UCats Survey

[jplog]

Anyone else get the online survey from UCats? Sounds like a new convocation center for bball and volleyball is definately in the future. Although some of the possible increases in UCats fees were a little unrealistic.

[catswin]

I took the survey and by the looks of it I will be paying about 3-4,000 more next year for the same seats I have this year. Shoemaker Center is going to be a ghost town with that kind of pricing.

[Johnny Mac]

I got it too. Been at the Shoe since day one, lower level row 9, 32 year UCAT member. In one on the Models presented UCATS contibution would go from minimum of $2500 to upwards of $50000. Not in my lifetime.

John

[ralph1950]

At some point common sense must prevail. You do not need to expand Nippert until it is sold out for every game for at least 3 years. 20,000 in a 35,000 seat stadium is a lot better looking than 20,000 in a 50,000 seat stadium. The same goes for basketball, until the team is selling out The Shoe on a regular basis there is no need for a replacement.

[nachoman91]

Link to this survey?

[bearcated]

The administration needs to get a grip

The start of the survey lists how UC is towards the bottom of schools in the BE relative to athletic funding. My reply is if true, then why did UC get in the BE in the first place? Get into a conference more suited to size and resources you have available.

I'm in the upper deck, row 1. I've been in the same seats since the place opened. The survey seemed to imply that they want to re-prioritize and move everyone based on the points system (if you are UCATs you know what I refer to). In each of the configurations that question was posed. I told them in no uncertain terms that if they do that to me, I'm gone, never to be heard from again.

My bottom line is I'm fed up. In '88-'89 I paid $200 for a pair of seats. The same seats this year with UCATS fees and the tickets themselves cost $3000. Every year I have to justify this cost to my family. I can do alot of things with $3K or $4k. And let's be honest, the team stinks, I cannot pay people to go to games, much less qive away tickets. And realistically they will stink for at least another year or two (and that is if we are lucky).

And in this context the administration wants to raise prices? Good luck, and see you later!!!

[Bearcat82]

[SIZE="3"]I took the "survey". I've been a season ticketholder 24 straight years.....Gardens, Coliseum, the Shoe, but as the UCATS have made known, they really don't care how many years I've held season tickets in a row, it's how long have I been a UCAT season ticketholder...in an effort to get more priority points I suggested: how about how many years in a row we've had tickets? Their words: "too much work to search records" (there are really THAT many of us?). Hopefully, the "powers that be" will understand the basic economic principle: You have to have demand for the product before you can raise the prices....As my friends and I sat in the 20%-filled Shoe last night we had a laugh about the "survey" and reminisced about days gone bye. If the athletic administration is going to be so cavalier in dismissing my support, it will certainly be easier to get out of the UCAT stranglehold and pick and choose the games I want to attend and buy them from a broker...it would certainly be a lot cheaper.

[Cats4Ever]

This is making the Bengals seat license fee look cheap in comparison.

I agree on the length of time aspect. I had season tickets for Badger, Yates, Huggins years too. All of that support meant nothing.

With gas skyrocketing, food going up, the remaining entertainment dollars are more precious. Bad timing with the president's outrageous bonus and pay raise. And from wht I hear, the university professors took a minimal pay raise in their new contract. A pattern of not caring for the long time supporter on top of their priorities being skewed.

I support the university, but there is a limit to how much they can ask for.

[cpawfan]

At some point common sense must prevail. You do not need to expand Nippert until it is sold out for every game for at least 3 years. 20,000 in a 35,000 seat stadium is a lot better looking than 20,000 in a 50,000 seat stadium. The same goes for basketball, until the team is selling out The Shoe on a regular basis there is no need for a replacement.

Hmm, let me try that logic another way:

Until UC has Big East caliber teams in football and basketball they shouldn't join the Big East.

Good thing UC thought that way as the fight for the C-USA football title has been a fun ride this season.

