Couple Gives UC $4 Million Gift

[Nerf]

http://www.wlwt.com/news/13199612/detail.html

[Bruce Monnin]

I am still hoping someday I can afford to give $4 million to UC.

I better go check my lottery ticket.

[Bearcat Revival]

Hopefully they put "For New Arena" in the memo portion...

[tophat]

I like the way they divided it between bball and CCM. I've heard they've been given alot of money toward the arena.

[jplog]

My 4 million dollar check will be marked for the new bathrooms and beer vendor at the top of the Shoe.

[bearcat_red]

I'll bet they get good seats for the home games.

[UCEE73]

I'll bet they get good seats for the home games.

I think they alrady have good seats. I think I recognise them from thier ucbearcats.com news picture.

Mike Thomas should be congratulated for the way substantial donors are now actually appreciated and rewarded. I know people who've given amounts in the same general range as the Redlichs (adjusted for inflation) who couldn't get good basketball seats for over a decade. Only after Mike Thomas and Bob Arkeilpane arrived did something good happen with the seating situation.

[jon b]

I think they alrady have good seats. I think I recognise them from thier ucbearcats.com news picture.

Mike Thomas should be congratulated for the way substantial donors are now actually appreciated and rewarded. I know people who've given amounts in the same general range as the Redlichs (adjusted for inflation) who couldn't get good basketball seats for over a decade. Only after Mike Thomas and Bob Arkeilpane arrived did something good happen with the seating situation.

Did they (they refers to people who have "given amounts in the same general range" for years, not the Redlichs) hop on the bandwagon during the Huggins era? I only ask because I would have huge issues if people bought their way into seats that kicked out people who have given for decades. People who stayed with the program during the lean years should be held up equally as high IMO.

And I am not going to question that there are that many people who gave millions (even adjusted for inflation, they would still have to be million dollar donors and UCATS yearly budget is in the ~5 million range give or take - so I thought).

[ralph1950]

The article indicates they accompanied Dr. Zimpher on the UC weekend in New York trip, when Dr. Zimpher appeared on the Today Show. Kudos to Dr. Zimpher on her success in attracting these type of donations.

[mlb]

The article indicates they accompanied Dr. Zimpher on the UC weekend in New York trip, when Dr. Zimpher appeared on the Today Show. Kudos to Dr. Zimpher on her success in attracting these type of donations.

What happens when the big donors have all given their money? How many times can you go back to the well with these people and continue to get money? I'm not saying what she is doing isn't impressive, because it is. But the overall number of donors are down, while the money given is up. I'd be concerned that at some point you hit a brick wall where these big money donors don't want to keep giving in the large numbers, and at the same time the smaller donors have disappeared.

At that point there will have to have been some major healing done with the "average" UC fan, not just with the big money donors to help pick up some of that slack. Of course, winning big would help with that situation as well.

[waterhead]

Time heals all wounds but success will heal them faster.

[red_n_black_attack]

What happens when the big donors have all given their money? How many times can you go back to the well with these people and continue to get money?

Money is tight everywhere. I would forego the lottery and concentrate on savings. The US savings rate was negative last year. Don't want to harp on finances, but money makes the world go 'round and it also helps move programs forward. I too hope to be in a position for a larger gift someday, but for now my couple hundred is all I can afford.

Kudos to those more able than I am.

[jon b]

What happens when the big donors have all given their money? How many times can you go back to the well with these people and continue to get money? I'm not saying what she is doing isn't impressive, because it is. But the overall number of donors are down, while the money given is up. I'd be concerned that at some point you hit a brick wall where these big money donors don't want to keep giving in the large numbers, and at the same time the smaller donors have disappeared.

At that point there will have to have been some major healing done with the "average" UC fan, not just with the big money donors to help pick up some of that slack. Of course, winning big would help with that situation as well.


At a UCATS meeting they mentioned the biggest difference between UC and UL, Pitt, WVU etc (schools we compare ourselves to) were the smaller donors. They have 10's of 1000's of small donors. That is mostly a football thing. But yes, a few big money donation help!

[colucat]

What happens when the big donors have all given their money? How many times can you go back to the well with these people and continue to get money?

Simply stated it is up to the younger generation of UC alums who used their UC education to "give back".

