My season ticket at Memorial is next to my father. We have two tickets, which were previously in his name. As it turns out, when we each got our e-mail and mailer inviting us to order tickets for next year, my priority level for picking tickets is higher than his, even though he's had season tickets for more than 40 years.

The reason for that is that my donation levels to the athletic department are much higher than his, and that's what counts.

It's also perfectly appropriate, in my opinion. The only way for this athletic program to be more successful is to raise the money our peers are raising. The only way to do that is to more directly tie access to the department, including things like ticket locations, to booster donations.

Mostly agree but 40 years of season tickets also adds up $

GB54;729608 said:

---

Mostly agree but 40 years of season tickets also adds up $

---

I actually have no idea how much of the cost of a football ticket has to cover the cost of game-day operations-security, cleaning, electricity, ticket takers, and the team's game-day costs. I guess I tend to think that a lot of the costs for things like recruiting visits have to be covered by donations.

My father and I actually argued about this, because he thinks the university should just support its athletic programs solely by raising ticket prices. I pointed out that as a CPA he seemed to be taking an odd position, since donations are deductible and football tickets aren't. He also actually think athletics should be part of the university's mission, and therefore there's nothing wrong with putting taxpayer money into them. I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Jeff82;729612 said:

---

I actually have no idea how much of the cost of a football ticket has to cover the cost of game-day operations-security, cleaning, electricity, ticket takers, and the team's game-day costs. I guess I tend to think that a lot of the costs for things like recruiting visits have to be covered by donations.

My father and I actually argued about this, because he thinks the university should just support its athletic programs solely by raising ticket prices. I pointed out that as a CPA he seemed to be taking an odd position, since donations are deductible and football tickets aren't. He also actually think athletics should be part of the university's mission, and therefore there's nothing wrong with putting taxpayer money into them. I don't necessarily disagree, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

---

CFB can be a huge cash cow (just look at Bama or Texass). It also helps brand recognition. How many of you guys are sick and tired of people outside of California not realizing that Cal = UC Berkeley = California = Cal-Berkeley = Berkeley?

pingpong2;729614 said:

---

CFB can be a huge cash cow (just look at Bama or Texass). It also helps brand recognition. How many of you guys are sick and tired of people outside of California not realizing that Cal = UC Berkeley = California = Cal-Berkeley = Berkeley?

---

That's been my admittedly boring drumbeat for the last couple of months. People's expectations for this athletic program, in my opinion, are not consistent with the limited willingness of the alumni to open their wallets and support the program. Again in my opinion, you have to give money first, then you can expect results, not the other way around. Better assistant salaries? A private jet for recruiting trips? That has to come from boosters.

Buying a ticket, or season tickets, does little to raise money. Donations, on the other hand, above and beyond ticket sales, make a much bigger difference.

Jeff82;729618 said:

---

That's been my admittedly boring drumbeat for the last couple of months. People's expectations for this athletic program, in my opinion, are not consistent with the limited willingness of the alumni to open their wallets and support the program. Again in my opinion, you have to give money first, then you can expect results, not the other way around. Better assistant salaries? A private jet for recruiting trips? That has to come from boosters.

---

Totally agree. We, as a fanbase, have a bizarrely distorted view of what we give vs. what we expect to receive in return compared to other world-class (or even less than world-class) universities. This manifests itself across departments but is particularly evident in athletics.

Even before ESP there was a huge hue and cry over Cal moving to a per seat required donation. I mean, what self respecting college football team doesn't do this? The old model (pre 2007? 2006? I forget) allowed you to buy up to 25 seats on the 50 yard line in return for a four figure donation. 25!!! That's just nuts and is indicative of our long history of putting a terrible product on the field (and yes, no need to point out that the product wasn't terrible in '06 or '05 or '04 or '03 - so stipulated). Yet when we changed it you would have thought Cal was taking away sex (or college or any of that other stuff Rick Santorum opposes)

I salute all of us who sat through the Holmoecaust, the idiocy of losing Bruce Snyder and really almost all of the 80s and the 70s, but those days are gone and it's a new world. When every other school is bringing a gun to the fight we can't compete with a rubberband and a sense of self entitlement (ok, I think that analogy is missing something, but you get the gist).

tim55bear;729620 said:

---

Buying a ticket, or season tickets, does little to raise money. Donations, on the other hand, above and beyond ticket sales, make a much bigger difference.

