[Goose]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I think you are correct that the conference and member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance (if they ever really did). They do prioritize making money, and they must not think that TV money is enough or attendance to the games would be free. Their actions in this case show very clearly they are revenue driven. One can argue that this price increase is ill-advised because of it's long term potential downsides, and I would certainly listen to those arguments. However, I just desire some assurance that this move is actually going to increase game revenue at all, and that there is some plan to measure this (alleged) increase. Doing the increase in a year where revenue will naturally increase (because of more and better home games) will tend to mask any effect of reduced ticket sales due to price increases. This makes it real easy for the marketing types to declare victory without asking "compared to what?". We have heard that "there is demand for tickets between the 20 yard lines". I ask, says who, and by what metrics? This may result in a sub-optimal pricing structure next year and in future years. Stanford fans are a bit quirky. The have, in general, above average disposable income. However, very few Stanford fans are truly "fanatic".  They DO drink chardonnay and clap politely for a good play (although I am a Northern Rhone man myself). They don't respond the same way as Texas fans, or even USC fans. Things that work in those markets often don't work at Stanford, so the AD has to be a bit careful in developing policies. I am not sure they have in this case. Stanford fans also tend to have long memories. Piss them off, they don't come back.

[Goose]

Sorry lefty but when this happened in conjunction with the refurbishing of Maples I did not see a measurable decline in attendance and at that time I was a loyal season ticket holder.  And it was before Dawkins became HC.

The decline began about 6 years later when Dawkins' teams started showing mediocrity year after year with a brand of basketball that was not energizing or exciting.

And the sad reality is that the conference and the member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance.  They are making their money off TV.

I think you are correct that the conference and member schools no longer prioritize fan attendance (if they ever really did). They do prioritize making money, and they must not think that TV money is enough or attendance to the games would be free. Their actions in this case show very clearly they are revenue driven. One can argue that this price increase is ill-advised because of it's long term potential downsides, and I would certainly listen to those arguments. However, I just desire some assurance that this move is actually going to increase game revenue at all, and that there is some plan to measure this (alleged) increase. Doing the increase in a year where revenue will naturally increase (because of more and better home games) will tend to mask any effect of reduced ticket sales due to price increases. This makes it real easy for the marketing types to declare victory without asking "compared to what?". We have heard that "there is demand for tickets between the 20 yard lines". I ask, says who, and by what metrics? This may result in a sub-optimal pricing structure next year and in future years. Stanford fans are a bit quirky. The have, in general, above average disposable income. However, very few Stanford fans are truly "fanatic".  They DO drink chardonnay and clap politely for a good play (although I am a Northern Rhone man myself). They don't respond the same way as Texas fans, or even USC fans. Things that work in those markets often don't work at Stanford, so the AD has to be a bit careful in developing policies. I am not sure they have in this case. Stanford fans also tend to have long memories. Piss them off, they don't come back.