This is not a post about the performance on the field so far this year (except indirectly). While some of the games have been disappointing, I was expecting 1-3 after 4 games and we are 1-3 (OK, I had some hope we might pull out the Northwestern game, since it was a home opener against a possibly beatable team, and we were close). True, the PSU game was a downer (for a win), but we know that change is a work in progress.

My concern is around a larger issue. What I am hearing and seeing in the fan base and the Cal community, is not anger or frustration, but something much worse: apathy. A nationally televised game against a top-5 team, and nearly 1/2 of the stadium is OSU. A 1/2 empty stadium for PSU, declining ESP revenue. This is a sign of a community that is starting not to care, and with the debt we owe for the stadium + the reliance of the AD on football revenue, this is potentially VERY serious.

I think there are several reasons for this. The last several years of the Tedford era were not only disappointing, but worse, they were BORING. No one wants to spend $30 to sit and be bored. Although Dykes' offense is very exciting, it is going to take a while for that to catch on w/ fans. But I don't know how much time we have. A second problem is the constant shifting of game times (and sometimes even game days) to accommodate TV. I know dozens of Old Blues who aren't renewing season tickets because they wind up not being able to use them (e.g., when a 1 PM game gets changed to 7:30 at the last minute). I know that TV $ is crucial to the budget, but if the trade-off is to lose the fan base, you wind up televising games in 1/2 empty stadia, and how long will the networks want that? Look at Stanford, they can't even fill a sub-compact stadium with a winning team. Are we headed in that direction?

So what's the solution? I think two things need to happen. Dykes needs to have a winning team sooner rather than later. It may be unfair to him, but there it is. Once we start winning, at least most of the fan base are likely to support the team. Secondly, I think the AD's of the conference need to band together and bargain with the TV gods around scheduling. If the NFL can schedule games at the same time and televise them regionally, so can the Pac-12. Or at least get the schedule in place at the beginning of the year and not a week before the game.

Our financial position as an athletic department doesn't allow for an unsuccessful football program. Period.

I share these concerns but with the TV contracts providing up to $30 million a year in the coming years (article below)I doubt the tv scheduling process is going to be cleaned up anytime soon.



http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/05/20/pac-12-network-what-it-worth-heres-one-projection/

Pac-12 Networks: What's it worth? Here's one projection

Posted by Jon Wilner on May 20th, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Categorized as Pac-12 basketball, Pac-12 Conference, Pac-12 football, Pac-12 Network

Good story here from USA Today that projects the long-term value of the Pac-12 Network.

Nutshell: The league could distribute approximately $9 million per school once the Pac12Net gets fully ramped with distribution, according to estimates from Navigate Research.

That's a tad higher than I would have estimated but certainly seems reasonable if everything goes well for the conference on the carriage front.

Remember, the league has 100% ownership as opposed to the Big Ten Network, which splits its revenue (51%-49%) with Fox and will eventually be rolling in cash, assuming, of course, that it cuts a deal with at least one of the major satellite carriers.

(The way it has been explained to me is: Any Pac12Net advertising revenue would be gravy; the real money is in the subscription fees, which are tied to distribution.)

Adding the Pac12Net windfall to the $20.8 million per school per year (on average) from the 12-year deal with ESPN and Fox, and the conference could distribute as much as $30 million to each school, according to the USA Today report.

Again, that's an average over the 12 years.

In 2012-13, the soon-to-be-launched Pac12Net is expected to break even while the ESPN/Fox distribution will be in the $16 million/school range, based on my calculations.

(There's an escalator clause in the deal. Go here for details on the annual payouts.)

But by the end of the 12 years, the conference could very well be handing out $33+ million when you consider the back-loaded ESPN/Fox deal and full Pac12Net distribution.

I wrote something similar in the I support Dykes thread. I support Dykes but the nature of CFB and $$ had changed how long a program has to turn it around.

Quote:

---

This Cal team is a 2-3 year project. Sonny Dykes deserves a fair shot at getting things up and running. That said, the beat down in Eugene was like a gut punch, making patience difficult or blurry.

Everyone knew Cal had 3 ranked opponents in the first 4 game with slim chances to win...despite the hype by some Cal fans. For me it wasn't losing to Oregon, it was how. I thought Cal handled NU and tOSU well despite being out manned, out played, etc. Against OR, Cal looked like a HS team, and not a very good one either. Sure rain played a factor but excuses are just that.

Any way, Dykes just might turn the ship around and I sure hope so. The Bear Raid and a decent D could be great combo. That said, for me, while the 2-3 years is still there, the expectations have changed. No free 3 year pass. If Cal goes 1-11 or 2-10 this season, it's a 2 year cycle. If Cal goes 6-6 next season, maybe it's 3 years...but the leash gets tighter and this might be a transitional hire.

