New BB priority seating plan

[bearcated]

Yesterday I received in the mail an invitation to a UCATS meeting regarding possible changes to the BB priority seating plan. The meetings take place on January 24th and 29th at 7PM. Anybody else get this?

I'm very concerned that they want to re-shuffle the deck for seats. I've been in the same seats since the place opened. I like where I'm at, and have no desire to move my seats. I've already told them in surveys in no uncertain terms that if they try to compel me to move I probably will not re-up my membership in UCATs.

I was wondering if other UCATs members have gotten this invite, and where folks stood if they tried to move around all the seats.

[jkwuc89]

My invite arrived in today's mail. I cannot make the trip down from Columbus to attend.

[ralph1950]

I will be attending one of the meetings.

[tophat]

I got one too -- can't attend either, but I hope the meetings are well attended. I thought they were going to do priority seating with fb and let bb wait for now. I know they're desperate to raise money, but I hope they're also realistic and don't run people off. I also hope people are in an understanding mood, given the financial needs.

[Rock]

I agree--Been in the same seats since it opened and paid more and more money as the years went on because of them increasing the UCATS fees! The pocketbook and pride can only take so much; therefore if we have to move or pay more, we are finished. They better think out of the box and come up with a better plan!

[Bearcat82]

I will be at one of the meetings as well. I understand the need for cash. However, it's important for the administration to understand that they can't put the cart before the horse. If last night was the 12th sellout of the season (Villanova) maybe they would have a case to mess with things. It's going to happen-- Mick has the complete package coaching, recruiting, public relations, etc. It just shouldn't happen too soon and run away the faithful who remained or arrived after the previous coach moved on. I hope the arena doesn't become a place where you have to know someone at one of the blue chip companies in town in order to get a ticket. Corporate arenas are so boring with everyone sitting on their hands since many in the stands have no true affiliation with the school.

[bearcated]

My concern is I will get moved around, and in a couple years when the team gets better and they boost the prices again I won't be able to get seats nearly as good as what I have right now. For example, there is no way I'm going to pay a ton of cash and get a bench seat. My preference is they not try to get too cute. Tell me what the price is for what I have now, and I'll send them a check.

[bearcat69]

The priority seating plan has been in the planning for over a decade. Every major college does it and some move people annually. The UC plan is extremeely fair and takes into account how long you have had seats, lifetime donations, annual support, were you an athlete here, graduate from , how many degrees and on and on. It won't punish the loyal over the new but will redress the long standing failure to recognize long standing significant doners over minimum level doners.

The time for this is long past.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Most schools do this every 5-6 years. Its been over a decade for UC. This one has been a long time coming.

[Rock]

I will not be able to make the meetings on the 24th or the 29th because of out of town obligations, BUT in no way does this indicate a lack of interest in the decision that may or may not be made. I have been a UCAT member for many years and have had seats in Fifth Third since it opened and have continued my membership in UCATS through all the increases, I am adamantly opposed to relocation and an increase in UCAT fees. It is bad enough if they raise ticket prices, but to raise UCAT fees and than slap one in the face and move their seats at the same time is ludicrous. If they raise ticket prices, at least one can resell the tickets and salvage some of their costs. If ticket prices increase by $10, the UC athletic department could generate an extra $4,200,000 per year.

Loyalty is a two way street. We have been loyal and have stayed the course. Think outside the box and come up with a different plan. The University of Dayton have the most loyal fans, draw better than UC, a more enthusiastic and rowdy arena (which is what Mick is crying for), and their fees and ticket prices are much lower. UC better think twice before they end up with a bunch of grey headed men and ladies that arrive late, leave early, sit on their hands and fat wallet during the game!!!

[bearcated]

If they want to re-structure the pricing, I don't have an issue with that. Been there and done that. They can tell me the cost, and I'll make the call. My issue is that I get the sense they want to force people to move their seats. Some of you indicated this happens in other programs. I don't know that for a fact or not. If you compare it to U of L, then maybe. But, bear in mind that is one of the priciest programs out there.

My bottom line is I've been in the idenitcal seats to 19 years. UC has had no problems cashing my checks for 19 years. If they want to keep cashing my checks, they better leave me be, or I'm gone.

[bearcated]

The priority seating plan has been in the planning for over a decade. Every major college does it and some move people annually. The UC plan is extremeely fair and takes into account how long you have had seats, lifetime donations, annual support, were you an athlete here, graduate from , how many degrees and on and on. It won't punish the loyal over the new but will redress the long standing failure to recognize long standing significant doners over minimum level doners.

The time for this is long past.

Point system has been in place for several years. There has been quite a lot of drop outs the past couple years in particular. If these high point, long suffering, donors want to improve their seats, they should easily be able to do so without imposing an inconvenience on everyone.

[catswin]

I will not be able to make the meetings on the 24th or the 29th because of out of town obligations, BUT in no way does this indicate a lack of interest in the decision that may or may not be made. I have been a UCAT member for many years and have had seats in Fifth Third since it opened and have continued my membership in UCATS through all the increases, I am adamantly opposed to relocation and an increase in UCAT fees. It is bad enough if they raise ticket prices, but to raise UCAT fees and than slap one in the face and move their seats at the same time is ludicrous. If they raise ticket prices, at least one can resell the tickets and salvage some of their costs. If ticket prices increase by $10, the UC athletic department could generate an extra $4,200,000 per year.