[mlb]

Simply stated it is up to the younger generation of UC alums who used their UC education to "give back".

Very true... but I am not giving a dime until she is gone. Something else she should have thought about, I guess...

[bcatee]

Simply stated it is up to the younger generation of UC alums who used their UC education to "give back".

I'll be graduating in June. I've already bought season tickets for football (young alumni section). I'm contemplating joining UCATS as well even though I'll probably be only a $50-$100 donor the first few years.

Football is ready to explode onto the scene and basketball is returning to its former glory. I think alumni and students are starting to recognize this. At least I am, and I want to be a part of it.

[joe]

Very true... but I am not giving a dime until she is gone. Something else she should have thought about, I guess...


But you do give Mick don't you? I thought you still bought tickets to the mens hoops and football games. If you do that then you are giving. You mean you haven't "literally" attended a hoops or football game since Bob was fired?

[mlb]

But you do give Mick don't you? I thought you still bought tickets to the mens hoops and football games. If you do that then you are giving. You mean you haven't "literally" attended a hoops or football game since Bob was fired?

I won't "donate" to the school is my point. I have been to football games and basketball games. I have purchased UC gear with the new logo.

I'm not referring to people who give through going to the games. I'm talking about the number of donors who just make a gift to the school being way down, but the money donated is up. At some point it will catch up to them, IMO.

[UCEE73]

Did they (they refers to people who have "given amounts in the same general range" for years, not the Redlichs) hop on the bandwagon during the Huggins era? I only ask because I would have huge issues if people bought their way into seats that kicked out people who have given for decades. People who stayed with the program during the lean years should be held up equally as high IMO. ...

A HUGE structural issue in fund raising and its relationship to donors started during the time that Warren Bennis (Antioch College - class of 1951) was president of UC. UC's withering finances were being pulled in a number of different directions and a leading solution was to abandon big-time varsity sports altogether. A deal was made by Bennis that separated athletics from the rest of the university's funding structure. Varsity sports would have to sink or swim on their own self-generated funds and other facets of the university would be insulated from athletics' "loss leader" financial drain.

This was the birth of UCATS. UC athletics forged its own path apart from the rest of the university, including all aspects of fund raising, donor recognition, seating plans, etc.. This system worked just fine for the situation then at hand and was a suitable arrangement for a mid-major program. But, it did cause problems for university-wide fund raising and plans to advance towards any high-major athletic programs.

The problems were insularity of purpose among different kinds of UC fund raising and infighting/jealousy/retribution between UC and UCATS having to do with how to approach/treat bigger donors that were considering giving to all aspects of UC. Donors give to institutions because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they do it. The institution can't compel a donor to give, the donor has to WANT to give. Large donors have the capacity to keep on giving, but only if the recipient treats them well. It is incompetently short-sighted to consider any large gift or giver to be one and done.

When UCATS treats a 7-figure donor to the "other part" of the university like a bum, it pours icy water on any warm feelings that exist. Some donors (maybe most?) can't quite understand why "the university" at large (not some independent athletic organization) is treating him/her like they've never met him/her before. One who has given 7-figures to UC is told to pay UCATS $10K and go to the back of the line. Some donors might consider this demand as insulting. How about if you were that donor? This odd arrangement caused some serious problems for both UC and UCATS to continue to fund raise from these donors or from their like-minded acquaintances. If the university were to tolerate this state of affairs as some sort of sacred cow, it would be accepting an anti-philanthropic obstacle going forward. That would be kind of stupid, no?

A partial solution was found when UCATS came under the UC Foundation umbrella a number of years ago. At least newer George Smith society UCATS members that were also large donors to academic programs (remember the quaint phrase; "student athlete"?) would be now considered for basketball seats in the lower arena. This was through an agreement where UCATS would give PARTIAL consideration in seating locations for UC giving that was not UCATS related. So far, so good.

Many newer Geo. Smith level givers ($10K/yr+) were strung along, year after year, being promised seats in the lower arena that never materialised. They might be told that they were next on the list for a seating move, but it rarely resulted in such a move. Year after year. After this had gone on for a long time, quite a few of these givers began to back out of their high level support because they felt betrayed by unkept promises of better seating. There just wasn't enough turnover to accommodate them. And, UCATS was mentally incapable of asking their long-time, but lower-level, supporters to make room for a few rows of of their own members who had sacrificed so much treasure.

