I figured this could go under discussion, but if the mods deem otherwise, fine.
It's a remodel/rename so we'll go with "development."
Anyone else have any thoughts on re-naming Skelly Stadium Chapman Stadium?
The Skelly thing has a lot of tradition, but with that, also the image of a run-down facility.
It's cool the Chapman family trust has seen fit to step up and modernize it, but I have mixed feelings about "painting over" a name that gave a lot to Tulsa in it's formative years.
The name change comes across as cold and calloused.
Not really. The Skelly name is still there...
On the radio today they said it would now be called the H.A. Chapman Stadium.
I Googled after your post and found the official title will be:
"Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium"
Okay, so they didn't trample on the tradition. My bad (or KRMG's). Turn out the lights when you are through.[;)]
The University asked for permission from the Skelly family to do this, so I think it is ok.
I would rather something in the city still be named Skelly myself.
The "skelly field at chapman stadium" thing is a joke. Renamed their stadium to "lewis field at boone pickens stadium" and how often do you hear the first part?
The fact the skelly's are okay with it makes it a little better, but I'm sure some donations were contingent on the name change so the Skelly's may have felt pressured.
I guess if someone dropped $18mm in my lap for home improvements I'd be happy to call my place Chez Conan at Warbucks Gardens. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I guess if someone dropped $18mm in my lap for home improvements I'd be happy to call my place Chez Conan at Warbucks Gardens. [;)]
For $18M I'd change my house name, my name, and call a dog a ukelele.
(http://tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/070425_A1_hItwi88808_a3stad25.jpg)
This is talked about at GREAT length at insidetulsasports.com forums.
It was originally named "Skelly Field." The stadium was named Skelly in the 1960s when "Skelly Field" made it sound too small after the expansion to 45K. If you look, "Kelly Field" is etched in the limestone on the East Side facing the Reynolds Center. That will not change.
Thus, they have simply reverted back to the original name of the field and sold the rights to the rest of the stadium for $18,000,000.00. By going to the family first and keeping the field name I would have to say the University handled this is the best manner possible.
- - - -
The stadium as it stands seats a little over 35K. The renovations include new bathrooms and concessions, a new 3 story press box with suites, expanding the plaza area to fill in the area between the stadium and the new apartments, new seats throughout, a new scoreboard, and a general revamp of the entire stadium.
The "erector set" West Side stands will be removed so the entire original limestone exterior will be visible with its Gothic arches. Coupled with the expanded plaza (which will mirror the plaza area now in the North end zone and between the stadium and the Reynolds) and the new Case Center it will be a much needed atheistic improvement.
New capacity is rumored to be around 31,000. With an average attendance around 25K it should be just fine for Tulsa. I hope the demand grows and they need to bowl in the South end zone. This is phase 2 (phase one was the case). Hopefully phase three is getting rid of the dirt mound and bowling in the south end zone with arches to match the rest of the stadium. Estimated capacity would be 38K and it would look DAMN good.
/alumni
/season ticket holder
/JesseTU on the insidetulsasports.com boards
From the TU web site:
2005
The North end zone stands were demolished in February,, thus clearing the way for the new Case Athletic Complex. The stadium seating was reduced from 40,385 to 35,542.
Skelly Stadium's Largest Crowds
1. 47,350 Oklahoma 65, Tulsa 0 Sept. 26, 1987
2. 41,235 Tulsa 27, Oklahoma State 23 Sept. 13, 1986
3. 40,785 Tulsa 20, Oklahoma State 10 Sept. 9, 1989
4. 40,385 Oklahoma State 16, Tulsa 10 Sept. 18, 1993
5. 40,385 Missouri 42, Tulsa 21 Sept. 20, 1997
6. 40,385 Tulsa 35, Oklahoma State 20 Sept. 12, 1998
7. 40,385 Oklahoma State 36, Tulsa 26 Sept. 9, 2000
8. 40,385 Oklahoma 37, Tulsa 0 Aug. 30, 2002
9. 40,248 Tulsa 20, Montana State 2 Nov. 17, 1990
10. 40,235 Oklahoma State 31, Tulsa 7 Sept. 29, 1984
11. 39,479 Tulsa 13, Oklahoma State 7 Sept. 7, 1991
Ten Largest Season Attendance Averages
1. 1991 31,236 7 games
2. 1965 28,899 4 games
3. 1982 28,355 5 games
4. 1989 25,388 5 games
5. 1993 25,077 5 games
6. 1992 24,883 6 games
7. 1996 24,814 5 games
8. 1987 24,074 4 games
9. 1990 23,917 5 games
10. 1995 23,249 5 games
So that's TU's idea of progress. Deleting 10,000 seats? Weird man, just weird.
