GIVE ME STUDENT SECTION OR GIVE ME DEATH!
But preferably, student section.
See, Webster's Dictionary defines "Ken Crawford" as a well-respect Cal blogger, who runs the site "Excuse Me For My Voice." He also hunts people for sport and fashion.
He recently wrote an interesting piece about potentially moving the student section. Go and read it, it's good stuff. Because we're about to conga-line onto his bandwagon of concepts and theories and new-fangled beliefs in something called a "Justin Forsett It And Forget It."
"I'm actually in this photo. Look for the guy wearing blue and also some gold." via upload.wikimedia.org
Avinash: Well, let me play devil's advocate. Take away all this 'purity of college' crap; college sports, in general, lose money for the university and divert resources away from academia. What is even more surprising is that football generally breaks even and doesn't come close to making up the difference.
The Pac-10 has also begun to feel the pinch and the situation isn't expected to get better anytime soon.
TwistNHook: I don't know. I never had the student experience at a Cal game. I was always doing the band thing. I have no idea what the student experience is like.
What is the student experience like?
HydroTech: Charge students more money for their tickets. Also have them pay a penalty fee for not going to the game if they did buy season tickets.
Avinash: But would the student section sell out if you charged more money?
HydroTech: Perhaps it wouldn't. But this is my line of thinking. If the students are going to occupy some of the best seats in the house, charge them appropriately. If the Athletics Department feels that the students are being under-charged, then charge them more. Furthermore, because the students are occupying the best seats in the house, they better come to the games because if they don't, then the University lost out on possible revenue from a willing alumni who would have paid $250 for those seats or whatever. Thus, that is why I suggested that the Athletics Department charge the students a penalty fee for not coming to games if they bought tickets. I think Alabama has something similar to this.
Frankly, I think this is a great solution to the problem, and I'm not just saying this because I put forth this idea.
TwistNHook: I think thats a great idea and Im saying that solely because I think Hydro will punch me in the face if I disagree.
That said, heres my concern. We generally sit in Section RR. This is to the left of the band. This is, ostensibly, a student section. But since its on the other side of the band, its always wide open. So, if they move the students, that might stop being so wide open and easy to go to for the games.
So, I am now 100% completely and totally opposed to any moves.
"I'd put all the students in "Haas Press Box."" via grfx.cstv.com
Yellow Fever: I'm not so certain that a plan like that would work. I have no doubt that at a cost of 220, the student section would sell out, but with an upfront sticker price of 500, you'd have to imagine a lot of students would be wary about their initial investment even if they were planning on attending every game.
HydroTech: I understand your concern, Fever. In that case, charge the students the normal fee and add a punishment clause whereby they pay an extra $30 to $40 for every game they miss.
Avinash: The biggest issue I'm seeing is that the really passionate young Cal fans (the ones that make the most noise) get priced out. College kids enjoy their football, but it's not like the most diehard fans have to go to the games anymore. They can probably sit back and watch on their friend's 50" HD, or go to one of the many huge sports bars if they feel the University is tightening their grasp on their wallets.
If we raise the prices on students, we might see a similar issue permeate the student section. Indifferent on defense, occasionally cheering when it gets late, etc. Do we really want to leave our rowdiest fans out on a limb?
HydroTech: Well, I think the solution is to then make the game-day environment one that can't be missed. And thus, those people that want to watch the game at home on their HDTVs, will be able to see the game and that's it. They'll miss out on the band, the music, the energy within the stadium, the free giveaways, etc. If Cal can make the gameday environment exciting and enticing enough so that people who stay home and watch the game on TV will feel like they're missing out on something special, then those people will start coming to the games in person.
Avinash: You don't feel moving the students to the gold zone and/or blue zones is a feasible solution?
Yellow Fever: Personally, if the game day experience is fine, I'd have no problem being anywhere in the stadium. But then you're talking about a guy who's paid for tickets in the very top row of the worst stadium in the NBA, so I don't really have the highest of standards. Still, I don't feel like the team needs to worry about pricing out too many students. Is there any problem with student attendance now? If there isn't, then in the interest of capitalism I don't have any problem with the team charging as much as they can.
HydroTech: I think moving the students to the endzones is a possibility, but not a feasible one when the goal we are trying to accomplish is keeping the tradition of student seating on the 50 yard line and also increasing revenue. If we simply wanted to increase revenue, then yes, moving the students to the endzone is the right thing to do. However, that would mean the tradition and strategic advantage of having the students at mid-field is lost. Keeping the students where they are, and charging more money for season tickets - along with the punishment fee for missed games - would be an ideal way to satisfy both goals.
