It isn't the price of the ticket or total attendance, it's total revenue that matters

[GopherinFlorida]

The football seat donation increase along with the hockey ticket increase and donation requirements and the reseating of the barn etc have little to do with ticket prices and total attendance and everything to to with total revenue.

I get that it hurts the atmosphere, may be pricing some fans out of the market and that it really sucks, but in the end, its all about money.

And so for all of you that are thinking this is a huge mistake by the U and that it will end in total failure...I would say that history is not on your side and that the numbers don't support your opinion.

Hockey, basketball and football will all make more revenue with these changes even if attendance drops off by as much as 20%.

Plus we all know that if we can start winning (and I think we have the right football and basketball coaches in place to do just that) and keep winning, the attendance will be fine and the revenue will jump even more.

The issue is if Kill doesn't go to the next level or Pitino doesn't get it done on the recruiting trail and we stay middle of the B1G for the next 4 years...then it could go to crap.

I love, yes LOVE that the U is betting big on being a winner. It tells me that we will have the facilities built, we will have the support and we will build winners.

Leave no doubt Norwood...build us winners and make the ticket prices worth the cost. National Champs in 2017...see who doesn't buy season tickets then.

 

[theTurning]

http://m.thepostgame.com/blog/road-...um-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets

 

[GopherinFlorida]

http://m.thepostgame.com/blog/road-...um-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets[/QUOTE

Huh...if Michigan was 9-3 last year and 11-1 this year...bet the article would have been about the resurgance of Michigan football and the love the fans have for the team.

Everyone bitches about everything when you lose. Winning makes it all a bit better and easier to swallow. Which is exactly what I wrote. The U is doubling down on building a winner and Norwood is betting his job and career on it...bully for him and bully for them. I love the risk/reward and can't wait for us to be in the discussion for the final four playoff in 2017.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

The football seat donation increase along with the hockey ticket increase and donation requirements and the reseating of the barn etc have little to do with ticket prices and total attendance and everything to to with total revenue.

I get that it hurts the atmosphere, may be pricing some fans out of the market and that it really sucks, but in the end, its all about money.

And so for all of you that are thinking this is a huge mistake by the U and that it will end in total failure...I would say that history is not on your side and that the numbers don't support your opinion.

Hockey, basketball and football will all make more revenue with these changes even if attendance drops off by as much as 20%.

Plus we all know that if we can start winning (and I think we have the right football and basketball coaches in place to do just that) and keep winning, the attendance will be fine and the revenue will jump even more.

The issue is if Kill doesn't go to the next level or Pitino doesn't get it done on the recruiting trail and we stay middle of the B1G for the next 4 years...then it could go to crap.

I love, yes LOVE that the U is betting big on being a winner. It tells me that we will have the facilities built, we will have the support and we will build winners.

Leave no doubt Norwood...build us winners and make the ticket prices worth the cost. National Champs in 2017...see who doesn't buy season tickets then.

That might be true next year. But this has long term effects as well. We need people to buy tickets 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road. I am getting married this August, hoping to start a family. I'm sure I'll find a way to keep getting the tickets for me and my future wife. I always envisioned us bringing our future children to games as young as they could go and raising them the right way (as Gopher fans). I figured early on, it would be enough to put them in a Gopher ball cap, get them a hot dog, have them wave a pennant, and know that they wanted the guys in the maroon shirts to win. Hopefully, they would have a good time, and would want to continue going as they got older, and become curious and want to learn more about individual players and strategies and schemes and become enough of a fan of the game that they would attend games as students and then be lifelong fans like me.

If the prices go up significantly, at some point, even if I still am willing to scrape together the money to get me there, I am not going to be wiling to buy an expensive ticket for a kid who isn't really old enough to understand what's going on just to sit there and clap along with the band. I could take him to a Hamline game to do that. I don't know the numbers, but a lot of my friends who go to the game can trace their roots back to going to games with their parents. We might be able to raise today revenue enough to cover today lost ticket sales (even thought I doubt it). But if this cuts significantly the number of people bringing their young kids to games, I think in the long run we lose a lot of potential lifelong fans.

 

[Gopher024]

http://m.thepostgame.com/blog/road-...um-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets[/QUOTE

Huh...if Michigan was 9-3 last year and 11-1 this year...bet the article would have been about the resurgance of Michigan football and the love the fans have for the team.

