[82lsju]

anyone else get an email from the AD on possible stadium renovations?

They appear (to me) to be mostly about upsell and revenue generation for "premium experiences", the options appear to not all be mutually exclusive.

Several of the options would appear to replace existing seats (like some of the sunny side upper bowl).

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

here's the text of the descriptions, they also had photos of possible looks for each option

Option 1
 
Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include replacing current seating in the upper level of the east side with a large patio space featuring a variety of concession offerings, restrooms, communal seating areas with patio furniture, family-friendly yard games, and views of campus and the surrounding landscape.
 
Option 2
 
PREMIUM & HOSPITALITY SEATING

Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include a variety of new and re-imagined premium seat and hospitality offerings that appeal to individual buyers (1 to 4 seats), small groups (4 to 8 seats), and larger groups (10+ seats).

Premium seating and hospitality offerings provide a variety of enhanced amenities and benefits over general stadium seating, including:

• Larger, more comfortable seats with increased leg room
  
• Covered / shaded seating area
  
• Exclusive access to club lounge / open-air patio spaces directly behind or in proximity to the seats
  
• Access to upscale food and beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) service
  
• Dedicated restrooms for patrons inside the lounge
  
• Ability to socialize with other members inside the lounge
  
• TVs and communal tables/furniture inside the lounge
  
• Dedicated stadium entrance close to seating area
  
• Access to preferred parking
  
• Other first-class service and amenities
  

Option 3
 
CLUB MEMBERSHIPS

Want to elevate your game day experience by accessing an exclusive club lounge before, during, and after the game, but don’t want to give up your favorite seat? A renovated Stanford Stadium could include new club lounge spaces in the south end zone, on the main concourse, and/or on the east side fan party deck available on an annual membership basis that would provide access to an exclusive area with premium amenities, including:

• Potential views of the field
  
• Upscale food & beverages available for purchase
  
• Access to full bar area
  
• Exclusive entry and restroom access
  
• Casual seating areas
  
• Other amenities
  

Club memberships would be available to fans who purchase season tickets anywhere in the stadium.

 
Option 4
 
PATIO SEATING

The proposed renovation project could include new and enhanced seating at the top of the north and south end zones, combining the social atmosphere of an outdoor patio space with the exciting sights and sounds of game day at Stanford Stadium. New patio areas could include covered or shaded seats along a drink rail or 4-top tables with unobstructed views of the on-field action and access to a social environment with a variety of unique food, beverage, and entertainment amenities. Patio Seating could include:

• Unique, upgraded concession offerings available for purchase
  
• A cash bar with beer, wine, and spirit selections
  
• Pre-game live music, yard games (such as cornhole), and other entertainment
  
• Dedicated restrooms
  
• Other amenities
  

Option 5
 
A renovated Stanford Stadium could include a number of unique areas to host meetings, banquets, receptions, and other special events for groups of all sizes on non-game days. How would you characterize your (or your company’s) interest in hosting a meeting or special event at a renovated Stanford Stadium on non-game days?

[82lsju]

anyone else get an email from the AD on possible stadium renovations?

They appear (to me) to be mostly about upsell and revenue generation for "premium experiences", the options appear to not all be mutually exclusive.

Several of the options would appear to replace existing seats (like some of the sunny side upper bowl).

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

here's the text of the descriptions, they also had photos of possible looks for each option

Option 1
 
Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include replacing current seating in the upper level of the east side with a large patio space featuring a variety of concession offerings, restrooms, communal seating areas with patio furniture, family-friendly yard games, and views of campus and the surrounding landscape.
 
Option 2
 
PREMIUM & HOSPITALITY SEATING

Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include a variety of new and re-imagined premium seat and hospitality offerings that appeal to individual buyers (1 to 4 seats), small groups (4 to 8 seats), and larger groups (10+ seats).