"Would moving the student section mean the end of card stunts?" via upload.wikimedia.org
Ragnarok: Man, I don't even know where to start. I'm not even sure whether I dislike this idea more than simply moving the students off the 50.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I wasn't a Cal fan until I started attending school there. I think the same goes for a lot of Cal fans. I probably wouldn't have even attended football games if I hadn't joined the Cal Band; I sure didn't bother going to football games in high school. But once I was in, I was hooked -- and given that I was watching a Tom Holmoe-coached team, you know that there has to be something special about Cal football.
All this talk about moving students into the endzones, or raising ticket prices on them, or charging them penalty fees for missing games; these are all shortsighted moves that will, in the long run, hurt Cal football. There's a reason student tickets are so cheap, and especially why there are corporate sponsors paying for free tickets for freshmen: it's all designed to induce student attendance. Students are on a budget -- many depend on scholarships and grants to get them through each semester, and tripling or quadrupling football ticket prices will just drive them away. However, if you get students to attend a few games, and if they're at all susceptible, they'll be hooked for life.
The point of having a football program is not to make money. In fact, simply not losing money should be only a secondary concern. The point, like every extra-curricular activity that the University sponsors, is to enhance the experience of the student body in general. Give students a good time, and they'll keep coming back for 50 years, putting up with crappy seats, terrible parking, and all the while donating money to their alma mater. Drive the students away, and you'll be wondering why, in 30 years, your alumni base that stays active and involved in their alma mater is so small.
"Is this a view Cal students should have?" via www.rkgprojects.com
Avinash: You're arguing that if we move the student section to the end zones and charge the same price, fewer students would show up? I don't think end zone seats are that bad; it's not exactly like sitting in the upper deck corners in baseball or basketball games, you're still getting a fairly decent view of the game on the field, without much detriment to the viewing experience.
TwistNHook: Have you ever sat in the end zone seats? You cant tell whether that run went for 1 yard, 5 yards, or 15.
To be fair, last time I sat in the end zone was USC 2005. I couldn't tell whether the DBack returned Ayoob's interception for 1 yard, 5 yards, or a TD. So, I might have some Vietnam-esque flashbacks to that proposal.
Ragnarok: No, I'm arguing that if you raise ticket prices, you'll get fewer students to show up, and if you start instituting penalty fees for not showing up, you're going to get fewer students to purchase student tickets in the first place. I'm also arguing that if you diminish the student experience, you'll get fewer of them to come back as alumni (and this is true whether you're talking about Cal football, or other sports, or the classroom experience, or whatever). Make the students love their four years at Cal, when they are poor, and you'll be repaid over the next 50 years as they become well-to-do alumni.
Moreover, I was arguing at the beginning that moving the students off the 50 and marginalizing their impact on the crowd and on the football game will only serve to diminish the experience for everyone involved. What I like about the ESP program and much of the renovation plan in general is that it brings in significant new revenue from the small portion of the fanbase that is able to afford it, and it does this by significantly enhancing the perks they receive and their overall gameday experience, without significantly detracting from the experience of the vast majority of the fans. Displacing the students to appease some portion of the general season ticket base (you know that the vast majority will put up with reseating without complaint) does not achieve the same level of unobtrusiveness.
69 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Several things to juggle here for Sandy
1) Increase revenue – More money means better coaches and facilities… which means better recruiting and more wins… which means ALL our sports programs are better off and thus our school reputation is enhanced. The point of college sports is not money, true… but let’s face it, winning IS and that costs money.
2) Don’t crap on the student fans by moving them to the end zone. You need to make the game day experience indelible and make them all TRUE fans… because these are the people that eventually will become the rich donors and alum that buy the most expensive seats we’re arguing about.
So HOW do we do this?
I don’t believe in moving the students. However, if we HAD to move them, we should only consider moving them over slightly or splitting them up by class (like the Army/Navy etc). Splitting them up could create competition between upper and underclassmen and will make them cheer louder (maybe).

From this…

…to this?… Maybe? Just brainstorming here…
Ideally, we shouldn’t move them and use the “carrot and the stick,” method like Hydro is suggesting:
Alternatively, the Athletics Department could charge the students MUCH more than they are currently paying, and subtract costs from the students if they attend the game. In other words, charge the students $500 for season tickets, but for every home game they attend their account will be credited $40. Thus, if the students attend all 7 home games, they’ll be credited $280, and the cost of their season tickets really is $220. This alternative method accomplishes the same goal as my first suggestion but instead of penalizing the students, it rewards them. Although the result is essentially the same, psychologically, it can be more encouraging for the students to “earn” credit rather than being punished.
