|
Post by oldhare on Mar 1, 2017 14:12:26 GMT -6
The business model which brings in money 1 or 2 years before the event is an attractive one because....it puts the money in my pocket for 1-2 years before the event which means my cash flow improves. It also finds me a base number from which I can operate and I can possibly add more events to the big event like a "Fan Fest" which may enhance the attendance more. I also prefer the all session ticket sales which reduces my risk of needing to sell more single game tickets(refer to the notion cash flow that the money has been in the bank). I am also operating from the standpoint that anyone who is interested in the SLT is paying attention to the process. That can be found in several places which include individual team websites, Summit League website, and many newspapers. The business model is operating fairly well as there have been good sales through 2019. The Summit teams are also sharing in the profits generated for the conference. I would really like to own some Microsoft stock at its IPO, but no one is going to turn back the clock for me to get in that ballgame either. The Coyote women have been fielding very competitive teams since arriving in the Summit. The interest level and attention of the SLT should have drawn some attention in Vermillion. I have purchased all session passes every year this tourney has been in Sioux Falls and I have supported the all session tickets every year which has at times been purchasing the ticket a year(or 2) in advance. I can not understand why the interest for tickets has been so delayed for many USD fans. Even the year baseball tickets gave buyers a day advantage, many Jackrabbit fans bought a $5 ticket online to get that advantage. Anyone could have done this. Why the delayed interest in the SLT tickets?
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Mar 1, 2017 15:24:18 GMT -6
The business model which brings in money 1 or 2 years before the event is an attractive one because....it puts the money in my pocket for 1-2 years before the event which means my cash flow improves. It also finds me a base number from which I can operate and I can possibly add more events to the big event like a "Fan Fest" which may enhance the attendance more. I also prefer the all session ticket sales which reduces my risk of needing to sell more single game tickets(refer to the notion cash flow that the money has been in the bank). I am also operating from the standpoint that anyone who is interested in the SLT is paying attention to the process. That can be found in several places which include individual team websites, Summit League website, and many newspapers. The business model is operating fairly well as there have been good sales through 2019. The Summit teams are also sharing in the profits generated for the conference. I would really like to own some Microsoft stock at its IPO, but no one is going to turn back the clock for me to get in that ballgame either. The Coyote women have been fielding very competitive teams since arriving in the Summit. The interest level and attention of the SLT should have drawn some attention in Vermillion. I have purchased all session passes every year this tourney has been in Sioux Falls and I have supported the all session tickets every year which has at times been purchasing the ticket a year(or 2) in advance. I can not understand why the interest for tickets has been so delayed for many USD fans. Even the year baseball tickets gave buyers a day advantage, many Jackrabbit fans bought a $5 ticket online to get that advantage. Anyone could have done this. Why the delayed interest in the SLT tickets? Thanks for the response oldhare. I'll wait and see if anyone else has a comment so I can address them all at once - trying to see if there is a valid patter that emerges or not.
