Letter from Furd AD explaining decision. Also, will talk to donors individually (restructuring donation structure to avoid tax?).

Cal?

I'd like to see Cal lower ticket prices for tax reasons and also for performance. If Cal got into the habit of apologizing to fans for subpar seasons with significant price reductions, and built that into their model, it would go a long way toward instilling some much-needed discipline around giving fans winning seasons and making that a priority. Raising prices after good seasons tends to build fan momentum

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

Yup, lower ticket prices for all of the bench seating until the stands are full. And then don't raise 'em again until the team finishes the season in the top 25.

BearSD said:

---

Yup, lower ticket prices for all of the bench seating until the stands are full. And then don't raise 'em again until the team finishes the season in the top 25.

---

so...you're suggesting making tickets free?

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

I'm glad we don't play Notre Dame every year. ND uses the game as a recruiting tool telling recruits their parents and friends can see them in person every other year. I've noticed ND offers to many of the guys we want. It's difficult enough fighting off the Furd, Ucla, USC among others. The Pac12 has plenty of intra-conference competition for players.

Bear8 said:

---

I'm glad we don't play Notre Dame every year. ND uses the game as a recruiting tool telling recruits their parents and friends can see them in person every other year. I've noticed ND offers to many of the guys we want. It's difficult enough fighting off the Furd, Ucla, USC among others. The Pac12 has plenty of intra-conference competition for players.

---

So your telling me that unlike Furd (and ASU and USC who also play ND annually), we are afraid to compete with Notre Dame? BTW, Furd and Notre Dame have similar battles, and Furd uses their trip to South Bend to mine mid-west recruits. And I said "a" Notre Dame, which doesn't necessarily mean Notre Dame. Indeed, Notre Dame in fact has no room on their schedule for Cal. But Cal simply doesn't have a consistent OOC that will guarantee a sell out.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bear8 said:

---

I'm glad we don't play Notre Dame every year. ND uses the game as a recruiting tool telling recruits their parents and friends can see them in person every other year. I've noticed ND offers to many of the guys we want. It's difficult enough fighting off the Furd, Ucla, USC among others. The Pac12 has plenty of intra-conference competition for players.

---

So your telling me that unlike Furd (and ASU and USC who also play ND annually), we are afraid to compete with Notre Dame? BTW, Furd and Notre Dame have similar battles, and Furd uses their trip to South Bend to mine mid-west recruits. And I said "a" Notre Dame, which doesn't necessarily mean Notre Dame. Indeed, Notre Dame in fact has no room on their schedule for Cal. But Cal simply doesn't have a consistent OOC that will guarantee a sell out.

---

ASU has played ND twice (one home and home) in the last 18 years. Of the P12 schools, only SC and LSJU play ND on an annual basis.

iwantwinners said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Yup, lower ticket prices for all of the bench seating until the stands are full. And then don't raise 'em again until the team finishes the season in the top 25.

---

so...you're suggesting making tickets free?

---

Forever?

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Bear8 said:

---

I'm glad we don't play Notre Dame every year. ND uses the game as a recruiting tool telling recruits their parents and friends can see them in person every other year. I've noticed ND offers to many of the guys we want. It's difficult enough fighting off the Furd, Ucla, USC among others. The Pac12 has plenty of intra-conference competition for players.

---

So your telling me that unlike Furd (and ASU and USC who also play ND annually), we are afraid to compete with Notre Dame? BTW, Furd and Notre Dame have similar battles, and Furd uses their trip to South Bend to mine mid-west recruits. And I said "a" Notre Dame, which doesn't necessarily mean Notre Dame. Indeed, Notre Dame in fact has no room on their schedule for Cal. But Cal simply doesn't have a consistent OOC that will guarantee a sell out.

---

ASU has played ND twice (one home and home) in the last 18 years. Of the P12 schools, only SC and LSJU play ND on an annual basis.

