Michigan Stadium thoughts and theories

Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on

It's been on my mind quite often lately and I can't be the only one.

Is there a possibility with the massive boxes added on both sides of Michigan Stadium and the two very large score boards on each endzone, that Michigan Stadium could somehow expand capacity?

I found this article long ago by former over lord slave ruler Dave Brandon http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/29601474

Also out of curiousity, what did people on the board think about the expansions being added back in the time they were being added? What kinds of discussions were going on here?

Also, if anyone else finds anything regarding the issue I'm highly interested.

MGoBoard

Avon Barksdale

December 19th, 2015 at 9:16 AM ^

Television and technology have changed the game. Every Michigan game is viewable on TV all the way in Nashville. That simply was not the case when I was growing up. We used to have to order some games on paper view, go to the game, or watch highlights on SC.

That's why attendance is lacking around the country. It's much easier for me to watch the game on my 50' HDTV with cheap food and my own bathroom as opposed to spending $90 on a ticket, $50 to park, $20 on concessions, and $20 to eat after the game. I still go two or three times a year (BYU and Ohio State this year), but I am not sure expanding to 120k at this point is advisable.

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859

MarqueeView

December 19th, 2015 at 10:43 AM ^

They can get 120K people to go to those games. If the team stays decent and tickets aren't too expensive I think it could be done. I only went to one game this year because the experience is so damn expensive. Don't know if it would be worth it to build an expansion if they would have to lower ticket prices to $25 or so though.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 01/27/2014

MGoPoints: 1833

The Mad Hatter

December 19th, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^

If another venue attempts to supplant Michigan Stadium as the largest. We must always have the highest capacity stadium, until the end of time. Any expansion must maintain the symmetry (which the boxes sort of ruined), so I'd like to see the bowl brought up to the height of the boxes. We're going to have to win a couple NC's to justify the cost though. Although I see no reason why we can't fill the place for almost every game. Charge $20 each for the cheap seats and they'll be filled with people and families that otherwise couldn't afford to attend a game.

Joined: 02/17/2015

MGoPoints: 112109

UMxWolverines

December 19th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^

Why is this always your argument? In 1973 we could have beaten OSU and didn't. In 1980, 1985, and 1988 they had two losses. They controlled their own destiny and didn't get it done. Lloyd's team had the same limitation with not playing in the bowl alliance and got it done because they won all their games.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65366

M-Dog

December 19th, 2015 at 3:41 PM ^

Because most of the time the National Champion is not undefeated.  There were games during the season where they "didn't get it done" yet they were in a position to win the NC anyway.

I firmly believe that if the current Playoff setup existed during Bo's time, we would not be saying today "Bo never won a National Championship".

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257385

UMxWolverines

December 19th, 2015 at 4:03 PM ^

I would say more often than not they were. They were in 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, and 88.

A pretty simple way to win a national title back then was win all your games. And if you didn't it mattered to when and who you lost to.

We might have shared the NC in 71 if we beat a crappy Stanford, but we didn't. The 76 team lost to a crappy Purdue team which cost them a potential share of the national title. The 1980 team lost early to ND (fair enough, the Harry Oliver game), but then lost to a crappy South Carolina team at home and even so Georgia was 12-0 that year. The 85 team lost to Iowa on the road (fair enough, they were good that year) but then tied a crappy Illinois team 3-3. If they don't tie that game they stay in the top five and maybe share the title with Oklahoma.

Bo's teams were allowed to play for NCs and could have won one.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65366

Alton

December 19th, 2015 at 6:41 PM ^

"We might have shared the NC in 71 if we beat a crappy Stanford..."

No.

Going into the last week of the season, the Sugar Bowl had wrapped up a matchup between the Big 8 Champion and the SEC Champion.  The Nebraska/Oklahoma winner was going to play the Alabama/Auburn winner.

And Michigan was never ever going to pass the Sugar Bowl winner, even with a win over Stanford.  Michigan didn't play a single game against a top 15 team all season, and whoever won that Sugar Bowl was guaranteed to have 2 wins against teams in the top 5 (and Colorado, who lost to both Nebraska and Oklahoma, was also in the top 10).

Even with a 12-0 season that year, Michigan would have finished 3rd at best.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13273

Alton

December 19th, 2015 at 7:41 PM ^

Going back year-by-year, I think Bo would have been invited to a 4-team playoff 7 times.

1971, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1986, 1989

That's taking into account the bias the selection committee seems to have in favor of conference champions, and using the last regular-season AP poll as an indication of who the top teams were.

1971, 1976, 1977, 1986 and 1989 were obvious "IN"s.

The 1973 teams I had were Alabama, Michigan, Notre Dame and Ohio State.  Oklahoma was in the top 4, but they had a postseason bowl ban that I am assuming would have applied to the playoff as well.  I would ordinarily have said they wouldn't take 2 teams from a single conference, but there was the fact that Michigan didn't actually lose to Ohio State, so I went with Michigan.

The 1974 situation was pretty much the same--Oklahoma was a top-4 team but was on probation, so I excluded them.  Michigan was #5, and there wasn't really a better candidate anywhere else in the top 10, so I went with them despite the loss to Ohio State.

1969 was close, but since Michigan & Ohio State shared the Big Ten title that season, and Michigan was only #7 (and lost to #6 Missouri, who I also left out), I just couldn't justify having Michigan in the top 4.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13273

carolina blue

December 19th, 2015 at 10:05 AM ^

The expansion did not ruin the symmetry. If anything it enhanced it. You can run a line down the center from north to south and you see two sides that are mirror images, which is symmetrical.

As for the bleachers, that's actually a great idea. That would be fantastic. In fact, charging, say, $20 for those seats would fill them now. You wouldn't need any additional wins or anything. $20 and every seat, no matter the view, would be filled.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 30251

UMxWolverines

December 19th, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

We will not ever have 120k at a game unless prices somehow go down. I bet if tickets were still $50 per ticket (which they were ten years ago) we would easily get that if we were winning consistently. A strong sparty at the moment doesn't help either. I think the bigger issue is getting people to not sell to the aholes from down south.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65366

UMxWolverines

December 19th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^

It's still Oregon State. And all other non premium games are $75. And parking has gone way up as well. And food. I get that we have to keep up with what other schools charge, but the reason we had the attendance we had for so long is because tickets were cheap and the team was good. Now the team hasn't been consistently good AND tickets aren't cheap. I'm sure we will have a wait list again but not 10-20,000 big like we used to.

Joined: 03/01/2009

MGoPoints: 65366

Richard75

December 19th, 2015 at 5:08 PM ^

A strong Sparty has zero impact. Long-term it could, but absolutely no one who is a Michigan fan today is going to defect and attend an MSU game tomorrow. That sort of thing takes time, since it requires winning over young fans.

Besides: If would-be Mich Stadium attendees were going to EL, MSU wouldn't be struggling to fill their stadium (despite having a strong team) like they are.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 09/23/2008

MGoPoints: 5291

StephenRKass

December 19th, 2015 at 11:27 AM ^

I'll go back to my original comment:  is there enough demand to clearly pay for expansion? If there is, go for it. Until there is enough demand, sit on it and wait.

In terms of what to build, I would probably look to have the south end zone filled in with suites, a restaurant, maybe some other walkways and party venues, and the north end zone filled in with a combination of normal seats, and higher end covered seats. The suites in the south end should be enough to pay for the expansion of normal seating on the north end. I can't conceive of expanding to a double deck or more than the basic heigh of the current 3rd level of suites.

Joined: 07/15/2008

MGoPoints: 22997