On 2023-04-04 10:34, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 1:40:47 AM UTC-4, David Duffy wrote:
>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The growing tendency of journalists to relate the size of things in
>>> comparisons: 'as long as 4 football fields', 'as large as a MiniCooper',
>>> 'the size of a four year old' has been a minor irritant to me for a long
>>> time (yes, there are better things to rage at).
>>>
>>> The author of this article clearly feels the same:
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> https://www.jpost.com/science/article-735473
>>>
>>> "Asteroid the size of 33 armadillos to pass Earth Sunday - NASA"
>>>
>>> "Asteroid 2023 FL2 is 35 meters, which is as much as almost 33
>>> nine-banded armadillos lined up tail-to-snout. However, it won't
>>> hit us, and armadillos might even be more dangerous."
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> He goes on to include two photos of armadillos, and references
>>> two other meteors which journalists described as "the
>>> Corgi-sized meteor that weighed as much as four baby elephants",
>>> and "asteroid 2023 CX1, twice the size of a super bowl trophy,
>>> which impacted near Normandy, France".
>>>
>>> pt
>> No-one has mentioned Olympic swimming pools (2,500 m^3) or,
>> around here, "sydharb, also called a Sydney Harbour,
>> approximately 500 gigalitres".
>
> I see that number quoted online, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
>
> A gigalitre is a cubic kilometer. The area of Sydney harbor is 55 sq km.
>
> To get 500 km^3 of water into it, it would have to be 9 km deep from
> shore to shore.
>
> Looking up the numbers, the deepest part of the harbor is 47m. I
> suggest the number cited is off by a factor of 1000.
>
> The problem here is that '500 billion liters' doesn't
> really relate to the scale. If the source said '500 cubic kilometers'
> someone would sooner have noticed the absurdity.
>
> pt

Glad to see you corrected this...

;-)

On 4/4/2023 4:38 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>> income.
>>>
>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>
>> In what way?  Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>> relies fairly heavily on gate income.  Yes, there would still be
>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>
>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>
>>    -- Bob
>>
>
> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>
> What?
>
> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
> taken out...
>
> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
> the seats that become the new front row?
>
> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.

But they still lose seats. The total number of seats available will go
down, meaning ticket sales go down, meaning income goes down.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2023-04-04 20:34, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/4/2023 4:38 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>> income.
>>>>
>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>
>>> In what way?  Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income.  Yes, there would still be
>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>
>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>
>>>    -- Bob
>>>
>>
>> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>
>> What?
>>
>> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats
>> get taken out...
>>
>> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount
>> for the seats that become the new front row?
>>
>> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>
> But they still lose seats.  The total number of seats available will go
> down, meaning ticket sales go down, meaning income goes down.
>

But not by all that much.

The topmost seats are often not full.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>
>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>
>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>
>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>
>That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>space available is the same whether stepped or not.

The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
of the seats.

So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
size of the seats.

But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.

In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 4/4/23 08:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>> In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7.472946@fx11.iad>,
>> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>
>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>> more steeply.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
>>> long would it take to recover the construction costs?
>>
>> It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
>> raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
>> no railings.
>
> Levi stadium has severely raked seating. Personally, I hate it
> and would have preferred they stay at Candlestick where it felt
> much less claustrophobic.

There was a smallish lecture hall at Cal, I don't remember which one but
in a science building, that was really, really steep with no railings of
course. One of my fraternity brothers remarked that you needed pitons
and carabiners to get into the top rows.

--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer (Retired, mostly)

On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>
>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>
>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>
>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>
> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
> of the seats.
>
> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
> size of the seats.
>
> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>
> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.

_
|_
|_
|_
|_
|_

_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_
|
|_

___________

Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6/04/23 09:28, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have
>>>>>>>>>>> to remove
>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In what way?  Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a
>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a
>>>>>>>>> sport that
>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income.  Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> How?  (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>
>>>> By pythagorean theorem.   The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>
>>> That doesn't sound right to me.  The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps".  The horizontal
>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>
>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>> of the seats.
>>
>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>> size of the seats.
>>
>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>
>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>
> _
>  |_
>    |_
>      |_
>        |_
>          |_
>
> _
>  |
>  |_
>    |
>    |_
>      |
>      |_
>        |
>        |_
>          |
>          |_
>
>
> ___________
>
>
> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>

The Lowpotenuse?