|
|
|
Post by thumper76 on Mar 1, 2017 15:33:45 GMT -6
, A conference only works when each of its members are treated equally. See the difference between the Big 10 and Big 12 and how healthy each of those conferences are for proof. That's my point. With UND coming into the conference the slate should be wiped clean and equal opportunity given to all. I would even entertain moving the Summit Tournament East or South or West to appease those other members as well, if they are having issues with the tournament always being held in Sioux Falls. Yes, the tournament makes more money in Sioux Falls and it is a great event for the Dakota schools but what is the point if it alienates a conference member to the point where they are looking to get the heck out of the conference? Here's how awesome the B1G tournament is: Golly, that being fair is just wonderful isn't it. Your real vendetta is that you don't like that there is more SDSU fans there than anybody, as is every yote fan on here who bitches about "fairness". If it was mostly yote fans buying the tickets y'all wouldn't complain a lick. You had opportunities to push out the SDSU fanbase for years before this priority thing was established, and you didn't act. That's a you problem not a fairness problem. This entire conversation is odd. Not the subject matter, but the conversation. Let's get to the point - all of you SDSU fans that are reading this post: Why do you believe a process that has obviously helped your fan base's attendance is valid/fair? - Before you hurt yourself typing too fast, first know that your past attendance in no way gives you a right to a better/different ticket process. I saw Bon Jovi in 1988 (which rocked), but I don't get first stab at tickets if they come back to SF. You paid for and received tickets for past events, and my assumption is that you enjoyed it. Nothing more is earned or should be expected. - No one gives a hoot if your fanbase 'made the SLT what it is' (whatever that means). You go primarily to watch your team play, and your team has had great success in the tourney in this timeframe, thus you keep watching and paying attention. There isn't anything noble about occasionally watching a session your team isn't playing in, or the attendance would be the same in every session - which it isn't. I'm not being argumentative, but honestly the best reason I've heard to keep doing tickets this way is some version of "nana nana boo boo". Well, let's be honest, the largest, I'll go with uproar, about this from yote fans is happening this year. You know, the first year you've been good. As has been posted and shown several times by other SDSU posters yote fans have had ample opportunity before the recently implemented priority system. Honestly it comes off as want it catered to yote fans for the years they are good to be able to get tickets they deem to be "good" and it's "unfair to everyone" when it doesn't happen. That's the reality, and it's very similar to why Zimmer mocks you guys now after the sad letter to the editor about a day that the yotes had 3 out of 4 story's on the front page of the sports section. As to your analogy, you know it's not the same situation and picking something from 1988 as an example is just be absurd, but you're well aware of that. The reality is the move to sell for priority and to give 2 year packages had very little to do with fair, and everything to do with thinking of ways to grow the tournament even more for attendance and revenue. If they can sell more all session passes because of it it opens the possibility of those people attending games their team isn't a part of, as well as making the tournament more revenue from the people who buy the all session package to ensure their seats who otherwise might have only ended up buying a session pass or two. It also encourages businesses to purchase more seats as well. Again, yote fans are crying about fairness in the real world where Fair is for people's fairy tales. The tournament is run as a business and will be operated as such. You want to see what fair does, go look at the picture I posted of the B1G women's tournament attendance. As to making the conference tournament as fair and balanced as possible, the only way to ensure that is to put the game out in California, and only allow each school to sell on ticket for each ticket their opposition sells, and force the rest of the arena to be empty. It's not practical, and it would lead to a shit experience for the student athletes. Do you really think ORU kids and IUPUI kids would rather play in their empty stadiums that seem like practices with a score or in front of 3-6,000 fans, whether they are for them or not? To put in perspective how far that tournament has come since being in Sioux Falls. The first year it was there it set the attendance record for the conference tournament at 34,681. That was the record. After having been in places like Tulsa, and Kansas City, and others, in the name of fairness. The women's games last year drew more than that. Which means what the tournament is doing now would have more fans at the women's games than have ever attended any Summit League tournament with men's and women's combined. They aren't going to change what they are doing until the place is sold out every year, then they could reshuffle. The reality is most of the whining about unfairness that's happening isn't even about not having seats available, it's about not getting the seats YOU want. It's not EASY enough for YOU to get to watch from the seats you feel you DESERVE to be able to have as a yote fan. That's not an SDSU fans problem in the end, it's a yote fan problem for not getting off their rumps to get tickets when you first moved into the Summit. The boat for fair was docked in port and y'all didn't want to get on and now are bitching. It is what it is. I don't think that is SDSU fans are entitled to anything at the tournament. If it were to sell out with 80% red fans, then SDSU fans should have got their asses there to get tickets before them, not whine about how unfair it is. I wouldn't love it but I wouldn't complain about it being a USD home advantage cause their fans earned it by buying the tickets before everyone else. Pure and simple. I believe each school does get an allocation of seats in the lower bowl.- If this is true, then the other schools' Athletic Departments have done a crappy job of marketing those seats to their fans, and that is on them. We should be seeing more fans from out-of-state, and they should be having a good time and spending money. In any case there really isn't a bad seat in the Denny - agree to disagree on this point. basketball sucks to watch from the ends IMO, and the upper bowl is pretty far.The ticket allocation plan didn't change when you joined the conference, or Omaha, or anyone else and I don't see it changing when UND comes on board.- Based on other comments here, the "first dibs" rules have changed. Also in early days there were 10 teams in the conference and only 8 made the tournament. So I don't see a preliminary session being added when UND comes on board either- I'll bet you your all-session passes that the tourney expands to 10. Find me another conference that excludes multiple teams from their championship tournament. I'll bet the reason the Summit did it that way was because of fluctuating membership numbers, with teams leaving and joining. I mean, Douple did say that the conference tournament wasn't going to change when he was asked about it after UND was added.
