The CardBoard
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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

I'm done supporting Stanford - HisKneeWasDown - 01-12-2017

After coming home as one of the few fans who bothered to show up to the WSU - Stanford men's game, I was greeted by this lovely letter telling me I now need to donate money if I want to keep my football seat location.

They claim that there are "unique aspects of Stanford Athletics that create ongoing financial pressures". I thought selling out to the Pac-12 TV deal was supposed relieve these financial pressures?

So after 30 years of putting up with Thu and Fri night kickoffs, 8pm Sat kickoffs, 1/4 full stadiums, and now no marching band, I'm offered the privilege of having to donate more money?

No thanks. Call up Arrillaga; I'm sure they've got him on speed dial.

== Larry

P.S. And this was a week after I sent in my football fan survey. Timing is impeccable. Unbelievable.


Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - JJJ - 01-13-2017

Can't blame you. Bring back the band and much will be forgiven(but not ALL).

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - JohnR34231 - 01-13-2017

Obviously giving or not giving is one's personal prerogative.
I can't help wondering though, is Stanford doing anything different than most successful big time college football programs do? I suspect they aren't.
As was observed a few times during the CMac brouhaha, it's all about the Benjamins in college football these days (not that it hasn't been for quite some time now).

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - FarmBoy - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 06:38 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Obviously giving or not giving is one's personal prerogative.
I can't help wondering though, is Stanford doing anything different than most successful big time college football programs do? I suspect they aren't.
As was observed a few times during the CMac brouhaha, it's all about the Benjamins in college football these days (not that it hasn't been for quite some time now).

Stanford may not be doing anything different from other college football programs, but it has a game attendance problem unlike most (all?) top 25 programs. Or maybe this is Stanford's way of saying f- it, we fielded a top 25 team consistently for 8 seasons. If the fans aren't going to show up now, and the lack of fans doesn't seem to hurt recruiting, who cares if we alienate a few more of the hard core fans who bother to come out to games.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 2006alum - 01-13-2017

(01-12-2017, 10:59 PM)HisKneeWasDown link Wrote:After coming home as one of the few fans who bothered to show up to the WSU - Stanford men's game, I was greeted by this lovely letter telling me I now need to donate money if I want to keep my football seat location.

They claim that there are "unique aspects of Stanford Athletics that create ongoing financial pressures". I thought selling out to the Pac-12 TV deal was supposed relieve these financial pressures?

What I find most off-putting is that the AD essentially pits alumni against each other to out-donate for better seats. This seems to be a coordination problem - if all alumni collectively refused to donate on this basis, what would the AD do? I'm also betting the most die-hard FB fans aren't the ones able to donate the most money, so the better seats are going to people who are less likely to show up. I suppose it's all about the Benjamins these days, but I think the tide will eventually turn against college sports when enough fans like Larry say enough is enough.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Farm93 - 01-13-2017

Stanford trails on the mandatory donation front.  That's largely thanks to big donors more than any particular commitment to protecting loyal fans.  Still, many schools in the Power 5 demand lots of money for the best seats.  Some, like Texas, demand donations for almost every seat location.

http://texassports_com.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2015/12/4/fb_pricing_map.pdf

As Texas is a leader in Division 1 AD football annual donations and D1 football budget, it is not hard to imagine that most schools will have a similar pdf sooner or later with donations required to get to claim to be a season ticket holder.

It is probably best to introduce these things when times are good.  The Stanford AD was late with basketball, and introduced donation assignments after the team was in decline.  Seems far more sensible to up the donation requirements when the program is winning.  And given Stanford's football history, this would be a sensible time to raise the bar.


Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - winflop - 01-13-2017

I draw a distinct line between supporting the AD and supporting the University.  My understanding is that the AD has it's own budget etc. and must break even on its own.  I'm sure there are some accounting shennanigans that mask this actually being true, but I think that it largely is.  Please dispel my idealistic view if it's really off.