Additionally the D absolutely has to improve next year, no excuses. No improvement and it's 2 year cycle. HC and staff are getting paid very well..and there's a debt to pay.

I support Dykes but expectations are absolutely fair. Given Cal's debt on CMS, his salary, not really another choice. This isn't just Sonny but the changed nature of CFB. Like the uptempo offense, program cycles have changed because of $$$, and you're either in or you're out and you don't get as much time to develop a program.

---

CAL football has been about apathy. This isn't a big time mid west program like Tennessee that even if they are terrible, people will still flock to the stadium. The culture is very different and there's nothing to change that except a winning program.

Agree with much of what was said above, but I still believe a major problem is difficulty in hiring quality assistants due to the cost of housing in the Bay Area. While tossing around millions, you could build a very nice housing compound relatively near campus for the staff and families - I know this used to be part of the compensation package at West Point. I suspect some of these La Tech assistants effectively took a pay cut or at least downgraded their housing to make the move.

ultramantaro;842187633 said:

---

CAL football has been about apathy. This isn't a big time mid west program like Tennessee that even if they are terrible, people will still flock to the stadium. The culture is very different and there's nothing to change that except a winning program.

---

To me that is the problem. The AD has to step back and work through the following......

A) The Football program must generate surplus earnings
B) To provide surplus earnings we must have paying buts in seats (and ideally good number with higher net worth/disposable income to entice sponsors making analytic (as opposed to emotional) choices with sponsorship $$$.
C) Cal is at a competitive disadvantage in the emerging Pac-12. It plays in the same division as 2 schools with unique advantages (Oregon essentially as a marketing vehicle for Nike and Furd as the only "smallish elite liberal arts" university" playing decent BCS football.
D) So a strategy for "B" predicated on "winning" is just not that likely.

Luckily, there is hope. RIGHT ACROSS THE BAY the Giants are showing that one CAN draw (this year, 3,326,796) even if you are 10 games under 500 and out of it as of mid-July. You do so by RELENTLESSLY making it "fun" and marketing what you have OTHER than Ws.

FOR EXAMPLE...if I was head of marketing for the day I would have relentlessly marketing Sonny and Franklin as some sort of offensive mad geniuses. They should have done an ad "Frankelstein's Lab" as they unvield crazy diagrams. They might not win but you would see crazy "stuff" each and every weekend. The "fan zone" on Maxwell could be radically expanded and enhanced, up to and including the option to "check your kid in" for supervised activities while Mom and Dad "enjoy" 4 hours+ of TV football. a Few of the unused ESP seats should be "raffled off" as a "dream suite" for 2 lucky fans in the prol. section. ANYTHING and everything to build excitement so that attending is seen as important _IF_ we are failing to win games.

Would winning be the best cure? Absolutely! But the powers that be have got to start understanding that Cal is playing with at least a bit of a handicap. We need to put people into the stadium EVEN IF we are not winning and playing a team like WSU.

slotright20;842187647 said:

---

Agree with much of what was said above, but I still believe a major problem is difficulty in hiring quality assistants due to the cost of housing in the Bay Area. While tossing around millions, you could build a very nice housing compound relatively near campus for the staff and families - I know this used to be part of the compensation package at West Point. I suspect some of these La Tech assistants effectively took a pay cut or at least downgraded their housing to make the move.

---

Big problem and it is what it is.

slotright20;842187647 said:

---

Agree with much of what was said above, but I still believe a major problem is difficulty in hiring quality assistants due to the cost of housing in the Bay Area. While tossing around millions, you could build a very nice housing compound relatively near campus for the staff and families - I know this used to be part of the compensation package at West Point. I suspect some of these La Tech assistants effectively took a pay cut or at least downgraded their housing to make the move.

---

Very good point.

Doesn't Furd get around this by having ready and available faculty/staff housing? I think Hairball and now Shaw both lived on campus or in Furd housing.

One of our super connected donors into real estate might be able to address this. The thing is, it would have to be private or paid for privately because otherwise, why should football staff get priority over other staff.

The housing problem is even more difficult because Cal is an urban campus, where the Furd is a farm (they own a butt-load of land that they used to develop faculty housing; we don't). I'm not sure that I agree that they have inherent advantages over us in terms of competing on the field. For decades, Stanford was a mediocre program w/ an occasional breakthrough. Their success is currently only 4 year old (about the same length of time as Tedford's, although we never quite made the BCS). Ultimately, winning MUST be part of the equation, otherwise we will be relegated to (in Bruce Snyder's words) "selling the sizzle, but not the steak." The "mad scientist" idea works for a year, maybe 2, but then fans want results. I suppose we can go all Bill Veeck and have crazy give aways, or naked cheerleaders, or "blow up disco" nights, but somehow, I don't think that puts butts in the seats long term.

socaltownie;842187653 said:

---

To me that is the problem. The AD has to step back and work through the following......