However, I would alter it slightly. I agree the upfront cost of $500 is too much. Charge $500, but not all at once. Students pay $250 up front but owe the remaining $250 at the end of the season. However, if they attend all the games, the second payment is waived (pro-rated). We keep the upfront cost low, keep attendance high and increase revenue with the price increase…. all without moving the students!
Of course if all you wanted to do is increase revenues, then BUILD A FUCKING HUGE PARKING LOT!!! Trust me, for the alums, the difficulty getting to a game is a deterrent. But I have no confidence in the city of Berkeley… so forget I mentioned it.
Finally, we don’t need to decide now. You try something and adjust based on what works… it’s okay to keep adjusting just as long as you keep the scheme simple and the changes slight.
by danzig on Jun 25, 2009 5:22 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
I really like this idea:
However, I would alter it slightly. I agree the upfront cost of $500 is too much. Charge $500, but not all at once. Students pay $250 up front but owe the remaining $250 at the end of the season. However, if they attend all the games, the second payment is waived (pro-rated). We keep the upfront cost low, keep attendance high and increase revenue with the price increase…. all without moving the students!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I don’t remember having a spare $500 lying around as a student, especially after buying books.
by GooBears0015 on Jun 25, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Can we convert Evans into a parking lot?
It already has the exterior of one…
by CaliforniaBone on Jun 25, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Can we convert Evans into a parking lot?
It’s interesting that both you and Rishi think that Evans should be converted. As an Econ major….
I TOTALLY AGREE!
I hate that frickn building. I used to have a recurring dream where I would walk through the halls and smell the seats that were there (don’t ask). I know it’s a feat of engineering… low energy consumption… able to sustain immense foot traffic and can be emptied in under 10mins… blah, blah. I still hate that ugly building and dreaded walking to it twice a day.
I once contemplated jumping off that building after doing my Math 1B Oral exam…luckily, that thought didn’t last too long once I realized Math is stupid anyway. >.>
by CaliforniaBone on Jun 26, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Of course if all you wanted to do is increase revenues, then BUILD A FUCKING HUGE PARKING LOT!!! Trust me, for the alums, the difficulty getting to a game is a deterrent. But I have no confidence in the city of Berkeley… so forget I mentioned it.
And then we could have actual tailgates? Wow, this would be awesome.
But, damnit, we’d have protest from people saying the dirt is of historic value and contains fossils from African dinosaurs (not the racist white dinos) and also, a parking lot would encourage more driving and less BART, which is horrible for the crumbling environment!
Screw it; let’s just demolish Evans and turn that into a parking lot.
JAI HO!
You’re arguing that if we move the student section to the end zones and charge the same price, fewer students would show up? I don’t think end zone seats are that bad; it’s not exactly like sitting in the upper deck corners in baseball or basketball games, you’re still getting a fairly decent view of the game on the field, without much detriment to the viewing experience.
Spoken like somebody who has never ever taken in a game from MM. Come by and ‘enjoy’ a quarter with me next year. You will realize the ridiculousness of this statement. You can’t see shit. You live off the video board. But I could care less, because I just love being there and the tickets are really cheap.
Not as useful as Rated-R Superstar, but, hey!, I stick my Grease watching to once a weekend.
I took in the Eagles’ playoff win over the Giants in 2006 from an upper level end zone seat, and my Nets tickets are the equivalent of upper level end zone seats, really high up behind the backboard. Maybe I’ve just gotten used to it, but I’ve recalibrated my brain to think of it as watching really lifelike, zoomed-out Madden or NBA 2K.
Still holding out hope that Ryan Anderson will capitulate and grant him that interview he's been asking for for months now.
by yellow fever on Jun 25, 2009 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with rollon.
I’ve sat in every portion of the stadium, and while the seats in the endzones are not awful compared to endzone seats in other stadiums, the blow festering wang compared to anything from the 10 yrd lines in.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jun 25, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I 100% agree with Ragnarok
Look at what has happened in our transition from Harmon (along with Maples and the Pit the toughest place to play in the Pac-10, regardless of team talent) to Haas (it’s tough only when we’re good).
