DB: $36 student ticket doesn't fix the problem
by asad09 on Sep 29, 2010 7:48 AM PDT
Email
PrintA couple of weeks ago, I posted here about the new price for a single game football ticket. Because it sparked a conversation on BN and between me and some friends, I decided to dig further and turn this into a column for the Daily Bruin. The reason the new price is $36 is that Athletics wants more people to buy the pass so they can fill more seats. In my column in today's Daily Bruin, I argue that the lack of schools spirit won't be solved by the sale of a few more season passes:
UCLA Athletics increased the price to encourage students to purchase the improved and now cheaper Den season pass at $99, instead of single-game tickets. Essentially, they want more students to buy the pass so they can attend more games and there are more people in the student section.
But selling single-game tickets for $36 is not the right solution to the problem of a lack of students in the student section. It is merely treating the symptoms of a larger student-body issue: a lack of school spirit among UCLA students. Curing that issue will require much more than just a pricing change. It has to be a cultural shift on campus.
Read rest of it here. Thanks again for everyone's feedback and thought son BN. Enjoy!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Glarring holes in the article
I looked online and the $99 Den Sports pass thing for UCLA students includes all football AND basketball. I didn’t see the article mention that.
This article should add the cost for normal UCLA football (~$260) and UCLA basketball (~$624 upper level) and then compared that to the $99 price and you’re talking about basically getting 90% off what everyone else has to pay…and this is totally omitting what donors pay to get floor seats.
UCLA students SHOULD get a huge discount to attend games and I believe that the article, when listing what should be done differently, should also say that UCLA students should simply buy the $99 season ticket to everything and call it a day!
Comparisons to regular ticket prices don't really work
Sure, I could stand here and say look at what a discount we are getting as students, or I could say that I am paying $24,000 annually to the university and they are still charging me for tickets.
If you are a UCLA student, going to games should be a right, not a privilege. In fact, tickets to all games used to be included in student fees, which ran about $5 back in the day. Now we are charged separately for each of these, along with many other fees.
Athletics does not keep prices low as a courtesy to students, they do it because that is the market price for our population. And the move to lower the whole plan to $99 dollars, while great for diehards who actually show up, was done in the light of increased profits. The issue is not shorting those who go to games, but making it less attractive for those who only want to attend one or 2 games a year.
Oh boy...
Here are some rights:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Assembly
Free tickets to men’s basketball and football games? Not so much…
Sorry to be snarky, but I’ve seen some expansion of rights, but never football tickets… lol
On a serious note the school loses a ton of money by selling those $99 tickets.
Every USC game football ticket could be sold for more than $99 on the open market. Just for that one game.
Half the student section in Pauley could sell for more than $99 PER GAME in a season ticket package.
The prices are definately kept low as a courtesy to students. The school could certainly make a lot more money moving the students to free seats in the 300s and selling the better seats they occupy now for more money. They could also give away free endzone seats to all football games except SC and make more selling the SC tickets than they would make from the entire student body for the year.
If its about not paying, students could have free seats to most games, but they wouldn’t be great seats and a few games they would be cut out of. The school would make a lot more money and the students would have free tickts. But I don’t think anyone wants that.
The way it is done now is fair, and it provides a heavily discounted ticket to the students relative to what that product could fetch in the open market. ,I am totally missing what the compaining is about?
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
A creative solution
Thinking out loud here. I am certainly sensitive to students at UCLA having finance issues wrt to spending and going to football games. Lot of times we don’t think about them once we become alums as we get to different phases of our life.
We are always making donations to UCLA. I’d be more than happy to partake in a program in which we get to sponsor specific students and get them to attend football games by helping them out in purchase of their season ticket packages. In return that student would commit to some volunteer work either helping out the athletic department or alumni department or something else related to UCLA.
I think there can always be creative solutions provided UCLA creates an online hub creating virtual communities connecting its alums and students resulting in a real “Bruin family.” I think there has been a lot of progress in this department through the online communities such as BRO and this one … but at least in BN’s case this is strictly a hobby venture at this point … there has to be ways the school can make it so much better strengthening the Bruin Nation as a whole.
Good idea
but then we’d better do something similar to help students pay for the ridiculously expensive textbooks.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
We can always itemize our base of support :-)
Mrs. N can sponsor a student helping him or her buying books, I will go with the one who wants to go the football games!
that is exactly right
if the point is to fundraise, allow people to choose what it is they are fundraising for…
by britishbruin on Sep 29, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I would be down with that
I would be happy to sponsor some tickets for kids that join the rally committtee, for example (does that still exist?)
