(12-08-2013 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The reason there was a price on the student tickets is that this was a CUSA event, not a Rice event. As such, we do not control the gate as we would for a Rice game.

No gamesmanship involved at all. Just some very generous alumni who understand the financial reality of being a college student and the significance to the team in their attendance.

I'm not blaming Marshall in any way... weather time and distance... but I alluded to this a few years back when I thought about Rice hosting a team for the conference championship on TV.

The combination of the Rice student section plus I'm guessing 10,000 seats for visitors on the lower deck alone who will almost NEVER travel with anywhere near that many creates a serious visual distraction on TV.

I'm not 100% certain what the answer is, but some things that come to mind are painted areas for the MOB, Students and visitors sections... Chairbacks in the non-band sections. Higher dollar advertising banner/tarp in the front 5-10 rows behind the visitors bench... where we can't sit and they usually don't... and enclosed suites where the box seats currently are. I realize these are often looking into the sun, so they aren't prime,, but I personally think it would be a better scene. I'm not talking high dollar suites per se, just enclosed and prime seating.

Or ... "force" the crowd to the lower seats on that side to fill up the TV view. Then again, advertisers might pay higher fees for advertising tarps in constant view of the camera.

Remember my idea to put a track in and fully embrace Rice's notable Olympic sports heritage? You give up the first seven rows, which were great seats when teams actually sat on benches but are terrible seats now. Everything else stays exactly the same. You can do like Stade de France and have folding seats that come out over the track when needed. When folded up, the covers are primo advert space.

Move the roost to the visitor area and compress the visitor area between student s and the roost. Or is it too hard to enclose the roost as part of the lower level seating?

(12-08-2013 11:34 AM)chrisc Wrote:  I wonder if there's some price anchoring effect going on here. Is saying "The tickets should be $5 but an alum donated the money to make them free to you." better than "Admission is free with your Student ID."?

(12-08-2013 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No gamesmanship involved at all. Just some very generous alumni who understand the financial reality of being a college student and the significance to the team in their attendance.

I humbly suggest (and strongly believe) that Chris and Hambone are both correct. Hambone is certainly correct that there was no gamesmanship, and the ability to offer free tickets to students was underwritten by alums.
And Chris is also certainly correct that the resulting message is an eminently better message than had the tickets just been free in the first place. In fact, the alumni underwriting sends two positive messages: one about the intrinsic value of the tickets, and another about the connectedness of alumni and students in the Rice community. The alternative of providing free tickets from the outset would have sent neither message.
In sum, the way it worked was probably the best possible outcome -- even though I'm not sure anyone would have designed it exactly that way from the beginning. If Rice could have chosen it's student-ticket strategy in a vacuum, independent of C-USA requirements, I suspect the internal debate might have been "charge a nominal fee" versus "charge zero" -- and in fact on this board, the initial debate was exactly that.
I'm not sure anyone would have come up with "Charge a nominal fee, with the idea that alums will step forward to cover the fee, a fact which make the tickets even more appealing." I certainly didn't.

But this nominal fee ticket sponsored by alums idea would not work if it were made routine. It only works for special occasions. Otherwise the tickets just become free, even though they have a face value.

(12-08-2013 04:00 PM)texd Wrote:  But this nominal fee ticket sponsored by alums idea would not work if it were made routine. It only works for special occasions. Otherwise the tickets just become free, even though they have a face value.

Agreed --not suggesting it as a regular-season strategy, nor for regularly expected post-season events like baseball regionals. But for this occasion, it was perfect.

Anybody know if the student t-shirts have arrived from Dallas yet? I heard at the game that they were stuck at DFW...

(12-08-2013 04:52 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Anybody know if the student t-shirts have arrived from Dallas yet? I heard at the game that they were stuck at DFW...

Any idea how they look? Could we use them for the bowl?

Seeing the student section like that was fantastic. And they stayed!

(12-08-2013 12:58 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  Or ... "force" the crowd to the lower seats on that side to fill up the TV view. Then again, advertisers might pay higher fees for advertising tarps in constant view of the camera.

That was my thought as well

(12-08-2013 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Remember my idea to put a track in and fully embrace Rice's notable Olympic sports heritage? You give up the first seven rows, which were great seats when teams actually sat on benches but are terrible seats now. Everything else stays exactly the same. You can do like Stade de France and have folding seats that come out over the track when needed. When folded up, the covers are primo advert space.

You could ignore the track and fill in anyway and do soccer as well... I like the idea and that may be part of a larger plan if the goal is to consolidate the venues, but then we'd have to go back to grass and we're not ready to do that I don't think. Call this the "master plan" if that is where they want to go (and it probably is)

(12-08-2013 02:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Move the roost to the visitor area and compress the visitor area between student s and the roost. Or is it too hard to enclose the roost as part of the lower level seating?