|
|
|
Post by usdtator on Mar 1, 2017 15:47:55 GMT -6
That's a lot of words and typing for an ag school grad... who helped you write that?
|
|
|
Post by oldhare on Mar 1, 2017 15:56:18 GMT -6
That's a lot of words and typing for an ag school grad... who helped you write that? I would have needed to call IT to set all those inserts!
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Mar 1, 2017 16:15:01 GMT -6
, A conference only works when each of its members are treated equally. See the difference between the Big 10 and Big 12 and how healthy each of those conferences are for proof. That's my point. With UND coming into the conference the slate should be wiped clean and equal opportunity given to all. I would even entertain moving the Summit Tournament East or South or West to appease those other members as well, if they are having issues with the tournament always being held in Sioux Falls. Yes, the tournament makes more money in Sioux Falls and it is a great event for the Dakota schools but what is the point if it alienates a conference member to the point where they are looking to get the heck out of the conference? Here's how awesome the B1G tournament is: Golly, that being fair is just wonderful isn't it. Your real vendetta is that you don't like that there is more SDSU fans there than anybody, as is every yote fan on here who bitches about "fairness". If it was mostly yote fans buying the tickets y'all wouldn't complain a lick. You had opportunities to push out the SDSU fanbase for years before this priority thing was established, and you didn't act. That's a you problem not a fairness problem. This entire conversation is odd. Not the subject matter, but the conversation. Let's get to the point - all of you SDSU fans that are reading this post: Why do you believe a process that has obviously helped your fan base's attendance is valid/fair? - Before you hurt yourself typing too fast, first know that your past attendance in no way gives you a right to a better/different ticket process. I saw Bon Jovi in 1988 (which rocked), but I don't get first stab at tickets if they come back to SF. You paid for and received tickets for past events, and my assumption is that you enjoyed it. Nothing more is earned or should be expected. - No one gives a hoot if your fanbase 'made the SLT what it is' (whatever that means). You go primarily to watch your team play, and your team has had great success in the tourney in this timeframe, thus you keep watching and paying attention. There isn't anything noble about occasionally watching a session your team isn't playing in, or the attendance would be the same in every session - which it isn't. I'm not being argumentative, but honestly the best reason I've heard to keep doing tickets this way is some version of "nana nana boo boo". Well, let's be honest, the largest, I'll go with uproar, about this from yote fans is happening this year. You know, the first year you've been good. As has been posted and shown several times by other SDSU posters yote fans have had ample opportunity before the recently implemented priority system. Honestly it comes off as want it catered to yote fans for the years they are good to be able to get tickets they deem to be "good" and it's "unfair to everyone" when it doesn't happen. That's the reality, and it's very similar to why Zimmer mocks you guys now after the sad letter to the editor about a day that the yotes had 3 out of 4 story's on the front page of the sports section. As to your analogy, you know it's not the same situation and picking something from 1988 as an example is just be absurd, but you're well aware of that. The reality is the move to sell for priority and to give 2 year packages had very little to do with fair, and everything to do with thinking of ways to grow the tournament even more for attendance and revenue. If they can sell more all session passes because of it it opens the possibility of those people attending games their team isn't a part of, as well as making the tournament more revenue from the people who buy the all session package to ensure their seats who otherwise might have only ended up buying a session pass or two. It also encourages businesses to purchase more seats as well. Again, yote fans are crying about fairness in the real world where Fair is for people's fairy tales. The tournament is run as a business and will be operated as such. You want to see what fair does, go look at the picture I posted of the B1G women's tournament attendance. As to making the conference tournament as fair and balanced as possible, the only way to ensure