Reading through the new literature from the Athletic department, I can see I’m going to have to pony up substantially more cash than I do now to keep my middle-grade season tickets to Bruin Hoops.

The point program essentially puts fans in competition for the best seats, especially those on the margins of a range bracket. If you’re not one of the top 1800 or so point holders, you’ll be in nosebleed land forever. Sigh. At least almost every game is on TV now…

I was probably in the last class which could possibly buy a house right after graduation (actually after graduation from law school, but pretty close.) Now, even with the housing market busted, a recent grad would be hard-pressed to buy a house unless he or she opted to buy way out beyond Lancaster and make the horrible drive. There will clearly be no home-owning recent grads in any sort of alumni section at Pauley, unless you want to include Darren Collison, although he’ll be busy during basketball season. There just isn’t that much money in California.

I don’t fault UCLA or anyone who opts for full-blown, revenue maximizing capitalism. Naturally, I hope they get all the money they can get, especially from those riding the bandwagon. But this pricing system seems to have been thought out by the same guys who figured out the pricing for the seats right by home plate at Yankee Stadium. If there are sell-outs, I will gladly confess error. But if the place only fills up to half-capacity, then the pricing structure committee needs to head over to the econ department and have someone explain elasticity of demand.

I’m not sure the best question is whether the point system is fair or unfair. The way the Campaign is designed, its hard to find a lot of fault with the basic logic. I am among the season ticket holders who bristled at being told, point blank, that I would need to donate about $150,000 to keep my seats! After 10 years, that was a shock to the system. However, at face value, the point system seems plausible and I know it has worked at schools like Texas A&M.

The problem I have involves previous inequities and the thought process for launching this initiative during the worst economic downturn in nearly 100 years. I think what the athletic department is struggling with stems from decades of inequity caused by the short-sided decision to grandfather-in donation rates from the 60s, 70s and 80s. While some season ticket holders have been paying $5-6000/year for the “right” to two seats, others paid around $500. So essentially, some donors were subsidizing others — that is truly unfair, and the point system doesn’t significantly change this inequity.

Under the point system, a 30 year donor (at $500/year) and ticket holder would accrue 1500 points, while a 10 year donor (at $5500/year) would accrue just 1000. So, the subsidy persists. Historically, the department should have charged everyone the same rate for donations, depending on seat location. It didn’t, and that is coming back to bite everyone. The Campaign has essentially unmasked years of inequity and it stinks to a lot of donors.

In my opinion, the fair approach would be to require ticket holders to make up the difference in the amount they paid and the amount they were “subsidized.” That would completely level the playing field. However, I’m sure the fall-out from those with grandfathered rates would be enormous. So, I guess the real problem I have with the point system is that it still creates a proportionally unfair advantage based solely upon consecutive years as a donor/ticket holder.

I understand they are trying to create more competition for the seats to maximize revenue, but it is extremely hypocritical when the department has failed to even attempt to adjust these discrepancies for decades. If the department had had any foresight, it would have gradually increased rates over the last 10-20 years for those grandfathered-in to maximize revenues and minimize ticket holder shock and discontent. The department was poorly managed for years and they are now trying to remedy that mismanagement in one fell swoop — and its painful to everyone involved.

The timing of this colossal restructuring, during one of nation’s worst economic downturns, only adds to the pain. Not only will the Campaign struggle with decades-old inequities, it will have to increase donation revenues when almost everyone has scaled back spending. The Campaign could effectively lock out recent grads and those currently struggling for decades — and that doesn’t seem fair. I’m afraid this will attract a certain demographic, essentially making decent-great seats at Pauley the province of well-to-do older people. So, the newly renovated Pauley may be better, but it almost certainly won’t be louder, more energetic or more intimidating.

So, is the point system unfair? On the surface level, not really. However, the Campaign exposes and maintains inequities that have persisted for decades. Given the opportunity to level the playing field and plan for the future, the Campaign for Champions’ approach and timing seems both short-sided and unfair.

My apologies for this epic-length post. I’ve been thinking about this for some time!

I had this system personally explained to me by someone in the athletic department and I still don’t know what is going to happen to me. I have been a season ticket holder for over 25 years and have donated to the athletic fund for probably 10 to 15 years consecutively. As time has gone by, my seats have gradually gotten better and I now sit between the baseline and the north end of Pauley near the top of the middle level. The view is fine from there, although I wouldn’t call them “great” seats by any means. The one thing I do know is that to keep those seats, I am going to have to more than double my annual donation. Whether I will have to donate a bunch of money to the building campaign to keep my right to that location is what is unclear. I await my personalized statement to see where my points stack up against others.

I think it is unlikely that people with worse seats than I have and with fewer points than I have will pony up enough money to jump my position, especially in this economy. The people inclined to donate more money and who are interested in having season tickets probably already have better seats than I do. And I don’t think UCLA basketball season tickets are a particularly hot item right now, even though Coach Howland has done a great job in restoring the program (I am one of those fans “spoiled” by the Wooden era). Attendance last year wasn’t that great. There are a lot of things to do in Los Angeles, and college sports are not as big a deal here as elsewhere. I am excluding $C football from this discussion, as we all know it is more accurately considered a pro sport!

I was told that the point system won’t go into play until the team moves out of Pauley, so I have a year or so to figure out what I will do. I will contribute some money to the building campaign, but only an amount that I feel comfortable with and that won’t be more than a couple of thousand dollars at most.

At some point, and I don’t know if we’ve reached it yet, I will give up my basketball season tickets and either watch on t.v. or buy from scalpers for selected games. It will still be cheaper than making the annual donation. But we’ll have to see how this all plays out, and I don’t think we’ll know for a year or so.

1) Will the athletic department commit to an out of conference schedule that has more entertaining matchups? I think people will be hard pressed to pay these prices when a third to half of the home games are against teams like Oakland and UC Riverside.

2) There is very little enthusiasm for the Pauley Remodel. They have not sold the vast majority fans on the benefit of the Remodel to people paying to participate in the event. A new arena would have done that by itself. This plan has yet to do that.

Unfortunately, I don’t think 1) will happen, and 2) can’t happen because you cannot prove something that isn’t true.

I think this may end up being a major, major mistake

I’m coming around on my thinking and feel that this plan is basically fair and I have no problem with the athletic depts desire to maximize revenue.

While I love going to UCLA basketball games, at these prices I think I’d rather keep my money and watch the games on TV.