[HisKneeWasDown]

over time one can loosely track the "benefit" if the AD continues to publish its annual report, here's the one from 2014-15

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

Interesting. I'm a B/C supporter and I've never seen these reports. No wonder they have trouble raising money; they can't even keep in touch with the people who do give.

That pie chart is very interesting; I've wondered about that.

[HisKneeWasDown]

over time one can loosely track the "benefit" if the AD continues to publish its annual report, here's the one from 2014-15

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

Interesting. I'm a B/C supporter and I've never seen these reports. No wonder they have trouble raising money; they can't even keep in touch with the people who do give.

That pie chart is very interesting; I've wondered about that.

[Stymie]

Nae Problemo, HKWD

Just up your annual contribution to $25K and you'll get all the pie charts you want.

Stymie

[Stymie]

Nae Problemo, HKWD

Just up your annual contribution to $25K and you'll get all the pie charts you want.

Stymie

[HisKneeWasDown]

Just up your annual contribution to $25K and you'll get all the pie charts you want.

Haha.

That Venn diagram is also very interesting. There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

I wonder why this is? I wonder if they are careful not to compete with the main development office? I just noticed the AD has its own development office. I know I get mailers from both.

[HisKneeWasDown]

Just up your annual contribution to $25K and you'll get all the pie charts you want.

Haha.

That Venn diagram is also very interesting. There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

I wonder why this is? I wonder if they are careful not to compete with the main development office? I just noticed the AD has its own development office. I know I get mailers from both.

[winflop]

There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...not gonna stop me not one bit.  We have the finest athletics program in the nation, hands down. It produces world-class athletes and great people like no other.

[winflop]

There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...not gonna stop me not one bit.  We have the finest athletics program in the nation, hands down. It produces world-class athletes and great people like no other.

[82lsju]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=16476.msg187115#msg187115 date=1485132160]
There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...not gonna stop me not one bit.  We have the finest athletics program in the nation, hands down. It produces world-class athletes and great people like no other.
[/quote]

so there are at least three of us on the Cardboard, when I saw that chart I wondered if it was constructed correctly.....

I also find it interesting that there are almost as many "friends" as "alumni" donors

[82lsju]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=16476.msg187115#msg187115 date=1485132160]
There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...not gonna stop me not one bit.  We have the finest athletics program in the nation, hands down. It produces world-class athletes and great people like no other.
[/quote]

so there are at least three of us on the Cardboard, when I saw that chart I wondered if it was constructed correctly.....

I also find it interesting that there are almost as many "friends" as "alumni" donors

[TreesAndBirds]

I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

[TreesAndBirds]

I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

[indiancardinal]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=16476.msg187115#msg187115 date=1485132160]
There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...
[/quote]

I wonder how many of these 900 non athlete alum are also LSJUMB alum.

[indiancardinal]

[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=16476.msg187115#msg187115 date=1485132160]
There are only 900 non-student athlete alums who give to B/C? I'm in very rare company.

As am I...
[/quote]

I wonder how many of these 900 non athlete alum are also LSJUMB alum.

[82lsju]

I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

where??

[82lsju]

I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

where??

[Farm93]

I sit in 115. There are two seats next to me that have been unsold and empty for all but 1 season since the renovation. Pretty sure charging this seat tax isn't gonna miraculously result in those getting sold. And we plan on reducing the 4 we have to 2. Pretty sure those 2 will also go unsold.

If the twisted logic here is that by charging more you'll kick out the dead wood who doesn't attend, then you should reward renewals where people actually show up. You know they track those barcodes (I get a friendly spam email thanking me for attending). Increase prices, then refund a portion for each game you actually attend.

Note that after MBB started charging the seat tax they had to send out an appeal to people to come to the games. The fear was that there would be more purchasing by business people to give out as perks to clients. Really not the fan base you want to build.

Wouldn't shock me at all if those 2 seats are sold, just not occupied.  Does anyone sit there during USC and/or UCB games?  If yes, those seats are likely sold to someone that only attends select major games.  Your attendance discount idea is noteworthy.  AD could reduce the mandatory donation by attendance.  That might be nice.

The 2 unoccupied seats you note are likely the type of season seat holders the mandatory donations are designed to address.  Come more often, sell your unused seats, or get out of the way.  More or less what I need to assess too, as my OC-based obligations allowed me to only attend 2 home games this season.

My guess based on the location would be absentee ticket holders.  OR they may use the tickets to get in and then stay in the concourse or sit in other locations in the stadium.  For two years, when my kids were young, we would do that.  We took our kids to games and then sat in the last row or two of GA so they could play zone.  But based on the barcodes we were right there in 215. 