that is to put the game out in California, and only allow each school to sell on ticket for each ticket their opposition sells, and force the rest of the arena to be empty. It's not practical, and it would lead to a shit experience for the student athletes. Do you really think ORU kids and IUPUI kids would rather play in their empty stadiums that seem like practices with a score or in front of 3-6,000 fans, whether they are for them or not? To put in perspective how far that tournament has come since being in Sioux Falls. The first year it was there it set the attendance record for the conference tournament at 34,681. That was the record. After having been in places like Tulsa, and Kansas City, and others, in the name of fairness. The women's games last year drew more than that. Which means what the tournament is doing now would have more fans at the women's games than have ever attended any Summit League tournament with men's and women's combined. They aren't going to change what they are doing until the place is sold out every year, then they could reshuffle. The reality is most of the whining about unfairness that's happening isn't even about not having seats available, it's about not getting the seats YOU want. It's not EASY enough for YOU to get to watch from the seats you feel you DESERVE to be able to have as a yote fan. That's not an SDSU fans problem in the end, it's a yote fan problem for not getting off their rumps to get tickets when you first moved into the Summit. The boat for fair was docked in port and y'all didn't want to get on and now are bitching. It is what it is. I don't think that is SDSU fans are entitled to anything at the tournament. If it were to sell out with 80% red fans, then SDSU fans should have got their asses there to get tickets before them, not whine about how unfair it is. I wouldn't love it but I wouldn't complain about it being a USD home advantage cause their fans earned it by buying the tickets before everyone else. Pure and simple. I mean, Douple did say that the conference tournament wasn't going to change when he was asked about it after UND was added. Thanks thumper. As noted before, I'll see if there any other points to be made before responding.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 1, 2017 17:05:28 GMT -6
If everything is about money and fan interest why allow certain schools to have any home games at all. Just have the schools that draw the best just host all or most of the games. Since the Jacks draw well for their home games they really shouldn't have to travel at all but instead can just give a portion of their ticket sales to the league when they host as a designated road team. The league can in turn give that revenue to the team that has to travel for one of their home games. It's not all about money or fan interest. What ever happened to general fairness. There is a NCAA tourney birth at hand and that is the most important thing to many athletic departments so that is why site equality should be considered.
|
|
dave
Sophomore Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by dave on Mar 1, 2017 17:32:11 GMT -6
The site location for the Summit League Tournament is up for bids so if any of the southern or eastern schools want to have the tourney closer to their home put a business plan together and out bid Sioux Falls. They can't because they don't have a fan base to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 1, 2017 17:58:23 GMT -6
The picture of the Big Ten Tournament is some serious cherry picking. It's a picture of the 12 seed playing the 13 seed on a Wednesday afternoon, at a legitimately neutral site. Winner moves on to the play-in game for the quarterfinals. All this occurring while these schools have their respective men's teams playing their final, crucial regular season games. There isn't even a good parallel between this and the Summit. It would be like IPFW playing Denver on Thursday for a chance to go on to play NDSU on Friday, then enter the quarterfinals on Saturday, while their respective men's teams are playing some of the most important games of the season. No one is going to these games in the Big Ten, and they wouldn't in the Summit either.
Their conference tournament last year was drawing over 6k for the quarterfinals and semis, then 5k for the title game. That's really not bad considering it's women's basketball and destined to be sparsely attended anyways given the circumstances. But, I guess that by your logic they should just have it in Baltimore every year because more people would show up from nearby powerhouse program Maryland.
