Northwestern University is building a new $850 million football stadium, which is a crazy amount for a college football stadium, but it’s being mostly paid for by the local billionaire who wants his alma mater to have a new stadium, so at least there’s that. The billionaire’s son, however, is touting the upcoming stadium opening by saying that in reducing the seating capacity from 47,000 to 35,000, he’s helping fans by eliminating bad seats:
“The death of the nosebleeds, “the most expensive seat to build, the hardest seat to sell and has the lowest satisfaction,” [Pat] Ryan [Jr.] told USA TODAY Sports….
“We didn’t just reduce the number of seats. We actually reduced the numbers,” Ryan said. “We did that so that we could put every seat on top of the action by not having to put another 20,000 seats behind. It meant that you don’t have to worry about blocking those other seats. So you can put everybody in.”
Not sure where that first quote starts and begins, might want to check into that, USA TODAY copy editors. But in any case, Ryan’s point is clear: By getting rid of the lousy seats — which cost just as much to build as good ones, but you can’t charge as much for them — Northwestern is doing fans a favor, because the worst seat in the house is now better!
Except that doesn’t really help actual fans any, at all. The 35,000th ticket buyer to a Northwestern game will still be sitting in the same place; they just won’t have any more rows of seats behind them. The 47,000th ticket buyer will indeed be spared their crappy view — because they’ll be at home watching on TV, since the 47,000th seat will no longer exist.
We’ve been over this before, every time a stadium is described as “intimate” because of its low seating capacity: Just because a sports venue has fewer seats doesn’t mean those seats are closer to the field. In fact, most modern stadiums have more levels of luxury seating wedged in, making the worst seats worse than they would be otherwise — check out what adding two new layers of suites is set to do to the upper deck at Barcelona’s Camp Nou, which before its reconstruction offered decent nosebleed tickets despite its massive 95,000-seat capacity. The last seat at the new Yankee Stadium is about the same distance from the field as the last seat at the old one, but that’s because it has about 12% fewer seats total — the 45,000th seat is still just as bad if not worse.
To be fair, Ryan has also talked about “building things up and cantilevering them over instead of going out,” so it’s possible his designers have also worked to bring the remaining upper-deck seats closer to the field by setting them atop the lower deck, which would be a refreshing change from most recent stadium design. (Though it doesn’t really look like it from the renderings.) When stadium builders start talking about “the worst seat in the house” being closer to the action, though, it’s important for readers — and journalists — to demand proof that the new design is actually better for fans, and not just better for the ticket office since they can let the 10,000 chintziest fans stay home and watch on TV.
Football and hockey are unlike baseball in desirability of higher seats. Coaches, executives, and scratched hockey players are perched to provide view of overall action. I recall during planning for Boycows stadium the touting of suites half buried below field level, and the admittance that fans there would only see backs (and butts!) of people on sideline, but shoowhee would they be close to the (in)action!
Traditionally, the ideal football stadium is thought of as being one big deck (Michigan Stadium, Lambeau, the Rose Bowl, etc.). It is baseball that favors upper decks so that the seats are closer to the field.
I knew bowls were traditional but figured it was due to multipurpose stadiums and ease of construction rather than due to being ideal. Seems like it would have been more fun to watch football from upper deck at Wrigley than last row of 100k-seat bowl but elephino.
The upper deck seats were never really the problem for Northwestern. There weren’t that many, and they were between the 20s, so they were some of the better seats. The problem was that so many seats were in the south end zone. And because there used to be a track around the field, those seats were a long way from the field. The old stadium definitely needed work. The aisle were narrow, the concourses small, and the bathrooms few. But I do think the small capacity is a lost opportunity. 35,000 seats is plenty for most NU games, but for games against Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin, they could sell many more tickets to visiting fans.
The Ryan family owns about 23% of the Chicago Bears.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/24/nfl-approves-sale-of-stake-in-chicago-bears-at-8point9-billion-valuation-sources.html
Are you suggesting the ‘new temp home’ angle?
After the Bears played one game in Evanston in 1970 the locals nixed any more pro events. But they are allowing the NWSL Stars to move to Northwestern’s soccer stadium, so maybe they’ve softened their stance on pro sports.
I kinda-membered that when writing my reply, but didn’t know about the locals x’ing out any further games as a result.
I’m not saying that it will happen, but if the McCaskey family members who are (allegedly) anxious to unload their shares do so to Mr. Ryan, he could easily end up either a majority or largest single shareholder.
If that happens and they do want to redevelop Soldier field (again), a nice shiny new college stadium in Evanston might be a decent temp home for them (along with the usual preponderance of neutral site games in Europe, San Antonio, et al).
I have always thought that the descriptor “intimate” in reference to sports stadiums pointed less to the distance from the action than to the elimination of cheap seats and therefore the poorer people who would buy them.
It’s just another version of the moat.
It doesn’t generate any more money (though probably not less either, given that the people on the rich side of it will pay more because it is there). It’s purpose isn’t to generate money. It’s purpose is to provide a nice clear and wide distinction between ordinary sports fans and the kind of people who would pay extra just to have a wider gap between them and the great unwashed.
I’m sure NW new facility will find a way to accomplish the same goal, even if it is just by getting rid of the 12,000 people least willing to pay extra to see the team in person.
Yes, the downsizing is also done to sell season ticket packages. With fewer walk up tickets available, you don’t want to risk getting shut out. So next year for Northwestern (admittedly their 2026 home schedule is crap) if you want a ticket to a popular game against Iowa or Penn State, you’ll probably need to buy a package that includes games against Ball State or FCS SD State. Again 37,000 seats seems right for Northwestern, but when they host Nebraska, Wisconsin, or Michigan, they will probably wish they had twice as many seats.
South Dakota State are an FCS powerhouse, hence their alumni would relish a weekend in Chicago seeing their beloved Jackrabbits.