Premium seating and hospitality offerings provide a variety of enhanced amenities and benefits over general stadium seating, including:

• Larger, more comfortable seats with increased leg room
  
• Covered / shaded seating area
  
• Exclusive access to club lounge / open-air patio spaces directly behind or in proximity to the seats
  
• Access to upscale food and beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) service
  
• Dedicated restrooms for patrons inside the lounge
  
• Ability to socialize with other members inside the lounge
  
• TVs and communal tables/furniture inside the lounge
  
• Dedicated stadium entrance close to seating area
  
• Access to preferred parking
  
• Other first-class service and amenities
  

Option 3
 
CLUB MEMBERSHIPS

Want to elevate your game day experience by accessing an exclusive club lounge before, during, and after the game, but don’t want to give up your favorite seat? A renovated Stanford Stadium could include new club lounge spaces in the south end zone, on the main concourse, and/or on the east side fan party deck available on an annual membership basis that would provide access to an exclusive area with premium amenities, including:

• Potential views of the field
  
• Upscale food & beverages available for purchase
  
• Access to full bar area
  
• Exclusive entry and restroom access
  
• Casual seating areas
  
• Other amenities
  

Club memberships would be available to fans who purchase season tickets anywhere in the stadium.

 
Option 4
 
PATIO SEATING

The proposed renovation project could include new and enhanced seating at the top of the north and south end zones, combining the social atmosphere of an outdoor patio space with the exciting sights and sounds of game day at Stanford Stadium. New patio areas could include covered or shaded seats along a drink rail or 4-top tables with unobstructed views of the on-field action and access to a social environment with a variety of unique food, beverage, and entertainment amenities. Patio Seating could include:

• Unique, upgraded concession offerings available for purchase
  
• A cash bar with beer, wine, and spirit selections
  
• Pre-game live music, yard games (such as cornhole), and other entertainment
  
• Dedicated restrooms
  
• Other amenities
  

Option 5
 
A renovated Stanford Stadium could include a number of unique areas to host meetings, banquets, receptions, and other special events for groups of all sizes on non-game days. How would you characterize your (or your company’s) interest in hosting a meeting or special event at a renovated Stanford Stadium on non-game days?

[BostonCard]

1779478608[/url]']

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

Yes, +1 to this. And, of course, money that is spent on stadium renovations cannot be plowed into, for example, NIL or House settlement money.

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

Money invested in facilities does not impact other teams directly, so I can see the appeal.  It is much easier to model the return on investment on a one time capital expense than on employees than on student athletes, a recurring expense.

BC

[BostonCard]

1779478608[/url]']

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

Yes, +1 to this. And, of course, money that is spent on stadium renovations cannot be plowed into, for example, NIL or House settlement money.

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

Money invested in facilities does not impact other teams directly, so I can see the appeal.  It is much easier to model the return on investment on a one time capital expense than on employees than on student athletes, a recurring expense.

BC

[82lsju]

1779478608[/url]']

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

Yes, +1 to this. And, of course, money that is spent on stadium renovations cannot be plowed into, for example, NIL or House settlement money.

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

Money invested in facilities does not impact other teams directly, so I can see the appeal.  It is much easier to model the return on investment on a one time capital expense than on employees than on student athletes, a recurring expense.

BC

I would also guess that any renovations will rely on donor support to pay for them, of course that support (if it happens) might take away from other places the donors might fund

[82lsju]

1779478608[/url]']

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

Yes, +1 to this. And, of course, money that is spent on stadium renovations cannot be plowed into, for example, NIL or House settlement money.

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

Money invested in facilities does not impact other teams directly, so I can see the appeal.  It is much easier to model the return on investment on a one time capital expense than on employees than on student athletes, a recurring expense.

BC

I would also guess that any renovations will rely on donor support to pay for them, of course that support (if it happens) might take away from other places the donors might fund

[Jamesy]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

[Jamesy]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

[Canalejas]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.

[Canalejas]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.

[Treebound]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.

I believe that they likely thought that's what Indiana was for.....
As for the stadium, whatever it takes to get more butts in seats.  Yes, that means a solid on field product too.   I'm glad that they are asking.  There should definitely be a season ticket holder ONLY entrance.

[Treebound]

That being said, the product on the field winds up being a zero sum game. If we win more games, by definition that means that everyone else loses more games, and while we are investing money into trying to make that happen, they are investing money in preventing that from happen.  The net result is that no matter how much or how little teams in college football spend in aggregate on the product on the field, the global average record will always be .500, so you are just fighting for share.