A) The Football program must generate surplus earnings
B) To provide surplus earnings we must have paying buts in seats (and ideally good number with higher net worth/disposable income to entice sponsors making analytic (as opposed to emotional) choices with sponsorship $$$.
C) Cal is at a competitive disadvantage in the emerging Pac-12. It plays in the same division as 2 schools with unique advantages (Oregon essentially as a marketing vehicle for Nike and Furd as the only "smallish elite liberal arts" university" playing decent BCS football.
D) So a strategy for "B" predicated on "winning" is just not that likely.

Luckily, there is hope. RIGHT ACROSS THE BAY the Giants are showing that one CAN draw (this year, 3,326,796) even if you are 10 games under 500 and out of it as of mid-July. You do so by RELENTLESSLY making it "fun" and marketing what you have OTHER than Ws.

FOR EXAMPLE...if I was head of marketing for the day I would have relentlessly marketing Sonny and Franklin as some sort of offensive mad geniuses. They should have done an ad "Frankelstein's Lab" as they unvield crazy diagrams. They might not win but you would see crazy "stuff" each and every weekend. The "fan zone" on Maxwell could be radically expanded and enhanced, up to and including the option to "check your kid in" for supervised activities while Mom and Dad "enjoy" 4 hours+ of TV football. a Few of the unused ESP seats should be "raffled off" as a "dream suite" for 2 lucky fans in the prol. section. ANYTHING and everything to build excitement so that attending is seen as important _IF_ we are failing to win games.

Would winning be the best cure? Absolutely! But the powers that be have got to start understanding that Cal is playing with at least a bit of a handicap. We need to put people into the stadium EVEN IF we are not winning and playing a team like WSU.

---

The SF Giants have 2 World Series to do the marketing. Before that, they could market around their popular 2-time Cy Young Award winning pitcher. Before that, they marketed around Barry Bonds.

As for the Niners, apathy has sunk in for a long time until they came Super Bowl contenders.

What do we got? It sure can be fun, for the other team! There is one and only one solution: become a Pac-12 championship contender.

UrsaMajor;842187603 said:

---

Secondly, I think the AD's of the conference need to band together and bargain with the TV gods around scheduling. If the NFL can schedule games at the same time and televise them regionally, so can the Pac-12. Or at least get the schedule in place at the beginning of the year and not a week before the game.

---

I understand extra $$ in the TV contract come from getting the best games on the national networks, and those are not known in advance always. The real problem w/ the Pac12 is that there are 3 different entities (Fox,ESPN,P12N) that have priority on different weekends. I'd like to see a model like the NFL where late season games can be 'flexed' to a prime slot - maybe an equivalent in college would be September and October games are all slotted well in advance and November games go with the 12/6 day window. If we have to give back a little $$, that would be fine if ticket sales increase a bit. Plus the p12 does the scheduling, so they can put good games in Nov and give back some value to the networks, which might be even better for $$$.

Why did they televise Cal oregon at the same time as 3 other Pac 12 games?? 7-7:30? I thought I heard some games might start at 11 am? Wouldn't that have made more sense given the weather etc? Since I was watching the Cal game I was unable to watch the other Pac 12 games. Is this what they want???

With $30 million coming in from TV. All Cal sports should be just fine. Ticket sales are gravy, and should pick up as soon as Dykes/Franklin have the team they really want.

As I have stated before, college football should be promoted for the spectacle/experience that it is. We are different than the NFL because we have the campus, the pre-game rallies, the Cal Band, the Cannon, Card Stunts, decent looking cheerleaders, mic-men, one bonfire rally, and an absolutely beautiful setting second to none in the Bay Area. But we are whoring out the experience and have made the game day experience in the stadium too much like the very things we should be differentiating ourselves from. The Band hardly gets heard anymore. We have overly loud commercials, piped in music, way too many "promotions" that are almost the same as commercials, generic programs (I buy one at the beginning of the season, and MAYBE another for a particularly good game), and all of this is worsened by games with unexciting programs like Portland State (where we barely won) and too many losses. Marketing has to appreciate and promote the atmosphere of the Cal game day experience, (including the events surrounding the game) instead of twisting and adapting it to increasingly resemble the NFL. If I want an NFL experience with commercialism, promotions, no band and constant bombardment of announcements, the Coliseum is close by and accessible. But I don't drive up from L.A. for the NFL experience. I drive up for a celebration of college (most particularly CAL) football. I think marketing has missed the boat and if they don't right the ship soon (a little "boat play on words") the ship will sink. I hope they get this thing right, and get it right soon. (And yes, Sonny is going to have to start showing a competitive team THIS year, and have a winning record next year, or nothing else will matter).

