Clever.
Gies Memorial Stadium
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Speaking of Oregon and given that this is the GMS thread, they are one of only six Big Ten teams that would travel to Champaign and see a bigger stadium than their own ... pretty irrelevant stat and obviously it is the setup / atmosphere that matters more than capacity (and Oregon has a fantastic score for both!), but I still found it interesting. Current GMS is in orange, and some previous, pre-renovation GMS capacities are in blue with the last year at that capacity in parentheses.
Michigan - 107,600
Penn State - 106,304
Ohio State - 102,780
UCLA - 89,702
Nebraska - 85,458
USC - 77,500
Wisconsin - 76,030
Michigan State - 74,866
Washington - 72,132
Illinois (2001) - 70,904
Iowa - 69,250
Illinois (2006) - 69,249
Illinois (2010) - 62,870
Purdue - 61,441
Illinois - 60,670
Oregon - 60,129
Indiana - 53,524
Rutgers - 52,454
Minnesota - 50,805
Maryland - 46,185
Northwestern - 35,000
I know it's a ways down the road, but it would be fantastic to get back up to 65K or so, as getting to that number almost certainly means we have closed in the necessary spaces to (A) complete the stadium architecturally and (B) drastically improve our home field advantage.
People seem rather indoctrinated that we cannot justify a higher attendance, but I want to float two ideas:
1) It is not that horribly awful thing for games vs. Eastern Illinois on Thursday night to be 70% full because we added seats. We don't need to sell out EVERY single game to justify a bigger stadium. If we can draw 65k for Big Ten games and 58k for the cupcake and week night ones, that is a perfectly acceptable setup!
2) Consider the following (admittedly somewhat cherry-picked) stats. The following stats are for Saturday home games only to try to gauge our "normal" attendance patterns in recent years. Each is an average capacity for that category:
Since 2024 - 58,284
Since 2025 - 59,315
Since 2025 Excluding NU* - 59,981
2026 So Far - 60,183
* This might seem like excessive cherry-picking, but we all know this game ALWAYS has a significantly lower attendance than our average in any given season ... it is sort of doomed to artificially drag down our attendance stats, so excluding it legitimately does make sense for this conversation.
We are literally averaging 60k+ fans per game this year, and we have not played a single ranked team or a traditional "Blue Blood" like Michigan, OSU or USC! If you exclude the aforementioned Northwestern game, we have SOLD OUT 7 of our last 9 Saturday home games, and we have drawn 55k or more 9 games in a row.
If a renovation (most likely to the SEZ, given the setup of the stadium) would achieve all of the obvious goals like financial payoff (probably due to revenue-generating suites), improving the home field advantage, complementing the stadium's historic architecture, etc., then increasing capacity past the point where we are literally bursting at the seams is NOT a problem! I will never understand that as a hiccup.
Don't be shocked if this questionnaire>rehab of north end zone goes through, capacity is smaller. I don't think they'll do work on the NEZ and move the attend half a game students to the east main and keep it at the same capacity. They'll lose seating in the process, if it ever comes to fruition. Ready for the 2031 reseating timetable?
Maybe they'll bribe the students to stay chipping away at the upgrade profits?? Give away free tuition in the 4th Q?
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I'll play my role and hazard an even hotter take than that:
The era of seating capacity expansion in college football is over.
Curbelo Fanboy
BERTBALL IS LIFE
I like it. I low key love the BERT nickname as depicted in my avatar. In fact when we get the ball in a late game clock kill situation I refer to that as BERTBALL. Grind it out real slow, eat the clock & finish off the win.
agree
it’s all about revenue. if they can make more money from less people via special suites or areas , they will
it’s why new NFL stadiums are all smaller than 10-12 years ago
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
And the War and Peace worth of text I've spilled on this subject can basically be summed up as:
More revenue brought in by having more human beings at the game is real growth that will be durable across time and produce positive knock-on effects, whereas more revenue brought in by digging deeper into the pockets of your captive existing audience is fake growth, parasitic, deeply vulnerable to market changes and produces negative second-order effects.
