»
Topic: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition
Replies: 33   Last Post: Apr 15, 2016 2:26 PM by: GWPTiger®
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 33  

Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[2]
Posted: 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

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[1]
Posted: 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.


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[2]
Posted: 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.


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[1]
Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[1]
Posted: 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.


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: 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.


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: Apr 14, 2016 9:51 PM
 

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?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: 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.


Luckily for the students they have a choice

[1]
Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: Apr 15, 2016 8:46 AM
 

So you're saying that everything that Clemson University offers to students is included in their tuition (+fees)?

I think not.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition


Posted: 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."


Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[1]
Posted: Apr 14, 2016 10:52 PM
 

I think you make a good point

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


AGAIN ... students said No


Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

and they still can get free tickets in the upper


Posted: 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?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

The students aren't an untapped revenue source, but their seats are.***


Posted: Apr 14, 2016 5:32 PM
 



2019 white level member

"They should be seen as future customers, not...

[1]
Posted: Apr 14, 2016 9:40 PM
 

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?

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: "They should be seen as future customers, not...


Posted: 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.


By your logic, IPTAY should have over 120,000


Posted: 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...

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: By your logic, IPTAY should have over 120,000


Posted: 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.


Giving away free tickets to students does not guarantee

[1]
Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Giving away free tickets to students does not guarantee


Posted: 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.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

this is the kind of forward thinking that likely seduced

[2]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 1:02 PM
 

@GWPTiger® to offer himself one of the family's season tickets.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg


I'm cheap, but not easy.

[3]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 1:11 PM
 

Or something like that.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Oh hey LBT, don't know if the HBIC has filled you in on the

[1]
Posted: 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!

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


I hope you can cook!***

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 2:19 PM
 



2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

I prefer to grill, regardless, I'll show up with


Posted: Apr 15, 2016 2:26 PM
 

cold beverages in tow

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


In 2021, that game with Wyoming might be competitive

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 1:20 PM
 

and GWPTiger® will be reaping the benefits of the fallen Tigers.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

I've already made a construction paper chain to count down

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 1:34 PM
 

the days until kickoff 2021

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Thank goodness ... you'll have something in common

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 1:57 PM
 

with my 7 year old. She loves construction paper chains.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

You meant something in common

[1]
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 2:26 PM
 

besides maturity level right? I figured that one was kind of a given.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Trust me. They will charge $500 for low deck,


Posted: Apr 14, 2016 10:33 PM
 

$300 for upper deck after a few years.


Most grown ups call this an assumption.


Posted: Apr 15, 2016 11:21 AM
 

Unless you sit on a planning committee and confirm this as fact???

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Re: Students said No to athletic fee as part of tuition

[1]
Posted: 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

2019 white level member

Replies: 33  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: South Carolina
FOR SALE: 6 seats Section 504 Row 35. Will split in any even number. Roughly 35 yard line upper deck. $130 eac...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
2382 people have read this post