Standing Sections vs. Sitting Sections
Okay, so we have all at one time or another wanted to stand at a game, only to be ostricized by some, and possibly even scolded by security. However, I have noted, obviously, the student section is under no such strictures, and most stand the whole game.
Does anyone know if the university has ever, or if there are any universities out there that have ever considered dividing sections of the stadium into standing and sitting sections. It would be pretty simple.
Sections numbered X-Y would be normal sitting sections. In these sections, fans are expected to sit for most of the game. They may stand during big plays or celebrations, etc, but are expected to sit quickly, and security will enforce this if it becomes an issue.
Sections numbered A-B would be standing sections. In these sections, fans may sit or stand as desired, but, standing fans may not be rebuked nor will they be troubled by security. Fans asking others to sit in standing sections may be questioned/dealt with by security if they become an issue.
Perhaps Standing sections could be on the visitor's side and one end zone, where we would like it to be as loud and troubling as possible for the opposition.
Why wouldn't this plan work?
October 13th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
I think it could work splendidly in a new stadium with a clean state to start from scratch. I think it would be difficult to implement in stadiums with a lot of history and fans who are resistant to change, i.e. do not want their seats to be moved.
I can't think of a good example of the latter right now ...
October 13th, 2009 at 2:16 PM ^
I like the idea, the only issue I see with it is many current season ticketholders are very sensitive to being moved. A lot of them have had the same seats for 30, 40, or 50 years and to tell them "stay and stand" or MOVE would result in many angry letters to the AD.
However, it seems like the most logical step forward in this dilemma.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^
Unfortunately, the only other solution I can possibly see is... well, there's two.
One is a lot of fist fights. The other is the continued existence of one of the hardest venues anywhere to really get going.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:21 PM ^
When the few try to stand up to the many I think of the Japanese saying. The nail that sticks up gets pounded down.
DOWN IN FRONT!!!!!!
October 13th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Exactly. That's what happens. But I know a LOT of us that want to stand. If it were school regulated where you were supposed to stand (don't have to, but you can't tell others to sit), then that wouldn't happen anymore.
I HATE getting waved down. HATE IT!
October 13th, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
Usually i don't like to wear pants. I HATE pants. I think possibly they should make a pant less section too. no?
October 13th, 2009 at 2:39 PM ^
So, in other words, you hate this idea because you are a sitter, and you don't like having your seat choices restricted by that?
Well, welcome to the other side of the argument. Because we who like to stand hate being told we should be students or be quiet.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
No. It's just sometimes you cant do whatever the fuck you want. I like to stand. But, when everyone else sits I sit too. I like to smoke, but sometimes I can't because others around me don't like it. Your logic fails big time. If you are doing something that interferes with others and you are in the huge minority you just have to suck it up and do what everyone else is doing.
Its like saying "oh you stand in lines and wait your turn, you must love lines". No I fucking hate lines but I'm not going to be that dick that goes in the exit of the bathroom just because that I think I am more important than the vast majority of other people.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:31 PM ^
Wait, you are arguing against sections for standing only by bringing up single people vs. the majority? Shouldn't you be arguing the exact opposite? This way, if you didn't like standing up, you wouldn't have to "suck it up and do whatever everyone else is doing," you could just request a sitting section.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^
of the stadium. My family has had these seats since 1956. I stand up when the play warrants it and when the crowd gives me reason to. If everyone stood throughout the game I guess I would also, but I do like to sit down when there is no action or anything to watch.
I don't scream or yell throughout the game, as that would certainly disrupt my watching, comprehending and studying of the game. I do my fair share of fan participation, but Sec. 44 consists of many alumni season ticket holders, some long in the tooth and constant standing does draw some ire from the crowd.
The changes that are happening in the stadium need to come slowly, unlike the offensive philospohy changes last season. The general fan base is older(more than 25) and more conservative than the student section. Much of that fan base(see Season ticket holders) also gives many $$ and pays a lot for their tickets and I would imagine they wouldn't care to move or be forced to stand up for 3.5 hours.
I'm not sure I understand the significance of standing throughout the game. If everyone in the stadium stood for the entire game you couldn't tell the difference between that and everyone sitting. With that many people, it would look exactly the same.
They have standing room only sections at Cowboys Stadium in Dallas and from what I hear it's not that great.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:27 PM ^
Well, a few things:
Standing room only sections and Standing sections aren't the same thing. Standing sections HAVE seats, but you're not required to use them.
You don't understand the significance of standing through out the game, but many of us feel it is important. If the players must stand for most of the game, we should too. A means of support. Also, it simply amplifies the adrenaline response. Many of us go to football games to feel excited, amped up, and generally young and full of energy. I start yawning the minute I sit, and I'm not kidding. I literally yawn and become tired when I sit. I stand most of the day at work even though I have a desk job.