The American sports industry in 2026 is EXCLUSIVELY, and increasingly rabidly and shamelessly, focused on the latter.
The students don't deserve the East Main. It's that simple. They will make that side look bad when they head out after halftime. Time to step up and show they can stick it out. It was embarrassing against USC and OSU last year with how many left after halftime.
Streaming is the competition. Look at theaters closing to see the effect.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I agree, but this is actually what gives me hope for a proper Horseshoe renovation someday, as that section EASILY crams the most number of butts into the smallest seating structure (per capita or whatever) compared to anywhere else in the stadium. I've posted this before, but if you compare our two "end zone" seating sections, but it is actually wild that this...
... actually seats almost TWICE as many people as this:
I know the Horseshoe connects to West Main and East Main whereas the NEZ does not, but the point is it is a structure of seating that truly does not conform to the new trends you guys have discussed, and it does the opposite - cram as many seats as possible into the smallest and least impressive section possible. No one has to bring up spending priorities and the fact that this is likely WAY in the distant future, because I already know that. However, I have to believe that a "long-term" plan for the SEZ would involve a substantially more imposing structure that also has fewer seats ... and that is A-okay with me, as it will make the stadium look a lot better.
Again, it is a striking visual that Iowa's north end zone has FEWER SEATS than the Horseshoe (IIRC - both are right around 9.5k to 10k)!
So if it's a foregone conclusion that any renovations will likely screw over the average fan and be aimed at revenue-generating suites and whatnot, I am cautiously optimistic that a silver lining will be building something that (A) ties the stadium together a bit better on the north / south sides and (B) helps to trap more crowd noise by providing a less dinky structure.
I totally agree! Our stadium needs to trap more crowd noise than it does. Does anybody else think that our two major sports venues do little to trap crowd noise than SFC and GMS do?I agree, but this is actually what gives me hope for a proper Horseshoe renovation someday, as that section EASILY crams the most number of butts into the smallest seating structure (per capita or whatever) compared to anywhere else in the stadium. I've posted this before, but if you compare our two "end zone" seating sections, but it is actually wild that this...
... actually seats almost TWICE as many people as this:
I know the Horseshoe connects to West Main and East Main whereas the NEZ does not, but the point is it is a structure of seating that truly does not conform to the new trends you guys have discussed, and it does the opposite - cram as many seats as possible into the smallest and least impressive section possible. No one has to bring up spending priorities and the fact that this is likely WAY in the distant future, because I already know that. However, I have to believe that a "long-term" plan for the SEZ would involve a substantially more imposing structure that also has fewer seats ... and that is A-okay with me, as it will make the stadium look a lot better.
Again, it is a striking visual that Iowa's north end zone has FEWER SEATS than the Horseshoe (IIRC - both are right around 9.5k to 10k)!
So if it's a foregone conclusion that any renovations will likely screw over the average fan and be aimed at revenue-generating suites and whatnot, I am cautiously optimistic that a silver lining will be building something that (A) ties the stadium together a bit better on the north / south sides and (B) helps to trap more crowd noise by providing a less dinky structure.
The 80's belonged to the Illini. Real growth...it wasn't durable. Your audience is anything but captive. Way too many buzz words here.
Last edited:
Battle89
- Cary-Grove, the better Trojan team
Been discussed here and elsewhere to death, but it's not just the sports industry, it's all business, especially hospitality. Vegas, Disney same.
Couple that with AI / dynamic pricing and customers have their money extracted at the highest rate possible. Heck, McDonald's is getting sued right now for using AI algorithms to 'suggest' franchisee menu prices.
The horseshoe is definitely something we're living with for at least another decade. Even if we did rebuild it, I think the best we'd get is bringing it closer to the field. The video board is huge. Something like this would be a marginal improvement and is unlikely to be worth the expense. Just eyeing it, the concept below looks like a drop in capacity.