Loyalty is a two way street. We have been loyal and have stayed the course. Think outside the box and come up with a different plan. The University of Dayton have the most loyal fans, draw better than UC, a more enthusiastic and rowdy arena (which is what Mick is crying for), and their fees and ticket prices are much lower. UC better think twice before they end up with a bunch of grey headed men and ladies that arrive late, leave early, sit on their hands and fat wallet during the game!!!

How do you come up with the math that results in an increase of $4,200,000 with a $10 raise in ticket prices when the total ticketing revenue for UC basketball is not even half that number? Dont just toss out wild numbers, back them up with some details ROCKerfeller... ha. This ought to be good. Cannot wait to see your response.

[Rock]

Dear Catswin---

Figures don't lie! Assuming we fill both Fifth Third and Nippert, which is what everyone is shooting for, the figures stack up like this:

Nippert--35,000 x 6 home games x $10 = $2,100,000 (most of the time they will have 7 home games, which will increase the revenue)

Fifth Third--13,000 x 16 home games x $10 = $2,080,000

TOTAL = $4,180,000
ROCKerfeller

[Colonel]

I thought the survey was nothing short of tacky. I walked away with the impression of: "Wow, that was nothing short of asking how much I would pay for seats before walking away". You should be able to get that kind of information better than a thinly veiled survey.

There are better ways of raising money than fleecing the loyal.

I will be unable to attend due to the delivery of my future middle linebacker for the ‘Cats :D

I hope the sentiments in this thread get through to the staff at the meetings. We are loyal. We will help contribute but we are all also human, work and are not made of money.

[ME80]

Dear Catswin---

Figures don't lie! Assuming we fill both Fifth Third and Nippert, which is what everyone is shooting for, the figures stack up like this:

Nippert--35,000 x 6 home games x $10 = $2,100,000 (most of the time they will have 7 home games, which will increase the revenue)

Fifth Third--13,000 x 16 home games x $10 = $2,080,000

TOTAL = $4,180,000
ROCKerfeller

Adding $10 to the cost of some of upper deck bleacher seats in the Shoe will guarentee that the will never get sold.

[oldcat48]

Rock, you said UC could INCREASE their revenue by $4 million. You did not take into account the fact that they're already selling tons of those seats. Three football games were already sold out, so no opportunity to sell MORE tickets there. Basketball has had over 10K attendance the last couple games, so not much available there, either.

So there is no way raising ticket prices $10 would result in anywhere near a $4 million revenue increase. In fact, you might argue that raising ticket prices $10 would actually decrease attendance for some who currently attend at today's prices.

Every big time program in America does this. I only have information about a couple of other school's seating programs, but neither of them took into account the length of time one had held season tickets, as UC is proposing to do. I think having that as a factor is somewhat unusual.

[Rock]

Dear oldcat48--

I suggest you reread my original post and check your math. Let me show you an example:

Nippert holds 35,000 x $25 per ticket = $875,000 x 6 games = $5,250,000
Nippert holds 35,000 x $35 per ticket = $1,225,000 x 6 games =$7,350,000
This is an increase of $2,100,000

Fifth Third holds 13,000 x $25 per ticket= $325,000 x16 games=$5,200,000
Fifth Third holds 13,000 x $35 per ticket= $455,000 x16 games=$7,280,000
This is an increase of $2,080,000

oldcat69--

[iamspen]

Students get in free. Don't forget to include that in your math.

[Rock]

Students at Fifth Third won't cost that much--they aren't there!! I should have used 13,172 also---172x$10=$1,732x16 games=$27,712 extra!!!

[bearcated]

I thought the survey was nothing short of tacky. I walked away with the impression of: "Wow, that was nothing short of asking how much I would pay for seats before walking away". You should be able to get that kind of information better than a thinly veiled survey.

There are better ways of raising money than fleecing the loyal.

I will be unable to attend due to the delivery of my future middle linebacker for the ‘Cats :D

I hope the sentiments in this thread get through to the staff at the meetings. We are loyal. We will help contribute but we are all also human, work and are not made of money.

Bingo! I've been honked off ever since I saw that survey. To me there is a condescending attitude and an assumption that I "owe" them something. You even get the sense of that in some of the other posts on this thread. I think "fair" is in the eye of the beholder, and statements such as other programs do it, well OK. Which ones?

[bearcated]

I did some comparison shopping on the web. I looked at BB ticket costs, since that is what I care about more than football. UC charges $24 per ticket per their web page. Pitt charges $27.50. Uconn charges $30 per ticket (any seat). G-town charges $30, $18, or $5 (yes that is 5 not a typo). Our good buddies at U of L do not list individual game prices. However, to compare it to what I know the CAF (their UCAT equivalent) donation for Priority III seats (upper deck) is $500 per seat. I'm paying $900 per seat to UCATs now for upper deck seats. It hardly seems like a slam dunk that UC is so much cheaper than everyone else.

