, the official capacity was still listed at 46,000, and only later did Tech officials admit that it actually had been 43,719. And I know we have a problem with attendance in general, but my contention is that fans are drawn to winning teams far more than fancy stadiums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top