This is my only half kidding argument as to why we should/should have gotten a B1G invite. If you have a conference of 12 blue bloods, half of them will have a losing conference record. Why not add a school that is down like Stanford so that the other teams in the conference can add another win to their conference records? It's a literal win win situation for everyone (except us, but then we'd be in the B1G).

I guess they figured that's what UCLA is for.

I believe that they likely thought that's what Indiana was for.....
As for the stadium, whatever it takes to get more butts in seats.  Yes, that means a solid on field product too.   I'm glad that they are asking.  There should definitely be a season ticket holder ONLY entrance.

[cardcrimson]

They're talking about the football stadium, right? 

A lounge with furniture and TVs? A club with a potential view of the field? A patio with views of the campus and the surrounding landscape? Cornhole? A banquet facility for non game days? And I had high hopes for the new administration.

Bryant Denny packs 100k in every home game. The men's bathrooms still have troughs. Concession lines are long. The seats are small and tight. The lines are long to get in. Parking stinks. However the experience is fantastic. The atmosphere is incredible inside and out, and the product on the field has been very good. Traditions. Lots going on during the timeouts interacting with the crowd. Cheerleaders, lightshows, quality big screens showing all sorts of Alabama related stuff. Recognition for past teams, and other teams that have done well (x country, etc.). Dance offs, field goal kicks, etc. For a lot of it, they tie in local retailers for prizes and giveaways.

What I would suggest is sending a group to every SEC stadium, every Big 10 stadium and select ACC and Big 12 stadiums to see first hand how they create the crowds they do, and what a game day experience, inside and outside the stadium) is really like. I guarantee it's not any of the above. Before Stanford spends a dime on useless renovations, learn what other schools do and how they succeed. 

I mean, they could implement a lottery, and give 10 random ticket holders $10k at every game for the next ten years, and still spend less than they would on even a minor renovation. . . .

[cardcrimson]

They're talking about the football stadium, right? 

A lounge with furniture and TVs? A club with a potential view of the field? A patio with views of the campus and the surrounding landscape? Cornhole? A banquet facility for non game days? And I had high hopes for the new administration.

Bryant Denny packs 100k in every home game. The men's bathrooms still have troughs. Concession lines are long. The seats are small and tight. The lines are long to get in. Parking stinks. However the experience is fantastic. The atmosphere is incredible inside and out, and the product on the field has been very good. Traditions. Lots going on during the timeouts interacting with the crowd. Cheerleaders, lightshows, quality big screens showing all sorts of Alabama related stuff. Recognition for past teams, and other teams that have done well (x country, etc.). Dance offs, field goal kicks, etc. For a lot of it, they tie in local retailers for prizes and giveaways.

What I would suggest is sending a group to every SEC stadium, every Big 10 stadium and select ACC and Big 12 stadiums to see first hand how they create the crowds they do, and what a game day experience, inside and outside the stadium) is really like. I guarantee it's not any of the above. Before Stanford spends a dime on useless renovations, learn what other schools do and how they succeed. 

I mean, they could implement a lottery, and give 10 random ticket holders $10k at every game for the next ten years, and still spend less than they would on even a minor renovation. . . .

[Mudhead]

1779478608[/url]']
anyone else get an email from the AD on possible stadium renovations?

They appear (to me) to be mostly about upsell and revenue generation for "premium experiences", the options appear to not all be mutually exclusive.

Several of the options would appear to replace existing seats (like some of the sunny side upper bowl).

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

here's the text of the descriptions, they also had photos of possible looks for each option

Option 1
 
Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include replacing current seating in the upper level of the east side with a large patio space featuring a variety of concession offerings, restrooms, communal seating areas with patio furniture, family-friendly yard games, and views of campus and the surrounding landscape.
 
Option 2
 
PREMIUM & HOSPITALITY SEATING

Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include a variety of new and re-imagined premium seat and hospitality offerings that appeal to individual buyers (1 to 4 seats), small groups (4 to 8 seats), and larger groups (10+ seats).