UrsaMajor;842187698 said:

---

The housing problem is even more difficult because Cal is an urban campus, where the Furd is a farm (they own a butt-load of land that they used to develop faculty housing; we don't). I'm not sure that I agree that they have inherent advantages over us in terms of competing on the field. For decades, Stanford was a mediocre program w/ an occasional breakthrough. Their success is currently only 4 year old (about the same length of time as Tedford's, although we never quite made the BCS). Ultimately, winning MUST be part of the equation, otherwise we will be relegated to (in Bruce Snyder's words) "selling the sizzle, but not the steak." The "mad scientist" idea works for a year, maybe 2, but then fans want results. I suppose we can go all Bill Veeck and have crazy give aways, or naked cheerleaders, or "blow up disco" nights, but somehow, I don't think that puts butts in the seats long term.

---

I sadly think that Furd's rise is something of a quasi-permanent feature - and it coincides with the serious downgrading of football at places like Duke, Harvard/Yale and BU/BC. MAYBE Notre Dame - but it is such a vastly different undergrad experience I think that they don't recruiting against each other as much as "in parallel).

I am SURE the pitch right now among "smart" elite kids is essentially this - "No where else can you play football at the hightest level _AND_ have the stereotypical liberal arts college experience. No where."

And you know what, sadly they are right. Cal is _BIG_ in respect to its undergrad population and it is urban. While the education is elite that is not that differentiated from, for example, other urban locations like USC, Washington, ASU right here on the west coast - not to mention several Big 10 schools.

But if you want a pretty campus, you want small, and you want elite you really have NO other options if you are a good foodball player other than the Farm. And I think it took Hairball (and now shaw) to "get that" - along with donors that finally allowed Furd to have the recruiting budget to have a national footprint.

BTW - this is far different than in hoops where Furd has to go head to head against several programs that offer nearly as good as academics and provide the kind of setting that they do on the farm.

Otherwise it is really hard to explain why Furd has leveraged its VERY recent success into the kind of classes (in respect to linemen) that we could only dream about.....and yet failed to do this in the 1970s and 1980s when they had some success)

GBMARIN;842187715 said:

---

With $30 million coming in from TV. All Cal sports should be just fine. Ticket sales are gravy, and should pick up as soon as Dykes/Franklin have the team they really want.

---

$20-$50 tickets are one thing. The financial model depends on selling more ESP, how much is the 12-day scheduling impacting ESP sales?

LethalFang;842187706 said:

---

The SF Giants have 2 World Series to do the marketing. Before that, they could market around their popular 2-time Cy Young Award winning pitcher. Before that, they marketed around Barry Bonds.

As for the Niners, apathy has sunk in for a long time until they came Super Bowl contenders.

What do we got? It sure can be fun, for the other team! There is one and only one solution: become a Pac-12 championship contender.

---

Yeah, but the Giants and Niners still got decent attendance even in the down years. The Giants in particular are good at marketing. Cal athletics is bad at it.

sycasey;842187744 said:

---

Yeah, but the Giants and Niners still got decent attendance even in the down years. The Giants in particular are good at marketing. Cal athletics is bad at it.

---

What exactly is there to market to a non- cal alum?

UrsaMajor;842187603 said:

---

This is not a post about the performance on the field so far this year (except indirectly). While some of the games have been disappointing, I was expecting 1-3 after 4 games and we are 1-3 (OK, I had some hope we might pull out the Northwestern game, since it was a home opener against a possibly beatable team, and we were close). True, the PSU game was a downer (for a win), but we know that change is a work in progress.

My concern is around a larger issue. What I am hearing and seeing in the fan base and the Cal community, is not anger or frustration, but something much worse: apathy. A nationally televised game against a top-5 team, and nearly 1/2 of the stadium is OSU. A 1/2 empty stadium for PSU, declining ESP revenue. This is a sign of a community that is starting not to care, and with the debt we owe for the stadium + the reliance of the AD on football revenue, this is potentially VERY serious.

I think there are several reasons for this. The last several years of the Tedford era were not only disappointing, but worse, they were BORING. No one wants to spend $30 to sit and be bored. Although Dykes' offense is very exciting, it is going to take a while for that to catch on w/ fans. But I don't know how much time we have. A second problem is the constant shifting of game times (and sometimes even game days) to accommodate TV. I know dozens of Old Blues who aren't renewing season tickets because they wind up not being able to use them (e.g., when a 1 PM game gets changed to 7:30 at the last minute). I know that TV $ is crucial to the budget, but if the trade-off is to lose the fan base, you wind up televising games in 1/2 empty stadia, and how long will the networks want that? Look at Stanford, they can't even fill a sub-compact stadium with a winning team. Are we headed in that direction?