When Bob Goin became athletic director, there was a buzz that 5th/3rd Arena seating would be "re-seeded" at some point in his tenure. It seemed like it had to be done and maybe the "new guy" could do it. How many years was he here? That was one Pandora's box that he chose not to open very wide (he did increase minimum support for certain seats a little). And, one can understand why. Any major re-seeding effort would be seen by long time fans as taking something away from them; a slap in the face for their years of support. Those fans, of course, couldn't give a rat's rear end about the more recent donors who had given more to UCATS in one year than most long-time fans had given to UC athletics in their lifetimes. How would you feel in either position? The tension continued to grow and Bob Goin kicked this can down the road for somebody else to deal with. Bob Goin did a whole lot for UC athletics while he was here. God bless him. But, solving UCATS' internal contradictions was not among them.

Then came Nancy Zimpher who hired Mike Thomas. Maybe two "new guys" at the same time could get something to happen in UCATS. Maybe. There was a theory that in order for UC athletics to get to the big time (top of the Big East), that a whole lot more money was going to be needed and some traditional ways of doing things would have to go the way of mid-major status. As in bye-bye. Applied to seating preferences, this idea went over well with some supporters, and not so well with some others. But it's coming.

The first seating "gimme's" to go were some of the freebies that had been going around. Mike Thomas gave away his own choice basketball seats because he said he was too busy meeting and greeting during games to need any seats from which to watch the games. He'd otherwise be in the box, and his family would be happier with seats nearer him and the box. Assistant AD for development Andy Hurley was able to convince some important "friends of the program" that they needed to give up some complimentary seats for the long-run good of the program. Progress in accommodating continuous high-level donors seems to be underway with a new attitude. The "new guys" seem to understand that a completely honest and transparent seating preference system is a fundamental requirement of meeting the fundraising goals for what UC fans hope their programs become. Re-seeding 5th/3rd seating may actually be a prerequisite to even dream about enough fund raising to build a new basketball arena.

Moving UCATS from a mid-major group-think into the 21st century of big-time athletics will be difficult, but every fan should be the beneficiary.

How will each of you make a contribution?

[colucat]

UCEE Thanks for the good info.

[jon b]

When UCATS treats a 7-figure donor to the "other part" of the university like a bum, it pours icy water on any warm feelings that exist. Some donors (maybe most?) can't quite understand why "the university" at large (not some independent athletic organization) is treating him/her like they've never met him/her before. One who has given 7-figures to UC is told to pay UCATS $10K and go to the back of the line. Some donors might consider this demand as insulting. How about if you were that donor? This odd arrangement caused some serious problems for both UC and UCATS to continue to fund raise from these donors or from their like-minded acquaintances. If the university were to tolerate this state of affairs as some sort of sacred cow, it would be accepting an anti-philanthropic obstacle going forward. That would be kind of stupid, no?

I don't disagree with most of this premise, but those of us who have been giving for awhile have played within the rules. I do disagree that it is wrong to treat them like a bum, but it is not ok to treat them well at the expense of treating MANY smaller donors like bums. In my case my dad and/or I have been giving for ~2 decades straight, and my Dad also was a big booster for most of the 1970's (but no credit for that). If there is someone who wants to give 7 figures to The Joe Schmoe School of Science and also wants basketball tickets, I think it is easy enough to direct some of those funds towards UCATS as part of the game under the SAME RULES I HAVE TO PLAY UNDER. Now at the same time, that person probably deserves some credit and finding them a decent seat can be done and I have no problem with them receiving priority. I think giving them 1 UCATS point per $100 (versus 5 for a direct gift to UCATS) is appropriate.

Many newer Geo. Smith level givers ($10K/yr+) were strung along, year after year, being promised seats in the lower arena that never materialised. They might be told that they were next on the list for a seating move, but it rarely resulted in such a move. Year after year. After this had gone on for a long time, quite a few of these givers began to back out of their high level support because they felt betrayed by unkept promises of better seating. There just wasn't enough turnover to accommodate them. And, UCATS was mentally incapable of asking their long-time, but lower-level, supporters to make room for a few rows of of their own members who had sacrificed so much treasure.

