Interesting thing I just realized - Lane Stadium is bigger than all but
5 of this past year's 12 playoff team's home stadiums. I hear it thrown around sometimes that VT's stadium is too small by big-boy standards, but Oregon, Texas Tech, Indiana, Ole Miss, Miami, etc. seem to be doing just fine.
64 Replies
2mo
I am talking about when first built in the 60's. Seems like I remember reading that somewhere years ago. Maybe wrong.
(In response to this post by NOFX)
Esp in the NFL-- 100% about the exclusive experience opposed to fandom...
(In response to this post by 40ozDistrict)
2mo
money would be lost on each home game vs other SEC teams with 100,000 seat stadiums. 30,000times $120/ticket
(In response to this post by NOFX)
I
I85Hokie
2mo
The team that got the spot that we should have had.
(In response to this post by HOKIE75-79)
2mo
renovation and will end up around 65k.
(In response to this post by I85Hokie)
2mo
"4 field-level suites, 140 loge boxes, 28 second-level suites, 270 mezzanine club seats and 24 open-air Tiger Den suites"
** Edited by reestuart at 5/13/2026, 2:22:26 PM
Link:
Mizzou
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
figured out a way to make even more money from the decision. However, even that strategy has its threshold because at some point the new capacity won't be able to spend more money than what the old capacity could generate for ticket sales.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2mo
a normal seat. I think VT's was at least 3X what regular seating is, and the ticket cost was the same. Catch is you have to sell them.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
license or donation required to purchase the ticket too. When people say ticket sales, they may really be meaning the entire package since just about everyone seems to require people to pay a license before you can buy a ticket from them. Hence why I concluded there was a likely ceiling for how low you can reduce the capacity and still end up making more money than the original capacity. That break point just varies from organization to organization.
(In response to this post by reestuart)
2mo
(In response to this post by HOKIE75-79)
2mo
they rarely sell 45,000 seats. Between students, the Corp and corporate donors, Tech doesn't come close to selling the amount of tickets people think.
(In response to this post by True Hokie)
2mo
.500 foorball for much of the last 13 of 15 seasons will by default reduce demand for in-person seat buyers.
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
2mo
but no reason to add to capacity.
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
2mo
tickets too. Each conference has their own guidelines on how many tickets are reserved for the visiting team. A potential problem with ACC fans is that they may not travel as well as the SEC or Big Ten for football. Plus, the fan bases that do travel well may not be "close" to Blacksburg.
Whereas SEC fans are known for being great travelers. The SEC has 6 schools (KY, TN, AL, Auburn, UGA, and SC) that I would expect their fans to gladly snatch up any tickets VT doesn't sell to attend a game at Lane Stadium. Plus, VT fans might start buying tickets again if VT had better name brand opponents coming to Blacksburg for a game. If the ACC had been willing to make the same level of investments into football program that it did to with the basketball programs (including marketing), then Hokie fans might be a lot more excited about all the ACC opponents.
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2mo
The SEC only has one private school, thus they have a massive fanbase travel advantage.
When you look at Dook, WF, BC, Miami...the ACC is starting off at a significant travel disadvantage. Heck, half of the ACC's public schools (UNC, UVA, Pitt, GT, Stanford, Cal...) just do not travel that well either.
Basically the ACC has F$U, Clemson and VT with passionate fanbases.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
if those schools had placed more importance on football like you see at USC-w. Even Stanford had short periods where football was more important on campus, but the Cardinal never sustained it for a long period of time. Particularly, since the ACC has multiple public schools (i.e. UNC, UVA, GT, Pitt, and Cal) that don't travel well. Even L'ville may not travel well to Blacksburg. While the private schools (BC, Syracuse, SMU, Miami, and Stanford) are probably too far away to travel to the "heart of the ACC" (aka VA and NC) unless their fans already live in those states.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2mo
I think they have the potential to be a solid (ACC) football supporter...
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
truly set on basketball vs. having enough room to show the same level of love for both sports.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2mo
Many of the stadiums, have gone away from the supersized venues and downsized with more high end seats/suites. There is something about the number "7". When you get to 70K, you aren't big, but you kind of take the idea of you being "small" or "too small" off the table. I know, the difference in 66K and 70K is trivial, but it's Emotional for many people and sadly, emotion often rules the day over practicality and objectivity.
If we ever upgrade in numbers, I think the N End Zone holds 6500 K. Tear that down, rebuild to 11K in the North and that gets us around 70ish. Im not sure if there's enough room though regarding how far back that pushes the outside practice field. The other option is connect the South Endzone with the East and West for about 2K on each side. Those could be luxury seats but luxury seats without a luxury view.
** Edited by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie at 5/11/2026, 5:59:09 PM
(In response to this post by NOFX)
2mo
authoritatively on these boards multiple times. Lane ain't going to grow that way.
see VTHOkie2000's post in this thread for more verification of the same info.
NEZ is 'about' the only ""affordable"{??}" way to expand capacity. construction on
any of the other 3 sides would require so much additional structure at such a great
cost that the Sydney Opera House cost debacle would drop back to 2nd worst ever
construction cost over-run - proportionally and percentage wise. Misters Lane,
Worsham, Cassell and Merriman would collectively roll over in their graves at the
price of modification and cost per additional new seat!
** Edited by HtownHokie at 5/11/2026, 8:26:02 PM
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
2mo
I have always been interested in how much space the NE would need for expansion of 4 to 5K additional seats. Obviously the access road and practice field would be shaved and access road moved back, but the expansion would largely come in height of the structure versus depth. Clearly, the depth would have to be larger now to support that height and weight, but Im curious as to how much depth would be needed. I dont think it would need much more than present. Could be way wrong though.
(In response to this post by HtownHokie)
M
Marooned
2mo
Can also flare the wings on the end zones, which would be better for viewing angles.
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
2mo
board. Just in case for the future...
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
2mo
(In response to this post by hoosnowahokie)
2mo
"required" isn't just for the structure itself. It also may need to include "access space" or open space around it in case people need to move around the structure. It is possible a structure could be built that satisfies the additional seat requirement and be right up against the existing fence line so the access road didn't have to be moved or covered. However, the plans may not be approved because it lacks the access space around the structure.
Now you may find an athletic structure at a HS where it is right up against a fence line so people can't move behind it. If you do, then it is likely the structure has been grandfathered in to be subject to whatever the standards/codes were at the time the structure was built instead of the current standards/codes. The potential exception to that rule is if any renovations are done, then those renovations should be subject to the current standards/codes. The reason I mention it is because I believe the bathrooms on one side of Lane are in desperate need of repair/upgrades/renovations. I believe a reason VT has not undertaken that project is because the cost would need to include bringing it up to current standards/codes (including wheel chair access and all that jazz). Depending on how the law/rules/policy is written, it is possible a small renovation project could require the entire structure to be brought up to standards/code.
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
M
MVIII
2mo
Need 50 feet somewhere and the only way is to cut into practice field some with the road requirement. It doesn't seem worth it right now.
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
2mo
soon to be improved and expanded scoreboard NOW to accommodate
whatever NEZ enlargement they envision.
{ { ducks as next 🪂paraglider hits taller scoreboard! } }
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2mo
We aren't expanding the stadium anytime soon. We'll probably go through a couple more scoreboards before we even consider enlarging the stadium...if ever.
(In response to this post by HtownHokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2mo
...stands. Not sure where they'll move the practice field...maybe cut down some trees and put it beside the stadium? (TIC)
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
2mo
"access road" for fire and safety. Any new structure built there would have to factor that into the design which could mean it is off the table.
While the connecting of the SEZ to the East and/or West would significantly cost a lot more money because the entire structure would have to be brought up to the current codes. Whereas if they remain independent structures, then they are subject to the codes the year they opened to the public for the most part. Plus, the SEZ was not built with any curve that aligns with either stands. If VT is going to connect that part of the stadium, then it would likely requiring demolishing 1 or both ends of the SEZ and maybe the ends of the East or West stands (depending on which is getting connected) just to get the right curve. Then you have to consider the fact that all 3 stands have completely different architectural designs and even heights. A portion of the top might have to be taken off of any of the 3 stands and redesigned so the stadium has 1 central architectural design. Particularly if VT wants to add more luxury seats to the stadium. Depending on how much has to be demolished, it might be easier to just level the entire stand and start from scratch which would temporarily reduce the capacity and likely increase the cost.
Unfortunately, VT didn't do itself any favor by expanding Lane like a patchwork quilt design and kicking the can of problems down the road. The longer VT delays in addressing the problems, the more costly it will be to properly fix them.
(In response to this post by Hate2SeeItEnd Hokie)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
willing to pay for the increase in structural costs to accomodate the road width and vehicle height clearance required by the Fire Dept. and it really wouldn't cost THAT much more: the main concourse on the West side is fairly large as it is. Actually vehicle access would be less a concern than pedestrian evacuation routes: you would have to ensure that fans are not walking on the same road just as the emergency vehicles are driving up. Tech just has to stipulate in its solicitation that any new design has to maintain existing vehicle access, BUT the administration just has to agree to pay the freight as it were.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
open because that is the only "road" where the fire trucks can access the buildings (think backsides in some cases) of the buildings around the practice field. If VT covers the road, then it may be required to extend a new "access road" so that it runs alongside the tunnel entrance to Lane Stadium and take away some of the practice space. Basically I am thinking of a scenario where any of those structures catch on fire and the fire department either has to run a hose line from the truck or spray from the truck because the closest hydrant isn't really a viable option for the location of the fire.
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
department may have some flexibility in how it can gain access to certain areas. But that kind of speculation would require the two of us to actually walk around in person. I no longer have access to Autocad since I retired, otherwise I could have overlaid some ideas over top of a google map image; it appears that a bigger issue is that a new structure would adversely affect the practice field. Briefly looking on the map, if the South East stadium were mirror-copied along the 50 yard line, its definitely going to intrude onto the grass. But perhaps, maybe a new structure has a more compact footprint, so it could work theoretically. Longer term though, I think VT & Blacksburg need to develop more pedestrian-focused development plans, and push vehicle parking lots out to the perimeters as land is a valuable resource. That's someone's masters thesis right there.
** Edited by PWR2LZ at 5/13/2026, 10:12:31 AM
** Edited by PWR2LZ at 5/13/2026, 10:13:54 AM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
can achieve that goal. Also, I am not entirely sure what the currently law(s)/policy(ies) etc. are now (or will be) to govern the new structure. When I look at Google Maps (and assuming it is accurate), Callaghan-Sheridan Way (aka the access road) wraps around and ends at the back of Hahn Practice Center. What I don't know is if that would be too far away to effective hose the back of Merryman or the part of Jamerson closest to Merryman. Given Beamer Barn location, there may not be enough space to even build a road in front of Jamerson that ended near the back of Merryman. People looking at the map could think the fire company could approach that area coming from Beamer Way. What I don't know is whether that would be logistically possible given the hoses may have to be wrapped around one of the back corner's of Merryman even if they use the service road off Callaghan-Sheridan Way that ends at the back corner of Merryman closest to Lane.
If you are looking at Google Maps, then really the "access point" I am focused on is the section of Callaghan Sheridan Way between 680 Callaghan-Sheridan Way and the closest corner of the outdoor practice field to Callaghan-Sheridan Way. According to Google Maps, there is a structure near there with an address 185 Beamer Way. Is that the scoreboard or is Google Maps wrong?
Link:
Google Maps Link
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
over the grass to access the backs of Merryman & Jameson if they need to, so long as fencing contains gates. Also, if you look back over to the upper right of your map, the ice rink #569 has a wide sidewalk, that connects back to Washington St. That sidewalk can be widened to accommodate a fire truck if it can't already, plus the steep slope of the walk [going down towards Callaghan Sheridan Way (at #503) ] can probably be regraded if required.
Just for your edification, here are the results of a quick google search:
"Football stadiums are primarily governed by NFPA 101: Life Safety Code, Chapters 12 and 13 (Assembly Occupancies), which regulate egress, fire protection, and crowd management for new and existing venues. For stadiums with over 6,000 occupants, a mandatory Life Safety Evaluation (Section 13.4.1) is required, focusing on fire risks, crowd control, and emergency procedures."
** Edited by PWR2LZ at 5/13/2026, 12:49:03 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
other side of the scoreboard. Not sure it is wide enough for a truck though. If there is no gate, then I assumed either they would cut the fence so the truck could fit through or potentially use the hose on top of the truck (if there is one) to spray. If C-S Way is covered, then I guess an access point (i.e. service door or gate) could still be installed so the truck(s) could drive onto whatever is left of the practice field. In terms of compromises, that might be the only option out there (depending on how the law/rules/policy is/are written at the time).