So what's the solution? I think two things need to happen. Dykes needs to have a winning team sooner rather than later. It may be unfair to him, but there it is. Once we start winning, at least most of the fan base are likely to support the team. Secondly, I think the AD's of the conference need to band together and bargain with the TV gods around scheduling. If the NFL can schedule games at the same time and televise them regionally, so can the Pac-12. Or at least get the schedule in place at the beginning of the year and not a week before the game.

Our financial position as an athletic department doesn't allow for an unsuccessful football program. Period.

---

I have big concerns as well, and you have essentially made me more worried. A couple points:
1. TV is TV. We can't and aren't going to say no. We may be able to get to a point where they set the schedule at the beginning, (I think even that will take the conference making a stand on the issue) but the days of a consistent schedule are gone. The problem I see is that we did not anticipate that this would make selling tickets more difficult. We took into account the added TV revenue, but did not factor in the offset.
2. It is also clear that we have gone after advertising revenue that erodes the game day experience without taking into account the negative consequences of that either.
3. Our marketing strategy seems to be completely generic without taking into account anything unique to Cal. (I also have to say I "love" this new March to Victory gimmick campaign where the athletic department essentially bets our fans that our team is going to lose).
4. This is the biggie. Putting a bet down on the success of the football program is colossally moronic. It is very clear that we put a huge financial bet on winning at a high level and being able to not just fill the stadium, but fill the stadium at a very high price. I am dumbfounded by this. The athletic department should not be essentially taking our peak success over the past 50 years, and projecting we do even better and then using that as a financing model. This is a sport, for goodness sake. You need to look at historical revenue as a baseline and view anything above that as gravy. If you do that, and it means you need to cut some sports, you cut them. I cannot believe we are relying on the ESP program after Oakland's experience with PSL's. Frankly, we were pretty much lead to believe that donations were going to cover the whole thing and that is obviously not true. We all love the shiny new stadium and athletic facilities, but what was necessary was an earthquake safe facility. If we could not afford more than that given the donations we got and a realistic, conservative projection of future revenue, it should not have gone beyond that. This is potentially a mindblowingly huge issue.
5. Ursa you may have more insight than I do, but I'm very concerned about ESP sales. Frankly, I would expect them to be more insulated from the performance of the football team. Pure speculation on my part, but I would think ESP sales mostly involve the very faithful alums who want to do something good for the school, not the fair-weather fan who will decide to pull the trigger based on a successful football season. The latter to me would tend to be the walk up fans or the ones that buy season tickets at the cheaper end of the spectrum. I just wonder if, even if we do win, the ESP sales are going to go up dramatically or if most who would ever buy already have. I fear they may have overestimated that all important market.

I hate to be doom and gloom, but I just don't see things going well right now and too many people are looking at winning as a panacea. I don't think it would solve everything, but even if it would, counting on it is a huge misteake. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like a department that got out of their depth.

sycasey;842187744 said:

---

Yeah, but the Giants and Niners still got decent attendance even in the down years. The Giants in particular are good at marketing. Cal athletics is bad at it.

---

Cal still drew decent crowds against NU, tOSU and PSU. For a down year, 58k, a sell-out and 50k aren't bad. I'd say given the record and projections, that's very good.

beelzebear;842187758 said:

---

Cal still drew decent crowds against NU, tOSU and PSU. For a down year, 58k, a sell-out and 50k aren't bad. I'd say given the record and projections, that's very good.

---

The telling game is this week. tOSU travels VERY well and there are a ton of NU grads in the Bay Area. PSU was...well...the first game of the new era so had the curiosity factor.

Lets see how we do against a Pac-12 opponent we always see and which doesn't travel well. I fear under 45K....but really hope I am wrong.

socaltownie;842187762 said:

---

The telling game is this week. tOSU travels VERY well and there are a ton of NU grads in the Bay Area. PSU was...well...the first game of the new era so had the curiosity factor.

Lets see how we do against a Pac-12 opponent we always see and which doesn't travel well. I fear under 45K....but really hope I am wrong.

---

WSU is homecoming...except a decent crowd but not a sell out.

I think Cal will draw in the 50k's+ the rest of the season (WSU, Ore St, AZ). U$C will sell out.

