Boise State athletic department has a 14-person fan advisory committee

[CuseLegacy]

Surprised this hasn't been enacted yet. Doesn't take that many resources.

Probably still busy with hires and fires. I clicked on anadditional link the other day looking for something on cuse.com... it was still referencing HCDM. I think there is a lot of " housekeeping" that has been neglected over the years.

 

[Crusty]

Hey wait, I'm a non-local alum. I want in now!

Non-local or non-loco?

 

[Whitey23]

You might be on to something there...we might have a special visitor to the tailgate tomorrow.

come on down Coyle!

 

[Stern]

Bad list. You need more diversity. Die hards aren't the issue. I would go with:

-a student rep
-an A level rep
-a cheap seats rep
-a normal STH rep
-a 3 game pack rep
-a single game rep
-an alumni rep
-a suites rep
-a corporate seating rep
-a non local non alumni rep
-a family of four rep
-a female rep
-a basketball only rep


That is 13 people who all have different concerns.

BINGO! Need a good cross section. Can't have a bunch of like-minded people on something like this. Need 14 total strangers with different backgrounds.

 

[CuseLegacy]

You might be on to something there...we might have a special visitor to the tailgate tomorrow.

Any of these three. ; )

 

[rrlbees]

There are many reasons, right or wrong, for the bad attendance. Win loss record, marketing, lost season ticket holders due to age, grudges, whatever and them not being replaced by younger fans who have only known an average or worse program the past 15 years. I keep harping on the price structure and have been beating this drum for at least the past few years. I see it as a big reason why the "good" seats between the 20"s are the most barren. I've said it before, so as not to risk losing donors, SU charges for individual tickets a price that is the ticket cost + the prorated cost of the donation for those preferred seat areas.

Here's my first proposal, which I spoke a little bit about to Dan last week. I doubt SU would do it because it would put a dent in donations, but who knows.

Get rid of donations for preferred seating for football. Still have preferred seating donations for the basketball program and those who pay the combined donation for both sports, just charge them for basketball which is only a $20-$30 difference when you do both. There will be people, as there are now, that make donations to the program separate to, or over and above to, the donation required for preferred seating.

Allow all preferred seating folks to keep their seats of course, but now charge them only for the cost of the seat and also make that the cost for an individual game ticket. Something along the lines of $50 for A location seats, $40 for B location, $30 for C, $20 for D and $15 for all other seats. This can be tweaked a bit if they feel its too out of line, but I think it pretty reasonable. Or maybe make that the price for ACC and LSU type games and make it even cheaper for the OOC games. The key though is to get rid of the $80-$140 tickets that casual fans have to pay to sit in the "good" sideline seats.

There will be lost $$$ of course but how much will depend on how many football only preferred seating football fans there are and some due to a decrease in individual ticket costs. But there will be an upper in tickets sold, thus there's that income along with concessions, souvenirs, parking etc. An over time, larger crowds has to benefit the program in some way whether its recruiting or just helping the team win more which means more bowls, more bowl money, more TV money etc. With the new ACC $$$ which is significantly more than what we used to get, now is the time to do something like this. We just have to find a way to fill more, a lot more, of those seats between the 20's that also appear on TV and give off a very bad look.

Do this, along with smarter marketing, reaching out to organizations and STH's, improve game day experiences, etc. and we can get back to regular 40K and more crowds. Of course the program has to do their part and continue to improve and win football games. But I think that will happen, but more fans will help all that too.

 

[CUSU]

There are many reasons, right or wrong, for the bad attendance. Win loss record, marketing, lost season ticket holders due to age, grudges, whatever and them not being replaced by younger fans who have only known an average or worse program the past 15 years. I keep harping on the price structure and have been beating this drum for at least the past few years. I see it as a big reason why the "good" seats between the 20"s are the most barren. I've said it before, so as not to risk losing donors, SU charges for individual tickets a price that is the ticket cost + the prorated cost of the donation for those preferred seat areas.

Here's my first proposal, which I spoke a little bit about to Dan last week. I doubt SU would do it because it would put a dent in donations, but who knows.

Get rid of donations for preferred seating for football. Still have preferred seating donations for the basketball program and those who pay the combined donation for both sports, just charge them for basketball which is only a $20-$30 difference when you do both. There will be people, as there are now, that make donations to the program separate to, or over and above to, the donation required for preferred seating.

