Replies: 33
| visibility 1
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 4:05 PM
|
|
so it got them season tickets at $225/season.
From January but applies to today's discussion. Sorry if Germans.
"Clemson was the only public university in the Atlantic Coast Conference last year—and one of a dwindling number across the country—not charging a specific student fee for the athletic department. Introducing one seemed like an easy way to make a lot of money. Each undergraduate paying up to $350 may not sound like much, but eventually it would have brought in $6 million per year.
Then something unusual happened. Months of talks about a potential sports fee broke down after many Clemson students asked a question that often goes overlooked when it comes to the infusion of cash in college sports: Why?
“We told them point blank that we didn’t see any need for students to pay the fee,” said Maddy Thompson, the president of Clemson’s student government at the time.
Their opposition set off a series of events last school year that ended with Clemson’s athletic department quietly backing away from the idea of a student fee. School officials said this week that the concept has been tabled, but there is a possibility they could ask students for future funds."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-clemsons-students-wouldnt-pay-for-sports-1452209496
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1482]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 2011
Joined: 3/4/11
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 4:37 PM
|
|
Good for them. That's what a lot of schools like Auburn do.
Those that don't want to watch the game don't need to pay for it. They're here to get an education.
If you have good, popular teams, it'll not only pay for itself, but be a profit maker, so the key is to make sure your team doesn't suck. Fortunately, we don't.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 4:50 PM
|
|
I agree. But the emphatic NO by the students led to a cost associated with lower deck tickets for students. It's pretty clear in the article that the AD was going to get the funds from students one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 4:59 PM
|
|
Writing was on the wall when D Rad referred to students as untapped revenue sources. It is a bad way for AD to view students. They are already paying a ton for school, plus the eventual interest on that. I get why he would feel that way, but it's a bad look. They should be seen as future customers, not current freeloaders. Getting $900 for 4 years from a kid should be less of a priority than making sure you get thousands from them after they graduate.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 5:05 PM
|
|
Reality is, the student seats are an untapped revenue source. They're offering them to the students for a discount.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 6:21 PM
|
|
Yes and no. Strictly speaking to the AD they are untapped, but not to the university as a whole. Offering a "discounted price" to someone who is paying $15-40k to be there is a bit hollow. To the AD students should be future customers, not current. You have 4 years to sell them on why they should become lifetime customers.
I get that athletics is a great promotion of the university, but the AD has greatly increased revenue already via other sources (higher ticket prices and IPTAY dues, among others). It was smart to create the $60 level of IPTAY to start getting money from people who cannot buy football tickets since they do not live close enough to use them. If we were running a deficit, hitting up an untapped source would make perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [514]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 858
Joined: 2/4/03
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 9:07 PM
|
|
IPTAY is a private organization and is not controlled by the Clemson AD. IPTAY works closely with the AD, but the determination of the dues and spending is under the control of the IPTAY Board of Directors.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 14, 2016, 9:51 PM
[ in reply to Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition ] |
|
Someone who is paying $15-40k to be there is not paying for the football program or the right to seats because it's not part of tuition. In fact, students passed up that opportunity by saying NO to the athletic fee that the AD suggested.
To add, I'd be interested in learning what percentage of graduates end up joining and contributing to IPTAY annually. There are about 15,000 current Iptay donors.
Has the marketing strategy worked so far?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 15, 2016, 12:44 AM
|
|
They are paying for the university and everything it encompasses that experience. The students also turned down cutting D Rad a check for $6 mil, which was smart. They are nickel and dimed by everything, in part because people know you can just throw it on their loans and the student will deal with it later. Tuition is up well over 325% (inflation is 38%, per first google hit) in the last 15 years at Clemson. If the AD wasn't hurting for money to ask for it in 2000, then they don't need to now in 2016 where there are plenty of other sources.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Luckily for the students they have a choice
Apr 15, 2016, 8:39 AM
|
|
They can choose to go to the game for free, or they can pay $225 to upgrade their seats and eliminate the hassle of getting their tickets every week.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 15, 2016, 8:46 AM
[ in reply to Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition ] |
|
So you're saying that everything that Clemson University offers to students is included in their tuition (+fees)?
I think not.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 15, 2016, 11:47 AM
|
|
Obviously everything isn't included, but probably should be considering how college costs are exploding. My point is kids are nickel and dimed everywhere when it comes to college now. We sell Clemson as being different, but are now charging because "everyone else does it." Clemson is different, and should stay that way. The AD is not hurting for money. The look of now charging kids in the midst of Dabo's extension and opening a $50+ million building only for the football team is awful. There have never been cries to start charging students to close a (nonexistent) deficit.
I'm not even arguing any slippery slope argument where we start with football, and then move to charging for basketball since that courtside area is "premium."
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11103
Joined: 4/2/12
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
AGAIN ... students said No
Apr 14, 2016, 11:04 PM
|
|
Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Someone who is paying $15-40k to be there is not paying for the football program or the right to seats because it's not part of tuition. They had the option and said NO.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
and they still can get free tickets in the upper
Apr 15, 2016, 11:16 AM
|
|
deck, right???
Want premium seats? Pay a reduced rate. Want free seats, take the free seat.
I don't see the problem here. What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [44050]
TigerPulse: 81%
Posts: 32965
Joined: 2/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93668]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95420
Joined: 12/25/09
|
"They should be seen as future customers, not...