I understand the qualms that older fans and longtime season ticket holders have, but understand that I have qualms too. If I feel a play is important and want to stand, but those around me don't agree, I risk insults, and possibly even run ins with security. That makes it extremely difficult for ME to enjoy the game fully.
Hence the seperated sections. Would some people have to move? Yes. But those of us that prefer to stand would probably be willing to take slightly worse seats, such as outside the first 20 rows or what have you, just to have the chance to not have an 80 year old woman call security on us. (Yes, she did. They came and told me to stay seated or they would have me ejected. Then they watched... closely. They gave me an evil look when I stood for a touchdown. This was EMU.)
October 13th, 2009 at 6:31 PM ^
these hypothetical sections be separate but equal? I would hate for those who prefer to stand to feel like second-class citizens.
October 13th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^
differently. He'd just like to have the ability to stand in a game and not have security called on him.
I respect that your family has held seats there for over 50 years, but if we need to shuffle things around so that more of our fans can show their support, and do so without raising the ire of fans that want to sit, I don't see a problem with it.
I think dividing the stadium by "standing allowed" and "temporarily standing allowed for big plays" is a logical solution and would probably get rid of a lot of the bitterness on both sides of this issue. I can't believe there are people opposed to this.
After being in the student section for 7 seasons, I've spent a few seasons in a section where folks wouldn't even get up for touchdowns. It's still Michigan Stadium, but it felt...stifling. Now, I'd rather enjoy the game at home with my boys, tossing the football around at half time and jumping around like madmen in the den after a Brandon Graham hit, than sitting politely and jangling keys occasionally.
I guess it all comes down to what you're looking for. Some folks want excitement, they want to feel like they're a part of something, to feel like the collective "12th man". Others just want to be around friends, soak in the sights and "be entertained". These boards, preseason, were alive with "Michigan should be the Wimbledon of College Football".
I get where people think the latter is cool, but it's definitely not my bag.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:53 PM ^
The reason for standing is that it usually coincides with cheering and being an active participant in the experience. And by "experience," I don't mean "being outside" or "being at the stadium," or "watching the game with one's eyes," I mean actively participating in the game taking place on the field by trying to affect the game by cheering to encourage the team and to discourage our opponents.
The student section stands all game, yes, we know this. However, the complaints people have about the "down in front" people are that they yell this on big plays, big drives, etc, when the inclination of some of us younger or perhaps more active fans is to want to stand up and cheer the team on.
I guess I just wish we could have "standing" sections, or that the folks who want to go to the game but rarely, if ever, stand or cheer loudly could/would sit in the luxury boxes/club seats once they're constructed.
On a different note somewhat: I can certainly respect that there are lots of folks who have had tickets for many decades and generations. I think all Michigan alums and fans appreciate and respect this long-time dedication to the team from families. At the same time, I have a question for people who know a hell of a lot more about this than I do: I know that the tickets are expensive (season tickets). However, are they priced at a level where those who spend the most get the best seats? As in, is it a "free market"? I am genuinely curious, as I've never had season tickets but, as an alum, want to somehow get them in the coming years, and am thinking common sense and capitalism (to a certain extent) would seem to say that if you're willing to pay enough, you can get them. . .
October 13th, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^
Preferred Seating Donation (PSD) examples can be found at the Victors Club webpage:
http://www.mgoblue.com/victorsclub/priority-point-examples.html
October 13th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
Your plan would work. But, I suspect that the SRO section would be mighty small.
It would mean SRO for EVERY game of the season (yes, that would include the Delaware State game) and for the ENTIRE game (yes, even in the 4th quarter of a blow out). Very few are going to sign up for that.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
Again, it's not SRO. It's just SR. They're not going to take the benches out. And nobody can MAKE you stand. But if you choose to sit in those sections, then you just wouldn't be able to complain if those in front of you stood.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
What, only a wimp would want benches in the SR section (kidding).
But, seriously, knowing that this is the hard-core standing section, would you think very many will ever sit down? Similar to the students, it would be a badge of disgrace to sit down.
If you did sit down, it would be unlikely that you would see the rest of the game because of the other folks standing in front of you (blocking your view). And, you could not complain because you are in the SR section.
I stood through the entire nd game (Section 4 row 44) because the rows in front of me were standing. Same for last Saturday's game at Iowa. But, I prefer to stand when it is important and sit when the game situation does not warrant standing.