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
For UCLA students, yes it should be a right
Not to attend every game, but just one or two. $36 may seem cheap to you and me, but we were going to the game no matter what. To someone who frankly doesn’t care about sports, $26makes a world of difference. I’m not saying that the tickets aren’t dirt cheap compared to regular prices, but that is not a very good argument. There is clearly something about providing for the people who attend the university that goes beyond making a large profit.
Athletics could do away with the student section and sell those seats at full price, and they would make lots of money and the place would be full(er). But how many new season ticket holders would there be 10 years later. If you didn’t go to games in college, you’re probably not going to shell out a couple hundred for seats after you graduate.
There is also the fact that student sections are visible, and loud, and coordinated, and the more students that are at the game, the better UCLA looks. BTW were it not for Howland the den in Pauley would be much smaller and not right in front of the court, so no athletics is not always the benevolent dictator.
If athletics is not worried about a profit when it comes to students, then who cares if a single ticket is $10. More students will attend at this price, so if the goal is greater attendance, why not have the package by $99 but leave the single tickets alone?
On a side note, it has to be about getting people to the game, period. I know too many people that have never watched a football game in their life and end up hooked after just one game. They almost always end up buying the season package the next year. Just another thing to think about.
by Sideout11 on Sep 29, 2010 1:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Question
In number of games we having been giving away the endzone sections for free? Why don’t we just give them away to our students instead?
Not sure
But Washington State is another I’m Going to College game.
by Sideout11 on Sep 29, 2010 2:11 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
For that game ...
… and for the games that are not sell outs by gameday, perhaps UCLA should open up that endzone to students.
That could be a fair deal. Students who cannot afford to pay $36 for a game can get seats but not the ones with the view of paid seats. This way you get more students seating all around the stadium and fill out the place. I wonder if something like that is a workable scenario.
Good thinking N
"Beating USC isn't a matter of life and death, it's more important than that" -Red Sanders-
by PrincetonBruin on Oct 1, 2010 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions
ridiculous to talk about "rights" in this context
it is a ‘right’ for you to be able to apply for entry at UCLA without facing prejudice in your application.
It is then a ‘privilege’ to be admitted to UCLA. As a UCLA student, you have access to many other ‘privileges’, including hugely below-market-value athletic tickets. If you are not satisfied with the ‘privileges’ afforded to you by the school, a state school facing huge financial difficulties, then by all means transfer to a school that has more sympathy for your entitlement complex.
There may be many good arguments about what the correct structure of pricing should be, and you (and others) make some of them above. But to talk about ‘rights’ is absurd.
by britishbruin on Sep 29, 2010 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Easy bb
Please make sure this conversation is civil. Last year we had to go through lot of painful alumni-student discussions which were confrontational. We are all part of the same family and this year we need to do a much better job of ensuring these discussions are productive and done in a way we can understand where everyone is coming from. So it’d be helpful if you are taking a more cordial tone. Thanks.
I will adjust slightly
First of all athletics is in no way tied to the current financial difficulties of the state. The department is doing just fine, being one of the few programs in the Pac to turn a profit.
Second of all in no way is this entitlement. Instead of calling it a right, I will call it a pre-arranged service. Students do not attend UCLA for free, not even close. We pay, and in return we are given access to certain benefits, including below cost tickets. All of the sudden the terms of that agreement changed (not to mention how much we pay). Some people who go to every game, like myself, benefited, while others who only bought a ticket here or there did not. I am simply being sympathetic to their situation.
It’s similar to your boss deciding to go from paying full dental to half. You could follow your own advice and find another job in another city that pays dental, but that seems a bit extreme. Instead you would probably go to your union and demand that your full benefits be returned.
You can disagree that students deserve to attend games at the lowest price possible and that is fine, but do not call me entitled when each year I pay more and more while seeing less of a return on my investment, both in education and opportunities.
by Sideout11 on Sep 29, 2010 2:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
if you back off using "rights" then I don't have a problem with what you are saying
There are plenty of arguments to be made in favour of particular pricing schemes. Arguing forcefully for a system that permits casual fans to attend more games makes perfect sense. Arguing that a change to the system that existed when people attended has its logic as well, particularly when it is a large enough issue that it might have affected a decision as to whether or not to attend a particular school (when I was in grad school at UCLA, they introduced new ‘professional fees’ midway through my program, effectively increasing our tuition between our 1st and 2nd years by thousands of dollars, a big enough unexpected increase that attending another school would have been a preferred option for people).
