Williams & Blum Pod: ISU raises prices, bowl win, foul play in the CFP?

cycloneworld

Facebook Knows All
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 20, 2006
30,179
22,529
113
Urbandale, IA
I understand being focused on revenue but then why keep hammering away at a topic that 1) we don’t know will even generate positive revenue compared to our current situation and 2) if it does generate revenue, how much are we looking at?

It's a good exercise and I'm sure one the AD has already gone through but, in my experience, when people have an idea of how they want the outcome to come out (ie. Pollard doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU sporting events), you can create the scenarios to achieve that outcome.

I'll take a stab. If Iowa brought it $4.2 million in alcohol sales, let's assume ISU can bring in $3.5 million. Let's assume 50% of that goes towards insurance, vendors, product, etc. (which is what is reported by many other schools). That leaves $1.75 million to ISU. Your argument that we lose SEZ club people because they only buy those tickets to buy beer is probably sound. But how many? The SEZ holds, what, 2,000? 2,500? Let's say 20% of those people get pissed, don't renew, and buy regular season tickets now that they can buy beer anywhere (I don't think it would be near that high), that means that ISU loses 400 people that were paying $999 per ticket which will now pay $650. That is a difference of $139,000. Even if they bought the cheat seats at $450, its only $220,000. Even if those numbers are way off, its a LONG way to go to say it would not be revenue-positive for Iowa State.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BWRhasnoAC

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
10,596
24,091
113
The gambling genie isn't going back in the bottle, and it isn't ISU athletics' job to take a moral stand against something that is perfectly legal. I'd advise taking your beef with gambling up with the government.
And it isn't Campbell's job to make gambling more attractive.

By the way, I don't have any real beef with gambling. I just don't think it helps college football and I don't understand why Campbell should be forced to do something that only encourages more gambling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IlliniCy and NWICY

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
7,331
12,223
113
And it isn't Campbell's job to make gambling more attractive.

By the way, I don't have any real beef with gambling. I just don't think it helps college football and I don't understand why Campbell should be forced to do something that only encourages more gambling.
Plenty of reasons to do this that have nothing to do with gambling.
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,775
63,845
113
Not exactly sure.
Should have clarified- it should have counted the whole time, and should retroactively account for something. This is what I get for trying to type and run an auger at the same time

Gotta go clean cut. Can’t look back on it or you will have a mess
 

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
10,596
24,091
113
That horse jumped the fence long ago, my friend. Gambling is already absolutely entwined into college sports. That dam done broke years ago.
Of course it is, but why should our coach (and all college coaches) be required to do something whose only purpose is to make it easier for gamblers?

Like betting on college football? Fine. Don't like betting on college football because you don't know for certain who will be sitting out? Then bet on something else.
 

CyCity

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jan 28, 2014
2,103
4,853
113
West Des Moines
It's a good exercise and I'm sure one the AD has already gone through but, in my experience, when people have an idea of how they want the outcome to come out (ie. Pollard doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU sporting events), you can create the scenarios to achieve that outcome.

I'll take a stab. If Iowa brought it $4.2 million in alcohol sales, let's assume ISU can bring in $3.5 million. Let's assume 50% of that goes towards insurance, vendors, product, etc. (which is what is reported by many other schools). That leaves $1.75 million to ISU. Your argument that we lose SEZ club people because they only buy those tickets to buy beer is probably sound. But how many? The SEZ holds, what, 2,000? 2,500? Let's say 20% of those people get pissed, don't renew, and buy regular season tickets now that they can buy beer anywhere (I don't think it would be near that high), that means that ISU loses 400 people that were paying $999 per ticket which will now pay $650. That is a difference of $139,000. Even if they bought the cheat seats at $450, its only $220,000. Even if those numbers are way off, its a LONG way to go to say it would not be revenue-positive for Iowa State.
You’re lucky to get 30% of sales, not 50%.

Sukup is 2,800 seats and the research they’ve done tells them they would need to lower Sukup ticket prices pretty dramatically if they sell alcohol to the public
 

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,775
63,845
113
Not exactly sure.
It's a good exercise and I'm sure one the AD has already gone through but, in my experience, when people have an idea of how they want the outcome to come out (ie. Pollard doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU sporting events), you can create the scenarios to achieve that outcome.

I'll take a stab. If Iowa brought it $4.2 million in alcohol sales, let's assume ISU can bring in $3.5 million. Let's assume 50% of that goes towards insurance, vendors, product, etc. (which is what is reported by many other schools). That leaves $1.75 million to ISU. Your argument that we lose SEZ club people because they only buy those tickets to buy beer is probably sound. But how many? The SEZ holds, what, 2,000? 2,500? Let's say 20% of those people get pissed, don't renew, and buy regular season tickets now that they can buy beer anywhere (I don't think it would be near that high), that means that ISU loses 400 people that were paying $999 per ticket which will now pay $650. That is a difference of $139,000. Even if they bought the cheat seats at $450, its only $220,000. Even if those numbers are way off, its a LONG way to go to say it would not be revenue-positive for Iowa State.
Iowa give 30% for alcohol substance control. Like casinos putting part to gambling abuse prevention. Is that 30% in the 50%?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: StPaulCyclone

Cyghhh

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 18, 2022
380
720
93
According to this survey, 80% of P5 schools sell alchohol and I haven't heard of one school stopping it because profit wasn't being generated.


I also have a hard time believing the 1 million argument from JP.

The University of North Carolina, meanwhile, is in its fifth season of selling alcohol, which has helped the bottom line with about $4 million in sales.

In the landscape that currently exists, ANY revenue is GOOD revenue to survive.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: INTENSE_CY

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,775
63,845
113
Not exactly sure.
According to this survey, 80% of P5 schools sell alchohol and I haven't heard of one school stopping it because profit wasn't being generated.


I also have a hard time believing the 1 million argument from JP.

The University of North Carolina, meanwhile, is in its fifth season of selling alcohol, which has helped the bottom line with about $4 million in sales.

In the landscape that currently exists, ANY revenue is GOOD revenue to survive.
Profit would be good, not just revenue.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: aobie

cycloneworld

Facebook Knows All
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 20, 2006
30,179
22,529
113
Urbandale, IA
You’re lucky to get 30% of sales, not 50%.

Sukup is 2,800 seats and the research they’ve done tells them they would need to lower Sukup ticket prices pretty dramatically if they sell alcohol to the public

Not based on data that I saw (most was 40-50%) But let's say you are right - that's still nets ISU over $1 million and ISU isn't losing more than that with SEZ "lost" revenue. Just like the "threat" that people wont donate if we increase the donation requirements, I don't think people leave the SEZ just because they can buy beer elsewhere. You still have a seatback, climate controlled building, own restrooms, and you could keep all of the craft beers, liquor, and variety of alcoholic drinks and sell basic beers to everyone else.

Saying "ISU will lose revenue" is of course what the AD will say because he doesn't want to sell alcohol at ISU events. I see almost no chance of that happening in practice.