This is where I take issue and disagree and I hope these 10k givers are not who you referred to in your earlier post. I have given enough money for many years and should not be displaced by a 10k giver. Quite simply not enough money for someone jumping on the bandwagon when I have given 1000's every year for more years. Now if there is a $500 giver with chair backs, perhaps things need to be looked at, but the minimum for chair backs is much larger. And for the record 2 of our 6 seats just got chair backs this year, but they are worse seats than what my bench seats were in section 112.

Any major re-seeding effort would be seen by long time fans as taking something away from them; a slap in the face for their years of support. Those fans, of course, couldn't give a rat's rear end about the more recent donors who had given more to UCATS in one year than most long-time fans had given to UC athletics in their lifetimes. How would you feel in either position? The tension continued to grow and Bob Goin kicked this can down the road for somebody else to deal with. Bob Goin did a whole lot for UC athletics while he was here. God bless him. But, solving UCATS' internal contradictions was not among them.

Well, I give a rat's rear end about ANY folks who give to my university, but it is a fine line to choose between letting rich folks buy their way in during good times versus keeping those who have been around for ever (good AND bad times) happy. I suppose if I was rich and could give millions, I might feel like I was kicked in the "can" since every other time in my life I was able to buy my way in. But as a middle class person who has given a lot, I think I would feel worse. Perhaps I would more fully understand those who stopped giving when kicked to the curb earlier (early 90's price increases, late 90's price increases, or when having to buy football tickets, etc.).

And does the university give a rat’s *** about fans who gave $100’s or $1000’s but not millions that allowed the athletic department to make the gains it made to position itself to get “out of mid-major status”? It sounds very one-way at the moment.


Then came Nancy Zimpher who hired Mike Thomas. Maybe two "new guys" at the same time could get something to happen in UCATS. Maybe. There was a theory that in order for UC athletics to get to the big time (top of the Big East), that a whole lot more money was going to be needed and some traditional ways of doing things would have to go the way of mid-major status. As in bye-bye. Applied to seating preferences, this idea went over well with some supporters, and not so well with some others. But it's coming.

I just hope it is handled better than certain other things in the past 5 years. Bringing in a few big fish is nice, but not at the expense of alienating 1000's of smaller givers. I like MT alot and hope he can figure out a way to do this in the best interest of the university and ALL OF ITS FANS.

The first seating "gimme's" to go were some of the freebies that had been going around. Mike Thomas gave away his own choice basketball seats because he said he was too busy meeting and greeting during games to need any seats from which to watch the games. He'd otherwise be in the box, and his family would be happier with seats nearer him and the box. Assistant AD for development Andy Hurley was able to convince some important "friends of the program" that they needed to give up some complimentary seats for the long-run good of the program.

I know Andy. I almost met him in Cleveland (at the OU game) when he climbed over and through me to glad hand some people next to me and in the row behind while ignoring me. I joked at the time about how that act was foreshadowing the direction of UCATS. Your post is making me think it was not a joke.

I am not familiar with the free seats issue, but if good seats worth 10's of $1000's were being used for purposed that did not bring in equal or higher revenue, well, that is stupid. Especially because it does not displace anyone.

Progress in accommodating continuous high-level donors seems to be underway with a new attitude. The "new guys" seem to understand that a completely honest and transparent seating preference system is a fundamental requirement of meeting the fundraising goals for what UC fans hope their programs become. Re-seeding 5th/3rd seating may actually be a prerequisite to even dream about enough fund raising to build a new basketball arena.

Are you saying the new point system is or is not "honest and transparent"? While I voted for the new constitution, I am concerned that it will now be easier for friends to get their backs scratched. Of course that is basically what you are proposing. It is a fine line to walk.

Moving UCATS from a mid-major group-think into the 21st century of big-time athletics will be difficult, but every fan should be the beneficiary.