On 4/5/2023 5:06 PM, Titus G wrote:
> On 6/04/23 09:28, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to remove
>>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In what way?  Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a
>>>>>>>>>> couple
>>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a
>>>>>>>>>> sport that
>>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income.  Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How?  (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>>
>>>>> By pythagorean theorem.   The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't sound right to me.  The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps".  The horizontal
>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>>
>>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>>> of the seats.
>>>
>>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>>> size of the seats.
>>>
>>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>>
>>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>>
>> _
>>  |_
>>    |_
>>      |_
>>        |_
>>          |_
>>
>> _
>>  |
>>  |_
>>    |
>>    |_
>>      |
>>      |_
>>        |
>>        |_
>>          |
>>          |_
>>
>>
>> ___________
>>
>>
>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>
>
> The Lowpotenuse?

Don't tempt me to throw a hippo-sized foam rock at you!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 7:38:59 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
> >>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
> >>> income.
> >>
> >> You need to think that last statement through...
> >
> > In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
> > hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
> > relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
> > rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
> >
> > I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
> >
> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>
> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
> taken out...
>
> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
> the seats that become the new front row?
>
> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.

Hmm... the new larger perimeter means there are more of the new rinkside seats.
Even if it weren't possible to convince fans that the old nosebleed/bleachers/SRO area is now more valuable, there may be an increase in ticket price for bumping up the rows in between that is revenue neutral or revenue positive.

--
-Jack

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>> income.
>>>
>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>
>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>
>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>
>> -- Bob
>>
>
>Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>
>What?

Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
right?

>You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>taken out...
>
>...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>the seats that become the new front row?
>
>Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.

Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
specifically the Flyers layouts:

https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating

Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
because part of the 100 level disappeared.

Likewise, the idea of making the seating steeper in order to add more
seats isn't very feasable because it would require altering the
building itself.

So my original point stands - the NHL won't expand the rink size
because it would cost them a lot of ticket income.

-- Bob

In article <642eba5b.1114609625@localhost>,
Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>> income.
>>>>
>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>
>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>
>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>
>>> -- Bob
>>>
>>
>>Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>
>>What?
>
>Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
>right?
>
>
>>You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>>taken out...
>>
>>...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>>the seats that become the new front row?
>>
>>Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>
>
>Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
>specifically the Flyers layouts:
>
>https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>
>Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
>Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
>profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
>200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
>because part of the 100 level disappeared.
>
>Likewise, the idea of making the seating steeper in order to add more
>seats isn't very feasable because it would require altering the
>building itself.
>
>So my original point stands - the NHL won't expand the rink size
>because it would cost them a lot of ticket income.
>
> -- Bob
>

Well, the usual way professional athletics handles this is to con a host
city into building them a new, bigger arena with taxpayer dollars...
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>
>>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>
>>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>
>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>> of the seats.
>>
>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>> size of the seats.
>>
>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>
>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>
>_
> |_
> |_
> |_
> |_
> |_
>
>_
> |
> |_
> |
> |_
> |
> |_
> |
> |_
> |
> |_
>
>
>___________
>
>
>Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.

You are missing the point:

*_
|
*_
|
*_

vs
_ |
_
|
_
|
_

producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
seats.

The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
rows. Or both.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 6 Apr 2023 12:48:13 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>)
wrote:

>In article <642eba5b.1114609625@localhost>,
>Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>> income.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>
>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>
>>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>>
>>>> -- Bob
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>>
>>>What?
>>
>>Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
>>right?
>>
>>
>>>You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>>>taken out...
>>>
>>>...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>>>the seats that become the new front row?
>>>
>>>Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>>
>>
>>Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
>>specifically the Flyers layouts:
>>
>>https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>>
>>Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
>>Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
>>profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
>>200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
>>because part of the 100 level disappeared.
>>
>>Likewise, the idea of making the seating steeper in order to add more
>>seats isn't very feasable because it would require altering the
>>building itself.
>>
>>So my original point stands - the NHL won't expand the rink size
>>because it would cost them a lot of ticket income.
>>
>> -- Bob
>>
>
>Well, the usual way professional athletics handles this is to con a host
>city into building them a new, bigger arena with taxpayer dollars...

It can still be risky. Consider a local event from the past:

[https://magazine.washington.edu/photographer-captured-husky-stadium-collapse-for-posterity/]

OK, that was an entire new set of seats, not a replacement. But it
still illustrates the risks of this sort of thing.