IMO, that is better for the team. As stated in an earlier comment, it everyone stood all the time, the effect is diluted. Same thing with constant noise. IMO, standing and yelling in specific situations benefits the team more than constantly standing and always yelling.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:51 PM ^
if they're going to designate the section for standing there may be structural requirements that would force them to take out the benches. even if there weren't, designating a section for standing and then leaving in benches is arguably a safety hazard
obviously there are areas (student section) where everyone stands now, but if you make it official you enter some new territory and take on some new responsibilities to ensure you aren't setting up the next hillsborough
October 13th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
just create a section that you can stand up in without having security called on you.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^
I have a bit of a hip problem that gets exacerbated by standing a lot. I was in a section for the ND game that stood the whole game.
I fucking loved it.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
I've sat in section 33 for years, and none of this has ever been a problem. When the action on the field gets intense... a big defensive 3rd down play, Forcier-to-Odoms vs. IU, etc..... we all stand up. We jump up and down, yell a lot, high-fives all around, etc. And when the "storm" has passed, we all sit down. Then we do it all over again. I much prefer this to either standing or sitting the entire time.
Maybe it's different in the lower regions of my section (I'm in row 91)... I've tried to observe this before, just hard to tell from 30 or 50 or 70 rows away.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:09 PM ^
I have sat in at least 15 different sections at M stadium and what you describe is what I have almost always experienced.
It's when folks insist on standing when there really isn't any reason that things start to fall apart.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:22 PM ^
This isn't a bad idea. One question would be exactly where to put the standing-allowed sections so as not to block the view of neighboring sections. The corners and the end zones would seem to be the best options to solve that problem; if you're in the end zone, everybody is looking forward the whole game.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:25 PM ^
but you have to have designated "seats". Since the Who concert some 20-30 years ago where the seats were all "general admission" It became a zoo and people ended up getting trampled and whatnot.
I think the corners and endzones are fine for SR, but it would be extremely difficult to "police" human behavior at a sporting event to the extent of "sitting except for 'big' plays". Too much of a personal judgement.
If the endzones and corners were made clearly "sitting optional", in other words all ticket holders in those sections understood they probably would be standing all the time, it would be fine.
From an atmosphere standpoint, winning and consistancy will cure most of the ills that people have with the Big House.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:35 PM ^
I like the idea. Those of you who don't like standing the entire game, fine by me. I don't stand the entire game either. If Michigan is on offense and one guy in a section is standing and being a jackass, then it's ok to tell him to sit down.
But the problem that Blazefire and I have been trying to correct is that we want everyone to stand up and yell when it's 3rd down for the other team. We don't want to get barked at by someone to sit down when it's 3rd and 2 and a critical play! And unless Michigan is up by more than two scores, then it is a critical 3rd down.
Standing the entire game isn't exactly necessary, but standing sections would correct the problem of people getting yelled at for standing at any time during the game.
October 13th, 2009 at 6:12 PM ^
up at Row 99? You could talk to Marty Bodnar, make an appropriate donation, beg a little, whatever. You could stand up in the last row or two of the stadium and not bother anybody. And at a broader level, with the right presentation and the right kind of tribute to the Athletic Department, you might be able to convince them to let you gradually extend that area. I'd much rather have the Athletic Department accomodate guys like you outside of where I sit, rather than having you stand up in Row 6, and then have every other row stand up behind you until the wave stands up in front of me.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:50 AM ^
Well, like I said, most of us that want to stand would probably be happy to have the section restricted outside of the first 20 rows or what have you. But at any rate, the issue isn't the guy in front of you standing. If Standing section were created, then as long as you weren't in one, this wouldn't happen.
October 14th, 2009 at 10:42 AM ^
...right now, if you wanted, you could begin arrangements to get yourself a place where you can stand for the entire game, and not bother anyone else. Naturally, that would be one of the last rows in the Stadium.
If you want an entire Section to be devoted to "standing," you are going to have an awful, terrible problem in convincing Bill Martin, Joe Parker and Marty Bodnar. What those guys know is that they will need to move or make alternative arrangements for upwards of 2,000 season ticket holders. (I personally think it would be hard to convince a guy in Section 44 to move his season ticket subscription to an endzone just so he'll be able to stand up. But that's just me. Maybe there are enough people to do that, and switch up some lucky folks who are currently in an endzone section that would in the future be devoted to standing.) And then there are all of the liability problems with a "standing" section. It's a tough sell.
But again, as I have always said, if you can make that business case to the Athletic Department, I invite you to do so. And as I also said, if having a "standing" section makes standing in other areas of the stadium less acceptable (as you seem to suggest), then I am all for that too. We really don't have much of an argument -- I am telling you what you can do to satisfy your wishes.
You said, "the issue isn't the guy in front of you standing." But it is. It's the only issue that really concerns me. What you do, in another area of the stadium, is of little concern to me.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:00 AM ^
Okay, I thought you were arguing the point, whereby you didn't want people in the stadium standing at all as they may block you out.