[ewad]

I know it isn't a popular thing to say, but UC is easily among the cheapest BCS league schools to buy tickets for especially in football.
Despite being a school with one of the largest alumni bases in the country UC grads donate less than any school in the league that plays football.
If you want to compete for championships, bottom line more people have to step up to the plate to support their school.

[bearcated]

Hmm, let me try that logic another way:

Until UC has Big East caliber teams in football and basketball they shouldn't join the Big East.

Good thing UC thought that way as the fight for the C-USA football title has been a fun ride this season.

UC's statement (not yours or mine) is that they lag in funds relative to the rest of the BE. That has no relevance to how well a given team performs in a given year. It's not as if the cost of competing in the BE was a state secret prior to entry. The numbers were and are available to the public. Just because Gardner-Webb beat UK this year in hoops is not an argument for or against them joining the SEC. Such a thing is really a function of the size of the school and available resources. What torques me is now that we are 2 plus years into the BE adventure now all of sudden all we hear is we need more money. All I say is been there and done that. They always want more money. Get in line with all the other people who want to dip their hand in my pocket.

I'm not being critical of how much anyone gives to UC. That's up to the individual. Goodness knows I've given a few bucks over the years. I'm just suggesting we stop automatically buying into the party line.

What I was really hoping to get out of this discussion, and I'm sorry if the topic has strayed is as follows: what is the sense from those UCATs members such as myself that if the BB season is the disaster it may well be that you will re-up next year at what is likely to be increased prices? I would appreciate any feedback on this question.
thanks

[bearcated]

Check the numbers

I know it isn't a popular thing to say, but UC is easily among the cheapest BCS league schools to buy tickets for especially in football.
Despite being a school with one of the largest alumni bases in the country UC grads donate less than any school in the league that plays football.
If you want to compete for championships, bottom line more people have to step up to the plate to support their school.

Instead of taking everyones word for it that UC is such a bargain I did some comparison shopping on the web. I looked at BB ticket costs, since that is what I care about more than football. UC charges $24 per ticket per their web page. Pitt charges $27.50. Uconn charges $30 per ticket (any seat). G-town charges $30, $18, or $5 (yes that is 5 not a typo). Our good buddies at U of L do not list individual game prices. However, to compare it to what I know the CAF (their UCAT equivalent) donation for Priority III seats (upper deck) is $500 per seat. I'm paying $900 per seat to UCATs now for upper deck seats. It hardly seems like a slam dunk that UC is so much cheaper than everyone else. The difference in the numbers must lie elsewhere, or we are being blown smoke.

[cincycpaw]

I find it interesting (and sad) thatey the took a successful bball team, blew it up, and now expect the fans of basketball to pay for everything....????

This survey should open there eyes I hope, they are dreaming. It's good to have high goals and to plan, but they need to be realistic. Kudos for the survey though.

[ralph1950]

If you were selling seats for $3,500 but could get $12,500 for them, would you not raise the price to $12,500? The seats in 5/3rd were for the most part allocated in 1989. The majority of those who bought them in 1989 are still sitting in the same seats. There are George Smith Society members ($10,000 a year) sitting in the upper deck because they are unable to get seats in the lower arena.

While you may not believe it, there is high demand for lower level seats at 5/3rd Arena, even with a rebuilding basketball team. The new $15,000 floor seats added for this season sold out.

If you are currently paying $2,000 you should expect to pay $7,500 next season, if you are currently paying $3,500 you should expect to pay $10,000 next season, because if you do not there is someone ( or company) ready, willing, and able to take your place.

[ME80]

If you are currently paying $2,000 you should expect to pay $7,500 next season, if you are currently paying $3,500 you should expect to pay $10,000 next season, because if you do not there is someone ( or company) ready, willing, and able to take your place.

And your comment about "companies being willing" is exactly why you see so many seats open. I know it is all about money but when you cater to those wanting to enterain rather than to true fans you will always see more empty seats when times are lean.