The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

[Farm93]

I sit in 115. There are two seats next to me that have been unsold and empty for all but 1 season since the renovation. Pretty sure charging this seat tax isn't gonna miraculously result in those getting sold. And we plan on reducing the 4 we have to 2. Pretty sure those 2 will also go unsold.

If the twisted logic here is that by charging more you'll kick out the dead wood who doesn't attend, then you should reward renewals where people actually show up. You know they track those barcodes (I get a friendly spam email thanking me for attending). Increase prices, then refund a portion for each game you actually attend.

Note that after MBB started charging the seat tax they had to send out an appeal to people to come to the games. The fear was that there would be more purchasing by business people to give out as perks to clients. Really not the fan base you want to build.

Wouldn't shock me at all if those 2 seats are sold, just not occupied.  Does anyone sit there during USC and/or UCB games?  If yes, those seats are likely sold to someone that only attends select major games.  Your attendance discount idea is noteworthy.  AD could reduce the mandatory donation by attendance.  That might be nice.

The 2 unoccupied seats you note are likely the type of season seat holders the mandatory donations are designed to address.  Come more often, sell your unused seats, or get out of the way.  More or less what I need to assess too, as my OC-based obligations allowed me to only attend 2 home games this season.

My guess based on the location would be absentee ticket holders.  OR they may use the tickets to get in and then stay in the concourse or sit in other locations in the stadium.  For two years, when my kids were young, we would do that.  We took our kids to games and then sat in the last row or two of GA so they could play zone.  But based on the barcodes we were right there in 215. 

The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16476.msg187151#msg187151 date=1485177341]
I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

where??
[/quote]

T&B added it to this thread. Check the top.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=16476.msg187151#msg187151 date=1485177341]
I set up a poll to determine whether Cardboard members contribute to the Buck/Cardinal club. Maybe as a group we have more influence than we know.

where??
[/quote]

T&B added it to this thread. Check the top.

[fullmetal]

Oh nice, there's a remove vote option!  I corrected mine :)

[fullmetal]

Oh nice, there's a remove vote option!  I corrected mine :)

[BurgXXIII]

The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

What I fear is that, going into 2017 without most of our offense (CMAC) and a QB who has yet to run a play in college, the AD decided to throw the dice now rather than wait to see next year's outcome.

[BurgXXIII]

The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

What I fear is that, going into 2017 without most of our offense (CMAC) and a QB who has yet to run a play in college, the AD decided to throw the dice now rather than wait to see next year's outcome.

[Treebound]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

As for hoops, I think returning more seats to the family plan and other discounted approaches needs to happen.  Maples is a shell of what it once was.  Few students, no band, tree or dollies, quiet alums is not a fun atmosphere for Fans or our team.

[Treebound]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

As for hoops, I think returning more seats to the family plan and other discounted approaches needs to happen.  Maples is a shell of what it once was.  Few students, no band, tree or dollies, quiet alums is not a fun atmosphere for Fans or our team.

[76lsjumb]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

What about those of us who are collateral damage, i.e., the people who DO show up for all of the games, DO contribute some [albeit not the required "donation" amount] but are getting booted out as well -- most likely to seats that are NOT going to be as good as those that others in the non-seat license sections get to retain [assuming they're not going to relocate us to our mirror image seats on the sunny side if that means displacing an existing season ticket holder from those seats?  Are you fine with that, too, since the notion of rewarding loyalty and/or attendance obviously ain't going to happen?  Perhaps you would like to pay our seat licenses as well...

[76lsjumb]

I agree with Farm93.  Most, if not all, of the seats between the 20's on the shady side are sold out.  Many of these "fans" only show up to certain games and some do not donate to B/C.  The AD has modeled this out and made the decision to require donation for more sections.  I'm fine with that as we pay less than most major programs and there are plenty of other good seats for people to move to.  I do like the idea of discounting for attendance as it rewards the loyal Fans.  Also know that tenure as a season ticket holder, being an alum, varsity athlete status, and some other criteria also help. 

What about those of us who are collateral damage, i.e., the people who DO show up for all of the games, DO contribute some [albeit not the required "donation" amount] but are getting booted out as well -- most likely to seats that are NOT going to be as good as those that others in the non-seat license sections get to retain [assuming they're not going to relocate us to our mirror image seats on the sunny side if that means displacing an existing season ticket holder from those seats?  Are you fine with that, too, since the notion of rewarding loyalty and/or attendance obviously ain't going to happen?  Perhaps you would like to pay our seat licenses as well...