---

yes my mistake. For some reason, ND has the ASU flag on the stadium wall with SC and Furd, so I assumed (I know) that they were a regular opponent rather than looking at the schedule. Wonder why the keep the flag still-up?

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

Didn't Furd give away student tickets at one point..and nobody showed.

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Exactly. Stanford's proposal was completely self-serving.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Yup, lower ticket prices for all of the bench seating until the stands are full. And then don't raise 'em again until the team finishes the season in the top 25.

---

so...you're suggesting making tickets free?

---

Forever?

---

Has this happened yet?

Quote:

---

Cal's financially strapped athletic department is considering selling alcohol at football and basketball games as well as the naming rights to Memorial Stadium in an effort to boost revenue amid a massive budget shortfall.

---

This, not necessarily lowering ticket prices (though I'd appreciate it), would actually incentivize me going to games.

Nihilist

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

New tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

YBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

Unfortunately, this is one more thread where the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Stanfurd is making moves Cal wishes it could make, and yet another reminder that their football program is still three or four floors above ours So what if they don't sell out. I don't think I've been at a sold-out conference game at Memorial since 2009. But I'd rather have coach Wilcox than Shaw and his smugness.

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

YBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

Quote:

---

so...you're suggesting making tickets free?

---

If Cal football can't fill the stands with free tickets, then how will the stadium debt ever get paid off? TV?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

HYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

A full(ish) CMS will help with recruiting no ?

going4roses said:

---

A full(ish) CMS will help with recruiting no ?

---

In this era, it is all about winning. Quality recruits want to play for a winning program. Recruits beget winning. Winning begets full stadiums. In other words, the answer to your question is: no.

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

HYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

---

What greener pastures do you think SC and UCLA would be considering?

Does that mean that our team doesn't care if CMS was sold out also? You don't think the team feeds off the energy that fans bring?

going4roses said:

---

Does that mean that our team doesn't care if CMS was sold out also? You don't think the team feeds off the energy that fans bring?

---

You asked if full stadiums would result in improved recruiting. I said no, improved recruiting would result from winning. The next logical question might be would full stadiums yield a winning program as the result of improved play due to an increase in excitement/energy. I would still say no because talent trumps motivation 99% of the time. Again... Winning, improved recruiting, full stadiums in that order.

GoldenBearofCalifornia said:

---

71Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

BHYBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

Paragraph 1 - For some reason, this is a concept that Cal fans have a hard time grasping.

Paragraph 2 - Good point. I suspect that we will see significant upheaval in 2024. For example, it would not surprise me at all if SC and UCLA take a long look at leaving the conference for greener pastures. (having said that, I still think that a Cal missed an opportunity to reset the schedule by moving the Big Game to Levi's)

---

What greener pastures do you think SC and UCLA would be considering?

---

I expect to see a football-only super conference comprised of the premier programs. SC and UCLA would certainly be considered due to their heritage and the size of the Southern California TV market.

"I expect to see a football-only super conference comprised of the premier programs. SC and UCLA would certainly be considered due to their heritage and the size of the Southern California TV market."

The most likely outcome.

I think you are right in this chicken and egg argument 71Bear, but I think you short change the "home field advantage" a bit...whatever that is. Sight lines, comfortable and familiar beds, knowing where the locker room is, stadium music to hype up, etc.

NVGolfingBear said:

---

I think you are right in this chicken and egg argument 71Bear, but I think you short change the "home field advantage" a bit...whatever that is. Sight lines, comfortable and familiar beds, knowing where the locker room is, stadium music to hype up, etc.

---

The question (as I interpreted it) was does a full stadium positively influence recruiting.

I suggested the answer is no. Improved play positively influences recruiting. A full stadium and a crappy program do nothing to enhance recruiting no matter how raucous the crowd may be each week.

Having said that, yes, I do agree in the existence of a home field advantage, especially when you put a quality team on the field.

Of course, I think we all agree that a full stadium full of screaming fans each week is unlikely if the team is terrible. Improve the talent and everything else will follow. In architecture, it is referred to as, "Form follows function". In football, it is "Full stadiums flows improved play which follows improved recruiting".