I was at the TU/OSU in '86 and remember how packed that place was. How on earth did they ever get 47K in for TU/OU in '87?
OU was 1985 national champions and 87 may have been there first Tulsa game after that.
As mentioned, bowling it in is an option, I would imagine they could do some on the NE and NW corners as well. Supposedly they only lost 5,000 seats, and could recoup that in future expansions. In the mean time they added more seats that make money so they can pay to re-upsize.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OU was 1985 national champions and 87 may have been there first Tulsa game after that.
As mentioned, bowling it in is an option, I would imagine they could do some on the NE and NW corners as well. Supposedly they only lost 5,000 seats, and could recoup that in future expansions. In the mean time they added more seats that make money so they can pay to re-upsize.
I wasn't interested in "why" there were so many fans, that much was obvious. I'm curious where they put all those people for OU/TU.
You dont build a stadium to hold capacity crowds one time every other year. Most of the time TU had 25K fans in their 45K seat stadium. That is not a good atmosphere.
Eliminating the additional seats will save Tulsa $10,000,000.00 in the renovations and make Tulsa a better atmosphere for the fans.
If you [edit typo]were a[/edit] the game, then you remember that there were more OSU fans than Tulsa fans. Screw that.
With an average attendance in the 20's, a stadium in the 30's will be just fine for now.
This is something that I was questioning. When they removed the north end zone stands, it dropped from 40, 385 to 35,542. So now they are only expecting to lose 4,542 seats with the removal of the major "erector set" section of seats? I can't see that, it's a huge section of the stadium. I would guess that it would be more about 25,000 seats. A am also concerned that the reduction in seating that its going to be even harder for TU to be able to make contacts with larger universities (like OU and OSU) that base their contracts solely on the ability to make money off of ticket sales, and with TU having an even smaller seating capacity, they wont be able to live up to those needs.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OU was 1985 national champions and 87 may have been there first Tulsa game after that.
As mentioned, bowling it in is an option, I would imagine they could do some on the NE and NW corners as well. Supposedly they only lost 5,000 seats, and could recoup that in future expansions. In the mean time they added more seats that make money so they can pay to re-upsize.
I wasn't interested in "why" there were so many fans, that much was obvious. I'm curious where they put all those people for OU/TU.
This is a well-circulated story. [:D]
The athletic director at the time renumbered the stadium seats for that game and added one seat per row. That's how they got 47,000 people in a stadium that only seated 40,000.
People were crammed in there like sardines. Everyone had to stand the entire game -- facing SIDEWAYS. There literally wasn't enough room on each row to stand or sit shoulder to shoulder. Every time the field position would switch from one side to the other, the whole crowd had to turn around to face the other direction.
Apparently the university caught some major hell from the fire chief after the game, but they'd already pocketed the money.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OU was 1985 national champions and 87 may have been there first Tulsa game after that.
As mentioned, bowling it in is an option, I would imagine they could do some on the NE and NW corners as well. Supposedly they only lost 5,000 seats, and could recoup that in future expansions. In the mean time they added more seats that make money so they can pay to re-upsize.
I wasn't interested in "why" there were so many fans, that much was obvious. I'm curious where they put all those people for OU/TU.
This is a well-circulated story. [:D]
The athletic director at the time renumbered the stadium seats for that game and added one seat per row. That's how they got 47,000 people in a stadium that only seated 40,000.
People were crammed in there like sardines. Everyone had to stand the entire game -- facing SIDEWAYS. There literally wasn't enough room on each row to stand or sit shoulder to shoulder. Every time the field position would switch from one side to the other, the whole crowd had to turn around to face the other direction.
Apparently the university caught some major hell from the fire chief after the game, but they'd already pocketed the money.
So what do you think of this plan AJ?
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
This is something that I was questioning. When they removed the north end zone stands, it dropped from 40, 385 to 35,542. So now they are only expecting to lose 4,542 seats with the removal of the major "erector set" section of seats? I can't see that, it's a huge section of the stadium. I would guess that it would be more about 25,000 seats. A am also concerned that the reduction in seating that its going to be even harder for TU to be able to make contacts with larger universities (like OU and OSU) that base their contracts solely on the ability to make money off of ticket sales, and with TU having an even smaller seating capacity, they wont be able to live up to those needs.
Small private universities like TU typically negotiate home-away-home football contracts with larger state universities. The smaller university sacrifices home field advantage for a payday, and the larger university only has to travel once in exchange for filling its larger stadium twice.