OaktownBear;842187756 said:

---

I have big concerns as well, and you have essentially made me more worried. A couple points:
1. TV is TV. We can't and aren't going to say no. We may be able to get to a point where they set the schedule at the beginning, (I think even that will take the conference making a stand on the issue) but the days of a consistent schedule are gone. The problem I see is that we did not anticipate that this would make selling tickets more difficult. We took into account the added TV revenue, but did not factor in the offset.
2. It is also clear that we have gone after advertising revenue that erodes the game day experience without taking into account the negative consequences of that either.
3. Our marketing strategy seems to be completely generic without taking into account anything unique to Cal. (I also have to say I "love" this new March to Victory gimmick campaign where the athletic department essentially bets our fans that our team is going to lose).
4. This is the biggie. Putting a bet down on the success of the football program is colossally moronic. It is very clear that we put a huge financial bet on winning at a high level and being able to not just fill the stadium, but fill the stadium at a very high price. I am dumbfounded by this. The athletic department should not be essentially taking our peak success over the past 50 years, and projecting we do even better and then using that as a financing model. This is a sport, for goodness sake. You need to look at historical revenue as a baseline and view anything above that as gravy. If you do that, and it means you need to cut some sports, you cut them. I cannot believe we are relying on the ESP program after Oakland's experience with PSL's. Frankly, we were pretty much lead to believe that donations were going to cover the whole thing and that is obviously not true. We all love the shiny new stadium and athletic facilities, but what was necessary was an earthquake safe facility. If we could not afford more than that given the donations we got and a realistic, conservative projection of future revenue, it should not have gone beyond that. This is potentially a mindblowingly huge issue.
5. Ursa you may have more insight than I do, but I'm very concerned about ESP sales. Frankly, I would expect them to be more insulated from the performance of the football team. Pure speculation on my part, but I would think ESP sales mostly involve the very faithful alums who want to do something good for the school, not the fair-weather fan who will decide to pull the trigger based on a successful football season. The latter to me would tend to be the walk up fans or the ones that buy season tickets at the cheaper end of the spectrum. I just wonder if, even if we do win, the ESP sales are going to go up dramatically or if most who would ever buy already have. I fear they may have overestimated that all important market.

I hate to be doom and gloom, but I just don't see things going well right now and too many people are looking at winning as a panacea. I don't think it would solve everything, but even if it would, counting on it is a huge misteake. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like a department that got out of their depth.

---

that is my concern. The ESP/season tix structure should be designed so that the ESP volume was essentially equal to the expected number of "faithful even if 0-12 fans" sandy thought she had at various price points.

HaasBear04;842187748 said:

---

What exactly is there to market to a non- cal alum?

---

Good question and I don't think there are good answers.
Cal directly competes with the 49er's, Giants, Raiders, and A's.
It's more difficult to market to non-alumni than most schools along with Northwestern, Rutgers, Boston College, and Maryland.

Oregon, on the other hand, competes with the local high schools.

Oh yeah, forgot about the Golden St. Warriors. Let's just throw them into the mix.

OaktownBear;842187756 said:

---

5. Ursa you may have more insight than I do, but I'm very concerned about ESP sales. Frankly, I would expect them to be more insulated from the performance of the football team. Pure speculation on my part, but I would think ESP sales mostly involve the very faithful alums who want to do something good for the school, not the fair-weather fan who will decide to pull the trigger based on a successful football season. The latter to me would tend to be the walk up fans or the ones that buy season tickets at the cheaper end of the spectrum. I just wonder if, even if we do win, the ESP sales are going to go up dramatically or if most who would ever buy already have. I fear they may have overestimated that all important market.

I hate to be doom and gloom, but I just don't see things going well right now and too many people are looking at winning as a panacea. I don't think it would solve everything, but even if it would, counting on it is a huge misteake. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like a department that got out of their depth.

---

Couldn't agree more, Oaktown. In terms of the ESP buyers, I think they fall into 2 categories: those who are loyal Blues (such as myself). We donate to the AD regularly, and shifting some of that money to ESP's (and increasing the total) was a no-brainer. The other group is more "iffy" fans who were intrigued by the shiny new Clubs, etc. and the promise of a top-level team (wasn't the SAHPC going to guarantee that?). They are not likely to remain. Also, because there is no commitment beyond year-to-year, there is no way to rely on the revenue from ESP sales. Right now the AD is looking to market some ESP seats to corporations in the same way that pro teams do luxury boxes. Might work in the short term, but it will further erode the difference between college and pro sports and (I fear) be counterproductive in the long run.

I looked at the college football schedule on saturday-decided to watch LSU and Cal -but had dozens of choices all at the same time. The market is saturated. I think seeing games live becomes 1) people who want to be on campus for the experience-hard core Old Blues 2) people and or families who get a last minute ticket at $10 (the Northwestern model) and 3) bandwagon alums and community drawn by a winning program. Number three is the only one that seems like it would be a significant driver for revenue.

beelzebear;842187758 said:

---

Cal still drew decent crowds against NU, tOSU and PSU. For a down year, 58k, a sell-out and 50k aren't bad. I'd say given the record and projections, that's very good.

---

That's true -- it's still certainly better than in the pre-Tedford years.

