[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

The "seat license concept" was not Muir's work. It was first introduced at Stanford in 2006. It is not fair to criticize Muir for the "seat license concept."

If you wanted to criticize Muir for his expansion of Stanford's pre-existing seat license program, you could have said that. 

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

I see some anecdotal accounts in this thread about some ticket holders who chose not to pay newly implemented seat license fees in their sections. But I don't think those anecdotes are enough to judge the overall success or failure of the expansion of the seat license program. It was inevitable that some people would be unhappy about the seat license donations and would not renew. I would want to know how many existing ticket holders failed to renew due to the seat license and how many of those ticket holders were replaced by other ticket buyers who were willing to pay for the seat licenses. I would like to see some data about overall renewal or non-renewal rates. And as mentioned above, I would want to see some data about overall ticket sales and overall revenues, including license fees.

In addition, I'd be interesting in knowing what kind of seat license programs our competitors have and what their experiences have been. I have the impression that Stanford's expansion of the seat license program put us more in line with other schools, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there have been some other developments in the last few years that may have affected ticket sales and renewals -- the decline in the team's on-field performance, the new tax law's elimination of deductibility for seat licenses, the Covid-related ban on attendance in 2020, and the Covid-related uncertainties of 2021. Those and other issues make it more difficult to judge the long-term success or failure of the expanded seat license program.

[terry]

the seat license concept for football is another failed Muir endeavor similar to how Stanford hollowed out Maples attendance.

The seat license concept for football was introduced in 2006 when the new stadium opened, long before Muir arrived.

That is not correct. Additional donation requirement were added for certain sections (114 is my section) As a result my neighbors from Portola Valley, who were long-term season ticket holders but not donors, were forced out as were some other ticketholders nearby.
Also with the change in 2017 tax act these donations are no longer deductible. They should have just raised prices so ticket donations back to Stanford or to other charities would have been more valuable.

Just a screw up all around and this came under Muir not when the stadium opened.

The "seat license concept" was not Muir's work. It was first introduced at Stanford in 2006. It is not fair to criticize Muir for the "seat license concept."

If you wanted to criticize Muir for his expansion of Stanford's pre-existing seat license program, you could have said that. 

Your post does not include enough data to persuade me that Muir's expansion of the seat license program "failed." Before I could judge the success or failure of that program, I would want to see some data about total ticket sales and total revenues (including seat license donations) before and after the expansion of the seat license program.

I see some anecdotal accounts in this thread about some ticket holders who chose not to pay newly implemented seat license fees in their sections. But I don't think those anecdotes are enough to judge the overall success or failure of the expansion of the seat license program. It was inevitable that some people would be unhappy about the seat license donations and would not renew. I would want to know how many existing ticket holders failed to renew due to the seat license and how many of those ticket holders were replaced by other ticket buyers who were willing to pay for the seat licenses. I would like to see some data about overall renewal or non-renewal rates. And as mentioned above, I would want to see some data about overall ticket sales and overall revenues, including license fees.

In addition, I'd be interesting in knowing what kind of seat license programs our competitors have and what their experiences have been. I have the impression that Stanford's expansion of the seat license program put us more in line with other schools, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there have been some other developments in the last few years that may have affected ticket sales and renewals -- the decline in the team's on-field performance, the new tax law's elimination of deductibility for seat licenses, the Covid-related ban on attendance in 2020, and the Covid-related uncertainties of 2021. Those and other issues make it more difficult to judge the long-term success or failure of the expanded seat license program.