Season Tickets for 2019-2020

[Kathy]

I suspect that all of those outraged were providing little donations to UCONN since my understanding of the new policy is that there is no requirement to increase your donation, as you can keep your seat location as long as you maintain in total dollars between the seat donation and annual donation the same as you gave in total donations the year before.

Therefore the only ones for whom it would cost more are those who gave less than the seat donation the year before. For most seats that is very small donation, for the more expensive seats too many of those were purchased and never used. Those unused seats are likely to be given up and used to leverage more donations which are desperately needed to remain competitive.

I believe there are a lot of seats in great locations not being used and for which there are no current donations coming in.

For those who can afford to maintain their seat locations but decide to bail, they probably will regret that decision in a couple of years as the new policy does enable new donors to quickly move ahead in points with the result being a season ticket holder who bailed and wants to return a couple of years later will find they cannot qualify for the same seats even.

I believe there will be a lot of new donors who have felt shut out coming in to grab the tickets being freed up.

If you are right, that the seat price counts towards donation, I still have to pony up more. And I dont consider between $1000 and $2500 a year for 37 years a small donation. And that is before company match.

 

[John]

"as long as you maintain in total dollars between the seat donation and annual donation the same as you gave in total donations the year before"

If true, this has NOT been put into writing to the season ticket holders.

 

[Kathy]

"as long as you maintain in total dollars between the seat donation and annual donation the same as you gave in total donations the year before"

If true, this has NOT been put into writing to the season ticket holders.

Not at all - seat donation alone for my 2 tickets in each venue is $2000. Being retired now with no company match that is more than the $1000 or do I could afford to donate.
As I said, picked a good time to retire and move out of state. Be yougb to still be living near Hartford and Storrs and not go to games

 

[Scrutineer]

We were always in the top (highest) donor group until 1995 and found out when I called to get Final Four tickets for the women just how far loyalty to the fan base goes.

The now infamous Ben Kirtland answered the phone when I called and politely advised that my time to call for tickets would be in the afternoon, not this first calling time slot in the morning, because the second donor level is scheduled for that time slot. When I protested that we have a high point total and had always been given first priority he said "you still have first priority for season tickets, but for post-season tickets we're going by your current donor level."

So, I said "what you're telling me is someone could come in this year, with no prior points, and jump ahead of us despite the high point total we had accumulated from the 12-15 years we'd been making significant donations." When he answered, "yes", I said what you're telling me is my strategy going forward should be to make an educated guess as to how the team will be the next year and donate accordingly. If we're looking strong, make a major donation but if the team looks like it's going nowhere then give a $100 donation just to stay current and get my two longevity points. He, of course, disagreed.

One year we did give a very small donation just to see how they'd react and we never heard from anyone. I expected someone would call to inquire about why we so suddenly decreased our donation but there were only crickets. Not sure if they were being sensitive for fear we couldn't afford it, or if it was just negligence.

 

[Chief00]

I suspect that all of those outraged were providing little donations to UCONN since my understanding of the new policy is that there is no requirement to increase your donation, as you can keep your seat location as long as you maintain in total dollars between the seat donation and annual donation the same as you gave in total donations the year before.

Therefore the only ones for whom it would cost more are those who gave less than the seat donation the year before. For most seats that is very small donation, for the more expensive seats too many of those were purchased and never used. Those unused seats are likely to be given up and used to leverage more donations which are desperately needed to remain competitive.

I believe there are a lot of seats in great locations not being used and for which there are no current donations coming in.

For those who can afford to maintain their seat locations but decide to bail, they probably will regret that decision in a couple of years as the new policy does enable new donors to quickly move ahead in points with the result being a season ticket holder who bailed and wants to return a couple of years later will find they cannot qualify for the same seats even.

I believe there will be a lot of new donors who have felt shut out coming in to grab the tickets being freed up.

The potential “donors” who were being shut out were the people who chose not to give. Good luck depending on them to power your financial model.

 

[whaler11]

The potential “donors” who were being shut out were the people who chose not to give. Good luck depending on them to power your financial model.

Best chief post ever

 

[gampelcrazies]

Has anyone gotten anything in the mail yet?

 

[John]

Has anyone gotten anything in the mail yet?

we just got something in the mail about football season ticket seat assignements being pushed to May 20th. They must be sucking wind on renewals.

 

[SoFla Steve]

I talked with someone in the ticket office last week. I was told they would be mailed out this week and/or next. I hope the delay is because they are rethinking the Per-Seat Donation.

 

[TRUCONN76]

The potential “donors” who were being shut out were the people who chose not to give. Good luck depending on them to power your financial model.

It is not my financial model, I am a long time donor and supporter and I did take the time to discuss the policy with the administration. It doesn't mean I like it all but I at least understand how it will work. What I posted was not well understood which is that you do not need to increase your donation if your donation covers the seat donation. Many people thought that you had to maintain the annual donation and in addition pay the seat donation. So if your donation level was at least equal to the seat donation there does not need to be an increase in cost.

The positives of the policy is that you can maintain current seats as long as you maintain current donation level. You won't be bumped out by larger donors. You can also transfer the rights to the seats tied to your points and donation level on a one time basis this year only. You can also transfer your points on a one time basis this year only. The bad is that if you can't maintain the donation level the seats you will then qualify for may be much worse as you will no longer be accumulating points at the same rate as annual donations do.