Premium seating and hospitality offerings provide a variety of enhanced amenities and benefits over general stadium seating, including:

• Larger, more comfortable seats with increased leg room
  
• Covered / shaded seating area
  
• Exclusive access to club lounge / open-air patio spaces directly behind or in proximity to the seats
  
• Access to upscale food and beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) service
  
• Dedicated restrooms for patrons inside the lounge
  
• Ability to socialize with other members inside the lounge
  
• TVs and communal tables/furniture inside the lounge
  
• Dedicated stadium entrance close to seating area
  
• Access to preferred parking
  
• Other first-class service and amenities
  

Option 3
 
CLUB MEMBERSHIPS

Want to elevate your game day experience by accessing an exclusive club lounge before, during, and after the game, but don’t want to give up your favorite seat? A renovated Stanford Stadium could include new club lounge spaces in the south end zone, on the main concourse, and/or on the east side fan party deck available on an annual membership basis that would provide access to an exclusive area with premium amenities, including:

• Potential views of the field
  
• Upscale food & beverages available for purchase
  
• Access to full bar area
  
• Exclusive entry and restroom access
  
• Casual seating areas
  
• Other amenities
  

Club memberships would be available to fans who purchase season tickets anywhere in the stadium.

 
Option 4
 
PATIO SEATING

The proposed renovation project could include new and enhanced seating at the top of the north and south end zones, combining the social atmosphere of an outdoor patio space with the exciting sights and sounds of game day at Stanford Stadium. New patio areas could include covered or shaded seats along a drink rail or 4-top tables with unobstructed views of the on-field action and access to a social environment with a variety of unique food, beverage, and entertainment amenities. Patio Seating could include:

• Unique, upgraded concession offerings available for purchase
  
• A cash bar with beer, wine, and spirit selections
  
• Pre-game live music, yard games (such as cornhole), and other entertainment
  
• Dedicated restrooms
  
• Other amenities
  

Option 5
 
A renovated Stanford Stadium could include a number of unique areas to host meetings, banquets, receptions, and other special events for groups of all sizes on non-game days. How would you characterize your (or your company’s) interest in hosting a meeting or special event at a renovated Stanford Stadium on non-game days?

I too got the message. Larry Scott is back. What could possibly go wrong ?

[Mudhead]

1779478608[/url]']
anyone else get an email from the AD on possible stadium renovations?

They appear (to me) to be mostly about upsell and revenue generation for "premium experiences", the options appear to not all be mutually exclusive.

Several of the options would appear to replace existing seats (like some of the sunny side upper bowl).

In one of the early questions I mentioned that they might want to improve the on-field product before spending a lot of money on "premium experiences"......

here's the text of the descriptions, they also had photos of possible looks for each option

Option 1
 
Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include replacing current seating in the upper level of the east side with a large patio space featuring a variety of concession offerings, restrooms, communal seating areas with patio furniture, family-friendly yard games, and views of campus and the surrounding landscape.
 
Option 2
 
PREMIUM & HOSPITALITY SEATING

Renovations to Stanford Stadium could include a variety of new and re-imagined premium seat and hospitality offerings that appeal to individual buyers (1 to 4 seats), small groups (4 to 8 seats), and larger groups (10+ seats).

Premium seating and hospitality offerings provide a variety of enhanced amenities and benefits over general stadium seating, including:

• Larger, more comfortable seats with increased leg room
  
• Covered / shaded seating area
  
• Exclusive access to club lounge / open-air patio spaces directly behind or in proximity to the seats
  
• Access to upscale food and beverage (alcoholic and non-alcoholic) service
  
• Dedicated restrooms for patrons inside the lounge
  
• Ability to socialize with other members inside the lounge
  
• TVs and communal tables/furniture inside the lounge
  
• Dedicated stadium entrance close to seating area
  
• Access to preferred parking
  
• Other first-class service and amenities
  

Option 3
 
CLUB MEMBERSHIPS

Want to elevate your game day experience by accessing an exclusive club lounge before, during, and after the game, but don’t want to give up your favorite seat? A renovated Stanford Stadium could include new club lounge spaces in the south end zone, on the main concourse, and/or on the east side fan party deck available on an annual membership basis that would provide access to an exclusive area with premium amenities, including:

• Potential views of the field
  
• Upscale food & beverages available for purchase
  
• Access to full bar area
  
• Exclusive entry and restroom access
  
• Casual seating areas
  
• Other amenities
  

Club memberships would be available to fans who purchase season tickets anywhere in the stadium.