It's just such a horrible example for whatever point you're trying to make.
Attendance will keep the tournament in Sioux Falls. Fair or not, it's the city that will draw the most fans and it is increasingly close to the geographic center of the conference. But it's plainly ridiculous for the conference to cater to USD and SDSU fanbases by offering annual seat renewals. That just guarantees that no one outside of South Dakota is going to have a decent seat, and likely dissuades anyone having to travel any meaningful distance from coming.
|
|
|
Post by jackfan86 on Mar 1, 2017 19:04:45 GMT -6
The picture of the Big Ten Tournament is some serious cherry picking. It's a picture of the 12 seed playing the 13 seed on a Wednesday afternoon, at a legitimately neutral site. Winner moves on to the play-in game for the quarterfinals. All this occurring while these schools have their respective men's teams playing their final, crucial regular season games. There isn't even a good parallel between this and the Summit. It would be like IPFW playing Denver on Thursday for a chance to go on to play NDSU on Friday, then enter the quarterfinals on Saturday, while their respective men's teams are playing some of the most important games of the season. No one is going to these games in the Big Ten, and they wouldn't in the Summit either. Their conference tournament last year was drawing over 6k for the quarterfinals and semis, then 5k for the title game. That's really not bad considering it's women's basketball and destined to be sparsely attended anyways given the circumstances. But, I guess that by your logic they should just have it in Baltimore every year because more people would show up from nearby powerhouse program Maryland. It's just such a horrible example for whatever point you're trying to make. Attendance will keep the tournament in Sioux Falls. Fair or not, it's the city that will draw the most fans and it is increasingly close to the geographic center of the conference. But it's plainly ridiculous for the conference to cater to USD and SDSU fanbases by offering annual seat renewals. That just guarantees that no one outside of South Dakota is going to have a decent seat, and likely dissuades anyone having to travel any meaningful distance from coming. The conference didn't cater to anyone. They sold the tickets and allowed every fan anywhere the same opportunity to buy the tickets. They were up front about how the sales would be handled. Some people bought the tickets and some people didn't. That's all there is to it. This thing won't leave and shouldn't leave Sioux Falls for the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 1, 2017 19:30:27 GMT -6
That's a lot of words and typing for an ag school grad... who helped you write that? It was TL;DR. Incoherent rambling.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 1, 2017 19:36:05 GMT -6
The picture of the Big Ten Tournament is some serious cherry picking. It's a picture of the 12 seed playing the 13 seed on a Wednesday afternoon, at a legitimately neutral site. Winner moves on to the play-in game for the quarterfinals. All this occurring while these schools have their respective men's teams playing their final, crucial regular season games. There isn't even a good parallel between this and the Summit. It would be like IPFW playing Denver on Thursday for a chance to go on to play NDSU on Friday, then enter the quarterfinals on Saturday, while their respective men's teams are playing some of the most important games of the season. No one is going to these games in the Big Ten, and they wouldn't in the Summit either. Their conference tournament last year was drawing over 6k for the quarterfinals and semis, then 5k for the title game. That's really not bad considering it's women's basketball and destined to be sparsely attended anyways given the circumstances. But, I guess that by your logic they should just have it in Baltimore every year because more people would show up from nearby powerhouse program Maryland. It's just such a horrible example for whatever point you're trying to make. Attendance will keep the tournament in Sioux Falls. Fair or not, it's the city that will draw the most fans and it is increasingly close to the geographic center of the conference. But it's plainly ridiculous for the conference to cater to USD and SDSU fanbases by offering annual seat renewals. That just guarantees that no one outside of South Dakota is going to have a decent seat, and likely dissuades anyone having to travel any meaningful distance from coming. I was more commenting on how the Big Ten's solidarity and treating each other equally has made them the most wealthy and powerful conference in the country, whereas the Big 12's petty squabbling and unequal treatment of its members has put that conference on shaky ground. I wouldn't expect a State fan to understand all that though. They resort to something they understand, pictures. Even if those pictures are taken out of context and turned by a USD fan to even further prove my point.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 1, 2017 20:36:05 GMT -6