---

Why? I understand that there are expenses against ticket sales but at some point your expenses are similar no matter how many tickets you sell and an increase in ticket sales will greatly increase profit.

The tickets were so much at AT&T I pondered not getting tickets for the first time ever. I support my university in many ways, and I am looking forward to the new stadium, but that will not be enough without a winning team.

I will pay the seat donation, but I expect results. The 10,000 season ticket holders who declined to go to AT&T is some indication that the price is too high and the product not good enough. This coming season will make a difference.

Sebastabear;729633 said:

---

Totally agree. We, as a fanbase, have a bizarrely distorted view of what we give vs. what we expect to receive in return compared to other world-class (or even less than world-class) universities. This manifests itself across departments but is particularly evident in athletics.

Even before ESP there was a huge hue and cry over Cal moving to a per seat required donation. I mean, what self respecting college football team doesn't do this? The old model (pre 2007? 2006? I forget) allowed you to buy up to 25 seats on the 50 yard line in return for a four figure donation. 25!!! That's just nuts and is indicative of our long history of putting a terrible product on the field (and yes, no need to point out that the product wasn't terrible in '06 or '05 or '04 or '03 - so stipulated). Yet when we changed it you would have thought Cal was taking away sex (or college or any of that other stuff Rick Santorum opposes)

I salute all of us who sat through the Holmoecaust, the idiocy of losing Bruce Snyder and really almost all of the 80s and the 70s, but those days are gone and it's a new world. When every other school is bringing a gun to the fight we can't compete with a rubberband and a sense of self entitlement (ok, I think that analogy is missing something, but you get the gist).

---

Agreed. Even in the renovated CMS, Cal made a decision to keep the students in between the 40's - selling the most expensive 'real estate' in a football stadium - for the lowest price.

Not sure how many seats are in the student section (say 3000 to be conservative) - but I have to believe you could sell the location for at least $1,000 more, per seat, per season. That's $3MM right there.

I always thought a better compromise (to sticking the students into the endzone) was to put them at the lower levels (especially with the sunken field). If you spread the students along the sideline (like BBall) you can still get the enthusiasm and noice close to the field.

You probably open up 2000 prime seats and easily an extra $2MM a year in revenue.

I have nothing against the students and loved my time in the 80's rooting on some pretty bad Bear teams from the student section.

However, 25 years later, times change - and pressure from the 'students can't be moved' crowd essentially put an extra $3MM a year tax on the Athletic Department (again, only if my estimate of 3000 student seats is correct - and you buy my assumption that those seats EASILY could have earned $1000 more each, per season).

Hail2Calif;730060 said:

---

...Not sure how many seats are in the student section (say 3000 to be conservative) - but I have to believe you could sell the location for at least $1,000 more, per seat, per season. That's $3MM right there.

I always thought a better compromise (to sticking the students into the endzone) was to put them at the lower levels (especially with the sunken field). If you spread the students along the sideline (like BBall) you can still get the enthusiasm and noice close to the field.

You probably open up 2000 prime seats and easily an extra $2MM a year in revenue.

I have nothing against the students and loved my time in the 80's rooting on some pretty bad Bear teams from the student section.

However, 25 years later, times change - and pressure from the 'students can't be moved' crowd essentially put an extra $3MM a year tax on the Athletic Department (again, only if my estimate of 3000 student seats is correct - and you buy my assumption that those seats EASILY could have earned $1000 more each, per season).

---

It would be a challenge to organize (and synchronize cheers within) a rooting section that's spread wider across the field.

Let's keep in mind, the university exists for the students and they should be the first priority when it comes to athletics and other events. They are also the future season ticket buyers and donors, perhaps for another 50 years, and the program needs their buy in order to assure long term survival.

tim55bear;729620 said:

---

Buying a ticket, or season tickets, does little to raise money. Donations, on the other hand, above and beyond ticket sales, make a much bigger difference.

---

One without the other will lead to the same place in the stadium -- uneven attendance. The scarcity of seats available as a result of high season ticket recidivism makes donations more important to secure the prime seat locations and, following that trend, ultimately decides whether one has access to a seat at all. Even seats reserved for single game sales go up in face value the fewer seats of such type are available. In other words, we want the long time season ticket holders to keep holding on, but we also want the athletic department to allow bigger donors to occupy the best seats to incentive bigger donations.

