Seat Reassignment Question/ Theory

cloneluke80 · 07-02-2008, 07:26 AM

All - I have been talking to people and reading on here, and I have a theory..

I think this whole seat re-assignment thing was a sham to get us to donate more (I upped my donation because I wanted to...)

The reason I say this is it seems no one except for people in the construction zone or people that increased their number of tickets is getting re-assigned.

I expect big shakeups in my section because I know alot of them don't donate. I never had a problem with seat reassignments, but now that is it actually not being enforced, I kind of feel a little tricked....

Anyone else have this same hunch and how do they feel about it?

Anyone ask Pollard about this?

ISUAlum2002 · 07-02-2008, 07:49 AM

The ISU athletic department was trying to increase donations? No wai!!!

bfross · 07-02-2008, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by cloneluke80

All - I have been talking to people and reading on here, and I have a theory..

I think this whole seat re-assignment thing was a sham to get us to donate more (I upped my donation because I wanted to...)

The reason I say this is it seems no one except for people in the construction zone or people that increased their number of tickets is getting re-assigned.

I expect big shakeups in my section because I know alot of them don't donate. I never had a problem with seat reassignments, but now that is it actually not being enforced, I kind of feel a little tricked....

Anyone else have this same hunch and how do they feel about it?

Anyone ask Pollard about this?

I take a different stance on donating. I just love going to the games regardless of my seat. My standpoint on donating is that you should donate as much as you feel comfortable with knowing that it helps in our long term success as an athletic department. I think donating more just for the chance that you will be moved to a better seat is not the right reason to donate. Be thankful we can even still get into our games (for now

) unlike some other schools that have minimum donations for the chance (not even guaranteed, meaning you could donate and get nothing) to buy tickets (tOSU) or 15,000 people waiting lists for season tickets (NU).

We also don't know how many gray beards were in premium seats for minimum donations for the last 30 years and they may have been forced into lower seats with the donation changes, meaning that may have a waterfall effect pushing others further down or not getting their request for upgrades.

cloneluke80 · 07-02-2008, 07:52 AM

I understand your stance on donations, but don't you agree if you adopt a seat reassignment policy, that it should be enforced?

CyAggie · 07-02-2008, 08:08 AM

Two major proposed benefits of the re-indexing.

1. Getting those not paying the correct donation level for their section to make the correct donation. (Accomplished).
2. Getting more balance back for those giving more donation than their seating assignment. (Based on all of the discussion, this was not accomplished.)

There were too many seats off the table for re-assignment. I know that those in the Victory and top 1/2 of Captains level (as far as priority points rankings) were not given any options to improve seating.

It is concerning that this level of donor is still getting turned away, especially when due to the promotion many upped their giving and still see no improvements.

Ms3r4ISU · 07-02-2008, 08:09 AM

Sure, but because donor names and specific amounts are confidential (yes, the CC levels are printed in the programs), a person cannot know for sure how much a neighbor in the stands paid/donated. Our seats were to be moved due to construction, so we opted to request a move last year. Until we read it in the form letter with seat assignments this year, we didn't know that movement requests from people with those seats would be acted upon first this year.

sloaner · 07-02-2008, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by cloneluke80

All - I have been talking to people and reading on here, and I have a theory..

I think this whole seat re-assignment thing was a sham to get us to donate more (I upped my donation because I wanted to...)

The reason I say this is it seems no one except for people in the construction zone or people that increased their number of tickets is getting re-assigned.

I expect big shakeups in my section because I know alot of them don't donate. I never had a problem with seat reassignments, but now that is it actually not being enforced, I kind of feel a little tricked....

Anyone else have this same hunch and how do they feel about it?

Anyone ask Pollard about this?

They offered people a chance to continue sitting sitting in the sections they have been. If they took the opportunity they kept the seats if not they moved out.

In my case I have been sitting in the lower level on the 45 yard line for the last five years. I could not afford to double my donation, so my seats were moved to my proper level. That opened 4 seats at the victory level for those who were previously donating at that level first, and then new people at that level.

My seats being moved to the Captains level seating took away 4 seats from people with less points than I who donate at the captains level who were not already sitting in the captains level seats.