The picture of the Big Ten Tournament is some serious cherry picking. It's a picture of the 12 seed playing the 13 seed on a Wednesday afternoon, at a legitimately neutral site. Winner moves on to the play-in game for the quarterfinals. All this occurring while these schools have their respective men's teams playing their final, crucial regular season games. There isn't even a good parallel between this and the Summit. It would be like IPFW playing Denver on Thursday for a chance to go on to play NDSU on Friday, then enter the quarterfinals on Saturday, while their respective men's teams are playing some of the most important games of the season. No one is going to these games in the Big Ten, and they wouldn't in the Summit either. Their conference tournament last year was drawing over 6k for the quarterfinals and semis, then 5k for the title game. That's really not bad considering it's women's basketball and destined to be sparsely attended anyways given the circumstances. But, I guess that by your logic they should just have it in Baltimore every year because more people would show up from nearby powerhouse program Maryland. It's just such a horrible example for whatever point you're trying to make. Attendance will keep the tournament in Sioux Falls. Fair or not, it's the city that will draw the most fans and it is increasingly close to the geographic center of the conference. But it's plainly ridiculous for the conference to cater to USD and SDSU fanbases by offering annual seat renewals. That just guarantees that no one outside of South Dakota is going to have a decent seat, and likely dissuades anyone having to travel any meaningful distance from coming. I was more commenting on how the Big Ten's solidarity and treating each other equally has made them the most wealthy and powerful conference in the country, whereas the Big 12's petty squabbling and unequal treatment of its members has put that conference on shaky ground. I wouldn't expect a State fan to understand all that though. They resort to something they understand, pictures. Even if those pictures are taken out of context and turned by a USD fan to even further prove my point. You won't hear me disagree with your take on what has made the Big 10 strong and the Big 12 nearing extinction. The Big 10 treats every member equally while the Big 12 was doomed from the beginning since they let Texas in.
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Mar 1, 2017 20:43:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thumper76 on Mar 1, 2017 21:09:48 GMT -6
The picture of the Big Ten Tournament is some serious cherry picking. It's a picture of the 12 seed playing the 13 seed on a Wednesday afternoon, at a legitimately neutral site. Winner moves on to the play-in game for the quarterfinals. All this occurring while these schools have their respective men's teams playing their final, crucial regular season games. There isn't even a good parallel between this and the Summit. It would be like IPFW playing Denver on Thursday for a chance to go on to play NDSU on Friday, then enter the quarterfinals on Saturday, while their respective men's teams are playing some of the most important games of the season. No one is going to these games in the Big Ten, and they wouldn't in the Summit either. Their conference tournament last year was drawing over 6k for the quarterfinals and semis, then 5k for the title game. That's really not bad considering it's women's basketball and destined to be sparsely attended anyways given the circumstances. But, I guess that by your logic they should just have it in Baltimore every year because more people would show up from nearby powerhouse program Maryland. It's just such a horrible example for whatever point you're trying to make. Attendance will keep the tournament in Sioux Falls. Fair or not, it's the city that will draw the most fans and it is increasingly close to the geographic center of the conference. But it's plainly ridiculous for the conference to cater to USD and SDSU fanbases by offering annual seat renewals. That just guarantees that no one outside of South Dakota is going to have a decent seat, and likely dissuades anyone having to travel any meaningful distance from coming. Ok, tell me which fanbase will bring thousands of fans that haven't had the opportunity to prove they would already? I eagerly await your reply. Also, the fact that a mid major conference has comparable attendance to a P5 conference tourney proves my point more than makes yours. Even if their tourney is under circumstances like today. The size difference between their fan and alumni base compared to Summit teams is massive.
|
|