How does the guy who lost his seats benefit? He gets to watch his team in his chair at home? I must admit you spin bull very well, but not every fan benefits. Some people have made very big sacrifices even if it does not ring the cash register at the same number that others are capable of. Again, it is a fine line and one that worries me. Where were the George Smith folks in the 80's? I was at the Garden and Coliseum. Where were they last year? I saw a lot of open lower level seats and word is there are new ones for this year. I don't think it sounds like accommodating them will be all that hard right now unless their request is for 5th row mid-court, but maybe I am wrong. Perhaps there are 100’s of these people when I was thinking there were only 10’s. But then I need to see the books because the numbers don’t add up. Making the new section on the floor was smart and should accommodate many. If you have some inside scoop with actual numbers I would love to hear it, but talk of changing from a mid-major and every fan will benefit is just a bit condescending to me. Maybe it is only to me though. I suppose the future will tell all.

How will each of you make a contribution?

I think my $3500 will be sent in as usual this year, unless I am treated like crap for not giving "enough". Then I will watch on my TV waiting for the benefits to happen. I can then go renew football only for $199 for my family of four. Eventually folks like me add up too.

[Cats4Ever]

after helping get the program into the Big East, I'm still in the corner of feeling that all my support was wasted when the plow horse was shot and buried.

not going to give another dime until there are top level personnel changes. My lower level seating wasn't transparent before - I don't believe all the others are 'buying into' the raising of seat costs without any protest.

especially after the less than average past year in basketball.

Can't move forward without a plan - unfortunately it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Go Cats!

[ralph1950]

The administration certainly is doing something right, just announced a $10 million donation to DAAP, no basketball tickets involved. There seems to be no end to the big dollar donors stepping up to the plate.

"Myron "Mike" Ullman III and Cathy Emmons Ullman - who met as undergraduates at UC and live in Texas and Colorado - are giving DAAP the largest gift the college has ever received.

The $10 million will endow a program chair and professorships, support faculty development and technology, and fund those "master" classes that will be taught by influential industry leaders."

[mlb]

There will be an end at some point, Ralph. Of course that could be the time when Zimpher moves on and many of the people who won't give money while she is here come back into the fold...

[UCEE73]

... In my case my dad and/or I have been giving for ~2 decades straight, and my Dad also was a big booster for most of the 1970's (but no credit for that). If there is someone who wants to give 7 figures to The Joe Schmoe School of Science and also wants basketball tickets, I think it is easy enough to direct some of those funds toward UCATS as part of the game under the SAME RULES I HAVE TO PLAY UNDER.

Who said anything about playing under a different set of rules than you play by? What if a UCATS member was ranked in the top ten of the points system and still couldn't get a seat move? What would you say then? If that member couldn't figure out why the SAME RULE HE PLAYS UNDER didn't do him any good for better seats, what would you say to him?

Do these SAME RULES need to be re-written to include some occasional shuffling of seats so that those who were born early enough to select seats when Shoemaker Center was being built don't have perpetual squatters rights to all the prime seats? Or, could seating assignments be converted to seat licenses that might be traded outside of the UCATS system to bring some method of movement?

It seems to me that few people actually know what the real rules for seating assignments are. The more I study the situation, the more it seems like once you manage to get a particular set of seats, they're yours for life. No movement, ever. Is this part of THE SAME RULES you're talking about? If so, how do these rules benefit athletic fund raising into the future?

... Are you saying the new point system is or is not "honest and transparent"? While I voted for the new constitution, I am concerned that it will now be easier for friends to get their backs scratched. Of course that is basically what you are proposing. It is a fine line to walk.

I'm saying that while the new point system seems fair and is plain for all to see, the benefits of having a high number of points are not. Supposing one has a great pile of points in the new system, what good are they if they don't seem to matter? Having all the UCATS points in the world is worthless if those points are not attached to any tangible benefits. That's how being "honest and transparent" entered the conversation.

Or, are you saying that you're "concerned that it will now be easier for friends to get their backs scratched" because you can imagine that UCATS members earning a huge number of points might actually be effective at creating some seating movement?

Should UCATS members that have earned a huge number of points not be regarded as "friends" just because they want good basketball seats?


... How does the guy who lost his seats benefit? He gets to watch his team in his chair at home? I must admit you spin bull very well, but not every fan benefits. Some people have made very big sacrifices even if it does not ring the cash register at the same number that others are capable of.