I would not say you sound ‘entitled’ if you did not use and reiterate the language of ‘rights’ in this situation and I am happy to retract it if you are backing off your talk of rights. I think it would also help your case for the moral high ground if you were arguing in favour of keeping the old system (ie more expensive season passes and cheaper single game tickets), rather than giving the impression (perhaps unintentionally) that you want to keep both cheaper season passes and previously cheap single game tickets. In any case, it would be better for us to direct our energies creatively like Nestor above, looking for ways to get more people to the Rose Bowl and improving the general state of UCLA fandom.
by britishbruin on Sep 29, 2010 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
let's just call it a day BB
I was too strong in my use of rights, you were too strong in your use of entitlement. Were both blowing this thing up into something that goes way beyond ticket prices.
by Sideout11 on Sep 29, 2010 3:07 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Actually,
I agree that is a good thing for the university to subsidize student tickets. However, I was responding to what you said
“Athletics does not keep prices low as a courtesy to students, they do it because that is the market price for our population”
They actually do it as a courtesy. It’s important to recognize it. I have no problem with making a case for how things could be done better or improvements, but saying offering tickets at $99 somehow impedes on people’s rights is hyperbole.
Rights are very important very significant things. People shed blood for them. People spend their lives in prison for them. People are tortured for them. You can’t cheapen them by equating attendence at a football game with the right of suffrage, or free association, or reiligous freedom. It doesn’t help your case, and demeans your argument.
I say that as constructive criticism, not in a mean or angry way.
This would be my solution: sell the package at $99 like you do today. This would be all games. Then, sell a $20 pass, but exclude high profile games like SC and Texas in football, and the major pac 10 games ( SC, Cal, SUC, Zona, a few non conference games) . That would allow students access to over half the games for almost free, and those that want to attend the major games where there is demand could pay the $99 bucks.
Call the $20 plan the blue card and the $99 plan the gold card.
Problem solved.
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Damn, meant to preview
I meant to say exlcluding the major pac 10 games in hoops.
This year in football i would exclude SUC.
In hoops it would Cal, SUC, Zona, and a few non conference games
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
If only you and I ran the world...
Perhaps I came across too strong at first. It just doens’t make sense in my mind to raise the single game price. If athletics wants to do something for the students then do it. Don’t slap something onto the back end.
by Sideout11 on Sep 29, 2010 2:54 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Back In My Day
We did not pay tuition. It was free.
We did not buy computers or cell phones — they did not exist.
I paid a $75.00, mandatory, activity fee that included admission to all sports events for the year.
As best I can recall, I had to buy that card.
One might see $99 as not a lot of money for what you get. But, the entire state-school experience has become very costly and that $99 may truly be out of the reach of some.
How many student seats are there? I wonder how much revenue would be lost if the school were to include the activity card as a part of the tuition package.
sjh
Still no tuition, technically
Though mandatory fees are now up to $10k a year.
I’m not sure how many seats they sell, but using 5,000-10,000 as ballpark figures, it would be in the $500,000-$1,000,000 range. There is already a “Student Programs, Activities, and Resources Complex Fee” that is $31 per quarter for both undergrad and grad students. Raising that to $40 or so would recoup most of that lost revenue (depending obviously on how accurate the broad estimate is).
I’m not sure how easy it would be to raise the fee though. The people that don’t go might not want to pay extra for something they don’t use. Of course many of them may not notice the change anyway.
by SuperBruinMan on Sep 30, 2010 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions
$28 away student ticket for Cal game
I don’t t think the ticket issue is a huge deal, especially when the sports pass is such a great deal, but it seems like something is a little off when UCLA students can get tickets for an away game cheaper than they can to support their team at home. And Cal, of all athletic departments, is the one that you’d expect to see gouging students for away tickets right now.
We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.
Agree its a UCLA culture thing
its also related to selection of the student body.
With the exception of community college transfers and older students, the school needs to do a better job of proactively identifying students that will be involved in the university more than just showing up for class, doing homework and graduating.
Athletic involvement is an important part of creating school spirit which is critical in developing future donors. Those that are more actively involved in the fabric of the school give more than those that don’t.
Not everyone will chose athletics as the thing to rally around, but the lack of student support is syptomatic of a commuter culture, a go home on weekends culture, a culture of limited involvement.
Besides grades and test scores, UCLA needs to also consider if it is drawing in students who will care enough to be involved in many facets of UCLA life and will be attached enough to UCLA to give after graduating. Football and Basketball are the easiest and most acceptable way to keep involved with UCLA, and students that aren’t interested now most likely won’t be in the future.
If we were well balanced and students were equally interested in other things like theater, or arts, or social work, or politics, etc, it would be one thing, but I sense on campus a lot of folks who show up, go to class, do their homework and don’t really care about much of anything else going on with the school.