In other words, this shouldn't affect TU's ability to negotiate contracts with larger nonconference opponents. Ironically, what will make it most difficult to negotiate is if TU actually becomes a threat to beat them regularly - see, e.g., TCU. The big schools want a patsy, not a competitive game.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You dont build a stadium to hold capacity crowds one time every other year. Most of the time TU had 25K fans in their 45K seat stadium. That is not a good atmosphere.
Eliminating the additional seats will save Tulsa $10,000,000.00 in the renovations and make Tulsa a better atmosphere for the fans.
If you [edit typo]were a[/edit] the game, then you remember that there were more OSU fans than Tulsa fans. Screw that.
With an average attendance in the 20's, a stadium in the 30's will be just fine for now.
Maybe our city fathers and mothers could have considered that logic in building the over-sized BOK Center. [xx(] I'm betting on a sell-out for the first event since people will want to see what they bought with their tax dollars.
After that, I think a sell-out will be a rarity. Even though we will have the capacity to sell more tickets than we have before, our demographic and population base won't complete with OKC, Dallas, and KC for the bigger concerts and touring events. Even with the arena, we would have never gotten the Hornets.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Maybe our city fathers and mothers could have considered that logic in building the over-sized BOK Center. [xx(] I'm betting on a sell-out for the first event since people will want to see what they bought with their tax dollars.
After that, I think a sell-out will be a rarity. Even though we will have the capacity to sell more tickets than we have before, our demographic and population base won't complete with OKC, Dallas, and KC for the bigger concerts and touring events. Even with the arena, we would have never gotten the Hornets.
What makes you think that? The BOk Center will be smaller than the Ford Center and Reunion Arena in Dallas. Many cities that are slightly smaller than Tulsa have an arena of comparable size to the BOk Center, such as Omaha, Des Moines, and Little Rock. We have to remember the marketplace for a large regional arena. No, the BOk Center won't sell out for Oilers hockey games, but something like an Eric Clapton concert will draw audiences from not only Tulsa's soon-to-be 1 million pop. MSA, but NW Ark, SW Missouri, and SE Kansas. Furthermore, many sports events, such as NCAA tournament games, require an arena the size of the BOk Center to host. Little Rock will be hosting 1st and 2nd round NCAA tourney games in 2008, with their 18,000 seat arena. There is absoulutely no reason to think Tulsa cannot do the same in the coming years with an architectual icon such as the BOk Center, as well as almost double the MSA population of Little Rock.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sports/article.aspx?articleID=070426_238_B1_spanc42637
Renaming Skelly: A new name for TU's stadium after 60 years: New name, new beginning
By ERIC BAILEY World Sports Writer
4/26/2007 1:15 PM
TU's stadium changes titles, but Skelly name not forgotten
Maurice Hail was still a young lad when his family used to take drives past the new Skelly Field in 1930.
"It was such a big deal, probably one of the biggest items being built in the state of Oklahoma," said Hail, 87 and a former University of Tulsa football player. "Everyone in the state knew Tulsa was going to get a big stadium."
Many different transformations, including the 1947 name change to Skelly Stadium, have occurred in the 76-year history of TU's football venue.
The latest came on Tuesday night when school president Steadman Upham announced the H.A. and Mary K. Chapman Trust will provide $9 million -- and half of the estimated cost -- of a major stadium renovation that will be completed by fall 2008.
With the hefty gift came naming rights. The venue will now be known as Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium.
"The Chapmans have been so generous to the university," TU athletic director Bubba Cunningham said Tuesday. "This is a great gift for the university and the athletic program."
The renovations include new seating throughout the stadium, restrooms, a new press box and new scoreboard. Luxury suites will also be added to the west side.
School officials announced Wednesday that there will be a news conference unveiling additional details and renderings of Chapman Stadium at a later date.
Donne Pitman and Jerry Dickman, trustees of the H.A. and Mary K. Chapman Trust, weren't available for comment.
Mike Case kickstarted the stadium renovation by providing a significant gift for the soon-to-be opened $10 million Case Athletic Complex.
He's excited about the Chapman Foundation's commitment.
"It's extremely exciting and I couldn't be happier that someone like the Chapman Trust were able to step up," Case said.
Capacity is expected to dip to around 31,000. It would be the smallest in Conference USA, but comparable to Southern Miss (33,000), SMU (32,000) and Houston (32,000).
Tulsa made sure it involved the heirs of William Skelly before shifting stadium naming rights.
Fulton Collins, chairman of TU's Board of Trustees, met with Skelly's grandson Jon Stuart and granddaughter Randi Wightman.
"They asked me what I thought about (renaming the stadium) and I agreed that it was a good plan of action," said Stuart, a member of the University of Oklahoma's Board of Regents.
Wightman appreciated TU's outreach to Skelly's family.