Somewhere around here I have the entire sequence -- no doubt one of
the "panoramic postcards" referred to in the article.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>>
>>>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>>
>>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>>> of the seats.
>>>
>>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>>> size of the seats.
>>>
>>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>>
>>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>>
>> _
>> |_
>> |_
>> |_
>> |_
>> |_
>>
>> _
>> |
>> |_
>> |
>> |_
>> |
>> |_
>> |
>> |_
>> |
>> |_
>>
>>
>> ___________
>>
>>
>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>
> You are missing the point:
>
> *_
> |
> *_
> |
> *_
>
> vs
> _
> |
> _
> |
> _
> |
> _
>
> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
> seats.
>
> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
> rows. Or both.

Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
horizontal surface.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>>>
>>>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>>>> of the seats.
>>>>
>>>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>>>> size of the seats.
>>>>
>>>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>>>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>>>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>>>
>>>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>>>
>>> _
>>> |_
>>> |_
>>> |_
>>> |_
>>> |_
>>>
>>> _
>>> |
>>> |_
>>> |
>>> |_
>>> |
>>> |_
>>> |
>>> |_
>>> |
>>> |_
>>>
>>>
>>> ___________
>>>
>>>
>>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>
>> You are missing the point:
>>
>> *_
>> |
>> *_
>> |
>> *_
>>
>> vs
>> _
>> |
>> _
>> |
>> _
>> |
>> _
>>
>> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
>> seats.
>>
>> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
>> rows. Or both.
>
> Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
> horizontal surface.

Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
you can squeeze them tighter.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold.
-- blue_beetle

On 4/6/2023 1:42 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>>>>> of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>>>>> size of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>>>>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>>>>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>>
>>> You are missing the point:
>>>
>>> *_
>>> |
>>> *_
>>> |
>>> *_
>>>
>>> vs
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>>
>>> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
>>> seats.
>>>
>>> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
>>> rows. Or both.
>>
>> Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
>> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
>> horizontal surface.
>
> Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
> Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
> you can squeeze them tighter.
>
Which would also require the accessway in front of the seats to be even
farther over the heads of the row below. That is not "stepping", that's
overhang.

And I have to ask, if that's so great for packing people in why aren't
spectators stacked vertically on a wall?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 1:13:28 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <6425bcb4.525400109@localhost>,
> Bice <eichlertwothed...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 22:03:45 +1300, Titus G <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>My second biggest gripe with many popular
> >>sports is that professionalism and time have increased player fitness
> >>and ability to the extent that the game itself is ruined because the
> >>playing areas are now too small.
> >
> >That's a common complaint about the NHL. A lot of fans think they
> >should switch to Olympic sized rinks because modern players are
> >faster. Having more ice area available might also lead to more
> >offense because it would be harder for defenses to shut down the other
> >team by clogging up the neutral zone.
> >
> >The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
> >the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
> >income.
> >
> > -- Bob
> >
> NHL games are consistently sold-out? (Honest question -- I have no
> idea, though as a Southerner, Hockey is kind of an imaginary sport).
> --

Some teams - good ones, and ones with long histories - sell out or sell
a good percentage of their seats. High price seats down low go first.
I like to sit higher up, on onof the blue lines.

As for the Carolinas....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Stingrays
are an ECHL minor league pro outfit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Hurricanes are in
Raleigh, NC, having turned snowbird (or snow cetacean?)
back in 1997, and have even won Lord Stanley's Cup in 2006.
(Sorta like the Winston Cup, but older, without any nae changes.)

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 10:59:36 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <IRWWL.1269181$gGD7....@fx11.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >>In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
> >>Bice <eichlertwothed...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
> >>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
> >>>>> income.
> >>>>
> >>>>You need to think that last statement through...
> >>>
> >>>In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
> >>>hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
> >>>relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
> >>>rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
> >>>
> >>You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
> >>more steeply.
> >>
> >
> >Wouldn't that require significant reconstruction of the arena? How
> >long would it take to recover the construction costs?
> It might but it's outside my expertise. What I do know is steeper
> raking increases the chance of falls, particularly if there are
> no railings.
> --

I used to watch IHL (now AHL) hockey at Milwaukee's Bradley Center.
It has since been replaced by the Fiserv Forum, and the Hockey Admirals
have moved to t old Mecca Arena, since remodeled and renamed for the
local state normal school's sports team. It s also where I used to go see
my college's basketball games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976%E2%80%9377_Marquette_Warriors_men%27s_basketball_team

The seating bowls of the Bradley Center were modeled on those of Boston Garden,
and the sight lines were impeccable. There were two problems:

1) Older fans and those with mobility issues found the steep climb yo their seats
in the upper bowl uncomfortable.