Apr 14, 2016, 9:40 PM
[ in reply to Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition ] |
|
current freeloaders..."
That's called a false dichotomy. It's deceptive and even those who don't immediately recognize it as a false dichotomy know that it's deceptive. It's a horrible method of persuading another to your view or making a valid point.
I'd like to know why you say that free seats to students now will generate more future revenues. Is their a scientific study or economic principle which lend credit or support to this concept? What exactly are you saying?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: "They should be seen as future customers, not...
Apr 15, 2016, 12:28 AM
|
|
It is about getting people hooked on your product. We know lower deck is better than upper, especially in the eyes of students. The atmosphere is just better. If you can turn someone who has no relation to Clemson into a fan who will buy tickets after graduating, then you have increased your customer base.
I am not discounting for PV or anything like that so simply guesstimating, but let's assume 4 years of ticket sales leads to about $8 Mil in revenue. If you convince 600 people (I think that is conservative given the 20,000 enrollment) to become die hards over those 4 years, you have them for life. They will be donating and buying tix for 40+ years. I'm just going to guess donations will total $40,000 over those years (Champion level, perhaps some Orange, some Tiger, Howard, etc. so $1k per year isn't crazy). If you get 600 like that every 4 years that is $24,000,000 in donations plus the sales on top of that. Fostering that relationship is very important. Antidotal evidence, but I know a handful of people who never cared about college football before coming here, and now love it more than any sport. I'm not sure jeopardizing the future revenue or altering the experience of students will be worth it. Also it feels hollow how Clemson sells itself on being different, but uses "everyone else does it" as justification for changing.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
By your logic, IPTAY should have over 120,000
Apr 15, 2016, 11:20 AM
|
|
members who either buy season tickets or are on a waiting list to buy season tickets.
Last time I checked, IPTAY membership was just a little bit lower than that. And by a little, I mean a lot...
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2457]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 3/12/08
|
Re: By your logic, IPTAY should have over 120,000
Apr 15, 2016, 11:35 AM
|
|
How? I suggested getting 3% of students hooked for life. Currently, there are 117,993 undergrad alums from Clemson. 3% of that would be 3,540 which we know IPTAY is more than that.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
Giving away free tickets to students does not guarantee
Apr 15, 2016, 12:37 PM
|
|
IPTAY memberships or season ticket purchases by alumni.
I don't know the demographic break down of IPTAY members, but I know that not all of us are Clemson graduates.
The only sure way to drive IPTAY membership and football season ticket sales is to have a successful football program. I may be over simplifying this, but it boils down to supply and demand. When the team is successful, more people want to join IPTAY and purchase season tickets. The supply is limited at that point and prices tend to go up. When the team is not successful, less people sustain their membership and season tickets. (This is the time that is good for me, because I can upgrade my seats!)
The point is, when the team is successful and the demand is high, there is no need to offer incentives to anyone to join IPTAY and buy season tickets. The demand is high and the supply is limmited.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Giving away free tickets to students does not guarantee
Apr 15, 2016, 12:46 PM
|
|
I should be hoping for a drop off in the program so we can move to better seats. Heyull YES!
At this rate, I think we're stuck where we are for a while. They will continue to add new giving levels above our pay grade before the team falls that much.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
this is the kind of forward thinking that likely seduced
Apr 15, 2016, 1:02 PM
|
|
@GWPTiger® to offer himself one of the family's season tickets.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
I'm cheap, but not easy.
Apr 15, 2016, 1:11 PM
|
|
Or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
Oh hey LBT, don't know if the HBIC has filled you in on the
Apr 15, 2016, 1:33 PM
|
|
details yet, but starting in year 2021 I'll be tailgating and sitting with y'all at every home game. Looking forward to it!
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
I hope you can cook!***
Apr 15, 2016, 2:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I prefer to grill, regardless, I'll show up with
Apr 15, 2016, 2:26 PM
|
|
cold beverages in tow
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
I've already made a construction paper chain to count down
Apr 15, 2016, 1:34 PM
|
|
the days until kickoff 2021
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7657]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4767
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Thank goodness ... you'll have something in common
Apr 15, 2016, 1:57 PM
|
|
with my 7 year old. She loves construction paper chains.
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [105574]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44178
Joined: 12/22/08
|
You meant something in common
Apr 15, 2016, 2:26 PM
|
|
besides maturity level right? I figured that one was kind of a given.
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [82]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 145
Joined: 7/1/15
|
Trust me. They will charge $500 for low deck,
Apr 14, 2016, 10:33 PM
|
|
$300 for upper deck after a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3049]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2787
Joined: 9/11/02
|
Most grown ups call this an assumption.
Apr 15, 2016, 11:21 AM
|
|
Unless you sit on a planning committee and confirm this as fact???
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8565]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5495
Joined: 12/12/15
|
Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Apr 15, 2016, 1:01 AM
|
|
Lost Tiger provided the full article at this link. I have assumed that the $350 athletic fee could have been per semester. Sure makes a voluntary $225 seem like a deal.
I had not realized that these types of discussions had been going on since 2014.
I understand change is not always easy to stomach, and no one wants to have to start paying for something they traditionally got free. But it seems like Clemson has been heading down this path for quite awhile.
http://www.tigernet.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=1567230
|
|
|
|
Replies: 33
| visibility 1
|
|
|