"The fact that they didn't jump in and change it without asking us (was respectful)," Wightman said. "We certainly weren't against the (name change).
"If the Chapman Foundation is putting up that much money, they deserve their name on the stadium."
With all the changes, one constant will stay.
The words "Skelly Field" will remain etched in the limestone at midfield on the stadium's east side.
Glenn Dobbs III spent much of his young years inside Skelly Stadium. Renaming it to Chapman Stadium brings bittersweet feelings.
"I have mixed emotions," said former letterman Dobbs, who is also the son of TU player and coach Glenn Dobbs. "I understand why they did that."
Tommy Hudspeth played at TU from 1949-52. He said keeping Skelly's name attached is beneficial.
"That still keeps the past in there and it brings forward the aggressiveness of the University of Tulsa and its followers," Hudspeth said.
QUICK FACTS
What happened:
The H.A. and Mary K. Chapman Trust has provided $9 million —half of the estimated cost —for the renovation of the University of Tulsa's football stadium.
What's next:
With the large gift comes naming rights. Skelly Stadium will become Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium in 2007.
The renovation project, which includes new seating, restrooms, a new press box and new scoreboard, is scheduled to be completed by the 2008 home opener.
----------------------------------------------
Boy, the statement "capacity is expected to dip to around 31,000" just doesn't add up. Those upper level stands had to hold close to 10,000... and wasn't taking out a few of the front rows to give more room for TV media once part of the mix? At least that had been the rumor for years... and when it comes to "new seating," does it mean there'll be some actual seats or will it just be the same bench seating?
TU hasn't averaged very close to 25K per game in over a decade... and that includes years in which attendance stats would be skewered based on the occasional sellout home game against OU or OSU... in other words, your typical TU game crowd against Houston, UTEP or SMU, etc. would be closer to 15K in attendance...
The attendance stats I used to be able to look up are being reorganized so I was only able to find TU's avg attendance the past couple of years...
TU's 2006 avg per game home attendance: 22,826
TU's 2005 avg per game home attendance: 21,364
It's not that odd to reduce the size of a venue. The big key is, how many luxury suites are you adding? Those are the big moneymakers. And I see that TU has those prominently in the mix.
A lot of major-league baseball stadiums, starting in the 1990s, willingly scaled down to sub-50,000 stadiums because 1) of the aforementioned luxury boxes provided more revenue; 2) smaller stadiums provide a better viewing experience for spectators.
Example: The new Busch Stadium in St. Louis seats fewer than 50,000, which is more than 6,000 fewer than the old stadium.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
What makes you think that? The BOk Center will be smaller than the Ford Center and Reunion Arena in Dallas. Many cities that are slightly smaller than Tulsa have an arena of comparable size to the BOk Center, such as Omaha, Des Moines, and Little Rock. We have to remember the marketplace for a large regional arena. No, the BOk Center won't sell out for Oilers hockey games, but something like an Eric Clapton concert will draw audiences from not only Tulsa's soon-to-be 1 million pop. MSA, but NW Ark, SW Missouri, and SE Kansas. Furthermore, many sports events, such as NCAA tournament games, require an arena the size of the BOk Center to host. Little Rock will be hosting 1st and 2nd round NCAA tourney games in 2008, with their 18,000 seat arena. There is absoulutely no reason to think Tulsa cannot do the same in the coming years with an architectual icon such as the BOk Center, as well as almost double the MSA population of Little Rock.
Good questions, I hope I'm dreadfully wrong.
Here's what concert promoters are going to look at:
OKC MSA is something like 1.3mm to 1.4mm. Ford Center will have about 1300 more seats for concerts. OKC is also in close proximity to Norman and close enough to Stillwater to attract college-age and young adults. Promoters also count on Tulsans driving to OKC for concerts.
Tulsa and OKC are close enough together that "major" tours will pick OKC over Tulsa and won't usually book the cities back-to-back. Due to the production costs of some tours like the Police, they aren't going to hit OKC, pretty much just the top 20 markets in North America.
Little Rock pretty much plays second fiddle to Memphis when it comes to bookings for the same reasons Tulsa does and will to OKC.
Garth Brooks could sell out the arena, but who knows about, say, Kenny Chesney.
We can probably get some first and second round NCAA action at some point, but those games aren't a guaranteed sell-out, unless one of the area schools is playing, even then 18,000 is a lofty goal.
Convention business? What do we have to offer over other cities which attract the big conventions?
Our demographic and population is always going to relegate us to having second tier professional sports.
Hey, I understand if we don't cast a line in the water, we won't catch any fish. I still think we could have built a 12,000 or 14,000 seat arena, saved money and still gotten about the kind of shows we will wind up with anyhow.
