I'm done supporting Stanford - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: I'm done supporting Stanford (/thread-13356.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: I'm done supporting Stanford (/thread-13356.html)
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - TreesAndBirds - 01-13-2017
It's interesting to read the commentary about Stanford being focused on raising money juxtaposed against the Cal financial dumpster fire because they havent figured out a way to raise money.
Regarding filling seats. It would be nice if we could find a way to get those unused seats donated to Bay Area football fans who cant afford to otherwise go. Seems like an oppty for Stanford to be a better neighbor, build a larger fan base, fill the stands. I think we might already have some type of program but seems it could be expanded if so. And someone could probably find a way to give the ticket donors a tax deduction.
That said, I understand and respect the frustration of long term loyal fans who risk losing their seat location because a higher donation is required. Seems like there should be a better way.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-13-2017
(01-13-2017, 03:33 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:It's interesting to read the commentary about Stanford being focused on raising money juxtaposed against the ×ÉÉ financial dumpster fire because they havent figured out a way to raise money.True, but in Cal's case, it is more about spending than it is about revenue. They were not in dire condition until they spent way more than they could afford. Stanford has at least avoided that error. What I think is unfortunate is that this change probably won't maximize revenue. I think they will lose enough ticket sales to overcome the benefit of the higher prices. What I think is worse is that the Athletic Department either won't realize this or will not be willing to retrace their steps if they do. There is really nobody to question their actions. They don't have to justify themselves to anyone. I don't think the fact that Stanford's financial position in athletics being pretty good is caused by good management. I think it is tremendous Alumni generosity mitigated by questionable management.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - larkinforever - 01-13-2017
(01-13-2017, 03:33 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:It would be nice if we could find a way to get those unused seats donated to Bay Area football fans who cant afford to otherwise go.
Phenomenal idea.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - teejers1 - 01-13-2017
2006Alum, you absolutely nail it. As did the poster talking about squeezing more blood out of the old timers. In no way will this help fill seats, and it will have a negative effect on tickets sold (and a bigger effect on butts in seats).
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is Stanford's Athletic Endowment, which alone separates it from 99% of other universities.Â
But whatever, I'm giving up some of my season tickets as a form of protest to the continued dreck we've seen on offense under this regime. With the talent we've had on O, massive underperformance. Of course, if Shaw names a new OC and agrees to give him the keys, then I fully re-up. Somehow, I don't see that happening, and we will again see a handful of games with absolutely pathetic offensive output (might win a couple, due to good D play), and then the majority here will continue to marvel at Stanford's overall record . . .
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - terry - 01-13-2017
A few numbers . . .
There are 77 sections in Stanford Stadium.
There are 8 sections reserved for Stanford students and 5 sections for visiting teams. That leaves 64 sections available to season ticket holders.
Since the stadium opened in 2006, there have been 4 sections that required a donation (113, 213, 133, 233).
Stanford is now adding a donation requirement to an additional 8 sections (111, 112, 114, 115, 211, 212, 214, 215). Thus, there will be 12 sections that require a donation.
There will be 52 sections available to season ticket holders with no donation requirement.
There are 36 sideline sections (as opposed to corner and end zone sections). Two of these are student sections. Of the remaining 34 sideline sections, 12 sections will have a donation requirement, while 22 sections will not have a donation requirement.
FWIW.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 82lsju - 01-13-2017
(01-13-2017, 05:36 PM)terry link Wrote:There are 36 sideline sections (as opposed to corner and end zone sections). Two of these are student sections. Of the remaining 34 sideline sections, 12 sections will have a donation requirement, while 22 sections will not have a donation requirement.
FWIW.
so for sideline seats a required donation for 10 of 16 sections on the shady side and 2 of 18 sections on the sunny side, glad I'm still on the sunny side.....
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - CornFed - 01-13-2017
https://youtu.be/JrdEMERq8MA?t=52
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - jhftb - 01-13-2017
(01-13-2017, 06:40 PM)eric link Wrote:[quote author=terry link=topic=16439.msg186346#msg186346 date=1484354184]
There are 36 sideline sections (as opposed to corner and end zone sections). Two of these are student sections. Of the remaining 34 sideline sections, 12 sections will have a donation requirement, while 22 sections will not have a donation requirement.
FWIW.
Yet
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - winflop - 01-14-2017
(01-13-2017, 01:17 PM)BigEasyCard link Wrote:I'm in Section 234, Row BB. Just called the Ticket Office and was told that the required donations don't apply to that section.
Geaux Cardinal!