 
Option 4
 
PATIO SEATING

The proposed renovation project could include new and enhanced seating at the top of the north and south end zones, combining the social atmosphere of an outdoor patio space with the exciting sights and sounds of game day at Stanford Stadium. New patio areas could include covered or shaded seats along a drink rail or 4-top tables with unobstructed views of the on-field action and access to a social environment with a variety of unique food, beverage, and entertainment amenities. Patio Seating could include:

• Unique, upgraded concession offerings available for purchase
  
• A cash bar with beer, wine, and spirit selections
  
• Pre-game live music, yard games (such as cornhole), and other entertainment
  
• Dedicated restrooms
  
• Other amenities
  

Option 5
 
A renovated Stanford Stadium could include a number of unique areas to host meetings, banquets, receptions, and other special events for groups of all sizes on non-game days. How would you characterize your (or your company’s) interest in hosting a meeting or special event at a renovated Stanford Stadium on non-game days?

I too got the message. Larry Scott is back. What could possibly go wrong ?

[crackpot]

I got annoyed when the first thing I see is a video I'm expected to watch.

Hmm...

Things I'd like:

• a comfy chair
  
• no line in a clean restroom
  
• excellent Bavarian pretzels
  
• extremely zippy commute
  

In other words, exactly what I get at home while watching Away games. I guess I could stay home for home games and save myself hundreds of dollars.

[crackpot]

I got annoyed when the first thing I see is a video I'm expected to watch.

Hmm...

Things I'd like:

• a comfy chair
  
• no line in a clean restroom
  
• excellent Bavarian pretzels
  
• extremely zippy commute
  

In other words, exactly what I get at home while watching Away games. I guess I could stay home for home games and save myself hundreds of dollars.

[Farm93]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

[Farm93]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

[cardcrimson]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

As BC pointed out, half the teams are winners and half the teams are losers in those conferences. Yet the losers still draw. Auburn, aside from one season with a pay to play QB, has been mediocre at best for a generation, yet they still draw. Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc. all draw fans. Stanford is blessed with a fairly rich tradition of success and a massive local market. Patios, luxury boxes and corn hole are not the solution. 

Maybe we should start with attracting our own students first and figure out what would get them to the games. . . .we had a losing record during my four years, didn't go to a bowl game, but I didn't miss a home game, nor did a bunch of my friends. . .. .

[cardcrimson]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

As BC pointed out, half the teams are winners and half the teams are losers in those conferences. Yet the losers still draw. Auburn, aside from one season with a pay to play QB, has been mediocre at best for a generation, yet they still draw. Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, etc. all draw fans. Stanford is blessed with a fairly rich tradition of success and a massive local market. Patios, luxury boxes and corn hole are not the solution. 

Maybe we should start with attracting our own students first and figure out what would get them to the games. . . .we had a losing record during my four years, didn't go to a bowl game, but I didn't miss a home game, nor did a bunch of my friends. . .. .

[martyup]

It sounds like they are trying to figure out how to make it possible to enjoy the stadium experience without watching our football team get curb stomped on the field.

[martyup]

It sounds like they are trying to figure out how to make it possible to enjoy the stadium experience without watching our football team get curb stomped on the field.

[cardcrimson]

Asked Claude for average Stanford attendance over the years. Here's what was returned. As you look at the list, think about the population of the South Bay over the years. Clearly, something more than just on field performance is at play. We did do better years ago, significantly better than we are now. Even better than we did under the winningest coach in Stanford history.