How does a guy who "lost his seats" get in that situation in your view? Didn't he have any points at all? Do you mean he was forced out of 5th/3rd Arena altogether?

Or, do you mean he was asked to move out of row 4 and go to row 14, instead? Are you saying that moving out of row 4 to row 14 makes the game experience so much worse for him that watching on TV is a better deal?

Please expound on the term "lost his seats" a little more.

... Again, it is a fine line and one that worries me. Where were the George Smith folks in the 80's? I was at the Garden and Coliseum. Where were they last year?

Maybe I confused the situation when I mentioned "newer" Geo. Smith level UCATS members. I meant "newer" as in not present when Shoemaker Center opened.

You were at the Garden? I can't match that, but before I was watching the Bearcats at Riverfront Coliseum I was playing pick-up ball in Lawrence with Rick Roberson, Jim Ard, Don Ogletree, Don Hess, Steve Wenderfer, Lloyd Batts, Derrick Dickey, Rupert Breedlove, John Fraley, Robert Miller, etc., and playing pretty badly. So what?

Where were these Johnny-come-lately ('90s) Geo. Smith members last year? Still biding their time, waiting for a seating change that never comes.

... I saw a lot of open lower level seats and word is there are new ones for this year. I don't think it sounds like accommodating them will be all that hard right now unless their request is for 5th row mid-court, but maybe I am wrong. Perhaps there are 100’s of these people when I was thinking there were only 10’s.

Seeing empty seats and concluding that they are available is foolish in my view. Just which one of THE SAME RULES allows one to be reassigned to apparently empty seats? If you can tell me, I'm all ears.

In the case of 7-figure donors who are also UCATS Geo. Smith level members, I speculate that all of them together can be counted on your fingers. I can't imagine that there are multiple dozens. However, I hope you would agree that we should all wish for as many $10K/yr, $25K/yr and $50K/yr UCATS members as we can find. Or, should we try to turn them away so non-Geo. Smith members can keep the best seats in the house? Is it really so fine of a line?

... But then I need to see the books because the numbers don’t add up. Making the new section on the floor was smart and should accommodate many.

If the seating assignment system were actually "honest and transparent", your "need to see the books" wouldn't be an issue. I submit that your request for more inside information is generated by a suspicion on your part that seating assignments may not actually be "honest and transparent".

Yes, the new floor seating area will absolutely relieve some pressures. But, an even better idea is to start leasing university vehicles on the open market instead of trading vehicle use for entire rows of choice basketball seats. The money spent on the vehicle leases can be easily offset by income from Geo. Smith level givers who would then receive a tangible benefit for their financial sacrifice. A win-win situation for UC athletics.

Were you aware of the vehicle use for choice seats swap? I found out about it only recently. That is another example of "honest and transparent" seating preferences to which I refer.

... but talk of changing from a mid-major and every fan will benefit is just a bit condescending to me. Maybe it is only to me though. I suppose the future will tell all.

If you found my comments condescending, I apologize. From the point of view of a post-Shoemaker-construction UCATS member, I have always felt like an outsider and considered the position on seating to be pretty smug by the I-got-here-first crowd. Perhaps I let that feeling influence my writing. I'll try to put that aside in the future.

[richard k.]

I joined UCATS within 6 months of its founding, and I was in no way geographically close to Cincinnati. We struggled to get here a couple of times a year for basketball and the occasional football game. I actually had better seats to the couple of basketball/football games we attended as participants in Alumni Association leadership conferences. I stopped my UCATS membership during the Huggins years because with all the newbies they kept raising the membership donation levels, and reducing whatever benefits they provided at the lower end, to the extent that my out of town membership provided nothing in the way of pluses and with the major contributors it seemingly didn't mean much to the athletic department either. Since that time I have been in and out of UCATS twice as the result of season ticket participation, and am contemplating joining a group for the coming season, which would mean I am in again. The in and out was of my own choosing so I am not complaining, and what follows is meant for those who were there a lot more than I, since I was able to drag my daughter hundreds of miles to see Badger/Yates coached teams only just so often.

