[teejers1]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I tend to take a broad view of program health.  Crappy attendance, crappy game atmosphere, and a crappy offense will eventually bring down the program.  Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

[teejers1]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I tend to take a broad view of program health.  Crappy attendance, crappy game atmosphere, and a crappy offense will eventually bring down the program.  Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

[82lsju]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I wonder about the net revenue impact, will people who won't make the required donation be replaced by people already donating enough to the AD to not have any incremental donation? 

I know a couple of people who got premium seats at the football games because they viewed them as "free" since they already donated at the level to get the seats (well not quite free since only 80% fo the donation going to free seats is tax deductible). 

This could essentially be a way to get existing donors upgraded seats who were not part of the 2006 seating process.

Looking at the 2014-15 AD annual report

- Football gate $13.23 million.  So in the best revenue case let's assume that on average all the seats in the stadium require a donation to match the cost of the seat, looks to me like the max revenue upside is $13 million (you'd have to net out the current required donation of the current 50 yard line sections to get the possible net gain)

[82lsju]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I wonder about the net revenue impact, will people who won't make the required donation be replaced by people already donating enough to the AD to not have any incremental donation? 

I know a couple of people who got premium seats at the football games because they viewed them as "free" since they already donated at the level to get the seats (well not quite free since only 80% fo the donation going to free seats is tax deductible). 

This could essentially be a way to get existing donors upgraded seats who were not part of the 2006 seating process.

Looking at the 2014-15 AD annual report

- Football gate $13.23 million.  So in the best revenue case let's assume that on average all the seats in the stadium require a donation to match the cost of the seat, looks to me like the max revenue upside is $13 million (you'd have to net out the current required donation of the current 50 yard line sections to get the possible net gain)

[fullmetal]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I tend to take a broad view of program health.  Crappy attendance, crappy game atmosphere, and a crappy offense will eventually bring down the program.  Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

It does sound like they're slowly throttling the golden goose of "the fan experience."  I guess the big money donors get skyboxes and don't care if the stands are empty.

[fullmetal]

Look, as long as the AD is fine with more $$ (by soaking the wealthiest fans) and fewer fans in the stands, this program will continue/expand.

I tend to take a broad view of program health.  Crappy attendance, crappy game atmosphere, and a crappy offense will eventually bring down the program.  Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

It does sound like they're slowly throttling the golden goose of "the fan experience."  I guess the big money donors get skyboxes and don't care if the stands are empty.

[82lsju]

Quick report on KPIX5 on the new ticket prices. Reported as a 200% increase with a typical $500 ticket now costing an extra $1000.

[82lsju]

Quick report on KPIX5 on the new ticket prices. Reported as a 200% increase with a typical $500 ticket now costing an extra $1000.

[Goose]

Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

I agree that it appears the AD is indeed going down that path. I am not happy about it, but I do understand why it may have some appeal. With the Stanford fan base however, I fear that the AD will fail to extract more actual revenue than would the present system because the (number of butts) times (revenue per butt) will be lower than it would have been if nothing had changed. That fact will be obscured by the natural odd-year increase and the fact that part of the money will move from the ticket pool to the donation pool.  The Department can say "ticket revenue is down, donations are up, we got more total bucks, so we did the right thing". But the total bucks would have increased anyway in an odd year, so the plan could really have been  a loser. It will unfortunately be credited with effects that are really from another cause. Then, in 2018, things really go down, but the AD says "Its is because it is an even year. Next year, more mandatory donations" and we spiral downward.

[Goose]

Think about it:  the team is on an unprecedented winning run, and attendance still sucks.  This latest move by the AD strikes me as a surrender of sorts:  "Well . . . we can't boost butts in seats, so let's just extract more from those who buy our premium seats."  That will help revenues.

Yeah, maybe, for a while . . .

I agree that it appears the AD is indeed going down that path. I am not happy about it, but I do understand why it may have some appeal. With the Stanford fan base however, I fear that the AD will fail to extract more actual revenue than would the present system because the (number of butts) times (revenue per butt) will be lower than it would have been if nothing had changed. That fact will be obscured by the natural odd-year increase and the fact that part of the money will move from the ticket pool to the donation pool.  The Department can say "ticket revenue is down, donations are up, we got more total bucks, so we did the right thing". But the total bucks would have increased anyway in an odd year, so the plan could really have been  a loser. It will unfortunately be credited with effects that are really from another cause. Then, in 2018, things really go down, but the AD says "Its is because it is an even year. Next year, more mandatory donations" and we spiral downward.