2) Railings had to be installed at the last minute before the facility opened, creating
some obstructed view seating.

ObSF Sports: George Jetson takes in robot football!

https://www.b98.tv/video/jetsons-nite-out/

George and Co smo get to the game at 12:40.

--
Kevin R

On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>> income.
>>>>
>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>
>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>
>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>
>>> -- Bob
>>>
>>
>> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>
>> What?
>
> Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
> right?

You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
price bumpt up, right?

>
>
>> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>> taken out...
>>
>> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>> the seats that become the new front row?
>>
>> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>
>
> Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
> specifically the Flyers layouts:
>
> https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>
> Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
> Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
> profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
> 200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
> because part of the 100 level disappeared.

Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>> income.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>
>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>
>>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>>
>>>> -- Bob
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>>
>>> What?
>>
>> Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
>> right?
>
>You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
>price bumpt up, right?

Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
hundred high-priced seats.

>>> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>>> taken out...
>>>
>>> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>>> the seats that become the new front row?
>>>
>>> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>>
>>
>> Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
>> specifically the Flyers layouts:
>>
>> https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>>
>> Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
>> Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
>> profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
>> 200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
>> because part of the 100 level disappeared.
>
>Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.

OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
way, go ahead.

-- Bob

On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 6 Apr 2023 at 20:13:21 BST, "Dimensional Traveler"
><dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/6/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 14:28:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/5/2023 8:41 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:21:42 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>>>>> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 2:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/4/2023 7:49 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <642c35d3.949613562@localhost>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Bice <eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>>>>>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>>>>>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>>>>>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You might be able to recover the lost seats by raking the seats
>>>>>>>>>>> more steeply.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't increase the square footage available to put seats in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does, however pack the seats more densely in the same area, thus
>>>>>>>>> increasing seating capacity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How? (Not a snide question, honestly curious.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By pythagorean theorem. The hypotenuse gets longer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't sound right to me. The seats aren't put on an inclined
>>>>>> plane (the hypotenuse) but on the horizontal "steps". The horizontal
>>>>>> space available is the same whether stepped or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> The horizontal space does stay the same. As does the horizontal size
>>>>> of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for that matter, does the vertical space. As does the vertical
>>>>> size of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the seats are not on the vertical plane. They are on the
>>>>> hypotenuse, so the number of seats depends on the length of the
>>>>> hypotenuse divided by the vertical size of the seats.
>>>>>
>>>>> In effect, the seats are on terraces carved out of the hypotenuse.
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>> |_
>>>>
>>>> _
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>> |
>>>> |_
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>>
>>> You are missing the point:
>>>
>>> *_
>>> |
>>> *_
>>> |
>>> *_
>>>
>>> vs
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>> |
>>> _
>>>
>>> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
>>> seats.
>>>
>>> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
>>> rows. Or both.
>>
>> Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
>> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
>> horizontal surface.
>
>Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
>you can squeeze them tighter.

He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 14:06:39 GMT,
eichlertwothedigitnotspelled@comcast.net (Bice) wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
>>> right?
>>
>>You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
>>price bumpt up, right?
>
>Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
>hundred high-priced seats.

Well, let's see:

before change, say, 600 high-priced seats

100 seats removed

100 seats repriced to high-priced

600 high-priced seats still exist

Nope, they won't, in the only sense that matters.

Physically, of course, the seats would be gone. But that's not the
issue here.

>>>> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>>>> taken out...
>>>>
>>>> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>>>> the seats that become the new front row?
>>>>
>>>> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
>>> specifically the Flyers layouts:
>>>
>>> https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>>>
>>> Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
>>> Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
>>> profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
>>> 200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
>>> because part of the 100 level disappeared.
>>
>>Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
>
>OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
>this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
>high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
>way, go ahead.

That's a different assertion. But (using the example above) adding
another 100 seats way up in the clouds would produce the exact same
number of seats, and the pricing adjustments don't have to stop with
the highest-cost seats.

