Bobby Dodd Renovation in the NE Stands

[roadkill]

Some have speculated that level roof is by design so it can support further projects down the line if there’s demand for it.

I suspect there was some early concept-level discussion around putting some special seating/event space on top, but budgeting and timeline constraints pushed it to another project. At some point, you have to finalize the plan and move forward.

 

[awbuzz]

 

[Tommy_Taylor_1972]

but can they block, tackle, pass, catch, kick, defend, and all the other basics now that they are stronger and faster and bigger? I remember in spring of 1968 working out in the old hot dirty weight room under the north stands that had been used by many great players who were not necessarily bigger, stronger, and faster, such as Bill.

 

[stingerman]

Fanning Center Officially Opens

Georgia Tech cuts ribbon on 100,000-square-foot student-athlete performance center

ramblinwreck.com

Very interesting that Alpert in his remarks specifically mentioned "what may be out there after" the ACC.

“Today we are opening a building, but we are making a statement to Georgia Tech, to college sports as a whole, to the ACC and what may be out there after. We are making a statement that Georgia Tech is here to compete and that we’re here to support out athletes.”

 

[apatriot1776]

Georgia Tech’s $90M facility shows new business calculus for college athletics

Georgia Tech is opening the 108,000-square-foot, $90 million Thomas A. Fanning Student-Athlete Performance Center, emphasizing function over flash.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Great article, and an interesting bit about an upcoming $70 million renovation to BDS - wonder if the scope of Full Steam Ahead has changed/reduced since Alpert's inauguration as AD

 

[TooTall]

Georgia Tech’s $90M facility shows new business calculus for college athletics

Georgia Tech is opening the 108,000-square-foot, $90 million Thomas A. Fanning Student-Athlete Performance Center, emphasizing function over flash.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

Great article, and an interesting bit about an upcoming $70 million renovation to BDS - wonder if the scope of Full Steam Ahead has changed/reduced since Alpert's inauguration as AD

Getting rid of chairbacks maybe..hopefully!

 

[bobongo]

Getting rid of chairbacks maybe..hopefully!

I also would hope so, but the article indicates chairbacks are still planned:

"Alpert said a planned $70 million renovation of Bobby Dodd Stadium will add chairbacks..."

 

[TooTall]

I also would hope so, but the article indicates chairbacks are still planned:

"Alpert said a planned $70 million renovation of Bobby Dodd Stadium will add chairbacks..."

poo

 

[AUFC]

I still don't understand folks aversion to the chairbacks. We just had our best season in a decade and had attendances of 38k, 48k, 45k, 51k, 52k, and 52k. The previous season we were 40k, 32k, 37k, 47k, 34k. If the team starts out 0-2 or 2-2 or whatever, a lot of the folks who came to our games last season will likely drop off. Looking at the Upper North or Upper East and just seeing rows upon rows of empty bleachers is such a vibe killer. I can tell you this: the most raucous environment I've been to in years was an at-capacity 4,792 KSU Convocation Center. I have been to plenty of 4,792 attendee games at McCamish Pavilion recently and this experience blew McCamish out of the water. Drop capacity to 40k-42k and every game will be bouncing like Pitt last season. This will be a blood-pumping ticket the whole city is fighting and scratching for.

 

[bobongo]

I still don't understand folks aversion to the chairbacks. We just had our best season in a decade and had attendances of 38k, 48k, 45k, 51k, 52k, and 52k. The previous season we were 40k, 32k, 37k, 47k, 34k. If the team starts out 0-2 or 2-2 or whatever, a lot of the folks who came to our games last season will likely drop off. Looking at the Upper North or Upper East and just seeing rows upon rows of empty bleachers is such a vibe killer. I can tell you this: the most raucous environment I've been to in years was an at-capacity 4,792 KSU Convocation Center. I have been to plenty of 4,792 attendee games at McCamish Pavilion recently and this experience blew McCamish out of the water. Drop capacity to 40k-42k and every game will be bouncing like Pitt last season. This will be a blood-pumping ticket the whole city is fighting and scratching for.

You just made the case for dropping chairbacks. Attendance is on the upswing, and last year had four crowds exceeding proposed capacity of 47,000.

"If the team starts out 0-2..." And what if it starts out 2-0? Then what?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Chair backs are great. But ONLY if you add more seats. If Tech keeps improving every year as we have been I could see attendance topping 60,000. Atlanta has a huge number of potential sidewalk fans.