I sense a lot of the issue revolves around the high rollers ($10k per year and above donors) arguing over who gets the primo seats on the lower level. My hope is they resolve that amongst themselves and not throw everyone under the bus just to mollify a few high rollers.

[jon b]

I did some comparison shopping on the web. I looked at BB ticket costs, since that is what I care about more than football. UC charges $24 per ticket per their web page. Pitt charges $27.50. Uconn charges $30 per ticket (any seat). G-town charges $30, $18, or $5 (yes that is 5 not a typo). Our good buddies at U of L do not list individual game prices. However, to compare it to what I know the CAF (their UCAT equivalent) donation for Priority III seats (upper deck) is $500 per seat. I'm paying $900 per seat to UCATs now for upper deck seats. It hardly seems like a slam dunk that UC is so much cheaper than everyone else.


It is hard to compare UL. They have 50,000 donors because of football (number made up, but you get the point - and I don't think it is that far off). UC does not even have 10,000 donors. Do you think 45,000 $50 donors would help UC? :) We still give because of tickets. So no one even thinks to pay $50 to join UCATS just to support the teams. UL fans give because they want to beat UC every year. At some point, we need to get a bunch of people (30-50k) who just want to beat UL every year. We have a large enough alumni base for that, the issue has been changing the culture.

[qsilvr2531]

The big problem is that people think of UCATS fees as part of the cost of tickets, rather than as a donation to the athletic department.

There is going to have to be a balance struck between maximizing revenues while retaining the loyalty of long time, lower level donors. The Detroit Tigers are running into a very similar problem this year because of the greatly increased demand for their season tickets. My parents have had a group mini-plan since 1998 with the Tigers and it has always included opening day as part of the package. This year it may not because the demand for season tickets simply won't allow it. Eventually playoff tickets might not even be guaranteed with the purchase of season tickets (I believe this is already the case for Yankees season ticket holders).

Beause, as job b said, most people view UCATS fees as part of the cost of tickets rather than a donation to the athletic department, I do think UC would be better served making these kids of changes when demand is higher, however. At least then the people dropping out would be quickly and relatively easily replaced. The problem is, football demand is basically at its highest point ever (or at least in the last 30 years) and UC probably needs to try to capitalize on that quickly to become more financially competitive within the Big East.

[bearcated]

It is hard to compare UL. They have 50,000 donors because of football (number made up, but you get the point - and I don't think it is that far off). UC does not even have 10,000 donors. Do you think 45,000 $50 donors would help UC? :) We still give because of tickets. So no one even thinks to pay $50 to join UCATS just to support the teams. UL fans give because they want to beat UC every year. At some point, we need to get a bunch of people (30-50k) who just want to beat UL every year. We have a large enough alumni base for that, the issue has been changing the culture.

Yeah. You are right. I think the issue is that UC tends to want to use U of L as a model. There are a lot of similarities in the schools and programs. The problem is that U of L is the only show in town. UC has to compete with XU. Miami, Dayton, the Reds, and the Bengals. It's just a different market. For example, I get Bengals tickets every year as well (yes I'm a sucker there too).

For years BB has propped up the whole program. Now it's time for FB to step up.

[ralph1950]

I cannot make the 24th meeting but will attend the 29th meeting. Should some one attend the 24th meeting I would appreciate a full report on this link so I can be prepared for whatever on the 29th.

[bearcated]

I cannot make the 24th meeting but will attend the 29th meeting. Should some one attend the 24th meeting I would appreciate a full report on this link so I can be prepared for whatever on the 29th.

I'm planning on being at the 24th meeting. I'll be out of town on business for the 29th. I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what they have to say. I will let you know if anything interesting slips out.

[catswin]

I have been a season ticket holder for 23 years and will be attending this meeting with great interest on the 24th. I buy 4 season tickets and give $3K a year which gives me the run of the place. That being said, I am not opposed to any rate increases for donations or price hikes on tickets if it means that our teams will be better supported to compete in the Big East. I know that the Athletic Operations at the University have been running at a major deficit for a long time and that the Varsity Village fund drive fell well short of its goal. I also know that not matter how nice the facilities are now that places like Louisville and Indiana are building basketball only practice buildings that would make our place look like a junior high program. Football is really up against the wall because they have no practice facility and no land to build one. If you go by just the bare number of seats in Nippert even an expansion of 5,000 seats is not going to really add that much revenue to the coffer. First you have to raise the funds to make the renovations, which is about $50,000,000. Then, you take the new 5,000 seats x $200 per seat and your new cash is only $1,000,000 more per year, max. If you take move the games to the Bengals stadium downtown you have a capacity of 75,000, but a likely crowd cap at around 50,000, which is 15,000 more than now and $3,000,000 more cash per year and you do not have to raise the $50,000,000 up front to do the renovations. Pitt took this line of thought and built a new hoops palace where the football stadium used to be. Seems like that would be a good idea for UC too. Just a thought from an old lawyer.