At a meeting with someone from the Univeristy's business development dept last year, I informed them that I would no longer be donating any money to the University or the Stanford Fund and that any and all future donations would be to the Buck/Cardinal Club.  It is the University, not the AD, that killed the Band.  There are also other things the University has done around other issues that I won't get into because I think they cross the line into politics which is verboten here (something I wholeheartedly support).  Suffice to say the list is long enough and substantial that I have no expectation that the University will ever fix enough of them where I would be willing to change where I give money.

I didn't get that same letter but maybe that's because I already donate enough to the AD through Buck/Cardinal that I meet their criteria.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Leftcoast - 01-13-2017

Mandatory donations have worked so well in creating a great gameday atmosphere at Maples Pavilion and C.al's Memorial stadium that I'm SURE they will improve the atmosphere at Stanford's stadium ...

<sarcasm off>

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - winflop - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 08:28 AM)leftcoast link Wrote:Mandatory donations have worked so well in creating a great gameday atmosphere at Maples Pavilion and C.al's Memorial stadium that I'm SURE they will improve the atmosphere at Stanford's stadium ...

<sarcasm off>

I think those atmospheres have far more to do with the quality of the home team than anything about donation requirements.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Phogge - 01-13-2017

Not an alum but have been attending since 1953. Come from a motion picture/journalism family and had comps until Bob Rose left in '83. Season ticket holder 83-2016. Two hour drive each way making the late kickoffs brutal. haven't received the letter yet due to an incompetent USPS staff at the PRS office.

I would think that given the size of "crowds" at the stadium it will be easy to find tickets for day games in Palo Alto. The conference could care less about the attending fan. Example: kickoff times TBD. Screw them. I would love to see the school show sack and say no to the almighty Mr. Scott.

I missed the Rice and realized that I didn't miss much at night and in the rain. Plus I give to my alma mater, a school that really NEEDS the money. Additional money to keep my seat in Section 234 is a non-starter. All this from someone who has attended 62 consecutive Big Games and has loved Stanford football since the Bobby Garrett days.

I would like to express my thanks to my chums at the Section DD tailgate who have donated to the San Francisco State Baseball Program. Great guys!

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Leftcoast - 01-13-2017

I can only speak for Maples but of the fifteen die hard fans in my section, many of whom were 20+ year season ticket holders in a group that included some staff and professors, all but one dropped out when the large mandatory donations went into effect.  They had lived through previous lean years (some through Tom Davis) enjoyed the good times and were chased away by the cumulative sticker shock.

You may think they would be replaced by younger, affluent fans but have you BEEN to Maples lately?  I have ... it's a ghost of it's former self. 

Don't forget that sticker shock also makes it harder to win new fans.  This is a dangerous policy.

(PS: Not sure the extent of the football repricing - They may have learned from the Maples debacle and be strategically adding some lower Bowl sections to the mandatory policy rather than a wholesale policy change.)

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - OutsiderFan - 01-13-2017

Every school should use demand-based ticket pricing.  And no school should demand donations for seating locations.  Donations should earn other perks.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - washingtonismoney - 01-13-2017

The mandatory donation, for me, fails both ethics and long-term business imperatives:

1) Long-term, nothing would be more profitable for the school than a large, intense fan base. Whether or not that's likely is another debate, but, short-term, raising prices won't help progress to that goal.

2) Ethically, I don't think the school ought to maximize revenue anyway. The point of college sports ought to be community -- students, alumni, athletes, etc. If the school is willing to raise its prices at the drop of a hat, then why are we here? It makes a business transaction out of a community gathering. I hope anyone who decided that raising prices was OK also was OK with McCaffrey skipping out on the bowl game, because ultimately they're the same decision: putting individual needs ahead of community values.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - JohnR34231 - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:17 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:2) Ethically, I don't think the school ought to maximize revenue anyway. The point of college sports ought to be community -- students, alumni, athletes, etc. If the school is willing to raise its prices at the drop of a hat, then why are we here? It makes a business transaction out of a community gathering. I hope anyone who decided that raising prices was OK also was OK with McCaffrey skipping out on the bowl game, because ultimately they're the same decision: putting individual needs ahead of community values.