Now, that said and done, I understand the need for as many really major contributors as the university/athletic department can get - but not at the expense (whatever that connotes) of "loyal" fans. I can not argue with your point that people who give millions to the school should get, if they actually want them, decent seats to athletic events. Perhaps they should get annual "seats" at the Corbett for all musical and drama events. I don't know - but I do know that I'm with Jon in that those seats at athletic events should not come at the expense of people who have supported the program by putting their rear ends in seats at the Armory Fieldhouse, the off campus venues that UC has played in, sat with water dripping on them to watch football games, and with broken backs in arenas and stadias with bench seating. Whether that comes as a result of being born earlier or not is irrelevant - they have paid their dues. If loyalty to a program really becomes secondary to whatever people can contribute at any given time then you have to have a program that either wins big all the time or there will be no one there to watch. UK and UofL have built their respective fan bases over many decades, and, at least with UofL (and I'm sure the same is true for UK) season tickets are the subject of major disputes during divorces, and are willed from one generation to another. Build new bigger venues if you must, but don't screw the loyal fan base.

[jon b]

I think Richard expounded on what I meant by walking a fine line. And yes I believe there should be consideration to those who were born first. They have been loyal through and through. They were in their seats last year and during Yates 3-25 year, and deserve to be rewarded for it, and not forced out of their seats.

I agree there are some issues with the point priority system. I realize it does not change one's seats, but only allows for "moving up" when seats are available, and if they are not available there is no moving. Perhaps some sort of in-between would be useful. A reallocation of seats every 10 years based on the point system. Or every 5 years. Is that a happy medium or will many older loyal fans who cannot afford major $1000's simply drift away versus sit in row 23 of section 224. Will larger donors give for 5 years or 10 years and wait until the reallocation? I do not want someone to buy their way into seats and force long time loyal fans out simply because they have more moeny in the bank, but if they establish a sustained record of giving at a high level, perhaps that is different. I could support this. It allows for larger donors to see future benefits of their giving, but requires them to show loyalty over time. This addresses your issue about seeking larger donations.

When I referred to losing seats I was referring to a much greater move than row 4 to row 14, although for those UCATS in the uper deck I would say that is a major move. In the lower arena not so major. I am talking about those who are forced into a major change either through increased levels of giving they cannot afford or the resulting bump in seats (to a really crappy location and let's be blunt, the Shoe has many crappy seat locations). They lost their seats big time and probably don't care that they can sit in the crappy ones.

As for empty seats, I had 3 next to me ALL YEAR. Row 25, section 123. Only one game were poeple there (might have been 2 as I would think the XU game someone would have shown up). The row in front of me was empty for over half the games and had different people there every time. Perhpas these are seats held by the Adept, but they have chairbacks and are not being used. I cannot imagine there are UCATS sitting here and never coming, but it could be possible.

The main issue I have with using the point system for reallocation is that UCATS can decide how they want to award points for volunteering. Seems a bit sketchy to me, but maybe in practice it will turn out ok. Awarding 50 points per year (or not for some people) can change the numbers rather quickly. It is items like this that make me think back scratching could become too easy. And to be blunt, the new UCATS folks don't give me warm fuzzy's, but perhaps that will change over time as I see more of their work. They have some big decisions to make in the near future as evident by this thread.

I know nothing about the vehicle swap but would like to know more! Sounds juicy!

Finally, if you were promised better seats by giving large amounts, I don't think you should blame the I was here first crowd. I don't believe they made that promise, but I do feel for you.

[UCEE73]

... but not at the expense (whatever that connotes) of "loyal" fans.

... Build new bigger venues if you must, but don't screw the loyal fan base.

Richard,

I think you have reiterated certain sentiments of the pre-Shoemaker-construction UCATS members quite well. I'm trying to relate to them, but I don't fully understand all the nuances.

It might serve our discussion better if you would accurately define what constitutes "at the expense of" or "screw", to your way of thinking. Making intentionally vague references to the subject matter being discussed just makes it harder for me to understand your point of view.

[Cats4Ever]

I understand what he is saying clearly - there are numerous former lower level UCATS donors who got fed up with the treatment. I don't see the need for you to relate to or understand his point of view, it is clear as crystal.

I agree things were done poorly in the past, but hopefully the future is bright once again and great times are just a few years away.

The basketball team on the floor next year will be tons better than last year's, even though the freshmen will be playing lots of minutes. Hope Mick can show his coaching skills to go along with that talent.

go CATS!!!