I think this is the first time the athletic department has gotten close to pricing tickets the right way.

southseasbear;730096 said:

---

It would be a challenge to organize (and synchronize cheers within) a rooting section that's spread wider across the field.

Let's keep in mind, the university exists for the students and they should be the first priority when it comes to athletics and other events. They are also the future season ticket buyers and donors, perhaps for another 50 years, and the program needs their buy in order to assure long term survival.

---

I'm just saying the decision to keep students at mid-field is one of those things that Cal decides (right or wrong) that essentially costs us revenue and makes it more challenging to compete with programs who gross substantially more from their football revenue.

As for the idea that moving students would challenge the long term survival of the program - I would ask what other school who's football program is consistently where many on this board demand it to be has their students occupying mid-field seats?

Hail2Calif;730303 said:

---

I'm just saying the decision to keep students at mid-field is one of those things that Cal decides (right or wrong) that essentially costs us revenue and makes it more challenging to compete with programs who gross substantially more from their football revenue.

As for the idea that moving students would challenge the long term survival of the program - I would ask what other school who's football program is consistently where many on this board demand it to be has their students occupying mid-field seats?

---

Agree with the general point here.

Personally, I'm a fan of keeping the students on the 50 and firmly believe that since we got to enjoy that perk while in school we owe it to subsequent generations to preserve the tradition. With that said, Hail is right in that this is just not something most big time football programs do. Ergo, it's something else we as fans are "consuming" and we need to pay for it somehow. Only way to do this is with increased donations.

At this point, I believe our mindset has been to donate less rather than more compared to the programs we'd like to emulate (honestly, much less). With the student seating issue we need to not only catch up to these programs we need to pass them. It will take a pretty radical shift in perception, but I think it's the only way we can get where we want to go. Clearly if complaining was all it took, we would have been to the Rose Bowl multiple times in the past decade. :p

Hail2Calif;730060 said:

---

Agreed. Even in the renovated CMS, Cal made a decision to keep the students in between the 40's - selling the most expensive 'real estate' in a football stadium - for the lowest price.

Not sure how many seats are in the student section (say 3000 to be conservative) - but I have to believe you could sell the location for at least $1,000 more, per seat, per season. That's $3MM right there.

I always thought a better compromise (to sticking the students into the endzone) was to put them at the lower levels (especially with the sunken field). If you spread the students along the sideline (like BBall) you can still get the enthusiasm and noice close to the field.

You probably open up 2000 prime seats and easily an extra $2MM a year in revenue.

I have nothing against the students and loved my time in the 80's rooting on some pretty bad Bear teams from the student section.

However, 25 years later, times change - and pressure from the 'students can't be moved' crowd essentially put an extra $3MM a year tax on the Athletic Department (again, only if my estimate of 3000 student seats is correct - and you buy my assumption that those seats EASILY could have earned $1000 more each, per season).

---

Sections S and SS (between the 35s) combined have a seating capacity of 3,973.
Sections R and RR (South 35 to the South 15) combined have a seating capacity of 2,915 plus seating for the California Marching Band.

All told, the Student Section represents 6,888 student seats. If those seats were converted to ESP-style seats in Sections S & SS and benchbacks seats in Section R & RR, you would have, at the absolute very most, 5,636 seats. If it was the mirror image of the ESP and Benchback areas, you would probably have approximately 3,400 seats once you included ADA seating and vomitories (access/egress). You'd lose half the seats to expanded legroom, elbowroom, ADA, and access/egress requirements.

Further, as the AT&T Sideline Bleacher experience showed, people aren't buying. Approximately 5% of those seats were sold to season ticket holders at reduced donation levels and then put on the block to the general public. Further, visitors were the best customers for those sections.

ESP donors don't want to bake in the sun. They want to be close to amenities (like restrooms and concessions). That's why East Side Sections in prime viewing locations are probably best left for students.

I believe that you greatly overvalue the "tax" of leaving students in their historic location.

southseasbear;730096 said:

---

It would be a challenge to organize (and synchronize cheers within) a rooting section that's spread wider across the field.

---

We have cheers?