Everyone bitches about everything when you lose. Winning makes it all a bit better and easier to swallow. Which is exactly what I wrote. The U is doubling down on building a winner and Norwood is betting his job and career on it...bully for him and bully for them. I love the risk/reward and can't wait for us to be in the discussion for the final four playoff in 2017.

Keep telling yourself that when the guy sitting in the seat next to you bought his ticket for $10 and you continue to $100 for yours. That's what you are completely missing. They can't sell out the place as is and when they see there attendance dip they will offer those seats to the public at a fraction of the cost that season ticket holders are paying. There is no incentive to being a season ticket holder.

 

[theTurning]

"Total revenue is all that matters" is something a first year business student would say.

 

[Gopher07]

I agree. But this:

The issue is if Kill doesn't go to the next level or Pitino doesn't get it done on the recruiting trail and we stay middle of the B1G for the next 4 years...then it could go to crap.

worries me a lot.

Here's our home attendance the last five years, with our record from the previous year included.

2009: 50,805 (2008: 7-6)
2010: 49,513 (2009: 6-7) -2.5%
2011: 47,714 (2010: 3-9) -3.6%
2012: 46,637 (2011: 3-9) -2.3%
2013: 47,797 (2012: 6-7) +2.5%
2014: 47,865 (2013: 8-5) +0.1%

Our attendance correlates really well with winning. The fans right now, without big increases in tickets, are already fickle. If we won more games the previous season than the one two years previous, our attendance went up. If we did not, our attendance went down.

I don't know how fickle the fans will be with the increase. My guess is they are more sensitive with the increased cost, and any drop in record would result in much bigger than our median 2.5% change. If we have a worse record next season, coupled with the increase in prices for 2016 ... we could be looking at a big drop in one season.

To your point, it may not matter to the bottom line, at least at first, but the culture changes quite a bit, and that can have long-term lasting effects when it comes to recruiting, getting the ever-difficult "casual fan interest," etc.

I sincerely hope the record improves next year. If it does, this will be a genius move. But given the fickle nature of the fan base, and their propensity to react to changes in record with a drop in ticket sales, I fear the large increase in cost with be like a powder keg and intensely magnify that sensitivity should things go south. Really hope I'm wrong.

 

[Gopher024]

I agree. But this:



worries me a lot.

Here's our home attendance the last five years, with our record from the previous year included.

2009: 50,805 (2008: 7-6)
2010: 49,513 (2009: 6-7) -2.5%
2011: 47,714 (2010: 3-9) -3.6%
2012: 46,637 (2011: 3-9) -2.3%
2013: 47,797 (2012: 6-7) +2.5%
2014: 47,865 (2013: 8-5) +0.1%

Our attendance correlates really well with winning. The fans right now, without big increases in tickets, are already fickle. If we won more games the previous season than the one two years previous, our attendance went up. If we did not, our attendance went down.

I don't know how fickle the fans will be with the increase. My guess is they are more sensitive with the increased cost, and any drop in record would result in much bigger than our median 2.5% change. If we have a worse record next season, coupled with the increase in prices for 2016 ... we could be looking at a big drop in one season.

To your point, it may not matter to the bottom line, at least at first, but the culture changes quite a bit, and that can have long-term lasting effects when it comes to recruiting, getting the ever-difficult "casual fan interest," etc.

I sincerely hope the record improves next year. If it does, this will be a genius move. But given the fickle nature of the fan base, and their propensity to react to changes in record with a drop in ticket sales, I fear the large increase in cost with be like a powder keg and intensely magnify that sensitivity should things go south. Really hope I'm wrong.

Attendance (i.e. tickets sold) tells only small a portion of the picture. How many people came through the gate? How many of those through the gate we're season ticket holders vs. single game purchasers? How many of the season ticket holders sold their tickets online to third parties? How many people bought tickets with the $20 ticket offers the U has made in the past? All of these things will drastically change the picture of attendance in the coming years.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

http://m.thepostgame.com/blog/road-...um-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets

+1

These increases are no guarantee that they will result in success on the field (case in point, Michigan). It could have the opposite effect. As others have pointed out, less fans, less concessions, less fun, etc. I’ve been attending games regularly since the 70’s and recall the U of M jacking up ticket prices in the 80’s only to have it backfire in their faces. They backpedaled when many season ticket holders did not renew by sending out stopgap letters offering the same rate as the previous season. Even with that back-down offer, some did not renew. The damage was already done because the message was loud and clear, the reward for years of sitting in half-empty stadiums was to get slapped in the face with a big ticket price increase. I don’t recall what the increase was in the 80’s but it is nothing like this one. I’m afraid there is no amount of goodwill or political spin to justify the huge increase as the damage is already done. If only they had started with a more modest increase which, IMHO for most fans, I think would have been in the neighborhood of $100 per year.

BTW - I’m already dropping 2 of 4 tix for sure and most likely will drop all 4 and just scalp them for pennies on the dollar. For those who claim it is hard to scalp tickets, that’s B.S. At least two or three times a year I scalp extra tickets so my son can bring friends to the game. This year, I got extra Iowa and Ohio State tickets for $20 (I paid $25 for the OSU tickets because they were on the 45 and I felt guilty he was only offering them for only $20). Several times over the years I have also given away tickets or ate them because there was no interest. I’m betting on street tix, on average, being cheaper. Only time will tell if I’m right but if history is any indication, I come out way ahead with this strategy. Like the article said, if they're going to treat me as nothing but a consumer, then I’m going to act like one.

 

[golden boy]

"Total revenue is all that matters" is something a first year business student would say.

Exactly. To me this whole thing feels like it is about Norwood positioning the department $ wise in the short term for his next big contract (here or elsewhere). Trouble is, the University will outlast us all, and long-term stability needs to be the key driver or decisions. A fun (full, rocking crowd) atmosphere is not immune but is somewhat cushioned against the ups and downs of on-field performance. That same crowd also help recruiting which makes the downs less frequent and less awful. I'd rather we focus on attendance and revenue over the next 30 years than over just the next 3. That means filling the bank and making gameday a tradition for 55,000 people, not squeezing twice as much out of 30,000 people who are interested today when the product is all the way to 4th in the Big Ten.

 

[supadupafly]

The football seat donation increase along with the hockey ticket increase and donation requirements and the reseating of the barn etc have little to do with ticket prices and total attendance and everything to to with total revenue.

I get that it hurts the atmosphere, may be pricing some fans out of the market and that it really sucks, but in the end, its all about money.

And so for all of you that are thinking this is a huge mistake by the U and that it will end in total failure...I would say that history is not on your side and that the numbers don't support your opinion.

Hockey, basketball and football will all make more revenue with these changes even if attendance drops off by as much as 20%.

Plus we all know that if we can start winning (and I think we have the right football and basketball coaches in place to do just that) and keep winning, the attendance will be fine and the revenue will jump even more.

The issue is if Kill doesn't go to the next level or Pitino doesn't get it done on the recruiting trail and we stay middle of the B1G for the next 4 years...then it could go to crap.

I love, yes LOVE that the U is betting big on being a winner. It tells me that we will have the facilities built, we will have the support and we will build winners.

Leave no doubt Norwood...build us winners and make the ticket prices worth the cost. National Champs in 2017...see who doesn't buy season tickets then.

+1

 

[supadupafly]

http://m.thepostgame.com/blog/road-...um-students-business-tv-ncaa-michigan-tickets[/QUOTE

Huh...if Michigan was 9-3 last year and 11-1 this year...bet the article would have been about the resurgance of Michigan football and the love the fans have for the team.

Everyone bitches about everything when you lose. Winning makes it all a bit better and easier to swallow. Which is exactly what I wrote. The U is doubling down on building a winner and Norwood is betting his job and career on it...bully for him and bully for them. I love the risk/reward and can't wait for us to be in the discussion for the final four playoff in 2017.

+1

 

[Ron Johnson Super Fan]

Keep telling yourself that when the guy sitting in the seat next to you bought his ticket for $10 and you continue to $100 for yours. That's what you are completely missing. They can't sell out the place as is and when they see there attendance dip they will offer those seats to the public at a fraction of the cost that season ticket holders are paying. There is no incentive to being a season ticket holder.

Not really true about there being no incentive for being a season ticket holder. Maybe from a financial perspective but many fans like the idea of being part of the season ticket base and supporting the university, regardless of whether it costs them more money.

 

[John Galt]

I would argue that maximizing total revenue in the long run doesn't help the football program if it means there are 40,000 people in the stadium. If the stadium got to be that empty, there would be a negative impact on recruiting, perception, tailgating, and game atmosphere that can't easily be quantified, but it would be real.