[UCEE73]

... and if they are not available there is no moving. Perhaps some sort of in-between would be useful. A reallocation of seats every 10 years based on the point system. Or every 5 years. Is that a happy medium or will many older loyal fans who cannot afford major $1000's simply drift away versus sit in row 23 of section 224. Will larger donors give for 5 years or 10 years and wait until the reallocation? I do not want someone to buy their way into seats and force long time loyal fans out simply because they have more money in the bank, but if they establish a sustained record of giving at a high level, perhaps that is different. I could support this. It allows for larger donors to see future benefits of their giving, but requires them to show loyalty over time. This addresses your issue about seeking larger donations.

Jon,

I think you have the gist of a very good idea. The requirement for showing sustained support seems very fair to me and I could easily support it, since it isn't the ONLY requirement.

If a plan such as this were implemented, it would require sticking to (don't ever change it) a balanced formula for financial as well as time-in-the-stands support. Looking forward, the system cannot seem iffy or capricious. Otherwise, no newly committed donor will be comfortable investing considerable time and treasure to UCATS. What if the rules seemed likely to change before a newcomers seating benefits came to maturity? Sort of like; "Why invest in constructing a building if the security of the land beneath it seems shaky?" Lots of time, effort and patience would be required to get the formula right, but it seems like it could work out very well. The more widely accepted the parameters, the better chance the plan would have of surviving into the future.

Also, one needs to deliberate about the interval of time between shuffles of the seating deck. If it's too long (10 years is too long for me), then it tells potential supporters who may not be in town long enough (want to enjoy more than a year or two of good seating) that they are wasting their time; they'll never be around long enough to matter. On the other hand, a season-to-season re-alignment may be too unsettling.

I'll bet George Vredeveld at UC's Economics Center could help devise a stable formula that almost everyone would buy into and stand a good chance of surviving for years to come.

I like your idea because it balances the conflicting interests of seats-for-life vs. very-generous-but-newer UCATS members. I find it a breath of fresh air.

[UCEE73]

I don't see the need for you to relate to or understand his point of view, it is clear as crystal.

How charming.

[Cats4Ever]

Charming is something I haven't heard in a long time. You are making me blush :o :o :)

[jon b]

I was re-reading through the UCATS mailing last night and it looks they have something different that on their web site. Under cumulative lifetime giving on the website, that is all it says. On the mailing it says in ( ): "starting in 2007". So it looks like the long-time givers are getting screwed.

UCEE, I would not expect them to keep any system at this point. They change it every few years and end up screwing someone new each time which leaves no one happy. Maybe the new system will work for you for a year or two before you get screwed again.

[Johnny Mac]

I caught that also in the UCATS brochure. I called Jeff Smith in UCATS office and he said "beginning in 2007" is wrong. He was not sure why it showed up in mailing. Cummulative giving points go back to day one, no restrictions.

John

[jon b]

I caught that also in the UCATS brochure. I called Jeff Smith in UCATS office and he said "beginning in 2007" is wrong. He was not sure why it showed up in mailing. Cummulative giving points go back to day one, no restrictions.

John

Thanks, John. I was hoping that was the case.

[UCEE73]

UCEE, I would not expect them to keep any system at this point. They change it every few years and end up screwing someone new each time which leaves no one happy. Maybe the new system will work for you for a year or two before you get screwed again.Well, I just took a peek at the UCATS Football mailing from tonight's mail.

Give the athletic department $100,000 and get 1,000 Points.

Give UC $1,000,000, or even $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 to non-athletic causes and get just 50 points. The same as a "volunteer".

Nice:rolleyes:

The more things change, the more they stay the same:confused:

[jkwuc89]

It does not surprise me that donations to UCATS and UC athletics are worth considerably more than donations to the non-athletic endeavors. The two budgets are completely separate.

[UCEE73]

It does not surprise me that donations to UCATS and UC athletics are worth considerably more than donations to the non-athletic endeavors. The two budgets are completely separate.

Yes, of this I am quite aware.

See my post, #19 above.

I'm just surprised that UCATS considers $5 thousand to the "other part of the university" to be the same as $10 million :eek: