JTS Improvements - Want More

clonedude

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2006
33,036
29,276
113
I agree the next stadium project should be expanding the press box on the West side to include not only boxes but premium seating, that is where the dollars are at today in stadium, premium seating. After that look at ticket number to determine go big and do add a third deck to the east side or go small and add premium seating and regular seating on the North side.

Where ISU is going to be in trouble is parking, which was why I said a couple years ago, move the intermural fields out by the cross country course and put in some type of parking garage on the east side of university. Instead we have redone those field, great for the kids, but would it have been that much of a pain for them to travel out of the cross country course?

Bingo! JP left a TON of money on the table by not making the intramural fields all parking lots. If the football program continues to grow, that will look like a horrible decision very soon. In fact, if it continues to grow, he may end up having to dig up the fields anyway at some point and making them lots.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
Where ISU is going to be in trouble is parking, which was why I said a couple years ago, move the intermural fields out by the cross country course and put in some type of parking garage on the east side of university. Instead we have redone those field, great for the kids, but would it have been that much of a pain for them to travel out of the cross country course?

I was talking to my family about this recently, I think ISU needs to look at a parking structure. Especially when the A/E district takes up half the parking. I think they should look at putting in a Parking ramp somewhere Probably towards the Hilton/CY area, I know they said there would be one under the Hotel, but Im not sure that is big enough.

I realize this would not be for those that want to tailgate but a lot of people dont tailgate or go to another tailgate, and just park. Ultimately you dont want to take away our tailgating but you want to increase parking near Jack/Hilton especially when we lose so much when they put in the future development.

I agree that in the IM fields things could have been done different, but I dont see that happening now. But who knows.
 

theshadow

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
19,977
19,639
113
Bingo! JP left a TON of money on the table by not making the intramural fields all parking lots. If the football program continues to grow, that will look like a horrible decision very soon. In fact, if it continues to grow, he may end up having to dig up the fields anyway at some point and making them lots.

Rec Services land. Not really JP's choice.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
Agree. If we ever want to be big time, we need to have a pressbox/suites/box seats going the entire length of the west side.

I don't want to pay big bucks to sit in an endzone, but that's just me. If I'm going to pay big bucks I want a suite or some really nice box seats with a view from the side of the field, not in the endzone. Screw doing anything more to either endzone at this point.... concentrate on adding any additional seats or suites along the top of the west side IMO.
There are suites and club sections on both sides now. between the decks. Both are sold out and have a wait list, but they are there. That is part of the reason we dont have a gigantic sky box now. Because those sections already exist between the decks on both sidelines.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
Well, this thread had a good run.
This thread was always about dreaming about and talking about future expansions, not about the SPC project, somehow that project took over this thread. The SPC I thought had its own thread, but everything about it ended up on here.
 

IcSyU

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2007
28,298
6,962
113
Obviously people ******** about the parking in Ames have never been to any other stadiums. The stadiums everyone parks in the immediate vicinity are few and very far between. KC is about the only one off the top of my head I've been to that has a better parking situation than ISU.

ISU wins by parking demand exceeding supply....gets people to open their wallets. If suddenly they have immediate vicinity parking available what incentive do people have to shell out donations?

I could be wrong but I believe ISU also needs the green space to keep their campus green space allocation in line for a land grand university.
 

Aclone

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2007
26,899
23,412
113
Des Moines, Ia.
You can't take the highest demand time in the history of Iowa State football and extrapolate that as the going rate from now on.
Actually, I can. It’s just as legitimate as someone using the word “never”.

Besides which, “extrapolating on” a nine win season is not what I did. Among other things, I used 2019’s peak attendance numbers. Remind me again what our record was?

Oh yeah. They went 7-5 on the season, didn’t they?.

Matter of fact, that record of 61,500 goes back to 2015. 3-9 that year. That mark has now been hit eight times, with a pass for 2020. Nary a single nine win season there. So apparently, nine win seasons aren’t a requirement for selling out.

Nor were they part of my underlying assumption.

What’s ridiculous is that you seem to think that the only way to increase revenue flow is to increase premium seating.

In an arena like college football, you have to cater to the young entry level consumers as well, nurture and build their loyalty, who replace your current donors twenty or thirty years down the line as their buying power increases.

I’m kind of amazed at how some people in this thread seem to miss that simple fact. Trust me, Jamie doesn’t.

All that not even mentioning the fact that simply expanding to 70K (for example, your number) would result in roughly a 14% increase in concessions and other attendance related revenues. Plus associated merchandising revenues. Again, it’s about creating opportunities to build loyalty.

To answer your initial question, Cyclone football has always been a sleeping giant. The fan loyalty over the last forty years proves that. And that’s why it’s trending opposite most of the rest of the nation.
 

cysmiley

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 30, 2012
2,519
2,366
113
Good luck with north end zone seating. You can generate a ROI with luxury seating in the south end zone. Students will never allow you to have a ROI. At this point in time the conversion of the student section to donor seats is supplying something that isn't demanded.
Think Jamie views the hillsides as a "brand for families for ISU" and part of the overall athletics marketing for the future.
 

quadmann

Active Member
Apr 26, 2021
167
243
43
Indianola
I agree the next stadium project should be expanding the press box on the West side to include not only boxes but premium seating, that is where the dollars are at today in stadium, premium seating. After that look at ticket number to determine go big and do add a third deck to the east side or go small and add premium seating and regular seating on the North side.

Where ISU is going to be in trouble is parking, which was why I said a couple years ago, move the intermural fields out by the cross country course and put in some type of parking garage on the east side of university. Instead we have redone those field, great for the kids, but would it have been that much of a pain for them to travel out of the cross country course?
Bingo! JP left a TON of money on the table by not making the intramural fields all parking lots. If the football program continues to grow, that will look like a horrible decision very soon. In fact, if it continues to grow, he may end up having to dig up the fields anyway at some point and making them lots.
I was talking to my family about this recently, I think ISU needs to look at a parking structure. Especially when the A/E district takes up half the parking. I think they should look at putting in a Parking ramp somewhere Probably towards the Hilton/CY area, I know they said there would be one under the Hotel, but Im not sure that is big enough.

I realize this would not be for those that want to tailgate but a lot of people dont tailgate or go to another tailgate, and just park. Ultimately you dont want to take away our tailgating but you want to increase parking near Jack/Hilton especially when we lose so much when they put in the future development.

I agree that in the IM fields things could have been done different, but I dont see that happening now. But who knows.
Isn’t the new pedestrian bridge project supposed to address some of the parking issues? This tweet of CW is a couple of years old, but aren’t they still planning to add new or upgraded parking in addition to the G7 RV parking (note especially the 1100 space lot).


The proposal also includes a walkway over Worrell Creek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyence and Aclone

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
Isn’t the new pedestrian bridge project supposed to address some of the parking issues? This tweet of CW is a couple of years old, but aren’t they still planning to add new or upgraded parking in addition to the G7 RV parking (note especially the 1100 space lot).


The proposal also includes a walkway over Worrell Creek.

I cant remember, but If I recall a lot of that area is to replace what is going to be lost with the new A/E district. It will be an increase for a time but as the area between the Jack and Hilton starts to develop, much of that parking will be lost, if not all of it for a time during construction.

I think in the end there is a slight increase when it is all done with, by adding those. Although I am not sure if those are paved lots (not many it appears) and with how often grass lots can be closed by weather, and how they will move donors around as those donor lots get removed with the new construction in North of the Jack, etc.

I guess time will tell.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: quadmann

cysmiley

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 30, 2012
2,519
2,366
113
Someone should tell Texas A&M that they should send their students to the endzones and open the entire side up for donor seating...