I used to come home from Harmon unable to hear for 2 days . . . but with the students back from the sideline and split up between sideline and end line – they’re slightly removed and only one game in Haas has left my ears ringing (and I think that’s a bad thing)
The money needs to come out of the alumni or fans pockets – not the students pockets. The students will pay the premium when they’re alumni.
by LeonPowe on Jun 25, 2009 8:11 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I disagree with moving the student section in any form
and I disagree with charging them the market rate for those primo seats.
in the money sense, the student section is a marketing cost to develop brand loyalty.
in a university sense, it’s about the students, or should be.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jun 25, 2009 9:29 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Would having seats in the end zone make it harder for opponents to score?
Strategy wise, wouldn’t it be cool for the student section to dominate the noise in the end zone for the 2nd and 4th quarter of games? That way it makes it more difficult for opponents to score in the red zone.
Let’s face it. We can say “HEY GOLD ZONE!” and “HEY BLUE ZONE!” all we want. They only make a trifle of the noise the student section makes. Do you guys think it’d make a difference on the psyche of our opponents and more difficult for quarterbacks to concentrate if they saw a wave of blue jumping out in front of them?
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 25, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions
I have a hard time believing students would pay significantly more for the football season tickets. However, I think a better idea would be to couple the season football tickets with season basketball tickets for significantly more. The cheap students would feel they’re getting a deal. The passionate football fans will have a ticket to every cal basketball game. and vise versa.
To increase attendence you could the front zone of the student section in football linked to if you saw a certain number of football events… (and possible basketball, or womens basketball)
by Longhorn@Berkeley on Jun 25, 2009 9:56 AM PDT reply actions
The idea that big donors should be prioritized over students is silly for two reasons:
1. It’s college football, duh. It should be about the students.
2. If you give students the shittiest seats in the house, they’re not going to be donors in the future.
So basically what rocksanddirt and danzig said.
Another vote for the status quo
Beginning the day I was accepted to Cal, I was always destined to be a Bears fan for life. That said, spending four years in affordable prime seats got me hooked in a fanatical way, which likely would not have occurred had I been placed in a marginalized student ghetto behind the end zones.
Some kind of financial incentive for students to actually use their tickets seems reasonable to me, although I’d rather see a game-by-game sell-back option so those seats could then be re-sold to other students, faculty, staff, alumni, etc.. Thinking very selfishly, for example, I’d love to take my wife (also a Cal alum) and two boys to a game at Memorial Stadium, but given that we are not nearly wealthy enough to be Bear Backers, and given that we don’t live in the extended Bay Area, purchasing season tickets is just not a reasonable option. Thus, we’d welcome any opportunity to make decent single-game seats more available to the larger Cal community. I realize that the strategy of the Athletic Department is to squeeze as much money as possible from its affluent alumni base, and I don’t blame them for a second in doing so. Nonetheless, there is an even larger alumni base, including families like mine, that would be more than happy to send more money to Cal Athletics than we currently do, but we’re discouraged from doing so because the incentives target donation levels FAR beyond our reach.
One final question: what percentage of the Athletic Department’s budget comes from ticket sales? I realize this is a difficult question to answer, because of the links between tickets and donations. Still, I’m wondering just how significant of a revenue boost one could expect from moving the student section away from its current location.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jun 25, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I think moving the students is a horrible idea. Let’s think about a majority of people who go to Cal games. Most of them aren’t exactly “stand-up and cheer” fans. The students earn those seats with all the energy they give. They pump up the team. How many times have we seen a player stand on the bench and wave a towel at the students to get them riled up. The effect wouldn’t be the same if you switched the fans who stand there. Guaranteed.
Last season, I moved my seats to the Blue Zone so I could afford to go to every game and while the seats aren’t bad, I wouldn’t make the students sit there so that the lazy fans around me could move to the 50-yard line.
When the rest of Cal fans of the energy of the student section, I may reconsider my position.
Would Blue Zone people be able to afford 50 yard line seats?
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 25, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
While I could afford them, I really don’t think it is worth it.
Not as useful as Rated-R Superstar, but, hey!, I stick my Grease watching to once a weekend.
by rollonubears on Jun 25, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Do NOT move the student section
It’s completely clear to me you should not move the students.
I could support a very modest increase in student ticket prices. You could have it follow inflation every year, and keep it a meaningful, but low cost.
The noise and cohesiveness of the students are critical.
At let me say I can’t believe you even wrote down the idea of penalizing students for not attending after the fact. That’s insane. You’re going to send bills and expect them to be paid? Block registration maybe? Crazy.