Allow all preferred seating folks to keep their seats of course, but now charge them only for the cost of the seat and also make that the cost for an individual game ticket. Something along the lines of $50 for A location seats, $40 for B location, $30 for C, $20 for D and $15 for all other seats. This can be tweaked a bit if they feel its too out of line, but I think it pretty reasonable. Or maybe make that the price for ACC and LSU type games and make it even cheaper for the OOC games. The key though is to get rid of the $80-$140 tickets that casual fans have to pay to sit in the "good" sideline seats.

There will be lost $$$ of course but how much will depend on how many football only preferred seating football fans there are and some due to a decrease in individual ticket costs. But there will be an upper in tickets sold, thus there's that income along with concessions, souvenirs, parking etc. An over time, larger crowds has to benefit the program in some way whether its recruiting or just helping the team win more which means more bowls, more bowl money, more TV money etc. With the new ACC $$$ which is significantly more than what we used to get, now is the time to do something like this. We just have to find a way to fill more, a lot more, of those seats between the 20's that also appear on TV and give off a very bad look.

Do this, along with smarter marketing, reaching out to organizations and STH's, improve game day experiences, etc. and we can get back to regular 40K and more crowds. Of course the program has to do their part and continue to improve and win football games. But I think that will happen, but more fans will help all that too.

I think SU would benefit in the

This.

Everyone says there is a missed generation of fans, which may be somewhat true. I find it tough to convince friends (college aged) to attend a game after they see the price of what they consider a "good seat". If you want butts in the seats between the 20s, you have to adapt.

 

[Crusty]

Interesting idea. Once those who are willing to pay a premium (donation) have had their pick of available seats (maintaining seniority), there isn't much point in having the remaining seats empty.

 

[Toga]

There are many reasons, right or wrong, for the bad attendance. Win loss record, marketing, lost season ticket holders due to age, grudges, whatever and them not being replaced by younger fans who have only known an average or worse program the past 15 years. I keep harping on the price structure and have been beating this drum for at least the past few years. I see it as a big reason why the "good" seats between the 20"s are the most barren. I've said it before, so as not to risk losing donors, SU charges for individual tickets a price that is the ticket cost + the prorated cost of the donation for those preferred seat areas.

Here's my first proposal, which I spoke a little bit about to Dan last week. I doubt SU would do it because it would put a dent in donations, but who knows.

Get rid of donations for preferred seating for football. Still have preferred seating donations for the basketball program and those who pay the combined donation for both sports, just charge them for basketball which is only a $20-$30 difference when you do both. There will be people, as there are now, that make donations to the program separate to, or over and above to, the donation required for preferred seating.

Allow all preferred seating folks to keep their seats of course, but now charge them only for the cost of the seat and also make that the cost for an individual game ticket. Something along the lines of $50 for A location seats, $40 for B location, $30 for C, $20 for D and $15 for all other seats. This can be tweaked a bit if they feel its too out of line, but I think it pretty reasonable. Or maybe make that the price for ACC and LSU type games and make it even cheaper for the OOC games. The key though is to get rid of the $80-$140 tickets that casual fans have to pay to sit in the "good" sideline seats.

There will be lost $$$ of course but how much will depend on how many football only preferred seating football fans there are and some due to a decrease in individual ticket costs. But there will be an upper in tickets sold, thus there's that income along with concessions, souvenirs, parking etc. An over time, larger crowds has to benefit the program in some way whether its recruiting or just helping the team win more which means more bowls, more bowl money, more TV money etc. With the new ACC $$$ which is significantly more than what we used to get, now is the time to do something like this. We just have to find a way to fill more, a lot more, of those seats between the 20's that also appear on TV and give off a very bad look.

Do this, along with smarter marketing, reaching out to organizations and STH's, improve game day experiences, etc. and we can get back to regular 40K and more crowds. Of course the program has to do their part and continue to improve and win football games. But I think that will happen, but more fans will help all that too.

Particularly since there really isn't a bad seat in the place for football.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

This.

Everyone says there is a missed generation of fans, which may be somewhat true. I find it tough to convince friends (college aged) to attend a game after they see the price of what they consider a "good seat". If you want butts in the seats between the 20s, you have to adapt.

Like I said before the non preferred are an easy fix. If those were all filled then it would only be a preferred issue. But those seats are empty too. Preferred is a lot harder to figure out. For example say there are 5k current A level tickets sold at $150 per game. If the price was reduced to $75 and we got an extra 2.5k sold, you end up losing well over $1 million on the year. Somewhere in the middle is an optimal ticket price that will fill most of the seats without losing too much money. IMO the lost revenue is worth it to help the team win. Does SU feel the same or is it more about maximizing revenues?

 

[Toga]

Any of these three. ; )

Jim rocking the Under Armour

 

[javadoc]

Like I said before the non preferred are an easy fix. If those were all filled then it would only be a preferred issue. But those seats are empty too. Preferred is a lot harder to figure out. For example say there are 5k current A level tickets sold at $150 per game. If the price was reduced to $75 and we got an extra 2.5k sold, you end up losing well over $1 million on the year. Somewhere in the middle is an optimal ticket price that will fill most of the seats without losing too much money. IMO the lost revenue is worth it to help the team win. Does SU feel the same or is it more about maximizing revenues?

I think someone up there needs to adopt, as a mission statement, the goal of filling the building. If someone splutters, "But but but revenue!" you respond, "Figure out a way to replace it."

One idea that has been mentioned several times is a mandatory activity fee for students, with free admission to all games. Does the university have something like that now? Charge everyone $100 for the year and there is $1.5 million less you need to figure out how to recoup. If we get to the point where we are worrying about how many individual tickets we can sell as a result, then we've won - the building is effectively full.

Heck, when they do the remodel, put in an SRO section for the students to handle possible capacity overflow at game time.

 

[Crusty]

I think someone up there needs to adopt, as a mission statement, the goal of filling the building. If someone splutters, "But but but revenue!" you respond, "Figure out a way to replace it."

One idea that has been mentioned several times is a mandatory activity fee for students, with free admission to all games. Does the university have something like that now? Charge everyone $100 for the year and there is $1.5 million less you need to figure out how to recoup. If we get to the point where we are worrying about how many individual tickets we can sell as a result, then we've won - the building is effectively full.

Heck, when they do the remodel, put in an SRO section for the students to handle possible capacity overflow at game time.

Absolutely correct. As I have said ad nausea - if they aren't fans while attending there is much less chance they will become fans after they leave.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

I think someone up there needs to adopt, as a mission statement, the goal of filling the building. If someone splutters, "But but but revenue!" you respond, "Figure out a way to replace it."

One idea that has been mentioned several times is a mandatory activity fee for students, with free admission to all games. Does the university have something like that now? Charge everyone $100 for the year and there is $1.5 million less you need to figure out how to recoup. If we get to the point where we are worrying about how many individual tickets we can sell as a result, then we've won - the building is effectively full.

Heck, when they do the remodel, put in an SRO section for the students to handle possible capacity overflow at game time.

The remodel can be a way to fix the preferred pricing issue. Other schools, including non football powers, have gone to the PSL model after rebuilds. Right now A level football is $650 per seat. If SU did a PSL of $44k payable over 22 years for every 4 seats, it would cost $1000, $667, or $500 per seat depending on how many seats you had. That is similar to the current rate. It eliminates the yearly donation. Also instead of a yearly commitment there is a 22 year commitment. So the price for a ticket is $30 and SU can sell individual games for $50 instead of $150.

Cal did something similar to this:

More info on what you get (Link)

 

[Alsacs]

Bad list. You need more diversity. Die hards aren't the issue. I would go with:

-a student rep-didn't pick one
-an A level rep- Jake or TomCat
-a cheap seats rep
-a normal STH rep- you/Jeremy/
-a 3 game pack rep- I am sure of one them
-a single game rep
-an alumni rep- Mark
-a suites rep
-a corporate seating rep
-a non local non alumni rep-Imperial
-a family of four rep- plenty of family people I listed
-a female rep- Cherry/Cuselegacy
-a basketball only rep- Marsh


That is 13 people who all have different concerns.

I think my list has most of those groups. I don't even particularly care for some of the posters opinions I listed but I was trying to be diverse and pick different people which could mesh together.
Whenever I have a team I as a leader want different opinions as I don't care if people don't get along I can swift thru BS and just want opposite spectrums before I make a decision.

 

[Alsacs]

I would actually remove myself from such a list just because 1) I live halfway across the country, and 2) I haven't been able to get back for a football game since I graduated in '03. I love Syracuse football with a deep, deep passion, but I can't offer any insight as to game day stuff since I haven't been fortunate enough to take any in for more than a decade.

This is the unfortunate thing for working in college sports - the day job almost always overlaps with when SU plays.

I take Dr. Gross didn't hire you when you applied for that spot in SU AD not too long ago you went for?

 

[Jake]

There are many reasons, right or wrong, for the bad attendance. Win loss record, marketing, lost season ticket holders due to age, grudges, whatever and them not being replaced by younger fans who have only known an average or worse program the past 15 years. I keep harping on the price structure and have been beating this drum for at least the past few years. I see it as a big reason why the "good" seats between the 20"s are the most barren. I've said it before, so as not to risk losing donors, SU charges for individual tickets a price that is the ticket cost + the prorated cost of the donation for those preferred seat areas. Here's my first proposal, which I spoke a little bit about to Dan last week. I doubt SU would do it because it would put a dent in donations, but who knows. Get rid of donations for preferred seating for football. Still have preferred seating donations for the basketball program and those who pay the combined donation for both sports, just charge them for basketball which is only a $20-$30 difference when you do both. There will be people, as there are now, that make donations to the program separate to, or over and above to, the donation required for preferred seating. Allow all preferred seating folks to keep their seats of course, but now charge them only for the cost of the seat and also make that the cost for an individual game ticket. Something along the lines of $50 for A location seats, $40 for B location, $30 for C, $20 for D and $15 for all other seats. This can be tweaked a bit if they feel its too out of line, but I think it pretty reasonable. Or maybe make that the price for ACC and LSU type games and make it even cheaper for the OOC games. The key though is to get rid of the $80-$140 tickets that casual fans have to pay to sit in the "good" sideline seats. There will be lost $$$ of course but how much will depend on how many football only preferred seating football fans there are and some due to a decrease in individual ticket costs. But there will be an upper in tickets sold, thus there's that income along with concessions, souvenirs, parking etc. An over time, larger crowds has to benefit the program in some way whether its recruiting or just helping the team win more which means more bowls, more bowl money, more TV money etc. With the new ACC $$$ which is significantly more than what we used to get, now is the time to do something like this. We just have to find a way to fill more, a lot more, of those seats between the 20's that also appear on TV and give off a very bad look. Do this, along with smarter marketing, reaching out to organizations and STH's, improve game day experiences, etc. and we can get back to regular 40K and more crowds. Of course the program has to do their part and continue to improve and win football games. But I think that will happen, but more fans will help all that too.

I really like this idea. Simple math, $40 x 100 > $120 x 0.

 

[jekelish]

I take Dr. Gross didn't hire you when you applied for that spot in SU AD not too long ago you went for?

Ha...nope, they did not. Those ****ers.

 

[JDubbin]

TexanMark, Tomcat, Jake, SWC75, Jekelish, KOIII, Cheriehoop, CuseLegacy, JeremyCuse, GoSU, ImperialOrange, Dasher, Marsh, Bees would be my first ballot 14 people if we chose people from this board.
No offense to anybody I didn't list. I was picking a diverse 14 we who have different opinions I could have rattled off another 50 people easily. I don't agree with these people on things but you want people who disagree on a committee to bring different opinions and discourse.

The question we are all wondering, truly... Would I have been in the top 50?!

 

[suloyalfan]

Any of these three. ; )

Jim Brown in town while Moe Neal here for a visit... coincidence?

 

[CuseLegacy]

Jim Brown in town while Moe Neal here for a visit... coincidence?

Yes. He is here for the WILC

 

[orange79]

Yes. He is here for the WILC

That's World Indoor Lacrosse Championship, for those of you wondering...

 

[CuseOnly]

Bad list. You need more diversity. Die hards aren't the issue. I would go with:

-a student rep
-an A level rep
-a cheap seats rep
-a normal STH rep
-a 3 game pack rep
-a single game rep
-an alumni rep
-a suites rep
-a corporate seating rep
-a non local non alumni rep
-a family of four rep
-a female rep
-a basketball only rep


That is 13 people who all have different concerns.

Die hards see the problems week in and week out. Getting an opinion from someone who goes to one game a year is not a good idea IMO.

 

[K Otto XLIV]

Die hards see the problems week in and week out. Getting an opinion from someone who goes to one game a year is not a good idea IMO.

The die hards are going to the games. They aren't going to help increase attendance since they are already there. Getting someone who comes to one game a year and getting them to buy a 3 pack instead, increases attendance.

 

[CuseOnly]

The die hards are going to the games. They aren't going to help increase attendance since they are already there. Getting someone who comes to one game a year and getting them to buy a 3 pack instead, increases attendance.

Great, lets put 14 people that buy a 3 pack of tickets a year each on the COMMITTEE, that will increase attendance a ton. Wow, terrible idea.

The die-hards are more equipped to get fans here than anyone as they see the microscopic problems that need to be fixed. They see the warts that need to be smoothed out and how the university can get the walk up and average fan here because they have been there.

We are talking about who to put on the committee to help increase fan experience.