Selfishly, I hope this means that more people on the sunny side will move to the shady side, opening up better sunny side seats for me. I'm happy with my Sec 131 seats but moving to 132 or 134 wouldn't hurt :)
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Phogge - 01-14-2017
Plenty of seats in 234. Just buy an end zone seat and walk over. Nobody checks the tix because all the Redcoats are in their 80's and have macular degeneration.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 82lsju - 01-14-2017
(01-14-2017, 09:40 AM)winflop link Wrote:Selfishly, I hope this means that more people on the sunny side will move to the shady side, opening up better sunny side seats for me. I'm happy with my Sec 131 seats but moving to 132 or 134 wouldn't hurt :)
make sure the ticket office is aware of your desire to move.
There were 4 seats that got new owners in the row behind us in sec 134 last season......
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - winflop - 01-14-2017
(01-14-2017, 11:15 AM)eric link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=16439.msg186403#msg186403 date=1484412020]
Selfishly, I hope this means that more people on the sunny side will move to the shady side, opening up better sunny side seats for me. I'm happy with my Sec 131 seats but moving to 132 or 134 wouldn't hurt :)
make sure the ticket office is aware of your desire to move.
There were 4 seats that got new owners in the row behind us in sec 134 last season......
[/quote]
They are not only well aware of my desire to move closer to midfield, they are also acutely aware of how they screwed me over two years ago. I went from 8 tickets to 4 because the guy I shared with didn't want to renew. I requested that I keep a 2x2 section on the aisle of my 8 tix (used to be 3, 3, and 2 all on the aisle). Instead they gave me 2 & 2 but offset by one seat in the back row. It hasn't been that big a deal but nonetheless they shouldn't have done it, they know it, and they didn't fix it before last season.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 82lsju - 01-15-2017
here are the details
http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/STM/FB/17PSE.pdf
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Farm93 - 01-15-2017
I sit in the zone of newly impacted seats too. I am out of the country at the moment, so actually discovered my fate on this thread. And then got the e-mail later on the full cost.
Quick thoughts -
1) I am pretty confident when Stanford Stadium was renovated that some sections beyond ones at the 50 yard line were included in some form of mandatory donation. Could be wrong, but I thought that was the case. I think it was later refined to just the center sections.
2) My ability to attend games is limited by my children's youth sports activities in the OC. Missing games was OK before, but the whole ticket and donation thing looks harder to justify especially since it is unlikely all of my current football neighbors will stay in place.Â
3) It is people like me that might not renew for various reasons. Those that come in and elect to pay the donation rate will almost certainly attend more often and/or will take steps to make sure someone they know is getting the benefit of the seats than many people with shady side seats do today. So I would expect actual game day attendance to increase even if overall ticket sales are largely unchanged.
4) The "sunny" side is rarely sunny thanks to the Pac-12 AfterDark schedule. The season ticket behavior at Stanford Stadium reflects a schedule that just rarely happens now. If some Shady siders opt to buy on the sunny side then it is possible our stadium will look more full on TV.
How many Stanford games are actually going to be on during early afternoon in September or early October? Based on the current TV contract it might be one a season at most.
FWIW - I have no real problem donating to the AD, but dread the idea that my donation will be linked to football. This might cause the AD to believe my donations are linked to football and the football team success. That might create a cascade of choices bias towards football and away from Stanford's true area of excellence, Olympic sports.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - terry - 01-15-2017
(01-15-2017, 02:24 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I have no real problem donating to the AD, but dread the idea that my donation will be linked to football. This might cause the AD to believe my donations are linked to football and the football team success. That might create a cascade of choices bias towards football and away from Stanford's true area of excellence, Olympic sports.
The donations go to Buck/Cardinal, which supports all sports. I suppose you can include whatever message you want along with your donation.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-15-2017
(01-15-2017, 12:32 PM)eric link Wrote:here are the detailsFirst of all, I am not affected by this new policy, as my seats in 232 are outside the lines. However, I am concerned that some of the statements in the letter are not literally true. I don't have the data to back up my point fully, but some anecdotal evidence suggests that the following statement in the letter is false.
http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/STM/FB/17PSE.pdf
"During a recent evaluation of our football ticket offerings, we found that the total cost of season tickets between the 25 and 40 yard lines on the west sideline is the lowest within the Pac-12 Conference."
It may be true that season tickets at or near field level are cheaper at Stanford than elsewhere. But I am almost positive at Arizona, for example, with there very tall stadium, if you sit up high their prices are lower than ours. My brother, who is an Arizona alum, also believes this. I suspect that this is also true at UCLA with their very high seats. I don't know about USC or ASU, but I would suspect the same. Does anyone know more on this subject? Anyway, if this statement is literally false, which I think it is, it shows the typical flawed thinking of the Athletic Department. As I say, I would believe that some definition of "premium" seats may make Stanford's season ticked prices the lowest. But not the one in this statement. This statement is an overly-broad, invalid justification for the action taken by the AD. If it is true, show us how you got there. Now, if he had just said "we think we can make more money for our worthy endeavors, I could buy that. But this kind of pseudo justification makes me ill.