[Treebound]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=16476.msg187240#msg187240 date=1485222411]
I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

What about those of us who are collateral damage, i.e., the people who DO show up for all of the games, DO contribute some [albeit not the required "donation" amount] but are getting booted out as well -- most likely to seats that are NOT going to be as good as those that others in the non-seat license sections get to retain [assuming they're not going to relocate us to our mirror image seats on the sunny side if that means displacing an existing season ticket holder from those seats?  Are you fine with that, too, since the notion of rewarding loyalty and/or attendance obviously ain't going to happen?  Perhaps you would like to pay our seat licenses as well...
[/quote]

I'm sorry you are being displaced 76, but I still think there are plenty of good seats in our stadium.  I do think the new team in the ticket office will try to work with you on commensurate seats on the sunny side.  As CT pointed out, we have entered the arms race and Shaw is now on our IRS forms as one of the top earners at the university.  I for one, do not want to go back to the No Fault Walt, Ted's Buddy years and if that means that we need to step up our donation, then I'm in. 

Stanford has kept its pricing and donations lower than the rest of the Pac12 for years, and we have only done the one re-seating of the new stadium from what I recall.  As fans over the last 10 years, we have had a very very nice run.  I heard some of the same arguments when the AD started charging for parking.  The only surprise to me on that move was how long we all had it for free! 

 

[Treebound]

[quote author=Treebound link=topic=16476.msg187240#msg187240 date=1485222411]
I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

What about those of us who are collateral damage, i.e., the people who DO show up for all of the games, DO contribute some [albeit not the required "donation" amount] but are getting booted out as well -- most likely to seats that are NOT going to be as good as those that others in the non-seat license sections get to retain [assuming they're not going to relocate us to our mirror image seats on the sunny side if that means displacing an existing season ticket holder from those seats?  Are you fine with that, too, since the notion of rewarding loyalty and/or attendance obviously ain't going to happen?  Perhaps you would like to pay our seat licenses as well...
[/quote]

I'm sorry you are being displaced 76, but I still think there are plenty of good seats in our stadium.  I do think the new team in the ticket office will try to work with you on commensurate seats on the sunny side.  As CT pointed out, we have entered the arms race and Shaw is now on our IRS forms as one of the top earners at the university.  I for one, do not want to go back to the No Fault Walt, Ted's Buddy years and if that means that we need to step up our donation, then I'm in. 

Stanford has kept its pricing and donations lower than the rest of the Pac12 for years, and we have only done the one re-seating of the new stadium from what I recall.  As fans over the last 10 years, we have had a very very nice run.  I heard some of the same arguments when the AD started charging for parking.  The only surprise to me on that move was how long we all had it for free! 

 

[BurgXXIII]

I'm (2 tickets) moving to game-to-game. Ends 65 year string of attending on a season ticket.

[BurgXXIII]

I'm (2 tickets) moving to game-to-game. Ends 65 year string of attending on a season ticket.

[2006alum]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

I don't have skin in this fight since I'm on the Worst Coast, and this has been stated by others in this thread and other threads, but the problem with this argument is that it's not clear how increasing costs increases attendance. Usually, the opposite occurs. If the AD is concerned about attendance, then allocate season ticket seat locations on the basis of % of tickets used over the prior X number of seasons. Prioritize the fans who put butts in seats. But increasing the cost to attend will only drive some people away.

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I'm (2 tickets) moving to game-to-game. Ends 65 year string of attending on a season ticket.

Given the number of people who have said they're cancelling their long-held season tickets this coming season, I will be shocked if this plan yields more butts in seats. It probably backfires, and then the only defense the AD is left with is "we're in the money" -- at the expense of many long-time loyal season ticketholders.

[2006alum]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

I don't have skin in this fight since I'm on the Worst Coast, and this has been stated by others in this thread and other threads, but the problem with this argument is that it's not clear how increasing costs increases attendance. Usually, the opposite occurs. If the AD is concerned about attendance, then allocate season ticket seat locations on the basis of % of tickets used over the prior X number of seasons. Prioritize the fans who put butts in seats. But increasing the cost to attend will only drive some people away.

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I'm (2 tickets) moving to game-to-game. Ends 65 year string of attending on a season ticket.

Given the number of people who have said they're cancelling their long-held season tickets this coming season, I will be shocked if this plan yields more butts in seats. It probably backfires, and then the only defense the AD is left with is "we're in the money" -- at the expense of many long-time loyal season ticketholders.

[oldalum]

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

That is an excellent policy argument for why the tax policy should be changed, but as long as the donation remains legal Stanford would be foolish not to take advantage of it. The people who will take the deduction figure it into the after-tax cost of the tickets when they are deciding whether and where to buy. This allows Stanford to keep the effective price to the fan lower while getting the same $ benefit as a higher price. If you believe that higher prices will reduce attendance (which I do), then voluntarily not taking advantage of the legal loophole would reduce attendance further than taking advantage of it. As well as put us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our competitors who do use the donation route.