I dont know about you, but I am hoping that in 15 or 20 years. Which isnt really that far in the future. Tulsa will have 20,000 OSU students, and more counting TCC downtown and by then a larger TU. Plus a bustling downtown and population growth all around. In other words, I think we will "grow into" the BOK arena in no time at all.
As for the TU stadium. I suppose they are going for quality of venue versus quantity. In time if its warranted they can upgrade and add more seating and that structure can be of a higher quality and appearance than the old one.
Any word on the new TU PAC building? Renderings? Where is it going to be?
I hope so. I also hope our city doesn't get as bored with BOK center as quickly as Memphis did with the Pyramid. They opened the Fedex Forum only 13 years after commissioning the Pyramid. Now that space is in limbo.
quote:
Originally posted by sportyart
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
OU was 1985 national champions and 87 may have been there first Tulsa game after that.
As mentioned, bowling it in is an option, I would imagine they could do some on the NE and NW corners as well. Supposedly they only lost 5,000 seats, and could recoup that in future expansions. In the mean time they added more seats that make money so they can pay to re-upsize.
I wasn't interested in "why" there were so many fans, that much was obvious. I'm curious where they put all those people for OU/TU.
This is a well-circulated story. [:D]
The athletic director at the time renumbered the stadium seats for that game and added one seat per row. That's how they got 47,000 people in a stadium that only seated 40,000.
People were crammed in there like sardines. Everyone had to stand the entire game -- facing SIDEWAYS. There literally wasn't enough room on each row to stand or sit shoulder to shoulder. Every time the field position would switch from one side to the other, the whole crowd had to turn around to face the other direction.
Apparently the university caught some major hell from the fire chief after the game, but they'd already pocketed the money.
So what do you think of this plan AJ?
Cautiously optimistic. I'm going to wait until the full announcement when all the details will be made public. But I like what I see so far.
This is great news!! For years, I have been saying that they should just remove the additional metal stands above the limestone on the west side. It would make for a much classier stadium and will give a much better feel to the neighborhood. My brother is a TU alum, and I have been to many many games there, and the "echo" chamber effect is a real downer when the stands are empty.
Quality over quantity. I am ALL for it.
My sentiments exactly Tulsa1603.
Conan:
The BOk arena is not 18K seats because we think we can sell that many, but because it has to be that large. Let me explain.
Most promoters and many events will not consider a venue any smaller than that. The NCAA, pro sports or even pro exhibitions, national concert tours, and major conventions require at least 18,000 seats in a venue to BID FOR the product. Tulsa would have probably been best served by a 10-14,000 seat arena but when you figure in all the lost possibilities (nearly anything notable and everything people want to see in Tulsa) the extra space is needed.
Its too bad, I agree. I would have been happier with a less expensive, higher % utilized stadium, with that 'its not empty in here' feeling. However, the loss of potential customers would have doomed the product. The market demands 18K, and so it must be provided or dont bother building it (which was also an option).
The arena was also built to cater to smaller events. Distinct upper and lower bowls, skyboxes are not very high up, seats are blue to "reduce the feeling of emptiness," etc.
Well, hopefully as someone else pointed out that it might well be hitting capacity 15 to 20 years out.
As I've said all along I hope my predictions of doom are proven wrong. [;)]
It is T.U.'s facility, and they can call it whatever they want to. Money talks.
I recall recently there was some flak about renaming the convention center for a new corporate sponsor, and removing former Tulsa mayor Maxwell's name.
Personally, I will always call the T.U. stadium "Skelly Stadium." I will always call I-244 through Tulsa the "Crosstown Expressway," not the M.L. King Memorial Expressway. I will always call the convention center the "Maxwell Convention Center" or the Assembly Center. Names will come and go, what is more important is that infrastructure and facilities are maintained, and if some private or corporate donor wants to feed their ego and have their name slapped on something, fine. The "official" name is immaterial and will probably change with every few generations and the latest big-bucks donor anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
OKC MSA is something like 1.3mm to 1.4mm. Ford Center will have about 1300 more seats for concerts. OKC is also in close proximity to Norman and close enough to Stillwater to attract college-age and young adults. Promoters also count on Tulsans driving to OKC for concerts.
Tulsa and OKC are close enough together that "major" tours will pick OKC over Tulsa and won't usually book the cities back-to-back. Due to the production costs of some tours like the Police, they aren't going to hit OKC, pretty much just the top 20 markets in North America.
Little Rock pretty much plays second fiddle to Memphis when it comes to bookings for the same reasons Tulsa does and will to OKC.
Garth Brooks could sell out the arena, but who knows about, say, Kenny Chesney.