UrsaMajor;842187698 said:

---

The housing problem is even more difficult because Cal is an urban campus, where the Furd is a farm (they own a butt-load of land that they used to develop faculty housing; we don't). I'm not sure that I agree that they have inherent advantages over us in terms of competing on the field. For decades, Stanford was a mediocre program w/ an occasional breakthrough. Their success is currently only 4 year old (about the same length of time as Tedford's, although we never quite made the BCS). Ultimately, winning MUST be part of the equation, otherwise we will be relegated to (in Bruce Snyder's words) "selling the sizzle, but not the steak." The "mad scientist" idea works for a year, maybe 2, but then fans want results. I suppose we can go all Bill Veeck and have crazy give aways, or naked cheerleaders, or "blow up disco" nights, but somehow, I don't think that puts butts in the seats long term.

---

I don't know about u Ursa, but I might attend another 7:30 game if there were naked cheerleaders in the stadium!

UrsaMajor;842187603 said:

---

This is not a post about the performance on the field so far this year (except indirectly). While some of the games have been disappointing, I was expecting 1-3 after 4 games and we are 1-3 (OK, I had some hope we might pull out the Northwestern game, since it was a home opener against a possibly beatable team, and we were close). True, the PSU game was a downer (for a win), but we know that change is a work in progress.

My concern is around a larger issue. What I am hearing and seeing in the fan base and the Cal community, is not anger or frustration, but something much worse: apathy. A nationally televised game against a top-5 team, and nearly 1/2 of the stadium is OSU. A 1/2 empty stadium for PSU, declining ESP revenue. This is a sign of a community that is starting not to care, and with the debt we owe for the stadium + the reliance of the AD on football revenue, this is potentially VERY serious.

I think there are several reasons for this. The last several years of the Tedford era were not only disappointing, but worse, they were BORING. No one wants to spend $30 to sit and be bored. Although Dykes' offense is very exciting, it is going to take a while for that to catch on w/ fans. But I don't know how much time we have. A second problem is the constant shifting of game times (and sometimes even game days) to accommodate TV. I know dozens of Old Blues who aren't renewing season tickets because they wind up not being able to use them (e.g., when a 1 PM game gets changed to 7:30 at the last minute). I know that TV $ is crucial to the budget, but if the trade-off is to lose the fan base, you wind up televising games in 1/2 empty stadia, and how long will the networks want that? Look at Stanford, they can't even fill a sub-compact stadium with a winning team. Are we headed in that direction?

So what's the solution? I think two things need to happen. Dykes needs to have a winning team sooner rather than later. It may be unfair to him, but there it is. Once we start winning, at least most of the fan base are likely to support the team. Secondly, I think the AD's of the conference need to band together and bargain with the TV gods around scheduling. If the NFL can schedule games at the same time and televise them regionally, so can the Pac-12. Or at least get the schedule in place at the beginning of the year and not a week before the game.

Our financial position as an athletic department doesn't allow for an unsuccessful football program. Period.

---

Keep in mind that I agree with your concerns in principle while I point out a few things.

1) The pac-12 network $$ are guaranteed to each school independently of attendance or # of games televised because the network does not draw income from attendance. The network will televise games regardless of attendance because it is contracted to it's at home clientele not in stadium clientele. IOWs, all they care about is the number of folks watching at home.

2) I am perfectly OK with having the same problem Stanford has as long as it means we are winning like Stanford is.

I've laid this out several time so until the Cal Athletic Department gets a clue Cal will be mediocre and fail to draw.

There are two NFL teams, two MLB teams, one NBA team, one NHL team, one MLS team in the bay area that doesn't include the minor league teams.

If you want to stand out the Cal game day experience needs to be just that a unique experience, one where you can bring small kids and have them develop great memories and develop loyalty even if they don't attend the school.

The game in and of itself isn't enough unless you are winning.

Hell the Giants were poor this year and their fan base was just as rabid because there are built in experiences with being a Giants fan that go being just being a Giants fan. Now to be fair they have an incredible stadium an San Francisco in a part of town that has become hip.

Cal needs to get the casual fan because the fan experience is great so that means taking over the campus and having booths like an EA sports experience or football events, having tours on campus, having former players greeting people.

It's a moral imperative that the Cal fan is bombarded with more than just the game experience. Cal needs to have giant video screens coming into the stadium, even have a screen showing history of Cal football reliving events that happened on that particular day.

It's the way the market is. Look at the A's the provide a winning product and can draw worth a lick whereas the Giants can sell out despite losing 85+ games

socaltownie;842187653 said:

---

To me that is the problem. The AD has to step back and work through the following......

A) The Football program must generate surplus earnings
B) To provide surplus earnings we must have paying buts in seats (and ideally good number with higher net worth/disposable income to entice sponsors making analytic (as opposed to emotional) choices with sponsorship $$$.
C) Cal is at a competitive disadvantage in the emerging Pac-12. It plays in the same division as 2 schools with unique advantages (Oregon essentially as a marketing vehicle for Nike and Furd as the only "smallish elite liberal arts" university" playing decent BCS football.
D) So a strategy for "B" predicated on "winning" is just not that likely.