[oldalum]

And if the concern is that costs are rising, then charge more for the tickets. The price of the good should meet the costs to produce it. The "required donation" (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) is simply a dubiously quasi-legal way around being taxed for the full price of the ticket, and it chiefly benefits rich alums who benefit from itemizing their deductions. It also cheats taxpayers, because Stanford alums who "donate" for good season tickets enjoy a consumption good that is provided without taxes being charged on it. Why should Stanford football tickets be taxed differently than Warriors tickets? They're both frivolous entertainment, not the Little Sisters of the Poor.

That is an excellent policy argument for why the tax policy should be changed, but as long as the donation remains legal Stanford would be foolish not to take advantage of it. The people who will take the deduction figure it into the after-tax cost of the tickets when they are deciding whether and where to buy. This allows Stanford to keep the effective price to the fan lower while getting the same $ benefit as a higher price. If you believe that higher prices will reduce attendance (which I do), then voluntarily not taking advantage of the legal loophole would reduce attendance further than taking advantage of it. As well as put us at a disadvantage vis-a-vis our competitors who do use the donation route.

[JJJ]

This Facebook post claims season ticket holders hail from 43 states!? I wonder if that changes when the dust settles this year...

http://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball...9236160477

[JJJ]

This Facebook post claims season ticket holders hail from 43 states!? I wonder if that changes when the dust settles this year...

http://www.facebook.com/stanfordfootball...9236160477

[JJJ]

Deja vu all over again.

Several Denver Broncos season-ticket holders who did not attend a game during the 2016 season had their seats revoked, according to a Denver Post report, despite many appealing to the team for their reasons why.

One season-ticket holder since 1977 cited lung surgery as his reason. Another out-of-town fan sold his tickets to support his cancer-stricken mother who has since died. All had their tickets revoked going forward despite their pleas to the team.

This is all part of the Broncos’ “weeding out” process, one that the team says is legal. The Broncos’ season-ticket policy states that every account is a license that is issued annually and can be revoked at any time.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bronco...32555.html

[JJJ]

Deja vu all over again.

Several Denver Broncos season-ticket holders who did not attend a game during the 2016 season had their seats revoked, according to a Denver Post report, despite many appealing to the team for their reasons why.

One season-ticket holder since 1977 cited lung surgery as his reason. Another out-of-town fan sold his tickets to support his cancer-stricken mother who has since died. All had their tickets revoked going forward despite their pleas to the team.

This is all part of the Broncos’ “weeding out” process, one that the team says is legal. The Broncos’ season-ticket policy states that every account is a license that is issued annually and can be revoked at any time.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/bronco...32555.html

[PAsportsfan]

Stanford has a few donation required seats available. I'm guessing they have more that they are not willing to show.

http://gostanford.evenue.net/cgi-bin/nco...e=FST&cgc=

[PAsportsfan]

Stanford has a few donation required seats available. I'm guessing they have more that they are not willing to show.

http://gostanford.evenue.net/cgi-bin/nco...e=FST&cgc=

[winflop]

Not clear they have finished re-assigning seats to those who have renewed. I don't know what my seats are for the upcoming season

[winflop]

Not clear they have finished re-assigning seats to those who have renewed. I don't know what my seats are for the upcoming season

[BostonCard]

Meanwhile, down in LA:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/...story.html

About 9,000 prime midfield seats will be removed to make room for the tower. The officials hope to reseat most of those ticket holders on the field’s north side, but acknowledge the challenge as staff members discuss new seat locations with season-ticket holders in the coming months as part of a campaign that included the mailing this week of a brochure explaining the changes.

“We know there are going to be some tough conversations ahead,” said Tim Martin, USC’s senior associate athletic director for business development.

Reseating priority for Trojan Athletic Fund donors will be determined by membership level and lifetime giving to the department; the remaining season-ticket holders will be sorted based on how long they’ve held tickets.

BC

[BostonCard]

Meanwhile, down in LA:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/...story.html

About 9,000 prime midfield seats will be removed to make room for the tower. The officials hope to reseat most of those ticket holders on the field’s north side, but acknowledge the challenge as staff members discuss new seat locations with season-ticket holders in the coming months as part of a campaign that included the mailing this week of a brochure explaining the changes.

“We know there are going to be some tough conversations ahead,” said Tim Martin, USC’s senior associate athletic director for business development.

Reseating priority for Trojan Athletic Fund donors will be determined by membership level and lifetime giving to the department; the remaining season-ticket holders will be sorted based on how long they’ve held tickets.

BC