We can probably get some first and second round NCAA action at some point, but those games aren't a guaranteed sell-out, unless one of the area schools is playing, even then 18,000 is a lofty goal.
Convention business? What do we have to offer over other cities which attract the big conventions?
Our demographic and population is always going to relegate us to having second tier professional sports.
Hey, I understand if we don't cast a line in the water, we won't catch any fish. I still think we could have built a 12,000 or 14,000 seat arena, saved money and still gotten about the kind of shows we will wind up with anyhow.
You're not necessarily accurate in predicting that major concert tours will always choose OKC over Tulsa just because of a larger population. Big-name concerts are granted to cities because of a venue's promotional efforts. To someone who has played in New York or LA, OKC and Tulsa are very much the same size. If you compare the 100-mile radius population of OKC and Tulsa, they're not much different. A big name concert like the Red Hot Chili Peppers will draw an audience of about a 100-mile radius.
You also aren't considering the fact that there are constantly several big-name tours going on throughout the country. Not everyone can play everywhere. Most performers only have about a two-day window that they can play in a certain city. If two major performers are doing a mid-america tour, they can't both play in the same place at the same time. The reason I used Little Rock as an example before was because their arena recently hosted The Who, as well as other comparable well-known artists. Even with their close proximity to Memphis, Little Rock is still able to land big-name gigs.
And, as someone already said, for NCAA tourney games, the requirement is around 16,000 seats. Even a guaranteed sell out 12,000 or 14,000 seat arena wouldn't bring NCAA tourney games to Tulsa.
The committee for the NCAA tournament stated that their preferred size is 18,000.
They rarely deviate and offer bids to small venues but it DOES happen from time to time (U of Dayton arena only seats 14,000). Nothing above a regional has been held in a < 18,000 arena for decades. Other items also require the 18,000 mark as a thresh hold. Short of that and it is seen as something that you have to overcome.
It is too tempting to not mention other possibilities for a renovated Skelly... [:D]
"Below, an estimated crowd of more than 14,000 watches the Kansas City Wizards take on the Dallas Burn during a Major League Soccer exhibition game at Skelly Stadium on April 5, 2003."
STEPHEN HOLMAN / Tulsa World
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2005/051118_A1_Citym117_a1soc18.jpg)
Back in 2002, Lamar Hunt came to Tulsa and was quoted as saying Skelly was NOT an option for Major League Soccer... because it was too old and too big.
After TU's game at Univ of Houston's Robertson Stadium last fall, John Klein from the Tulsa World wrote in his blog about how TU should make Skelly Stadium suitable for Major League Soccer... the same way Robertson Stadium was refurbished and was able to accomodate MLS's Houston Dynamo.
(http://www.uh.edu/campus_map/photos/rs_01.jpg)
I wonder if TU has put some thought into this; after all, reduction of capacity, installation of new seats, press box with luxury suites would all make the stadium more suitable to MLS... by the time renovations are complete, the field turf will be over 8 years old (installed in 2000)... natural grass?
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
OKC MSA is something like 1.3mm to 1.4mm. Ford Center will have about 1300 more seats for concerts. OKC is also in close proximity to Norman and close enough to Stillwater to attract college-age and young adults. Promoters also count on Tulsans driving to OKC for concerts.
Tulsa and OKC are close enough together that "major" tours will pick OKC over Tulsa and won't usually book the cities back-to-back. Due to the production costs of some tours like the Police, they aren't going to hit OKC, pretty much just the top 20 markets in North America.
Little Rock pretty much plays second fiddle to Memphis when it comes to bookings for the same reasons Tulsa does and will to OKC.
Garth Brooks could sell out the arena, but who knows about, say, Kenny Chesney.
We can probably get some first and second round NCAA action at some point, but those games aren't a guaranteed sell-out, unless one of the area schools is playing, even then 18,000 is a lofty goal.
Convention business? What do we have to offer over other cities which attract the big conventions?
Our demographic and population is always going to relegate us to having second tier professional sports.
Hey, I understand if we don't cast a line in the water, we won't catch any fish. I still think we could have built a 12,000 or 14,000 seat arena, saved money and still gotten about the kind of shows we will wind up with anyhow.
You're not necessarily accurate in predicting that major concert tours will always choose OKC over Tulsa just because of a larger population. Big-name concerts are granted to cities because of a venue's promotional efforts. To someone who has played in New York or LA, OKC and Tulsa are very much the same size. If you compare the 100-mile radius population of OKC and Tulsa, they're not much different. A big name concert like the Red Hot Chili Peppers will draw an audience of about a 100-mile radius.
