Do you know the inside story on that game and removal? One has nothing to do with the other so I dont understand your point.
Williams & Blum Pod: ISU raises prices, bowl win, foul play in the CFP?
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
I'd love to see a list of those reasons.
They've been discussed both on this thread and on the podcast but you're so obsessed with gambling you've overlooked them.
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
Iowa give 30% for alcohol substance control. Like casinos putting part to gambling abuse prevention. Is that 30% in the 50%?
Why wouldn't it? Even if all you net is a million, that could = a couple of stud lineman every season.
Well the research they’ve done said it would be a net loss in revenue.
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.
www.espn.com
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.
Most Power 5 schools sell alcohol inside stadiums
A survey by The Associated Press of Power 5 conference schools and Notre Dame shows that 80% -- 55 of 69 schools -- now sell alcohol in public areas of their stadiums on game days.
www.espn.com
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.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.
Most Power 5 schools sell alcohol inside stadiums
A survey by The Associated Press of Power 5 conference schools and Notre Dame shows that 80% -- 55 of 69 schools -- now sell alcohol in public areas of their stadiums on game days.
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.
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.
If you're making 4 million in revenue; vendor, product and insurance costs are not going eat all of that up.
4MM sounds a lot better than the 1MM profit though. Still profit, but way smaller.