 

[TooTall]

I still don't understand folks aversion to the chairbacks. We just had our best season in a decade and had attendances of 38k, 48k, 45k, 51k, 52k, and 52k. The previous season we were 40k, 32k, 37k, 47k, 34k. If the team starts out 0-2 or 2-2 or whatever, a lot of the folks who came to our games last season will likely drop off. Looking at the Upper North or Upper East and just seeing rows upon rows of empty bleachers is such a vibe killer. I can tell you this: the most raucous environment I've been to in years was an at-capacity 4,792 KSU Convocation Center. I have been to plenty of 4,792 attendee games at McCamish Pavilion recently and this experience blew McCamish out of the water. Drop capacity to 40k-42k and every game will be bouncing like Pitt last season. This will be a blood-pumping ticket the whole city is fighting and scratching for.

In the most non-threatening way, please come visit me at section 121 during the opener and I will show you my aversion to chairbacks.

And get this, I'm ok with sections of chairbacks, but I hope there are sections with bleachers. Is there really that much demand for chairbacks anyway?

 

[AUFC]

In the most non-threatening way, please come visit me at section 121 during the opener and I will show you my aversion to chairbacks.

And get this, I'm ok with sections of chairbacks, but I hope there are sections with bleachers. Is there really that much demand for chairbacks anyway?

I've seen that photo on here of you and James Banks a long time back, I know those limbs gotta go somewhere TooTall

 

[apatriot1776]

You just made the case for dropping chairbacks. Attendance is on the upswing, and last year had four crowds exceeding proposed capacity of 47,000.

"If the team starts out 0-2..." And what if it starts out 2-0? Then what?

For all those games except Pitt, we had to give away or heavily discount a lot of tickets to hit those numbers.
I'm all for public goodwill, but I'd argue it's better for the health of the program to have 42k paying customers than 42k paying customers and 8k handouts

 

[bobongo]

For all those games except Pitt, we had to give away or heavily discount a lot of tickets to hit those numbers.
I'm all for public goodwill, but I'd argue it's better for the health of the program to have 42k paying customers than 42k paying customers and 8k handouts

Why? Also, I would argue that attendance is rising and your 42,000 number is way too low, projecting into the future. More seats with more butts in them = more enthusiasm. Reducing capacity when attendance is rising seems short-sighted to me. We're heading in the wrong direction. And is it a fine thing to reward our fans by reducing capacity so we can jack up their (our) ticket prices? Is that what builds the fan base?

After the reduction, the only stadia in the ACC smaller than Grant Field will be SMU, Duke, and Wake. In the rest of the P-4, it will be bigger than only 5 other stadia, four in the Big 12 and Vanderbilt. There is not one stadium in the B!G, which we aspire to join, smaller than our newly downsized dinky little stadium.

I don't get the whole negative attitude in the air around here. What if we lose our first two games? What if we can't beat anyone OOC besides cupcakes? What if we can't fill our stadium? We're thinking small when we should be thinking big. We have the regime in place to think big, now, so why don't we do it? If anything, we should be adding seats, not subtracting them.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Why? Also, I would argue that attendance is rising and your 42,000 number is way too low, projecting into the future. More seats with more butts in them = more enthusiasm. Reducing capacity when attendance is rising seems short-sighted to me. We're heading in the wrong direction. And is it a fine thing to reward our fans by reducing capacity so we can jack up their (our) ticket prices? Is that what builds the fan base?

After the reduction, the only stadia in the ACC smaller than Grant Field will be SMU, Duke, and Wake. In the rest of the P-4, it will be bigger than only 5 other stadia, four in the Big 12 and Vanderbilt. There is not one stadium in the B!G, which we aspire to join, smaller than our newly downsized dinky little stadium.

I don't get the whole negative attitude in the air around here. What if we lose our first two games? What if we can't beat anyone OOC besides cupcakes? What if we can't fill our stadium? We're thinking small when we should be thinking big. We have the regime in place to think big, now, so why don't we do it? If anything, we should be adding seats, not subtracting them.

And, I would add, that in the escalating NIL arms race, you just put a millstone around the neck of any recruiter if Tech is seen as a downsizing institution.

 

[bobongo]

And, I would add, that in the escalating NIL arms race, you just put a millstone around the neck of any recruiter if Tech is seen as a downsizing institution.