You also aren't considering the fact that there are constantly several big-name tours going on throughout the country. Not everyone can play everywhere. Most performers only have about a two-day window that they can play in a certain city. If two major performers are doing a mid-america tour, they can't both play in the same place at the same time. The reason I used Little Rock as an example before was because their arena recently hosted The Who, as well as other comparable well-known artists. Even with their close proximity to Memphis, Little Rock is still able to land big-name gigs.
And, as someone already said, for NCAA tourney games, the requirement is around 16,000 seats. Even a guaranteed sell out 12,000 or 14,000 seat arena wouldn't bring NCAA tourney games to Tulsa.
Good points, and I've stated all along I hope I'm wrong as to the eventual success of the building. I'm just trying to figure out the ROI on the additional investment in seats for occasional first round NCAA ball or possibly somewhere further up the chain w/ NIT.
Promotional efforts are only relevant when you have either a demographic that is well-served by a venue or exclusivity of an event. You might have the coolest venue in the world and a great promoter for, say, punk rock or indie music- but if that venue is in Sun City, Az. it's irrelevant because the demographic isn't there to sell tix.
One example of promotion and exclusivity is the Chili Bowl. It's a boon for Tulsa because there is absolutely no other sporting event anywhere in the world just like it. It brings in people from all over the country and even as far away as Australia and NZ. If it had relied only on the Tulsa demographic and there were 20 races just like it around the country in the middle of winter, it would be a shadow of itself and wouldn't bring in near the out-of-state tourism dollars it does. Tourism dollars are great because they introduce new money to the economy instead of it just being re-circulated locally as local sporting events like the Drillers and Oilers do.
I'm not saying local sports is bad, just that they don't introduce very much in the way of new $$ to the local economy.
However, with a group like RHCP, you have to look at demographic along w/ population. With two college towns w/in 80 miles, that demo is going to trump another area which doesn't fit their demographic. OKC would likely continue to get bands like RHCP over Tulsa.
Major tours are costly. They have to go where they get their biggest bang for the buck. I really do hope they feel Tulsa can return that. I'd love to see some big-time acts come through here. I just don't think we are really on the radar scope like Dallas, KC, OKC, or Memphis.
Concerts regularly rotate locations to. Many groups may alternate between Tulsa and OKC. When someone like RHCP is in Tulsa, people from OKC will come here and vice-versa.
Tulsa would also draw from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas as well. If you count smaller colleges, Tulsa is probably has more around than OKC does because OKC had OU. NSU, RSC, ORU, TU, etc
The MLS possibility definitely needs to be looked at.
Good thoughts on using Skelly for other purposes. I would like to think the University has thought of such things and/or already contacted some people.
Too many people think we need a new baseball and new soccer and new... everything else. The assets we have are under utilized as it stands. Lets use them, and we they are too busy to handle everything we'll talk about spending millions on something new.
"Too many people think we need a new baseball and new soccer and new... everything else. The assets we have are under utilized as it stands. Lets use them, and we they are too busy to handle everything we'll talk about spending millions on something new."--Cannon Fodder
-----------------------------------------------
Sorry, but I still think the number of people who think we need "new" is too few.
In terms of civic projects, OKC passed Tulsa sometime in the 90s and hasn't looked back.
Keep in mind that the 22,500-seat soccer-specific stadium (with a concert stage on one end) that former mayor LaFortune initially proposed in 2003 for Vision 2025 would have cost less than half the price of the BOk arena... add a new ballpark for the Drillers AND the same proposed convention center upgrades and you'd still have tens of millions of dollars left over from what the new arena is costing us...
I kept track of the naysayer feeding frenzy when Vision 2025 was to include a soccer stadium... "not one nickel, this... and not one dime, that"... then, local rags like the Tulsa Beacon droned on and on that an indoor arena would make more sense... downplayed the same 2003 MLS exhibition game mentioned above and never mentioned the 5,000 or so season ticket commitments for MLS in Tulsa.... so then in June 2003, LaFortune's administration changed their collective minds... in what I consider a pretty massive bait-and-switch...
Guess it's pretty hard to continue to be naysayers when the mayor calls your bluff and gives you an 18,000 seat indoor arena to vote fer or agin'.... I mean, if it's 12k - 14k, does that really accomplish anything?... the naysayers would simply have said "how stupid, they built it too small..."
The Ice Oilers and the Talons could just as easily fit their fanbase at UMAC, Expo Square, Mabee Center, the Reynolds Center and a renovated downtown civic center..... but Tulsa has only one larger outdoor stadium, and that is... Skelly Stadium.
But Tulsans still wanted to keep up with the Joneses (Little Rock & OKC)... and who could blame them after the hodge-podge of half-baked projects that didn't pass in the 90s like the Tulsa Project?