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
2mo
** Edited by kingofcassell at 5/12/2026, 9:29:11 AM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
vision with planning the athletic portion of campus. If they had just a little better planning, then they could have satisfied VT's immediate needs while still leave themselves room to "grow." Instead of trying to build everything on top of each other in a compact space. At least that way VT wouldn't have to worry about the access road when trying to decide what (if anything) to do with Lane or even Cassell.
(In response to this post by kingofcassell)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
to the '80s, when Warren Kark was the university architect. He originated the idea of "infill building" to take advantage of Tech's steam tunnel infrastructure as it would reduce the lengths of new tunnel construction. I'm not sure if Tech's newer buildings on the far side of campus use stand-alone HVAC systems?
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
I am not necessarily saying they were the "wrong decision" to make either given the information that was known at the time. However, those decisions do factor into the "issues" that VT has to deal with today so they can't be completely ignored. Plus, it does raise potential questions on whether the leadership at the time gave any consideration to the possibility of VT growing into the university it is today vs. remaining a "small military school?" If they didn't consider the possibility, then VT likely missed out on options that could still take advantage of the steam tunnels while using a different layout.
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
to our slogan: Invent the Future.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
motivation to develop a comprehensive strategy that we can all rally around. We're a land grant institution, and one of our primary missions, is to serve the Commonwealth. What are some strategies that we can develop, even exploit. How do we leverage our knowledge & collective brain power? I included a link to Dan Sui, Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation (his position didn't exist 40 years when I attended). His office should spearhead efforts to not only bring back the slogan, but to incorporate it into every college's business development plans. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to meet you over on my other response so I can answer that question too :-) Good stuff!
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
R
RJHokie
2mo
I don’t recall any of the buildings having HVAC when I was there in 65-69. But there were steam tunnels all over the place.
I would think most of the newer buildings had HVAC in the initial construction and a fair number of others have probably been modified to have it. Don’t believe HVAC is present in many of the older dorms though.
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
2mo
Looking for the cable cutting culprit that was cutting the transmission line from Squires to Lee Hall circa 1981-82 ish. The FM signal at that time traveled to the transmitter and antenna atop Lee Hall via the steam tunnels. We had a crew of volunteers stationed to catch the persons. Eventually the cuttings stopped.
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
Quad to McBryde, Norris, Randolph, Williams, Burruss- can't remember them all, lol!
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
R
RJHokie
2mo
them. I knew a few guys who used to “visit” the tunnels occasionally.
(In response to this post by PWR2LZ)
P
PWR2LZ
2mo
Good stuff! Took me more than a few minutes to find this bookmark, lol.
Link:
Beneath Virginia Tech
(In response to this post by RJHokie)
M
MVIII
2mo
I think they were put in a bind once Stadium Woods shut down their plans and they didn't take the time to think things through about expanding the North End Zone.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
at the time. Also, I agree with you that they should have spent a little more time to come up with a more solid Plan B. However, a case could be made that the wheels had already been set in motion that eventually VT would have to deal with a space planning problem. I say that because when VT decided to move from Miles Stadium, which was located where Die Quick is located and the open space next to East AJ, to Lane Stadium, VT had plenty of space around the stadium to expand. Then over time VT built the other buildings, which satisfied an immediate need, but may not have factored in that VT would continue growing into the school it is today. Hence why I tend to describe the expansion of Lane as a patchwork quilt. When VT built the East Stands, it was so much taller and a complete different architectural design to the West Stands. It didn't really become noticeable until VT decided to built the SEZ which has its own architectural design.
So the "problem" really started long before JW became AD. I get that VT was looking to address an immediate need at the time. However, other schools (i.e. JMU) seem to be able to address an immediate need while still giving themselves options if things were to ever change in the future. Why did VT's leadership seem to underperform (or fail) with that basic leadership skill? Especially when VT was still considered a "military school" for the most part. VT can't change the past because any "damage" has already been done. It is a real shame that the past decisions likely will increase the price tag significantly for any future renovations. Particularly when you consider VT athletics and DI college athletics are at a crossroads right now and the flow of money may not be on VT's side. At least VT may not be able to do both (necessary?) renovations to existing facilities and do what is "required" to be successful under the current rules. Something may have to give somewhere.
(In response to this post by MVIII)
2mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
2mo
(In response to this post by Tombo)
2mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)