As you can see all new donors to the higher levels are at a disadvantage because there were already people in those seats that had first choice of what to do. That choice actually affects the seating of multiple levels of giving. My Choice affected the Victory level positively by opening up four seats, but affected the captains level negatively (Actually it greatly increases the value of the seats around my new seats, I'm just that cool) by taking four seats. People that increased their level hoping to jump to a new seating level are at a serious disadvantage as a lot of the donor levels are full and some of the people that were already giving to the proper level still are not getting to sit at that level.

It really is not that difficult to understand. A full reseating would have been the optimal solution for the majority of the fans, but in the long run could have caused more headaches to the AD and meant less money for ISU athletics.

HandSanitizer · 07-02-2008, 08:19 AM

My opinion is when (if) they can get the 2nd deck in south endzone we make the lower level the new student section (they all party in the south parking lots anyway) and then make the whole upper deck Cheap seating so every one black, white, cuban or asian can get into the game without going into the tank financially.

pulse · 07-02-2008, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by sloaner

They offered people a chance to continue sitting sitting in the sections they have been. If they took the opportunity they kept the seats if not they moved out.

In my case I have been sitting in the lower level on the 45 yard line for the last five years. I could not afford to double my donation, so my seats were moved to my proper level. That opened 4 seats at the victory level for those who were previously donating at that level first, and then new people at that level.

My seats being moved to the Captains level seating took away 4 seats from people with less points than I who donate at the captains level who were not already sitting in the captains level seats.

As you can see all new donors to the higher levels are at a disadvantage because there were already people in those seats that had first choice of what to do. That choice actually affects the seating of multiple levels of giving. My Choice affected the Victory level positively by opening up four seats, but affected the captains level negatively (Actually it greatly increases the value of the seats around my new seats, I'm just that cool) by taking four seats. People that increased their level hoping to jump to a new seating level are at a serious disadvantage as a lot of the donor levels are full and some of the people that were already giving to the proper level still are not getting to sit at that level.

It really is not that difficult to understand. A full reseating would have been the optimal solution for the majority of the fans, but in the long run could have caused more headaches to the AD and meant less money for ISU athletics.

Yes, this is exactly it. People didn't give credit to the amount of demand there were for better seats and people were willing to pay for them. It has a cascading effect like you said and effects seats down through the donation levels. It really just properly leveled everything off.

chuckd4735 · 07-02-2008, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by ISUAlum2002

The ISU athletic department was trying to increase donations? No wai!!!

How dare them!

CyAggie · 07-02-2008, 08:49 AM

Yes, this is exactly it. People didn't give credit to the amount of demand there were for better seats and people were willing to pay for them. It has a cascading effect like you said and effects seats down through the donation levels. It really just properly leveled everything off.
-----

In theory yes, but not really as it left many who are giving more than current levels with no improvement in seating. They still have no incentive to maintain donation levels.

bmuff · 07-02-2008, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by CyAggie

Two major proposed benefits of the re-indexing.

1. Getting those not paying the correct donation level for their section to make the correct donation. (Accomplished).
2. Getting more balance back for those giving more donation than their seating assignment. (Based on all of the discussion, this was not accomplished.)

There were too many seats off the table for re-assignment. I know that those in the Victory and top 1/2 of Captains level (as far as priority points rankings) were not given any options to improve seating.

It is concerning that this level of donor is still getting turned away, especially when due to the promotion many upped their giving and still see no improvements.

I think that also #3: It gives new donors a chance to get into proper sections and not have to sit in sections for donors a couple of levels below. Yeah, a lot of people with less overall points may be ahead of them, but at least they can get into the right section. Before, what incentive would there be for a new donor to give $1000 if he had to sit in the $100 area?

CyAggie · 07-02-2008, 09:11 AM

I had that as part of 2, but it still did not hit the target.

cloneluke80 · 07-02-2008, 09:24 AM

So is no one questioning the enforcement of donation levels as part of the problem?

bigB · 07-02-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by cloneluke80

So is no one questioning the enforcement of donation levels as part of the problem?

I guess it depends on what you mean by problem....problem in that enforcing donation levels made people, if they wanted to maintain their seats pony up the cash, thus potentially increasing revenue. or problem in that people who were sitting in locations above their donation level were given the first crack at maintaining those seats?