Luckily, there is hope. RIGHT ACROSS THE BAY the Giants are showing that one CAN draw (this year, 3,326,796) even if you are 10 games under 500 and out of it as of mid-July. You do so by RELENTLESSLY making it "fun" and marketing what you have OTHER than Ws.

FOR EXAMPLE...if I was head of marketing for the day I would have relentlessly marketing Sonny and Franklin as some sort of offensive mad geniuses. They should have done an ad "Frankelstein's Lab" as they unvield crazy diagrams. They might not win but you would see crazy "stuff" each and every weekend. The "fan zone" on Maxwell could be radically expanded and enhanced, up to and including the option to "check your kid in" for supervised activities while Mom and Dad "enjoy" 4 hours+ of TV football. a Few of the unused ESP seats should be "raffled off" as a "dream suite" for 2 lucky fans in the prol. section. ANYTHING and everything to build excitement so that attending is seen as important _IF_ we are failing to win games.

Would winning be the best cure? Absolutely! But the powers that be have got to start understanding that Cal is playing with at least a bit of a handicap. We need to put people into the stadium EVEN IF we are not winning and playing a team like WSU.

---

Only winning puts fannies in seats. With that in mind wouldn't the #1 priority be finding/stealing a DC at seasons end that would attract new recruits? That will cost a lot less money than empty seats.

BBBGOBEARS;842188529 said:

---

Only winning puts fannies in seats. With that in mind wouldn't the #1 priority be finding/stealing a DC at seasons end that would attract new recruits? That will cost a lot less money than empty seats.

---

Warriors still managed to put butts in seats during all those years of suckage. Granted, they also made the seats dirt cheap, but the real fans did all show up. Honestly, I have no idea how they managed to do that though. Prior for the second Don Nelson era, the team wasn't all that exciting. I went because they were soooo cheap, not so much because of the product out on the court.

But I would add one key element. We cannot draw the allegiance of the casual fan (without winning perennially) unless we DISTINGUISH the experience from that of the pro teams in the area. Marketing like the Giants won't work, because on that level, we can't compete w/ the Giants, 49ers, or even A's. We need to market the COLLEGE experience--picnicking on campus; the Band, history of Cal football (as you suggest), Chris Schenkel's "color and pageantry of college football." Much of what goes on now runs counter to that.

Heart: you are right that Pac-12 network (and ESPN and Fox and CBS) will broadcast the games regardless of the butts in the seats, but the next time the contract is up for negotiation, the empty stadia will be a major factor in the negotiations. Depend on it.

UrsaMajor;842188581 said:

---

But I would add one key element. We cannot draw the allegiance of the casual fan (without winning perennially) unless we DISTINGUISH the experience from that of the pro teams in the area. Marketing like the Giants won't work, because on that level, we can't compete w/ the Giants, 49ers, or even A's. We need to market the COLLEGE experience--picnicking on campus; the Band, history of Cal football (as you suggest), Chris Schenkel's "color and pageantry of college football." Much of what goes on now runs counter to that.

Heart: you are right that Pac-12 network (and ESPN and Fox and CBS) will broadcast the games regardless of the butts in the seats, but the next time the contract is up for negotiation, the empty stadia will be a major factor in the negotiations. Depend on it.

---

I completely agree with that. Every product is unique and different. It is just to suggest that adopting the stance "wining is the only thing that works" is just going to lead to HUGE disappointment.

OK....so lets brainstorm here for a minute. Lots of great things about UCB on a fall day but let me offer.....

A) We have GREAT weather. Lets face it. September and October are, by far, the best months of the year weather wise.

B) We have a WONDERFUL campus with LOTS of grass and open space. Less than in decades past but it is still a place with lots of options.

C) We have a history of being a community with an appreciation for great food.

So.........

What if the next afternoon game why not make it

"Food trucks/booths and picnic/tailgate day". Set them up dispersed in multiple locations all over campus. Get a map out on line. Get sports participants to man info booths in case people want to know where to go for a certain truck or booth. ENCOURAGE folks to come, grab some good grub and picnic on the campus. Continue that theme by encouraging a set number of trucks to set up on Whittier and, after the game, encourage attendees to come down and purchase some food and hang out with fellow cal fans.

THAT is the way you treat your fan base. Nothing there about winning and losing. Lots about doing what can't be replicated by the niners or the raiders - enjoying some good grub in a beautiful setting before (and after) the game. Hell, let the Greeks get in on the action - encouraging THEM to contact/contract with food trucks to set up shop at some of the houses to get the "southside" crowd.