I plan on renewing next year and don't have a problem with the goal of getting revenue up to help the program. My issue is entirely with how quickly they are implementing it. Like I said in a different thread, they could have raised prices 10-15% (or even 15-20%) for this next year and no one would have blinked. If they raise prices by this amount, revenue doubles (assuming attendance remains the same) in 4-5 years. That would have been much more palatable approach than the one they took.

 

[tikited]

My issue is entirely with how quickly they are implementing it. Like I said in a different thread, they could have raised prices 10-15% (or even 15-20%) for this next year and no one would have blinked. [/B]If they raise prices by this amount, revenue doubles (assuming attendance remains the same) in 4-5 years. That would have been much more palatable approach than the one they took.

This. Increase not gouge.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

My question - just how many "hard-core" Gopher FB fans are out there? As noted above, The Gophs have not been able to sell out a new stadium, even coming off last year's 8-win season. Let's face it - people who post on message boards are not representative of the fan base as a whole.

if Teague thinks he can find enough fat cats and corporate types to fill the stadium, I think he's dreaming. The Gophs are coming off a loss to Wisconsin. If they lose the bowl game (not predicting it - just saying what if), all of this year's momentum goes out the window. Couple that with big increase in the cost of good seats, and I would not be shocked to see total attendance drop by at least 5% next year - maybe more.

I hope I'm wrong, but MN fans tend to have two things in common - they are fickle, and they are cheap. That's a bad combination when you've just announced that you are hosing your most loyal fan base.

 

[John Galt]

My question - just how many "hard-core" Gopher FB fans are out there? As noted above, The Gophs have not been able to sell out a new stadium, even coming off last year's 8-win season. Let's face it - people who post on message boards are not representative of the fan base as a whole.

if Teague thinks he can find enough fat cats and corporate types to fill the stadium, I think he's dreaming. The Gophs are coming off a loss to Wisconsin. If they lose the bowl game (not predicting it - just saying what if), all of this year's momentum goes out the window. Couple that with big increase in the cost of good seats, and I would not be shocked to see total attendance drop by at least 5% next year - maybe more.

I hope I'm wrong, but MN fans tend to have two things in common - they are fickle, and they are cheap. That's a bad combination when you've just announced that you are hosing your most loyal fan base.

I'm curious what you mean by this?

I think those of us that post on GH are on average, far more diehard fans than most in the stadium. If we're willing to spend such a large portion of our time on GH, we're usually pretty interested in the program.

 

[Breakin' The Plane]

I've often said that I'd rather go to a game with 20,000 people who give a damn over a full stadium of people who are just there for something to do. Just hope I don't get to test this out.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I agree. But this:



worries me a lot.

Here's our home attendance the last five years, with our record from the previous year included.

2009: 50,805 (2008: 7-6)
2010: 49,513 (2009: 6-7) -2.5%
2011: 47,714 (2010: 3-9) -3.6%
2012: 46,637 (2011: 3-9) -2.3%
2013: 47,797 (2012: 6-7) +2.5%
2014: 47,865 (2013: 8-5) +0.1%

What was the season ticket numbers for those same years? I'd like to know what the season ticket base has been since Mason took over. Have to believe it's been pretty consistent.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I'm curious what you mean by this?

I think those of us that post on GH are on average, far more diehard fans than most in the stadium. If we're willing to spend such a large portion of our time on GH, we're usually pretty interested in the program.

What I mean: if all gopher fans were like the people on GH, the team would sell out every game, and there would be a push to expand the stadium. I'm saying there are far more casual or occasional fans as opposed to hard-core fans.

My impression of Gopher Fan base: I see three levels
1. Die Hards (like the people who post on Gopher hole). A relatively smaller but passionate group - highest level of intensity
2. "Regular" fans - follow the program, attend games, but it's not life-or-death. Will sell their tickets or skip a game for non-conf games or bad weather games. - lower level of intensity.
3. Band-wagon jumpers. Will attend games if the team is winning or getting a lot of buzz in the media - but will jump off the bandwagon just as quick if the team loses a big game or the media turns negative. - lowest level of intensity.

 

[highwayman]

Forgotten in all of this is that the seat license is 80% deductible. Maybe it's win win. Maybe its a matter of budgeting for tickets instead of waiting for the bill. I'm not preaching here. Let the dust settle a little and breathe.

 

[GopherinFlorida]

I've often said that I'd rather go to a game with 20,000 people who give a damn over a full stadium of people who are just there for something to do. Just hope I don't get to test this out.