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 9:11 AM PDT reply actions
It's not just up to UCLA
Lot of it has to do with alums taking initiatives and reaching out to students and impressive upon the need for athletics to balance out our academics.
Right now I am not sure whether UCLA alumni base collectively are doing as much as they can to support and boost our school’s traditions. Obviously this also goes back to the issue of the organizing activities that is happening from the school itself. However, I find it pretty surprising what we have created here through our labor of love, hasn’t been replicated by the school itself.
Right now I am not aware of any organized activities on the part of UCLA that impresses upon students the unmatched tradition we have wrt to athletics. It’s up to the school to take initiatives. However, it is also up to the alums in providing that leadership. Honestly, I don’t see much of that … not online. Often time I just see and read about whining and extensive thoughts on comment threads without any thing concrete that reaches out and connect with students.
I agree wholeheartedly
I think it is a combination of the two. Placing a priority on more than test scores and grades, and having the alumni and school insititutions to reach down and teach the traditions to the younger students. If we could get both going on at the same time, I think you would see some significant change.
by silverlakebruin on Sep 29, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
$99 for all games is the steal of the century
and hard to believe this pricing change helps them make massive profit gains given that all the people who would have paid the previous higher costs now get a big discount, and an unknown number of additional students will now be induced to get season tickets.
This pricing change is designed to breed a few more hardcore fans and charge a premium to the folks who only want to show up for big games or when there are other reasons to be there for a one-off game. I don’t have any problem with that at all. If $99 is a major financial burden to anyone (who, as is pointed out above, is managing to find thousands upon thousands of dollars to attend school), then they should consider allowing people to direct-debit $2 per week to pay for it…
Stanford has free entry for students
You just show your student ID at the gate, and they let you right in.
Stanford even offers free tickets to the Big Game, Stanford AT Cal, if you go to enough football games throughout the year.
I got to see the Cardinal take it to WAke two weeks ago…. great environment, and getting in free is always good (obviously nothing compares to a Saturday at the Rose Bowl…)
And then, I’m sure it will be a complete zoo in 2 weeks when the trojies come to town….. looking forward to it bigtime, always good to see sc lose
Stanford
Their fan support is a joke. One just has to look up their recent attendance numbers. We actually often out number them when we play in their little stadium. I wouldn’t hold up Stanford as an example of how to build out fan support. They are pathetic at it.
I got free tickets to that game too as Staff
Still didn’t go.
They had (have?) this program where if you pay, you get better seats for basketball (closer to the sideline) and a t-shirt, and it wasn’t that expensive – maybe $35 a year, but there were still students complaining about it. Along with those students who complain that there isn’t enough student attendance at the game.
Had an idea while reading the above comments
I think expecting free student admission to football/basketball is a bit absurd, but what about giving it for free to incoming freshmen? I know a lot of people that developed their interest/love for UCLA athletics during their time as a student, but they weren’t instantly interested when they showed up on campus, and many weren’t aware their first year of when/how to sign up for the season ticket package.
I think what they do now is pretty good (1 free game for freshmen) but, that first weekend living in the dorms I think a lot of them probably blow that opportunity off because if they’re not hooked on UCLA sports yet, they’re perfectly content to keep exploring Westwood and meeting new people. By basically providing the same opportunity to them for the duration of the season they’re more likely to take advantage of it and hopefully get hooked. Also, as time goes on during their first quarter on campus they’re more likely to expand their friend base to include others who are interested in going, if you’re a freshmen and the first few people you hang out with on your floor don’t go, you probably won’t either.
If athletics has an issue with the lost revenue of this idea, they could give them football for free and then hit them up mid season when basketball is starting to sign up for the pass (basketball alone is worth $99), possibly at a discounted rate.
Moral of the story is: Get them hooked while they’re young, keep them coming for life. I think the most efficient strategy is to target the freshmen and watch the student involvement levels grow.
Final thought, I really think the single-game ticket price is meaningless. The student section will be jammed-packed when a larger % of the student body attends games regularly (ie with the season pass). Also, reducing it back to $10/game is essentially the same as offering the $70 football only plan of years past, only at an even better rate. They removed the student football-only season pass, so imo the single-game price shouldn’t go below ($99/6 + cost of operating sales booth at the Rose Bowl).
a response...
Thank you to everyone with the good ideas out there. Having this conversation is an important part of the issue I have with the way things are done. I’m going to comment on various comments above, so this is just going to be a lot of thoughts combined.
Athletics didn’t do this to make more profit. I’m sure they do financial analysis, but in my opinion, they are just trying not to lose too much money on these games. The main reason for the price increase was to get more to buy the pass—which has been successful. As someone who has had the Den package/pass all four years, I appreciate this a lot!
