...doing exactly what I suggested. But let me iterate once again the simple math that comes out of every S&D PP chart. That is the point where you have 100% of demand, meeting 100% of Pricing to achieve maximum revenue. It always occurs when 100% of available inventory is sold.

The inventory is 64,000 seats.
The price/price point per ticket varies by location.
The price goal is to always make a price point that sells 100% of inventory.

But if you overprice the lowest quality (cheap seat) inventory, your Revenue is $0/unit.

If you do not sell 10,000 seats at $15.00/seat you have effectively earned $0 of revenue and at $15/Seat in Concessions, you have not earned that additional $75,000 of concession and souvenir revenue.
Total revenue by not selling seats = $0.

Sell the same seats at $7.50 each. Fill the stadium. Put $75,000 into revenue.
Sell $15 concessions and souvenirs per seat, add $150,000.
Total revenue gained by selling seats at a lower price + other sales = $225,000 / game

Total revenue over six games is $1,350,000

Look its at least between $1 and 1.5 million per season.
For BYU just removing the chair seats makes it much less likely you can make that money up. In order to do that you need a demographic that will pay to fill the stadium. Stanford thought that would happen. It did not. Cal thought that would happen. It did not.

By re-configuring the stadium so that only higher priced seats are available you are also making it more difficult to accommodate a really wide variety of budgets. You are selling college football, not Cadillacs. BYU's demographics just fit a wide array of pricing options better. I say keep the benches, learn how to price point the product. I have been complaining about BYU's ineptness with this at the MAC for two decades.

YES BYU has a fantastic Business and Marketing Program.
Clearly they professors have zero influence on how BYU's venue managers price their products.