Lol...this is one of those careful what you wish for things huh.

I said in another threat I don't like announcing the 2016 & 2017 increases now...should have held them back so they had some flexibility if we stumble next year or the year after. Again, I think the reason is more to do with a bond issue that is going to require a revenue source from the athletic department than the cost of student housing and food.

We shall see if I am right or wrong...but in the end, Norwood is betting his job on Jerry Kill and Richard Pitino to each win a B1G championship in the next 3-4 years...good luck to all of us on the all in bet he made!

 

[Gopher07]

What was the season ticket numbers for those same years? I'd like to know what the season ticket base has been since Mason took over. Have to believe it's been pretty consistent.

Hard for me to find at the moment.

In 2012 we were "around 33,000", in 2013 had 33,284 and in 2014 33,385 right before the season. So your assertion appears to be correct, at least over the last 3 seasons.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Forgotten in all of this is that the seat license is 80% deductible. Maybe it's win win. Maybe its a matter of budgeting for tickets instead of waiting for the bill. I'm not preaching here. Let the dust settle a little and breathe.

Isn't it actually 80% of the donation value is deductible at your tax bracket, assuming you itemize deductions? So 0.8*0.25*[donation amount], right? Am I missing something?

 

[mnsportsgeek]

Isn't it actually 80% of the donation value is deductible at your tax bracket, assuming you itemize deductions? So 0.8*0.25*[donation amount], right? Am I missing something?

Right, it only is a deduction to your taxable income. So you get maybe a quarter of whatever you deduct back.

I've never understood how people justify an expense because it is tax deductible. It's like a 20% discount. Big deal.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Right, it only is a deduction to your taxable income. So you get maybe a quarter of whatever you deduct back.

I've never understood how people justify an expense because it is tax deductible. It's like a 20% discount. Big deal.

Agreed. Don’t get me wrong, a tax write-off is better than none. However, this tax write-off argument is a real red herring. This is just a ruse to help justify the increase and get people to buy tickets. If getting a tax write-off was such a big deal, we’d do all other sorts of things like buy more expensive housing, have additional children, etc. But then ask yourself, do these write-offs save you money? Of course not, just ask anyone with kids. A lender, for example, sure loves to tout these write-offs but their underlying goal is to exact as much out of you as they possibly can when you borrow money. The U is using this same psychology on ticket buyers; I’m going to charge you more so you can write off more. A win/win situation, right? Wrong. If this tax write-off is such a great incentive, we’d all be jockeying to be on the 50-yard line with or without the increased ticket fees. This is just another shallow ploy to make you feel better about giving (losing?) more of your money for tickets. Only in this case, I don’t get a bigger or better house or more kids. Okay, never mind the more kids, but you get the point.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

Agreed. Don’t get me wrong, a tax write-off is better than none. However, this tax write-off argument is a real red herring. This is just a ruse to help justify the increase and get people to buy tickets. If getting a tax write-off was such a big deal, we’d do all other sorts of things like buy more expensive housing, have additional children, etc. But then ask yourself, do these write-offs save you money? Of course not, just ask anyone with kids. A lender, for example, sure loves to tout these write-offs but their underlying goal is to exact as much out of you as they possibly can when you borrow money. The U is using this same psychology on ticket buyers; I’m going to charge you more so you can write off more. A win/win situation, right? Wrong. If this tax write-off is such a great incentive, we’d all be jockeying to be on the 50-yard line with or without the increased ticket fees. This is just another shallow ploy to make you feel better about giving (losing?) more of your money for tickets. Only in this case, I don’t get a bigger or better house or more kids. Okay, never mind the more kids, but you get the point.

We have additional children because winters are long and cold in Minnesota.

 

[GopherRock]

Isn't it actually 80% of the donation value is deductible at your tax bracket, assuming you itemize deductions? So 0.8*0.25*[donation amount], right? Am I missing something?

And only if the donation exceeds the standard deduction?

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

We have additional children because winters are long and cold in Minnesota.

LOL. Good point! My bad to use that analogy.

 

[tato2001]

Right, it only is a deduction to your taxable income. So you get maybe a quarter of whatever you deduct back.

I've never understood how people justify an expense because it is tax deductible. It's like a 20% discount. Big deal.

...and given the current tax structure, and how many people own homes, and have kids already, a tax deduction could be darn near worthless: i.e. they've already lowered their tax burden to zero. A huge percentage of the population actually pays no income tax, believe it or not.