But it screws casual fans…which UCLA has tons of. We’re a damn good school. Not everyone who gets in here loves sports. Some love neuroscience and want to go to only one or two games. There’s too many of this type to overlook them.
Doing away with the student section is a bad idea. It’s a huge part of the reason I love UCLA. When I graduate, I’m going to be a dues paying member of the Alum Association because of my experiences camping out for basketball games, or yelling on third down. Not because of my large econ classes.
I think that’s why the solutions to hooking freshmen to UCLA Athletics are most important. Not only will they go on to buy passes and come to more games, they’ll go on to donate to the campus and return to UCLA games when they’re alum. N’s point of impressing tradition on the new students is what I think is more important. That’s why Orientation and ORL have to get involved.
The one free ticket for freshmen is a great thing but very few of them know it. Someone at the DB actually told me to add that to my suggestions, not knowing that it already exists.
Many schools offer free games, and many students offer more expensive passes (I believe UT’s is $400 for the all sports pass). We can’t afford to have prices this.
Also I can’t believe I forgot to mention the Cal away game is cheaper than home games.
The view from Geezerville
I don’t think any student necessarily has a “right” to anything. He or she has the privilege of attending the school once the qualifications are met. The student and the school have made implicit promises to each other – students will study and will attend class and will engage the factulty and will learn and grow. The school will provide top notch faculty who will not just lecture but will teach. That and so much more makes the university experience. The “so much more” is stuff that’s generally outside the classroom. A lot of growing takes place in dorm rooms and on Bruin Walk and in what used to be called the Coop. I think part of the growth that turns a highschool kid into a well-rounded adult (well, at least theoretically well-rounded) is the athletic experience. Once the student gets into the school, there is no charge for taking the podium and going on at length about the subject of the day. And in my view, there should be no charge to go to football or baseball games. Or don’t go, if it’s not your thing. The incremental revenue can’t be the deciding factor, or at least that’s what it looks like from Geezerville.
Would free student tickets increase attendance at the Rose Bowl? Well, let’s look at the recent experience in Tampa. Monday, there were 12.000 fans at the Trop, which caused some comments from the players. Yesterday, the Rays announced they would give away 20,000 tickets for the game today. And you know what? Those tickets were gone in 45 minutes, the Rays had a packed house, and I am very, very confident that the incremental revenue from parking and concessions were very substantial. There was no incremental revenue lost – those 20,000 fans wouldn’t have shown up if the tix weren’t free. I gave the Rays a modest amount to park and have the Rays’ attempt at a Dodger Dog. (As an aside, the Rays have a marvelous baseball team whereas the Dodgers are dreadful, but the Dodger Dog is still at the top of the heap.)
Anyway, that’s the take from Geezerville. Classes, studying, sweating midterms, falling hopelessly in love (several times), and many other things are part of the university experience and all those things are included in the package when you get accepted and pay your fees. I think athletics should be included in the package as well.
I think the trip to the game is a much bigger problem
In order to get to the Rose Bowl, your best option would be to buy a roundtrip Rooter Bus ticket from the Central Ticket Office for only $6. Non-students guests are $20. Rooter Bus tickets must be purchased before 4:00pm on Thursday of game week.
Most students don’t have cars, and public transport isn’t an option (I actually tried this for the Houston game – we had to change 3 times, and by the end of the game the bus services were much less frequent). So even if you have the season ticket, you have to cough up an additional $6 any time you want to see a game. The Thursday deadline also discourages casual fans. The length of the trip is a problem too, but I suppose that can’t be helped.
Hopefully more people will be able to go to basketball games this year and hopefully that will help build interest in other sports, including football.
This is the fault of my generation
There was a vote about an on-campus stadium. It would raise our incidental fee from $121.80 a semester to the astronomical $122.80. About 500 kids voted, and it went down to defeat 251 to 249 or something like that. (I’m exaggerating, but only slightly.) So instead of Red Standers Stadium, we got Drake Stadium. My generation continued to schlep to the Crapaseum, and future generations got to play home games a zillion miles away.
I still feel guilty about this.
An on-campus stadium would fill up for every game. The most apathetic, non-involved student cannot hear the band and not get just a teensy bit stirred up.
The only transit UCLA provides
is the $6 rooter bus. I don’t whether charging to use the bus is a relatively new thing, but it seems like a idea if the goal is to get as many people to go as possible.
by SuperBruinMan on Oct 1, 2010 12:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that's the same buses we used to have for $5
Used it few times with few of my friends in my freshman year. Thought it was more than reasonable.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