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

YBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

was case 2 offered? or was case 1 the only offer?

either way, what would cal got out if helping the furd balance its schedule?

from the furd perspective, balancing its schedule enabled it maintain a more constant year-to-year ticket sales (as opposed to the biom-bust-boom-bust) cycle it currently "enjoys"...this would mean the furd would likely see increased ticket revenues in their traditional bust years, thereby benefitting the farm (whether just its fb program, its ia, or the entire school at large)...

what advantage would altering the ticket cycle have provided cal, let alone off-set the extra benefit to the furd?

01Bear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

YBNew tax laws provide a good excuse for lots of things. Methinks the real reason is all the empty seats we see on a regular basis in the fall. If the stands were full they wouldn't be lowering prices, no matter the tax law changes. Supply and demand always prevails.

---

Don't disagree with your last sentence that in the long run that is what matters.

Two qualifications regarding your Methinks however: First, Furd dropped prices in areas that are sold out, like boxes, and the percentage drop appears to be tied to marginal tax rates. Second, Furd has a cyclical attendance issue. They sell out (or nearlysell out) most games in years which the Big Game, Note Dame Udub, and Oregon are visiting, which is in the same year, and have empty seats the following year. Cal btw has a similar problem though to a lesser degree since our out of conference schedule is being dumbed down, rather than having a Notre Dame draw at home every other year.

---

Yes, and Stanford asked us to correct the scheduling imbalance for both schools, but WE SAID NO!

---

To be clear, we said no because they were asking us to give up a Cal Big Game to play at Levi's. If they want to give up the Stanford Big Game to play on a neutral field (or play back to back Big Games in Berkeley) I think they'd get a different answer.

---

Your comment is rather disingenuous. In fact, LSJU asked Cal to push the Big Game that was scheduled at Berkeley back one year (thus pushing back the next Big Game scheduled for Stanford by one year also). This would have balanced the schedule for BOTH schools. Cal made a stupid mistake by not accepting the offer. Typical.........

---

You must be joking. And the reason the offer wasn't repeated the following year when the Big Game was scheduled for Stanford? I mean obviously it was such a fantastic idea I can't possibly imagine why Stanford didn't volunteer to "push back" their game a year.

---

It wouldn't matter which year we pushed back:

Case 1: 2014@ levis, 2015@ Cal, 2016@ Furd, repeat
Case 2: 2014 @ Cal, 2015 @ Levi's, 2016@ Furd, repeat

I wouldn't want to pursue pushing it back now because we don't know what will happen with the p12 schedule at the next media contract negotiation. Maybe we lose the 9 game conf schedule and/or the LA yearly games? Maybe the p12 expands. Then you potentially reshuffled the BG for nothing.

---

was case 2 offered? or was case 1 the only offer?

either way, what would cal got out if helping the furd balance its schedule?

---

not sure if Case 2 was offered. And it doesn't actually matter, as my point was there would be no difference between the two, so when the reshuffle happens is not a good reason for declining it.

And in fact, Case 1 would have benefited Cal more than Case 2 because we get hit by the odd/even year imbalance too. So case 1 would have fixed the imbalance at Cal starting in 2015, while case 2 would have fixed this starting in 2017. Case 1 and 2 would have affected Furd the same as they would get their schedule re-balanced in 2016 either way.

The argument against doing this would be that teams performances are cylical, and USC and Furd have typically been the best drawing games throughout the years. So that means put them in opposite years. But the other thing to note is that UW and Oregon have substantial financial resources over WSU and OSU, so the trend of those games being bigger might actually last a while. It's also worth noting that the even/odd issue really only manifested itself in 2005 when the 12th CFB game was approved on a yearly basis. Before that, the PX played 8 conference games with the 4 CA games guaranteed, so there was a rotation which CA schools we played @ home versus away (as in one was skipped every year).