How about penalizing the people who aren’t filling the front 10 rows of the 50-yard line seats right now. Yeah, you know who I’m talking about – donor alumni!
How many games last year did I see the first 10 rows on the Alumni side empty. With yellow-jacket guards shooing enthusiastic cheap-seat fans away who tried to squat there.
Shameful! I love Old Blues as much as the next guy, but they get half the best seats in the stadium reserved for them, and some large fraction of them can’t be bothered to show up except for the biggest games. Or they resell their tickets on stub hub and ENEMY team fans buy them. That drove me NUTS in Section F 2 years ago (I’m in T now). Fair weather fans bail out all the time.
So you do NOT want to create another fair weather section on the Student side at the 50.
I would rather see some motivation for filling up the alumni side consistently, and penalizing them for not showing up, and not being loud. Those seats are incredibly hard to get at any price – and they’re empty!
I want noise, even when the opponent is Eastern Washington, and I have pride and want to show the nation a full rocking house every time we’re on TV.
Any movement of the student section of big $ increase will work against that. Go back to the drawing board and stop antagonizing me! You’re making me angry!
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Jun 25, 2009 10:50 AM PDT reply actions 6 recs
And we all know what happens when Jerrott Willard gets angry. Beware of the little half shirt!
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jun 25, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
The reason why teh front 10 rows on the alumni side are never filled is because they are too low, and the visiting team blocks the viewer’s line of sight to the field. Thus, that is why the renovation of the stadium will lower the field level by some certain amount of feet.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Is it lower than the side on the student section side of the field? I’ve been at the front row behind the Cal defense’s bench a couple times and I could still see pretty well. It also made for some great pictures.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Jun 25, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I see no reason why Alumni, at least some of them, can't stand
On big game days, those seats are filled. Case closed.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Jun 25, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
SHOOT HIM LIKE A HORSE SHOOT HIM LIKE A HORSE
Still holding out hope that Ryan Anderson will capitulate and grant him that interview he's been asking for for months now.
by yellow fever on Jun 25, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
They could put a ticket transfer system whereby if they transfer their ticket to another student they could avoid the penalty (assuming the receiving student actually does go to the game).
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Agree. In fact, while I was at school, season tickets were completely transferable between students. If you had a ticket, weren’t wearing red and had a student ID… then you were in.
Since under the new system we would have to keep track (and scan) IDs and tickets, we can set up a ticket exchange system with the POS database underneath it. There are free PHP based web apps that you can download that already do this!
If admin of this transfer system is too laborious, then the best thing to do is relax enforcement. During the first game, don’t scan the tickets and but make sure the tix holder is a student. Everyone will catch on quickly that the second payment is dependent on the honor system.
Transferability actually has a great deal of monetary value (ask any consultant)… it basically makes the season ticket a better deal.
by danzig on Jun 25, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Transferability is great. Penalties aren't.
Forget the penalty system. Bad idea. Non-starter.
Stand the whole game, stay to the end, and start yelling while they're still in the huddle. GO BEARS
by JerrottWillard45 on Jun 25, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
He linked to Crawford and not us. :(
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
They called me too
As you can see from my updated blog post, I got a call from the Athletic Office too. Herb really wanted to reiterate that it’s not being considered and there’s no reason for us to be concerned.
What do I gotta do to get a phone call from Herb???
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
They moved students and the band when they renovated and expanded Harmon/Haas. Most of you don’t know the difference. Just sayin’.
They still got seats at mid-court
There’s still a bunch of seats at mid-court for the students (true, some, including the band, are on the end).
I know this isn’t happening, but would the big donors even want this to happen? If they truly loved Cal football, then they would not want the students to be moved.
New revolutionary idea: fieldside seats. Right on the white out of bounds line. Sure there are some dangers involved but not enough to deny the incredible opportunity it is.
Not as useful as Rated-R Superstar, but, hey!, I stick my Grease watching to once a weekend.
Thanks to the athletic dept. for not doing this!
Potential problem with the whole idea of moving the student section: Do we even have enough donors? Cal has been a perennial top 25 team and conference title contender…and we still don’t sell out all of our games. We don’t sell out season tickets either. If, all of a sudden, 4 gigantic sections of really expensive tickets opened up, I don’t think enough people would be willing to pay for them. Maybe enough would buy that it would absorb the hit from potential declines in student sales (which you should make cheaper if you’re moving them from the best to the crappiest seats).
I could imagine a situation with really patchy 50 yard line attendance and a dead stadium. Very bad looking, plus the university would take a PR hit, plus home-field advantage would be weakened.