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16476.msg187165#msg187165 date=1485189112]
The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

What I fear is that, going into 2017 without most of our offense (CMAC) and a QB who has yet to run a play in college, the AD decided to throw the dice now rather than wait to see next year's outcome.
[/quote]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

Pull "us" out of the equation and this is an easy call. And it wouldn't shock me at all to learn that some consultant or other got a nice little check to point out the obvious.  Do it in 2017.  Economy is good.  Stock prices, especially in tech, are solid.  Bay Area housing is up.  Interest rates are low.  Team is good.  Coach is amazing, and likely to get very expensive to keep in the near future.  How old are your mega donors again?  Yeah, do it now.  Like with any price increase some will be priced out.  Some will feel betrayed.  How many customers are ever happy about prices increases?

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16476.msg187165#msg187165 date=1485189112]
The Maples donations were late.  They introduced it as the down cycle was obvious to all.  If the AD took anything from that experience it was to make sure to introduce donation requirements in good years.  2017's schedule and team talent are probably as close to ideal as the AD will get for something like this.

What I fear is that, going into 2017 without most of our offense (CMAC) and a QB who has yet to run a play in college, the AD decided to throw the dice now rather than wait to see next year's outcome.
[/quote]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

Pull "us" out of the equation and this is an easy call. And it wouldn't shock me at all to learn that some consultant or other got a nice little check to point out the obvious.  Do it in 2017.  Economy is good.  Stock prices, especially in tech, are solid.  Bay Area housing is up.  Interest rates are low.  Team is good.  Coach is amazing, and likely to get very expensive to keep in the near future.  How old are your mega donors again?  Yeah, do it now.  Like with any price increase some will be priced out.  Some will feel betrayed.  How many customers are ever happy about prices increases?

[SeattleTree]

I've had my shady side, between the 20s season tickets since the new stadium opened.  I've even managed to hold on to them for 7 years after moving from the Bay Area to Seattle, coming down for 3-4 games a year and finding a home for the tickets when I couldn't attend.  But I can't justify the $4,000 increase in ticket prices for a pair of tickets.  As much as it pains me, I'll either have to move to less expensive seats or ditch them entirely, and buy single game tickets for the games I plan to attend. Very, very disappointing.

[SeattleTree]

I've had my shady side, between the 20s season tickets since the new stadium opened.  I've even managed to hold on to them for 7 years after moving from the Bay Area to Seattle, coming down for 3-4 games a year and finding a home for the tickets when I couldn't attend.  But I can't justify the $4,000 increase in ticket prices for a pair of tickets.  As much as it pains me, I'll either have to move to less expensive seats or ditch them entirely, and buy single game tickets for the games I plan to attend. Very, very disappointing.

[82lsju]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

if they required donation program is a net money maker I would expect it to expand to some of the sunny side sections (at least 134 and 132) in 2019

[82lsju]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

if they required donation program is a net money maker I would expect it to expand to some of the sunny side sections (at least 134 and 132) in 2019

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16476.msg187254#msg187254 date=1485231835]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

if they required donation program is a net money maker I would expect it to expand to some of the sunny side sections (at least 134 and 132) in 2019
[/quote]

While apparently a tough concept for some on this board to accept, your prediction seem is obvious and inevitable.  The 50 yard section thing was tolerated when it was $500 for multiple years, admittedly most of those folks were giving more than $500 anyway.  Now the AD is doing a bit of expansion to the other highly desirable seat locations.

If the winning team stays popular then more areas will get donation requirements in 2019 or 2021.  This is an easy future to predict because most of the other big profile and successful FBS ADs have successively traversed this path significantly increasing their annual revenue and overall budgets.

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=16476.msg187254#msg187254 date=1485231835]

Well 2018 would not be possible because of the loser even year schedule.  So it is either now or 2019.  If one of these QBs makes it happen then they can easily boost the tiers in 2019. If the team slips and doesn't stay at a high level, then even more important psychologically to get this donation stuff established now.

if they required donation program is a net money maker I would expect it to expand to some of the sunny side sections (at least 134 and 132) in 2019
[/quote]

While apparently a tough concept for some on this board to accept, your prediction seem is obvious and inevitable.  The 50 yard section thing was tolerated when it was $500 for multiple years, admittedly most of those folks were giving more than $500 anyway.  Now the AD is doing a bit of expansion to the other highly desirable seat locations.