There are donors to the academic side of the University who are also willing to donate to athletics but not at the very high level needed to allow them to compete for tickets under the current policy. I do believe this change in policy will bring in money, as many tickets will become available especially in the first couple years of implementation. Let's face it the change is all about increasing donations.

My point was not to endorse the policy but to try to make sure it was understood. All that has to happen is to have the mens basketball team show significant improvement and access to good seats will dry up rapidly and it may not be possible to get back the seats that were given up.

 

[John]

It is not my financial model, I am a long time donor and supporter and I did take the time to discuss the policy with the administration. It doesn't mean I like it all but I at least understand how it will work. What I posted was not well understood which is that you do not need to increase your donation if your donation covers the seat donation. Many people thought that you had to maintain the annual donation and in addition pay the seat donation. So if your donation level was at least equal to the seat donation there does not need to be an increase in cost.

The positives of the policy is that you can maintain current seats as long as you maintain current donation level. You won't be bumped out by larger donors. You can also transfer the rights to the seats tied to your points and donation level on a one time basis this year only. You can also transfer your points on a one time basis this year only. The bad is that if you can't maintain the donation level the seats you will then qualify for may be much worse as you will no longer be accumulating points at the same rate as annual donations do.

There are donors to the academic side of the University who are also willing to donate to athletics but not at the very high level needed to allow them to compete for tickets under the current policy. I do believe this change in policy will bring in money, as many tickets will become available especially in the first couple years of implementation. Let's face it the change is all about increasing donations.

My point was not to endorse the policy but to try to make sure it was understood. All that has to happen is to have the mens basketball team show significant improvement and access to good seats will dry up rapidly and it may not be possible to get back the seats that were given up.

if this is the case, they have done an awful job of explaining it.

 

[TRUCONN76]

if this is the case, they have done an awful job of explaining it.

Agree!

 

[StepbackCity]

Losing half of the szn ticket base I bet.

 

[gampelcrazies]

Agree!

we talked to someone high up in the foundation. It’s true. Tried to explain this to others but they weren’t understanding

 

[Chief00]

It is not my financial model, I am a long time donor and supporter and I did take the time to discuss the policy with the administration. It doesn't mean I like it all but I at least understand how it will work. What I posted was not well understood which is that you do not need to increase your donation if your donation covers the seat donation. Many people thought that you had to maintain the annual donation and in addition pay the seat donation. So if your donation level was at least equal to the seat donation there does not need to be an increase in cost.

The positives of the policy is that you can maintain current seats as long as you maintain current donation level. You won't be bumped out by larger donors. You can also transfer the rights to the seats tied to your points and donation level on a one time basis this year only. You can also transfer your points on a one time basis this year only. The bad is that if you can't maintain the donation level the seats you will then qualify for may be much worse as you will no longer be accumulating points at the same rate as annual donations do.

There are donors to the academic side of the University who are also willing to donate to athletics but not at the very high level needed to allow them to compete for tickets under the current policy. I do believe this change in policy will bring in money, as many tickets will become available especially in the first couple years of implementation. Let's face it the change is all about increasing donations.

My point was not to endorse the policy but to try to make sure it was understood. All that has to happen is to have the mens basketball team show significant improvement and access to good seats will dry up rapidly and it may not be possible to get back the seats that were given up.

I understand it, it makes the six figures I have cumulatively donated worthless.

 

[huskymedic]

I understand it, it makes the six figures I have cumulatively donated worthless.

 

[John]

Bottom line is this: very soft secondary market even for "marquee" games. They are trying to leverage a demand which does not exist.

 

[Kathy]

we talked to someone high up in the foundation. It’s true. Tried to explain this to others but they weren’t understanding

I understand but they are asking me to double my donation after 37 years to maintain my seats. So much for loyalty

 

[Chief00]

Back at you!

 

[Chief00]

I understand but they are asking me to double my donation after 37 years to maintain my seats. So much for loyalty

Whatever consultants they hired should get their walking papers. What a DISASTER!

 

[zls44]

From Michael Smith at SportsBusiness Journal, earlier today...when you're hiking prices while KENTUCKY is lowering them, you need to re-think things:

 

[huskymedic]

From Michael Smith at SportsBusiness Journal, earlier today...when you're hiking prices while KENTUCKY is lowering them, you need to re-think things:

View attachment 42552

It’s a bit easier to drop tickets prices when your athletic department is receiving $43m (Kentucky) and $51m (Minnesota) from your conference media deals.

 

[zls44]

It’s a bit easier to drop tickets prices when your athletic department is receiving $43m (Kentucky) and $51m (Minnesota) from your conference media deals.

True, true. But also a lot easier to sell tickets at UK than UConn.

 

[Chief00]

It’s a bit easier to drop tickets prices when your athletic department is receiving $43m (Kentucky) and $51m (Minnesota) from your conference media deals.

Supply and demand is Economics 101, you can set any make believe price you like, but that doesn’t mean the demand won’t go down. To say UConn did not find the equilibrium point is an understatement.

 

[whaler11]

70% of UConn’s home basketball schedule is so boring you’d have to pay me to fill a seat. The world is changing - people have incredible entertainment options. This policy change is going to be lethal. After the way this school has treated their loyal fans - if you pay this you are nuts. They are always going to sell you down the river for new money - even though there is no new money left.