Basically, I’m not at all convinced it will significantly impact revenue positively, and I’m 100% convinced it will be bad in other ways.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Couple of thoughts
1. There is huge major donor/ alumni / Tedford objection to moving the student section, so it just isn’t going to happen. Tedford thinks that the student section wins us some games – and I tend to agree. There is a huge financial cost to winning fewer games.
2. I think the main problem is that the student ticket situation is horribly unsophisticated. Basically, once a student has purchased a season pass, there is a seat in the stadium that is considered occupied for all 6 home games regardless of whether or not anyone shows up. This system makes sense when demand is low, because it locks students in for $100, and makes attendance look respectable, but it makes no sense now that demand is high, and it will be insane with the new stadium which will both increase demand and decrease supply.
Here is my plan:
Plan Part 1 – Cashing out
As mentioned above, the first thing you could do is allow the student to “cash out” their “ticket” for games they aren’t going to attend.
- Allow the student to deactivate their Student ID card “ticket” for that game.
- In exchange, give them a percentage of the future ticket sale for doing so.
- Have an auction system, where tickets are sold on the open market. Obviously, the marginal value of a ticket to E. Wash is zero, and the marginal value of a USC ticket may be $200. This shouldn’t be hard to do.
- This makes it a market choice, but not an easy one. A $200 USC ticket might only get the student $50, with the university keeping the other $150. Clearly, almost students will choose to keep their ticket. (I am not sure what the logical percentage split would be, but imagine some algorithm can be worked out to maximize the likelihood that a non-attender will cash out, while minimizing the odds that it is so lucrative for students that most of them are cashing out for financial gain).
- If this works, I think the university would easily make tens of thousands of dollars per game, and assure that the stadium was totally full.
Plan Part 2 – Attendance policy
- Charge everyone the current price for student tickets, say $100.
- If you attend 2 or fewer games, you pay the face value for those games. My guess would be that for the reasonably priced alum sections the games are around $80. Theoretically you would have to pay $ 160 total.
- If you attend 3 games: pay for the most expensive two games, but get the third for free.
- If you attend 4-5 games: You pay only the $100.
- If you attend all 6 games: We pay you to attend the Eastern Washington game. Get $30 back if you make it to every game.
Once the new stadium is together, I think in combination the two parts work well. The students actually should be able to cover the cost of not showing up by cashing out their tickets. But the university would get to make more money, and people who want to pay market value for a ticket (like, myself) will be able to do so.
by Tedfordisgod on Jun 26, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I generally agree. But rather than put the unused student seats on the open market, I’d like to see them offered only to people with a Cal connection (other students, alumni, faculty-staff, etc.). Keep those premier seats in the family, in other words, and out of the hands of scalpers—to whatever extent that’s possible.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jun 26, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I like this. Now, as a former Cal Band member, I’ve never actually had to go through the process of being admitted to the Student Section, but wouldn’t it be difficult to resell those seats on the open market anyway? I mean, are student seats even ‘seats’? Where would any non-students who bought returned tickets actually sit? Would they have to get a wristband, wear a gameday shirt, and be expected to stand the whole game? The logistics of selling these seats to anyone besides other students seems daunting to me.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I think there are two ways to go with it…(1) Force them into the student section – a lot of people wouldn’t mind this or (2) Just start with an upper corner of one of the student sections (let’s say R). I think it probably just requires a rope…I am pretty sure for some games in the past they have roped off some parts of the student sections (though I can’t remember why.)
There are some logistical issues for sure, but someone smarter than me can figure it out.
by Tedfordisgod on Jun 26, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The university would control the tickets, so there is no real reason they would be more likely to end up in the hands of scalpers. If they could work an auction system, the mark-up would actually prevent scalpers from buying them (but wouldn’t prevent USC fans from buying them.) It at least keeps all the money with the university rather than giving huge profits to the scalpers.
by Tedfordisgod on Jun 26, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
What am I missing here?
Given current demand, wouldn’t moving the student section devalue every single seat in the stadium except for those vacated by SS et al.? Looking at it financially, moving SS could result in losses for both short-term (upfront funding/commitment is highly emphasized in ESP) and long-term (erosion of student-future-alum-potential-donor base).
by ttgiang15 on Jun 26, 2009 2:17 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

by 






















