And I agree it is a tough business sell because of the need to move some ticket holders, etcetera.
However, it's not like we're talking hooligans here. I like to stand and cheer, project my voice, etcetera, but not start fights. I like all my games to be of the same atmosphere that ND was earlier this year. Furthermore, I have a nerve issue, so sitting on the metal bleachers is really tough for me. The thin foam cushions sold at, and allowed in the stadium don't help, so I really, really prefer to stand for most of the game.
Basically, though you'd get a lot of opposition to moving season ticket holders who don't want to stand, you'd also get a lot of support from other fans and season ticket holders who DO want to stand (or kind of need to), but are tired of being harassed for it.
You can't please all of the people all of the time, and there's no reason to assume the "sitters" are that much more numerous, wealthy or influential.
Also, I don't understand your "liability" concern. The stadium HAS liability insurance. Fans are provided seats, but nowhere on any ticket does it say you MUST use them. Designating sections where you definitely AREN'T expected to use them is no more dangerous, therefore, no higher liability concerns.
October 14th, 2009 at 11:41 AM ^
Quote: "I thought you were arguing the point, whereby you didn't want people in the stadium standing at all as they may block you out."
Well, yeah it concerns me if people in front of me think they can stand up for the entire game. That is basically all that I care about, and if somebody does that in front of me I probably will get an usher, and get the usher to call the cops. All other things being equal, if people want to stand up in Section 30, or 34, or whatever, I guess that I don't care too much.
But I feel bad for anybody, anywhere in the stadium, who can't see the game because somebody in front of them has made the personal choice to stand up. That seems wrong to me.
The basic default option ought to be "sitting," for all sorts of reasons (comfort, accomodation to all, safety, etc.), and if a few people want to stand, then they should work on that with the Athletic Department. The "sitting" people don't bother anyone else. The "standing" people force that choice on every patron sitting behind them.
This isn't all that complicated, is it?
October 14th, 2009 at 11:29 AM ^
The original point, I'd be the first to admit, pre-dates this thread. The original "Standing versus Sitting" argument that I recall was along the lines of "How to respond to someone who yells at you to sit down?"
My public response to that question was basically this: If you are standing because everybody in front of you is standing, or Michigan has just scored a touchdown, you should probably just ignore anybody that is yelling at you in particular. Actually, it seems to me that there is very little of that. Why waste your vocal chords yelling at a whole section of people in front of you? And who can even hear a lone voice behind you, when something amazing has happened on the field?
But if you are standing just because you like to stand, and if you persist in standing when you have no need to and someone behind is yelling at you, then yeah you should sit down, or else you should expect that the people behind you will call an usher, who will call the cops.
If you have a physical disability issue that requires you to stand, I'd think that the Athletic Department would go out of its way to accomodate you with a seat in one of the top rows where you can stand all the time and not bother anybody. Have you made that inquiry?
October 14th, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
Yeah, and it usually isn't an issue. However, I do wonder what people in wheelchairs would say if you told them they can all sit in row 99? Why should I have to put up with that anymore than they should?
October 14th, 2009 at 12:26 PM ^
People in wheelchairs are already much more limited in where they can watch the game. This probably isn't the best comparison.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
Q. "I do wonder what people in wheelchairs would say if you told them they can all sit in row 99?"
A. The answer is that the Handicapped Veterans, or whatever they are called, would hire Sam Bernstein's law firm and sue the University. And, despite Michigan's having a superb record of accomodating handicapped people, the Regents, terrified of the bad publicity, would cave in to the demands. And they'd tear out three rows of Sections One and Two in order to create a new, one-row mezzanine for handicapped patrons, mostly people confined to wheelchairs.
In fact, that is exactly what has happened over the course of the past 2-3 years.
Q. "Why should I have to put up with that anymore than they should?"
A. You don't, for the most part. If you have a disability that requires special seating because of your nerve condition, and you can successfully make that medical case to the University, then I imagine that a special seat can be placed for you in the handicapped area. (One of the great jokes after the Bernstein lawsuit was that people would be chopping off healthy limbs to get the fabulous priority handicapped seating in the prime sections of the stadium. Brain Cook, to his great credit, wrote one of those lines as I recall.) But what you won't be allowed to do is to stand and block people behind you, consistent with the other handicapped patrons. What they can do for you, if you want to stand, is to find you someplace to stand where you won't block anybody. As I've said about a dozen times.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
I think it's a fine idea, but it would involve moving people with season tickets around to different sections. NEVER EVER underestimate the wrath of a season ticket buyer and donor who doesn't like his new seat or didn't want to be moved in the first place.