If the winning team stays popular then more areas will get donation requirements in 2019 or 2021.  This is an easy future to predict because most of the other big profile and successful FBS ADs have successively traversed this path significantly increasing their annual revenue and overall budgets.

[Leftcoast]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

There's a reason my family is not 49ers season ticket holders and if Stanford's aspiration is to trod the road of being merely 49ers-lite than they'll get 49ers-lite style fans.  There won't be many families and locals walking the path to semi-pro ball beside them.

Maybe I'm wrong and the winning seasons will be endless, those lost families will just switch to watching on TV and remain excited about Stanford football, and the big corporate dollar new fans will flow into the emptier stadium and sit next to other plutocrats who also just come out for the big games. 

But what a weak dream to dream and a more likely outcome is Stanford stadium in 2027 will feel just like Maples 2017.  And that's just sad.

Sometimes I miss Ted Leland, or at least some aspects of Ted Leland's reign.

[Leftcoast]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

There's a reason my family is not 49ers season ticket holders and if Stanford's aspiration is to trod the road of being merely 49ers-lite than they'll get 49ers-lite style fans.  There won't be many families and locals walking the path to semi-pro ball beside them.

Maybe I'm wrong and the winning seasons will be endless, those lost families will just switch to watching on TV and remain excited about Stanford football, and the big corporate dollar new fans will flow into the emptier stadium and sit next to other plutocrats who also just come out for the big games. 

But what a weak dream to dream and a more likely outcome is Stanford stadium in 2027 will feel just like Maples 2017.  And that's just sad.

Sometimes I miss Ted Leland, or at least some aspects of Ted Leland's reign.

[CTcard]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

... you can demonstrate some Stanford-quality leadership by stopping the financial arms race in football. There's too much money in college football, and you're just fueling the arms race by this price move.

I put these two quotations together because I think they are expressing the same thought. If I am mangling things, please correct me.

I agree with the distaste at the professionalization of college sports and the excess money in college football. But, at the very least, it seems worth noting that the Stanford AD is in a very tough place in this regard.

Some years ago, Stanford did take a fairly voluble role attacking the college football arms race, notably when Ted Leland was the AD. He made various statements to the effect that Stanford wasn't going to take part in the arms race, wasn't going to pay market price for coaches, etc. Outside of losing and Shaw calling for a punt at the opponent's 40 yard line, I don't think there is anything I've seen rile the fan base more. I believe the term surrender-monkey emerged for dear Mr. Leland over this approach and he has become one of the more reviled figures among Stanford fandom. And of course this stand against the arms race didn't inspire anyone else to follow suit and didn't last.


While theoretically there are other options, my sense of reality is that Stanford's choices are to keep spending money at the level of everyone else or start losing a lot more, particularly in the sports that are most competitive. To keep the spending levels up, there has to be revenue. I suspect that this may not be the best line for finding that revenue considering the associated drawbacks (foremost among those the prospect of diminished attendance), and somehow the request for a "donation" in order to be allowed to then spend the money to buy a ticket seems particularly galling. Still, I have to admit I don't know what would be the best route to spur revenue.

[CTcard]

And thus the professionalization of college sports continues ...

... you can demonstrate some Stanford-quality leadership by stopping the financial arms race in football. There's too much money in college football, and you're just fueling the arms race by this price move.

I put these two quotations together because I think they are expressing the same thought. If I am mangling things, please correct me.

I agree with the distaste at the professionalization of college sports and the excess money in college football. But, at the very least, it seems worth noting that the Stanford AD is in a very tough place in this regard.

Some years ago, Stanford did take a fairly voluble role attacking the college football arms race, notably when Ted Leland was the AD. He made various statements to the effect that Stanford wasn't going to take part in the arms race, wasn't going to pay market price for coaches, etc. Outside of losing and Shaw calling for a punt at the opponent's 40 yard line, I don't think there is anything I've seen rile the fan base more. I believe the term surrender-monkey emerged for dear Mr. Leland over this approach and he has become one of the more reviled figures among Stanford fandom. And of course this stand against the arms race didn't inspire anyone else to follow suit and didn't last.


While theoretically there are other options, my sense of reality is that Stanford's choices are to keep spending money at the level of everyone else or start losing a lot more, particularly in the sports that are most competitive. To keep the spending levels up, there has to be revenue. I suspect that this may not be the best line for finding that revenue considering the associated drawbacks (foremost among those the prospect of diminished attendance), and somehow the request for a "donation" in order to be allowed to then spend the money to buy a ticket seems particularly galling. Still, I have to admit I don't know what would be the best route to spur revenue.