And the much larger price-tag of this new arena now leaves far too many Tulsans thinking no facilities can ever be built in this town for at least another decade (or two)...
No where in that entire ramble did you make a good case for building a new stadium for baseball or soccer in Tulsa. As the Oilers and Tallons can play in other venues - so could MLS and the Drillers. The fact that you think OKC is ahead of Tulsa or that you dont like the arena are not reasons to build stadiums.
A baseball stadium sits empty 90% of the time - why would we want 2 of them? It sells out once per year for the bedlam game. If we want people in downtown that badly, lets just pay people to go downtown. At $5 each we could pay 2,000,000 people to go downtown. That would blow $10mil and get people downtown without costing the city maintenance on another under utilized asset.
And as far as MLS goes: Skelly has proven that it works perfectly for soccer. The seasons do not overlap. The stadium is under utilized and closer to the fan base (Hispanic community) than downtown is. Not to mention, why would Tulsa want to get in the business of subsidizing professional sports? The stadium would have one tenant that played a dozen games a year there. What a waste.
Other than your hated 'keeping up with the Jones' what would be the point of building new stadiums? Certainly no conventions or massive events would occur at a soccer complex. Even if we hosted the NCAA soccer tournament for a decade it wouldn't draw the crowds a single year of basketball would. Likewise with a new baseball stadium.
2005 Total attendance for the Drillers:
335,018
MLS average attandance is around 15,000 per game... 16 home games = 240,000
***Once again, these "soccer specific" stadiums have been built with concert stages on one end... Skelly doesn't have that option.
Skelly Stadium without the future upgrades described in this thread, was unsuitable for MLS... the commissioner said so... so did Lamar Hunt... so your proclaimation of Skelly as "perfect for soccer" will not make it so...
Building an 18k capacity indoor arena at $140 million just for a handful of NCAA basketball tourney games is NOT a reason to build it.
You can argue that no public $$$ should be used to build arenas or stadiums... but the stadium for soccer/hs football/concerts would have cost less than half the price of the arena...
Since this thread is supposed to be about the new Chapman Stadium, maybe my arguments should be presented on another thread under Discussion... meet ya there.
You feel we erred by building the arena... my agreement on that point does not matter. As it has no bearing on my disagreement with the need for a MLS stadium. With, or without the arena it will be wasted space 95% of the time.
Per concerts, Skelly could easily add a stage to one end zone if it was desired. If you can hold a concert in the UNI Dome you can do it in Skelly with ease. Or dozens of other outdoor venues are available in the Tulsa area for that matter (Drillers has been used - baseball stadiums actually work better than football due to orientation). The desire simply isnt there.
I dont understand what Skelly needs to be MLS certifiable. It clearly has the capacity and the field. What else do they want? I really dont know. I am sure if there was some interest $$$ could be allocated when a lease was signed.
Between Skelly, Union, BA, Jenks and Owasso I think we have enough football stadiums. Drillers stadium is enough large baseball. The BOk and expo is enough indoor arena space.
I'll be happy to join you in a different thread...
Using your logic, no $$$ should be wasted on Skelly Stadium either, since it just sits vacant 95% of the year.... why should high schools build their own stadiums when they too sit vacant 95% of the time.
I do not feel we "erred" with the arena... it's one of many projects that were recommended for downtown Tulsa by the 2003 Convenstions, Sports, & Leisure feasability study... and it passed. Thank god SOMETHING is being built downtown instead of surface parking, after 25 years of all-the-roads-you-can-eat elsewhere in Tulsa...
I am simply pointing out that the arena is costing MORE THAN DOUBLE the price of the initially proposed outdoor stadium... and will cost tens of millions of more dollars than the combined costs of a stadium and a downtown ballpark...
while I have moved this discussion to the other thread under discussion, I will respond here too :)
Skelly is a private facility owned and operated by the University of Tulsa. They are free to do with their money as they see fit. I feel college athletics is important to a school for community, reputation, and to provide a more thorough college experience. Not to mention UTulsa allows their students to use the stadium on off days.
Athletics are likewise a vital part of high school. Stadium do not need to be as fancy as they are, but I think a high school football game is a quintessential American experience. It serves purposes for the school, the students, and the community as a whole.
A pro stadium, on the other hand, is a publicly subsidized form of entertainment. It serves some important functions for publicity for the city and *can* be a centerpiece of the community. But at the end of the day it is taking public money and giving it to specified public interests. The players, the team owners and the direct fans gain at the expense of all tax payers with questionable returns (usually blackmail for a better stadium).
as for the cost - see the other thread.