It'd be an even bigger expense, but I'd love to incorporate the concept from 2014/15 for the SEZ and move the video board to a rebuilt NEZ that looks like this:
2014 SEZ Concept:
It'd be an even bigger expense, but I'd love to incorporate the concept from 2014/15 for the SEZ and move the video board to a rebuilt NEZ that looks like this:
2014 SEZ Concept:
I agree. Watching highlights, the gray back makes the orange, blue, and white all pop. Time to bring back the gray (silver?) basketball uniforms!
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
This relates to my point (or opinion or whatever) that there really isn't THAT much that needs to be done to the Horseshoe for it to still seem like a massive improvement ... this is GREAT! Right now, the Horseshoe looks like we had always planned to address it, and we just never got around to it; it is just fundamentally out of place with the grandeur of the east and west sides, and even the north side looks immaculate in comparison. This at least makes it look like its setup is intentional, and it would do wonders to improve the home field advantage and look of the stadium. If you cut out the concrete walls on either side that separate the SEZ from East Main and West Main and only did real work in the "front" of the Horseshoe, I just can't imagine that this would be that expensive ... if we want to help finance it, through some luxury suites on top of the last row on either side of the scoreboard, allowing us to (A) get more height to trap more noise and (B) include something for the high-dollar donors that would help to finance this.
An idea I have not heard talked about as much is "moving the Horseshoe forward." I'm ignorant of the costs, but it's obvious that the concourse in the SEZ needs addressed eventually, and the stands seem quite old, too. If and when we needed to renovate that area from a structural standpoint - and IF we wanted to keep the general horseshoe shape - just "push" the new stands closer to the field and make them much steeper so they go up higher in the air. This would also then give us a TON more room behind the SEZ if we wanted to build some type of concourse in the future or something (which, if done creatively, could be a money maker, too ... probably some private club that is expensive or something). The current Horseshoe is so damn far away from the field because of the old track that it is at least theoretically possible to rebuild a similar structure except (A) the first row starts at the same spot as the first row of East Main and West Main and (B) the stands go up at a steeper slope more similar to the NEZ student section so it is not extending "back" as much as it is "upward."
Keep in mind the new scoreboard is a massive steel structure anchored in concrete, so it’s not moving.
If you start close to the field and go up steeper, where do you reach the elevation of the bottom of the scoreboard, impairing the ability to go higher than today? Then how far does the scoreboard end up behind the stands? Could fans in the new lower Horseshoe see the entire scoreboard or would the upper seats block their view? Unless the top row is even lower than it is today? The new scoreboard seems to limit what can be done. Want to try a 3D mockup?
NOTHING with regards to building even a doghouse at UI is cheap or easy. Its not like its 1962 anymore
Unless some rich donor or two steps up out of nowhere with 150 million dollars specifically earmarked for the SEZ, nothing is getting done for awhile
its jmo, based upon what JW has said publicly the past 6-9 months
Unless some rich donor or two steps up out of nowhere with 150 million dollars specifically earmarked for the SEZ, nothing is getting done for awhile
its jmo, based upon what JW has said publicly the past 6-9 months
I actually disagree with this. I would make the stadium smaller, closer, and louder. The game on Saturday had a lot of open seats. I have thought for years that the game day experience at Illinois and elsewhere is built for a TV audience. If Illinois was to reshape GMS, I would target 50k seats.
- Tickets would be hard to get (driving demand)
- Full venue would be awesome on TV and for recruits
- Low attendance games will be easier to hide
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
That's a good point about the scoreboard, and this idea would only work if it could feasibly be moved forward, as well. I guess the original placement of the Horseshoe being not only so far away from the end zone but also having a very gradual slope will just haunt me forever, lol. It literally looks like we got to design 75% of our stadium but a rival fan base got to vote on what the other 25% would be like.
Personally, I'll never give up hope and submit to the idea that our options are (A) luck into $500 million to do something "transformative" or (B) let the Horseshoe sit as-is (read: ugly) into perpetuity. Small, relatively inexpensive fixes would still go a long way ... and improving the stadium and home field advantage is just simply NOT some pointless goal, and the DIA should see the value in both.