If they are physically identical, it might even be possible to just
/move/ the 100 high-priced seats to the uppermost level and reprice
them accordingly. Then it wouldn't just be the same number of seats,
but the very same seats. And how is that going to reduce income?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
><jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>

>>>>>=20
>>>>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>>>=20
>>>> You are missing the point:
>>>>=20
>>>> *_
>>>> |
>>>> *_
>>>> |
>>>> *_
>>>>=20
>>>> vs
>>>> _
>>>> |
>>>> _
>>>> |
>>>> _
>>>> |
>>>> _
>>>>=20
>>>> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
>>>> seats.
>>>>=20
>>>> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
>>>> rows. Or both.
>>>=20
>>> Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
>>> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
>>> horizontal surface.
>>
>>Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
>>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
>>you can squeeze them tighter.
>
>He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.

If they couldn't change the rake, they'll likely just use narrower
seats to pack more into the same horizontal space anyway, or up the
prices across the board to accomodate any lost revenue, or add a row
along the refreshments concourse, et alia.

In article <94XXL.1959030$iU59.1380839@fx14.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On 6 Apr 2023 20:42:30 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>><jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Which one of those three has the most space available for seats.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> You are missing the point:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> *_
>>>>> |
>>>>> *_
>>>>> |
>>>>> *_
>>>>>=20
>>>>> vs
>>>>> _
>>>>> |
>>>>> _
>>>>> |
>>>>> _
>>>>> |
>>>>> _
>>>>>=20
>>>>> producing /four/ seats occupying the same horizontal space of /three/
>>>>> seats.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The ledges are narrower. And so are the seats. Or the space between
>>>>> rows. Or both.
>>>>=20
>>>> Which has NOTHING to do with how steep the slope they are on is. You
>>>> can increase the density of seating exactly the same on a non-stepped,
>>>> horizontal surface.
>>>
>>>Not for seated people. Butt to knee distance limits horizontal packing.
>>>Raise the tier behind so their knees are over the front tier's heads and
>>>you can squeeze them tighter.
>>
>>He's got a bee in his bonnet and can't hear anything else.
>
>If they couldn't change the rake, they'll likely just use narrower
>seats to pack more into the same horizontal space anyway, or up the
>prices across the board to accomodate any lost revenue, or add a row
>along the refreshments concourse, et alia.

Or they could hire smaller players to solve the original problem of making
the play surface proportions larger.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 2023-04-07 07:06, Bice wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 21:44:25 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-04-06 05:36, Bice wrote:
>>> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 16:38:54 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-04-04 07:39, Bice wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 10:31:08 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-03-30 09:53, Bice wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The switch will never happen though because teams would have to remove
>>>>>>> the first couple rows of seats and lose the corresponding ticket
>>>>>>> income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to think that last statement through...
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way? Switching to a bigger rink would mean removing a couple
>>>>> hundred of the highest-priced seats, and hockey is still a sport that
>>>>> relies fairly heavily on gate income. Yes, there would still be
>>>>> rinkside seats, but there would be fewer seats overall.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm honestly puzzled on what you're saying I need to rethink.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Bob
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because the seats they would lose would be the CHEAPEST seats.
>>>>
>>>> What?
>>>
>>> Yeah, What? You know the rinkside seats aren't the cheap seats,
>>> right?
>>
>> You know whichever seats BECOME the rinkside seats would have their
>> price bumpt up, right?
>
> Which in no way changes the fact that they'd still lose a couple
> hundred high-priced seats.

They would end up losing the lowest price seats in the arena...

....as the change ripples up from the bottom.

>>>> You don't think that they can figure out that if the front row seats get
>>>> taken out...
>>>>
>>>> ...then the people who paid for those seats will pay the same amount for
>>>> the seats that become the new front row?
>>>>
>>>> Hence, the need to rethink how it would work.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have a look at the seating chart for the Wells Fargo Center in Philly,
>>> specifically the Flyers layouts:
>>>
>>> https://www.wellsfargocenterphilly.com/events/seating
>>>
>>> Now expand the rink and take out the first few rows of the 100 level.
>>> Yes, there would still be rinkside seats, but a big chunk of the most
>>> profitable seating would gone. I guess you're saying people up in the
>>> 200 level would be happy to pay more for the nosebleed seats just
>>> because part of the 100 level disappeared.
>>
>> Nope. Because they'd shift the pricing out to match the new layout.
>
> OK, whatever, you're obviously just arguing to hear yourself argue at
> this point. If you want to believe that removing hundreds of
> high-priced seats from an arena would not affect ticket income in any
> way, go ahead.

<sigh>