Stanford Cardinal — average home football attendance per game by decade
1900s (1900–1905 only) — ~5,000 (estimate; no stadium, program suspended 1906)
1910s (1919 only) — ~8,000 (estimate; single season after rugby era ended, no stadium yet)
1920s — ~30,000 (estimate; Stanford Stadium opened 1921 at 60k capacity)
1930s — ~48,000 (estimate; Rose Bowl era, strong program, stadium expanded to ~90k)
1940s — ~38,000 (estimate; WWII disrupted several seasons)
1950s — ~52,000 (estimate; post-war college football boom)
1960s — ~45,000 (estimate; moderate program performance)
1970s — ~60,000 (estimate; Plunkett era, Rose Bowl wins 1970–71, peak popularity)
1980s — ~50,000 (estimate; Elway era early in decade, mixed results thereafter)
1990s — ~42,000 (estimate; program decline from peak)
2000s — ~41,000 (confirmed: 43,550 in 2005; 39,332 in 2007; stadium rebuilt 2006 at 50,424 cap)
2010s — ~44,000 (confirmed: 40,042 in 2010; 43,343 in 2012; 50,726 in 2013; 47,862 in 2014; 49,917 in 2015; 44,142 in 2016; 37,018 in 2019)
2020s — ~32,000 (confirmed: ~33,219 in 2023; 28,171 in 2025; partial decade)

[cardcrimson]

Asked Claude for average Stanford attendance over the years. Here's what was returned. As you look at the list, think about the population of the South Bay over the years. Clearly, something more than just on field performance is at play. We did do better years ago, significantly better than we are now. Even better than we did under the winningest coach in Stanford history.

Stanford Cardinal — average home football attendance per game by decade
1900s (1900–1905 only) — ~5,000 (estimate; no stadium, program suspended 1906)
1910s (1919 only) — ~8,000 (estimate; single season after rugby era ended, no stadium yet)
1920s — ~30,000 (estimate; Stanford Stadium opened 1921 at 60k capacity)
1930s — ~48,000 (estimate; Rose Bowl era, strong program, stadium expanded to ~90k)
1940s — ~38,000 (estimate; WWII disrupted several seasons)
1950s — ~52,000 (estimate; post-war college football boom)
1960s — ~45,000 (estimate; moderate program performance)
1970s — ~60,000 (estimate; Plunkett era, Rose Bowl wins 1970–71, peak popularity)
1980s — ~50,000 (estimate; Elway era early in decade, mixed results thereafter)
1990s — ~42,000 (estimate; program decline from peak)
2000s — ~41,000 (confirmed: 43,550 in 2005; 39,332 in 2007; stadium rebuilt 2006 at 50,424 cap)
2010s — ~44,000 (confirmed: 40,042 in 2010; 43,343 in 2012; 50,726 in 2013; 47,862 in 2014; 49,917 in 2015; 44,142 in 2016; 37,018 in 2019)
2020s — ~32,000 (confirmed: ~33,219 in 2023; 28,171 in 2025; partial decade)

[Mick]

Peak attendance coincided with my early interest. Plunkett was the first QB I saw, I remember all of the 1970s QBs...Boryla, Cordova, Dils, Benjamin, Schonert, Elway...loved those days. Grandparents (Stanford '42) had a dozen seats, we could toss a football around without the fun prevention squad shooing us away. And a good product on the field...Stanford didn't have a losing season between 1963 and 1981. Of course, they had solid attendance. 67,778 for San Jose State in 1981, 84,536 for Cal, 76k+ for #8 Ohio State, 70k+ for #18 UCLA.

[Mick]

Peak attendance coincided with my early interest. Plunkett was the first QB I saw, I remember all of the 1970s QBs...Boryla, Cordova, Dils, Benjamin, Schonert, Elway...loved those days. Grandparents (Stanford '42) had a dozen seats, we could toss a football around without the fun prevention squad shooing us away. And a good product on the field...Stanford didn't have a losing season between 1963 and 1981. Of course, they had solid attendance. 67,778 for San Jose State in 1981, 84,536 for Cal, 76k+ for #8 Ohio State, 70k+ for #18 UCLA.

[norcard10]

hilarious they want to introduce premium seating for a subpar product on the field

[norcard10]

hilarious they want to introduce premium seating for a subpar product on the field

[PalmTree]

Peak attendance coincided with my early interest. Plunkett was the first QB I saw, I remember all of the 1970s QBs...Boryla, Cordova, Dils, Benjamin, Schonert, Elway...loved those days.

You missed Bunce, may he RIP. Was just thinking about him - he later surgically repaired my ruptured achilles tendon.

[PalmTree]

Peak attendance coincided with my early interest. Plunkett was the first QB I saw, I remember all of the 1970s QBs...Boryla, Cordova, Dils, Benjamin, Schonert, Elway...loved those days.