I think most of us look back somewhat wistfully on the days when college football was more about community and student-athletes were as much about being students as they were about being athletes. Now it seems like everyone is just interested in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. However, I seriously doubt that the philosophy going to change and as fans we might as well learn to deal with it.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Roberton3 - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:04 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Every school should use demand-based ticket pricing.  And no school should demand donations for seating locations.  Donations should earn other perks.

The reason that schools link donations to seating is the tax deduction: if you simply charge more for good seats, there's no tax deduction, but if require a donation to get a good seat, that donation is (partly) tax-deductible.  That makes no sense at all from a tax policy standpoint, but athletics departments around the country have lobbied aggressively to keep the loophole.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - OutsiderFan - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:39 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:The reason that schools link donations to seating is the tax deduction: if you simply charge more for good seats, there's no tax deduction, but if require a donation to get a good seat, that donation is (partly) tax-deductible.  That makes no sense at all from a tax policy standpoint, but athletics departments around the country have lobbied aggressively to keep the loophole.

This is true.  But you get a tax donation for a donation regardless of whether you buy tickets, no?

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - 82lsju - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:45 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=16439.msg186237#msg186237 date=1484325574]
The reason that schools link donations to seating is the tax deduction: if you simply charge more for good seats, there's no tax deduction, but if require a donation to get a good seat, that donation is (partly) tax-deductible.  That makes no sense at all from a tax policy standpoint, but athletics departments around the country have lobbied aggressively to keep the loophole.

This is true.  But you get a tax donation for a donation regardless of whether you buy tickets, no?
[/quote]

yes, you get a deduction for a gift without buying tickets. 

I also vaguely recall that the required donations are not fully tax deductible (I think they are something like 80% tax deductible).

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - Mick - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:29 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16439.msg186235#msg186235 date=1484324268]

2) Ethically, I don't think the school ought to maximize revenue anyway. The point of college sports ought to be community -- students, alumni, athletes, etc. If the school is willing to raise its prices at the drop of a hat, then why are we here? It makes a business transaction out of a community gathering. I hope anyone who decided that raising prices was OK also was OK with McCaffrey skipping out on the bowl game, because ultimately they're the same decision: putting individual needs ahead of community values.


Schools are all about success in all sports, and it costs money and lots of it.  Better venues, better training, better coaches, better nutrition, better technology, better everything.  It's expensive, and it feeds upon itself.  That's why recruits take trips and why they're influenced by what they "get."  Incidentally, Harvard's Associate Athletic Director once explained to me that athletic alumni tend to donate more to universities, which is one reason they maintain extensive athletic programs.

I think most of us look back somewhat wistfully on the days when college football was more about community and student-athletes were as much about being students as they were about being athletes. Now it seems like everyone is just interested in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. However, I seriously doubt that the philosophy going to change and as fans we might as well learn to deal with it.
[/quote]

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - stupac2 - 01-13-2017

(01-13-2017, 09:39 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16439.msg186234#msg186234 date=1484323465]
Every school should use demand-based ticket pricing.  And no school should demand donations for seating locations.  Donations should earn other perks.

The reason that schools link donations to seating is the tax deduction: if you simply charge more for good seats, there's no tax deduction, but if require a donation to get a good seat, that donation is (partly) tax-deductible.  That makes no sense at all from a tax policy standpoint, but athletics departments around the country have lobbied aggressively to keep the loophole.
[/quote]

This makes me actively angry. I always thought the "required donation" thing was a load of bullshit, but if Stanford's trying to pull this? If I get one of these I'm sending it back with a dirty diaper in it, because that's what they deserve.

Re: I'm done supporting Stanford - StanfordMatt - 01-13-2017

Fans in state of outrage at increase in season ticket prices. In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning and is expected to set in the West later today.

Stanford has had some of the lowest ticket prices in the conference for football and fans still haven't shown up to games. Even season ticket holders have routinely chosen to stay at home rather than show up to support the team. May be time for some new blood in the shady side seats.