Without those good of seats.. Students wouldn't come. Without the students there is no atmosphere in college athletics
Fact is students "taxed" themselves and future students to build the stadium in the late 60's and 70's . The "tax" also included Hilton Coliseum, all from increases in student fees, which they voted to accept. So they should have decent seats in Hilton AND JTS. Now, that needs to be balanced by the need to support teams and operations of the Athletic Department. I think ISU has done a decent job with that balance, but putting them in the end zone exclusively would not respect their contribution.

Yep, they were BOOMERS :jimlad:
 
Last edited:

theshadow

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
19,977
19,639
113
Isn’t the new pedestrian bridge project supposed to address some of the parking issues? This tweet of CW is a couple of years old, but aren’t they still planning to add new or upgraded parking in addition to the G7 RV parking (note especially the 1100 space lot).

The proposal also includes a walkway over Worrell Creek.

The "160" and "500" areas will be G10, which is presumed to be for gameday workers.

Most of the "850" and "1100" areas will be eaten up by the new RV park.

The "1000" area (paving of G4 and G5) is out there, but not on a schedule yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harimad

quadmann

Active Member
Apr 26, 2021
167
243
43
Indianola
The "160" and "500" areas will be G10, which is presumed to be for gameday workers.

Most of the "850" and "1100" areas will be eaten up by the new RV park.

The "1000" area (paving of G4 and G5) is out there, but not on a schedule yet.
I thought I read somewhere the RV park was going into just the 850 area (currently G7). I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall the discussion was G7 being upgraded/converted to RV slots.
 
Last edited:

theshadow

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
19,977
19,639
113
I thought I read somewhere the RV park was going into just the 850 area (currently G7). I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall the discussion was G7 being upgraded/converted to RV slots.

Based on the scale, the drawings show it taking up the whole 850 plus at least half of the 1100.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: quadmann

Frak

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2009
11,439
7,034
113
Bingo! JP left a TON of money on the table by not making the intramural fields all parking lots. If the football program continues to grow, that will look like a horrible decision very soon. In fact, if it continues to grow, he may end up having to dig up the fields anyway at some point and making them lots.

I don't think that was his decision. The athletic department does not "own" that ground. Rec Services does. I've heard where Pollard tried to trade that area for the old Cap Timm stadium grounds. And maybe he tried for G7 too. If you want to blame someone, blame the university for not stepping in and forcing Rec Services to make the trade.

Would it be better if the new lots were right across University? Of course. But ISU has a bunch of stakeholders to please and regardless of what we all think, priority 1 is enrollment. So, they chose to let Rec Services build their fields there and Pollard is resigned to building lots further east. I do think that if they can pave those lots and the grass lots north of S. 16th, they are going to be just fine.
 

theshadow

Well-Known Member
Apr 19, 2006
19,977
19,639
113
if they can pave those lots and the grass lots north of S. 16th, they are going to be just fine.

The paving of G4/G5 would be so the commuter lot/Orange route could move out there, making room for entertainment district things.
 

danwbarrett

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2006
425
476
63
72
University City, MO
The new $25 million K-State south end zone project adds suites plus a lot of other stuff connecting to the basketball arena. It validates much of what is said here about the value of expanding the private suite/box revenue stream.
image_78076966121588772028830_1588772029658-cropped.jpg
In the 70’s, KSU had folding chairs in that end zone!
 
  • Like
Reactions: surly

danwbarrett

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2006
425
476
63
72
University City, MO
Fact is students "taxed" themselves and future students to build the stadium in the late 60's and 70's . The "tax" also included Hilton Coliseum, all from increases in student fees, which they voted to accept. So they should have decent seats in Hilton AND JTS. Now, that needs to be balanced by the need to support teams and operations of the Athletic Department. I think ISU has done a decent job with that balance, but putting them in the end zone exclusively would not respect their contribution.

Yep, they were BOOMERS :jimlad:
The increase in student fees only went towards Hilton’s I believe $8+M dollar cost.