You missed Bunce, may he RIP. Was just thinking about him - he later surgically repaired my ruptured achilles tendon.

[Hieronymus]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

At core I agree and this seems like a smart path. Heck I go to Rockies games mostly just because the stadium is fun to hang out in and there are great viewing spots if you are willing to stand; so buy the cheapest seat and never sit in it. Works even though the Rockies are terrible and have been for years. They still get pretty solid attendance numbers overall - 18th in the league last year.

[Hieronymus]

The AD can't create a 100 year culture with college football as Saturday's regional religion and then also convince those in the region's college football flock that Stanford Stadium has become the must visit destination for anyone that resides within 300-500+ miles of the stadium. 

We can all visit Texas, Bama, Nebraska and Oklahoma to experience that level of passion and support.   If that existed in the Bay Area we would know because Cal would almost certainly be our region's home for those football believers.   The honor of becoming the state's unofficial Saturday religion usually goes to the largest state school because the public school with the state name has the ability to create some affinity for all the citizens of the state., not just a small group of alums.

Even if the Stanford AD had the power to cultivate that level of Stanford specific passion it would take decades before Stanford football could be such a part of the area's cultural fabric that it could experience several losing seasons (like Nebraska) and still sell out an outdated stadium.  

So, back to the 2026 reality.

The AD seems to be trying to create new revenue streams by converting some part of the stadium into an area with activities that are not quite related to the game on the field.    Something similar to what is available at PayPal park in San Jose, Ross-Ade Stadium in West Lafayette, or even Cal's Memorial stadium's ongoing end zone conversion.

I would guess the AD has some snazzy consultant survey that suggests that now that the Bay Area has only 1 MLB team, 1 NBA team, 1 NFL team and 1 NHL team there is actually demand for premium/luxury/corporate offerings where companies could invite their clients, customers, top employers, etc. 

It might imply that if done correctly Stanford could convert a large portion of the the upper sunny side section into a luxury suite tower.   In the Pac-12 era a middle of the road team could probably sell some of those tickets to the opponents that might build a weekend road trip around the game.   However, now in the ACC, those seats are going to be empty almost all the time since very few in new our conference are going create a weekend experience with two 5+ hour flights.  

The 2026 choices are really empty seats, tarps, or conversions into trendy bar tables, reception areas, suites, etc.

Most Power 4 conferences have suites on both sides now, so I think Stanford will take that path too as long as some group of donors pays for the conversion AND the AD genuinely believes some group of companies will buy up the new experience seating areas, or pay top dollar for access to new suites.   I guess...they might also believe this project could capture midweek and offseason revenue too, but that is a bit harder for me to imagine.

Really almost anything would be better than empty, and rapidly fading, red plastic seats that now serve as our background for football broadcasts.

And if a few new revenue streams can prevent cuts to the Olympic sports then that would be a helpful bonus.

At core I agree and this seems like a smart path. Heck I go to Rockies games mostly just because the stadium is fun to hang out in and there are great viewing spots if you are willing to stand; so buy the cheapest seat and never sit in it. Works even though the Rockies are terrible and have been for years. They still get pretty solid attendance numbers overall - 18th in the league last year.

[82lsju]

Asked Claude for average Stanford attendance over the years. Here's what was returned. As you look at the list, think about the population of the South Bay over the years. Clearly, something more than just on field performance is at play. We did do better years ago, significantly better than we are now. Even better than we did under the winningest coach in Stanford history.