Even if this statement were literally true, it doesn't mean that what the rest of the conference is doing is appropriate for Stanford. I would challenge the AD to share the analysis that shows this change will be revenue positive.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Farm93 - 01-15-2017
Total costs were probably tallied in a way to make that statement true.
At UCB they used to have a system for Haas with seat reallocation every few years based on ticket purchases and donations. To actually buy a ticket at certain levels you needed to be donating at a good clip. If you did not donate enough you would not actually be able to buy tickets in that zone even if ticket prices looked compelling. I can imagine similar schemes exist for football tickets at different venues. An AD could make that call and learn the actual total costs to really get access to certain seats that might not make the published ticket price.
UCLA - High is definitely better than low given the sight lines. Their stadium roasts during day games, so I am confident to actually get tickets under that press box would cost big money even if the stadium is largely empty. A quick look reveals that their required donations are higher than Stanford's required donations. Not a shock to me, but I realize many here had no idea how the rest of CFP has been using this type of pricing model for years.
http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/uclabruins.com/documents/2016/12/20/2017_UCLA_Football_Season_Tix_Map.pdf
Arizona - Their stadium is bigger and their team..umm...well...sucks.Â
Despite that they do have a rather pricey extra known as "priority". Tickets are cheap, but to buy them requires this "priority" (a.k.a. donation). However even with that the price in 2016 appears to be below Stanford in 2016. Again though, team sucked. Not sure if other things entered the total cost equation, but UofA seems close to Stanford rates.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf9/4462007.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30700&
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-15-2017
(01-15-2017, 09:36 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Total costs were probably tallied in a way to make that statement true.And that would be cool if is a halfway sane tally. I would like to see it though. I am not as confident as you that they actually did it.
Quote:Cool. And if they did that, and show it to us, maybe there will be less hatred and discontent. If not, it makes one doubt.
At UCB they used to have a system for Haas with seat reallocation every few years based on ticket purchases and donations. To actually buy a ticket at certain levels you needed to be donating at a good clip. If you did not donate enough you would not actually be able to buy tickets in that zone even if ticket prices looked compelling. I can imagine similar schemes exist for football tickets at different venues. An AD could make that call and learn the actual total costs to really get access to certain seats that might not make the published ticket price.
Quote:UCLA - High is definitely better than low given the sight lines. Their stadium roasts during day games, so I am confident to actually get tickets under that press box would cost big money even if the stadium is largely empty. A quick look reveals that their required donations are higher than Stanford's required donations. Not a shock to me, but I realize many here had no idea how the rest of CFP has been using this type of pricing model for years.Looks like their prices are higher than ours for seats in the described regions. However, as the stadium is largely empty, it may be that the prices they charge are too high. No point in matching a bad idea.
http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/uclabruins.com/documents/2016/12/20/2017_UCLA_Football_Season_Tix_Map.pdf
Quote:Arizona - Their stadium is bigger and their team..umm...well...sucks.ÂMight actually be lower. There are lots of seats between the 20 and 40 in the brown "nosebleed" section. And, while the team sucked this year, there is little else to do in Tuscon, so that should in large measure compensate. BTW, Arizona visited Stanford this year to consider reducing the size of their stadium. Stanford actually outdraws them, at least on paper. So here is another example of a school charging more than the traffic will bear.
Despite that they do have a rather pricey extra known as "priority". Tickets are cheap, but to buy them requires this "priority" (a.k.a. donation). However even with that the price in 2016 appears to be below Stanford in 2016. Again though, team sucked. Not sure if other things entered the total cost equation, but UofA seems close to Stanford rates.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf9/4462007.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=30700&
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - dabigv13 - 01-15-2017
Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.
Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Goose - 01-15-2017
(01-15-2017, 10:14 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Uhh, guys, this is totally and only about the $$$$. Not saying the AD hasn't done some stupid things before, but I'm sure some very highly paid consultants have signed off on this making more money than the previous way of doing things.Maybe so. If so, the consultant provided some backup, I'm sure, because no sane executive is going to do something just because a consultant said so. All I am asking for is to see this backup, so I know the AD is acting as a "sane" executive. Now, I doubt I will see this information, but I can still ask. I would argue that the ADs in the past have done lots of stupid things, mostly when they didn't do their homework. We hired Buddy (yes, I know it was another AD). I am sure some consultant may have suggested Harris. Didn't make it a good idea. It is certainly all about the $$$$. I just want it to be as optimal as possible about the $$$$. If "they" didn't do their homework, "they" don't deserve our support.