It absolutely sends the wrong message. For top recruits we're competing with teams that have stadia double the size.

 

[apatriot1776]

Why? Also, I would argue that attendance is rising and your 42,000 number is way too low, projecting into the future. More seats with more butts in them = more enthusiasm. Reducing capacity when attendance is rising seems short-sighted to me. We're heading in the wrong direction. And is it a fine thing to reward our fans by reducing capacity so we can jack up their (our) ticket prices? Is that what builds the fan base?

After the reduction, the only stadia in the ACC smaller than Grant Field will be SMU, Duke, and Wake. In the rest of the P-4, it will be bigger than only 5 other stadia, four in the Big 12 and Vanderbilt. There is not one stadium in the B!G, which we aspire to join, smaller than our newly downsized dinky little stadium.

For the record, I would want to stay around 47-48k. Also, Northwestern is smaller by a lot at 35k, though they are a notable exception.

As to why, that's just economics. Giving a product away for free devalues the product you sold (ie. season ticket holders and full-price customers). I considered buying season tickets last year and did the math, and it was comparable to buy single-game tickets to the UN by game. Because of the sales, I ended up saving over $100 by buying individual tickets over getting a season ticket in the Upper North. Same with several coworkers that sat next to me. If you want to incentivize somebody to not buy a full-price ticket, set the expectation that every game is gonna be on a fire sale at some point.

Judging by how quiet the crowd was in the Upper East when it was full of staffers against VT, I don't think giving away tickets necessarily meant more enthusiasm.

Attendance is rising, but in the recent high water marks in GT history, we were attracting around 41k from 1999-2001 (including pre-UN), 48-50k in the big games from 2008-09, and 47-52k in 2014. Moreover since 2008, CFB attendance is down across the board 10%. There is a macro trend of fans staying home that are affecting every team, even if we consider ourselves the exception. Unless we start making the CFP consistently, I don't see us beating those marks consistently.

Our goal should not be to make it so small that we can jack up the prices. That's an awful precedent and it goes against AD RA and Pres Cabrera's ethos of bringing new eyes to campus. But we also should not have a stadium so big that we need to give away 8-10k tickets as a top-12 team against a conference opponent!

 

[BeeRBee]

From the Sports Business Journal article linked above:

Georgia Tech isn’t going quite that far, but Alpert said a planned $70 million renovation of Bobby Dodd Stadium will add chairbacks and upgrade suites. He projects the renovation will generate returns of nearly twice the annual mortgage payment needed to finance it. The school also expects to raise ticket prices in stages, with a larger increase before construction and a smaller jump after the project is completed.

There is an AJC article today about the bond issue to finance the renovation being approved.

 

[bobongo]

For the record, I would want to stay around 47-48k. Also, Northwestern is smaller by a lot at 35k, though they are a notable exception.

As to why, that's just economics. Giving a product away for free devalues the product you sold (ie. season ticket holders and full-price customers). I considered buying season tickets last year and did the math, and it was comparable to buy single-game tickets to the UN by game. Because of the sales, I ended up saving over $100 by buying individual tickets over getting a season ticket in the Upper North. Same with several coworkers that sat next to me. If you want to incentivize somebody to not buy a full-price ticket, set the expectation that every game is gonna be on a fire sale at some point.

Judging by how quiet the crowd was in the Upper East when it was full of staffers against VT, I don't think giving away tickets necessarily meant more enthusiasm.

Attendance is rising, but in the recent high water marks in GT history, we were attracting around 41k from 1999-2001 (including pre-UN), 48-50k in the big games from 2008-09, and 47-52k in 2014. Moreover since 2008, CFB attendance is down across the board 10%. There is a macro trend of fans staying home that are affecting every team, even if we consider ourselves the exception. Unless we start making the CFP consistently, I don't see us beating those marks consistently.

Our goal should not be to make it so small that we can jack up the prices. That's an awful precedent and it goes against AD RA and Pres Cabrera's ethos of bringing new eyes to campus. But we also should not have a stadium so big that we need to give away 8-10k tickets as a top-12 team against a conference opponent!

I see the hindsight clearly, but I'm looking forward. What I see in the future is a rising team with a shrinking stadium that will (I believe) need to be expanded once again down the road. Would that we had just left it alone and put all the wasted money to better use. And yes, the current idea is to shrink the stadium in order to increase ticket prices. Ugh.