Stanford Cardinal — average home football attendance per game by decade
1900s (1900–1905 only) — ~5,000 (estimate; no stadium, program suspended 1906)
1910s (1919 only) — ~8,000 (estimate; single season after rugby era ended, no stadium yet)
1920s — ~30,000 (estimate; Stanford Stadium opened 1921 at 60k capacity)
1930s — ~48,000 (estimate; Rose Bowl era, strong program, stadium expanded to ~90k)
1940s — ~38,000 (estimate; WWII disrupted several seasons)
1950s — ~52,000 (estimate; post-war college football boom)
1960s — ~45,000 (estimate; moderate program performance)
1970s — ~60,000 (estimate; Plunkett era, Rose Bowl wins 1970–71, peak popularity)
1980s — ~50,000 (estimate; Elway era early in decade, mixed results thereafter)
1990s — ~42,000 (estimate; program decline from peak)
2000s — ~41,000 (confirmed: 43,550 in 2005; 39,332 in 2007; stadium rebuilt 2006 at 50,424 cap)
2010s — ~44,000 (confirmed: 40,042 in 2010; 43,343 in 2012; 50,726 in 2013; 47,862 in 2014; 49,917 in 2015; 44,142 in 2016; 37,018 in 2019)
2020s — ~32,000 (confirmed: ~33,219 in 2023; 28,171 in 2025; partial decade)

in the 1970s and 1980 (and probably other decades) attendance was actual people who went in, the last 20 or so years it has been tickets "sold".  I can tell you that the last few years home games have generally had maybe 15,000 actual attendees (the exceptions being reunion weekend, Big Game, and ND) in the stadium, and some games a lot less than that.  Lot 2 used to be very active for tailgating, not anymore.

[82lsju]

Asked Claude for average Stanford attendance over the years. Here's what was returned. As you look at the list, think about the population of the South Bay over the years. Clearly, something more than just on field performance is at play. We did do better years ago, significantly better than we are now. Even better than we did under the winningest coach in Stanford history.

Stanford Cardinal — average home football attendance per game by decade
1900s (1900–1905 only) — ~5,000 (estimate; no stadium, program suspended 1906)
1910s (1919 only) — ~8,000 (estimate; single season after rugby era ended, no stadium yet)
1920s — ~30,000 (estimate; Stanford Stadium opened 1921 at 60k capacity)
1930s — ~48,000 (estimate; Rose Bowl era, strong program, stadium expanded to ~90k)
1940s — ~38,000 (estimate; WWII disrupted several seasons)
1950s — ~52,000 (estimate; post-war college football boom)
1960s — ~45,000 (estimate; moderate program performance)
1970s — ~60,000 (estimate; Plunkett era, Rose Bowl wins 1970–71, peak popularity)
1980s — ~50,000 (estimate; Elway era early in decade, mixed results thereafter)
1990s — ~42,000 (estimate; program decline from peak)
2000s — ~41,000 (confirmed: 43,550 in 2005; 39,332 in 2007; stadium rebuilt 2006 at 50,424 cap)
2010s — ~44,000 (confirmed: 40,042 in 2010; 43,343 in 2012; 50,726 in 2013; 47,862 in 2014; 49,917 in 2015; 44,142 in 2016; 37,018 in 2019)
2020s — ~32,000 (confirmed: ~33,219 in 2023; 28,171 in 2025; partial decade)

in the 1970s and 1980 (and probably other decades) attendance was actual people who went in, the last 20 or so years it has been tickets "sold".  I can tell you that the last few years home games have generally had maybe 15,000 actual attendees (the exceptions being reunion weekend, Big Game, and ND) in the stadium, and some games a lot less than that.  Lot 2 used to be very active for tailgating, not anymore.

[Vandelay]

Received the email and took the survey.  Not a fan of any of the ideas.  They need to focus on improving the product on the field.  I'm definitely not looking to pay more for so-called "premium" experiences.

[Vandelay]

Received the email and took the survey.  Not a fan of any of the ideas.  They need to focus on improving the product on the field.  I'm definitely not looking to pay more for so-called "premium" experiences.

[Griffins78]

For me the stadium is fine and I despise the idea if catering to the wealthy that want to be seen as part of club membership but don’t really give a s**t about the team.

I’d like the AD to focus on establishing more connection and experience with the local community - build back the multi-generational fan base and reestablish traditions that create bonds.

Fancy seats and fancy food doesn’t do it.

Some of the ideas do create experiences for families and I support them

[Griffins78]

For me the stadium is fine and I despise the idea if catering to the wealthy that want to be seen as part of club membership but don’t really give a s**t about the team.

I’d like the AD to focus on establishing more connection and experience with the local community - build back the multi-generational fan base and reestablish traditions that create bonds.

Fancy seats and fancy food doesn’t do it.

Some of the ideas do create experiences for families and I support them