My understanding is that student seating has to be inside the 25. I don't know if there are rules about "the space between", but either the roost or suites is a good idea I think. It might be a bit tough to police, but as has been discussed before, it's not as if we don't have space. Shorten the benches, widen the aisle, build a rail.

(12-08-2013 03:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 11:34 AM)chrisc Wrote:  I wonder if there's some price anchoring effect going on here. Is saying "The tickets should be $5 but an alum donated the money to make them free to you." better than "Admission is free with your Student ID."?

(12-08-2013 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No gamesmanship involved at all. Just some very generous alumni who understand the financial reality of being a college student and the significance to the team in their attendance.

I humbly suggest (and strongly believe) that Chris and Hambone are both correct. Hambone is certainly correct that there was no gamesmanship, and the ability to offer free tickets to students was underwritten by alums.
And Chris is also certainly correct that the resulting message is an eminently better message than had the tickets just been free in the first place. In fact, the alumni underwriting sends two positive messages: one about the intrinsic value of the tickets, and another about the connectedness of alumni and students in the Rice community. The alternative of providing free tickets from the outset would have sent neither message.
In sum, the way it worked was probably the best possible outcome -- even though I'm not sure anyone would have designed it exactly that way from the beginning. If Rice could have chosen it's student-ticket strategy in a vacuum, independent of C-USA requirements, I suspect the internal debate might have been "charge a nominal fee" versus "charge zero" -- and in fact on this board, the initial debate was exactly that.
I'm not sure anyone would have come up with "Charge a nominal fee, with the idea that alums will step forward to cover the fee, a fact which make the tickets even more appealing." I certainly didn't.

George, it was not just the free tickets and free T-shirts (though that certainly provided incentive); rather, the fact that alumni felt strongly enough about the importance of student support at this game gave the athletic department something more to promote (over and above simply the championship game). In their communications to the student body-- both in posters, flyers and on-campus communications, the AD promoted the fact that generous alumni wanted to see the student turnout.

(12-08-2013 06:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 03:14 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 11:34 AM)chrisc Wrote:  I wonder if there's some price anchoring effect going on here. Is saying "The tickets should be $5 but an alum donated the money to make them free to you." better than "Admission is free with your Student ID."?

(12-08-2013 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No gamesmanship involved at all. Just some very generous alumni who understand the financial reality of being a college student and the significance to the team in their attendance.

I humbly suggest (and strongly believe) that Chris and Hambone are both correct. Hambone is certainly correct that there was no gamesmanship, and the ability to offer free tickets to students was underwritten by alums.
And Chris is also certainly correct that the resulting message is an eminently better message than had the tickets just been free in the first place. In fact, the alumni underwriting sends two positive messages: one about the intrinsic value of the tickets, and another about the connectedness of alumni and students in the Rice community. The alternative of providing free tickets from the outset would have sent neither message.
In sum, the way it worked was probably the best possible outcome -- even though I'm not sure anyone would have designed it exactly that way from the beginning. If Rice could have chosen it's student-ticket strategy in a vacuum, independent of C-USA requirements, I suspect the internal debate might have been "charge a nominal fee" versus "charge zero" -- and in fact on this board, the initial debate was exactly that.
I'm not sure anyone would have come up with "Charge a nominal fee, with the idea that alums will step forward to cover the fee, a fact which make the tickets even more appealing." I certainly didn't.

George, it was not just the free tickets and free T-shirts (though that certainly provided incentive); rather, the fact that alumni felt strongly enough about the importance of student support at this game gave the athletic department something more to promote (over and above simply the championship game). In their communications to the student body-- both in posters, flyers and on-campus communications, the AD promoted the fact that generous alumni wanted to see the student turnout.

Walt, that's exactly what my post was about.

(12-08-2013 05:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...but then we'd have to go back to grass and we're not ready to do that I don't think.

I am not sure what you mean here. Certainly I understand a reluctance to replace the synthetic turf much before its natural life starts to run out. And people can certainly argue about future economics of difference surfaces (and find compelling data on either side.)
But surely there is no conceptual impediment (e.g., "That's just now how we do it here") to playing field sports on, you know, an actual field.

(12-08-2013 07:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 05:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ...but then we'd have to go back to grass and we're not ready to do that I don't think.

I am not sure what you mean here. Certainly I understand a reluctance to replace the synthetic turf much before its natural life starts to run out. And people can certainly argue about future economics of difference surfaces (and find compelling data on either side.)
But surely there is no conceptual impediment (e.g., "That's just now how we do it here") to playing field sports on, you know, an actual field.

Does the NCAA require a natural surface for soccer? While I vastly prefer soccer on grass, the MLS allows teams to play on artificial surfaces.

Oregon's soccer stadium uses this synthetic: http://www.ubusports.com/products/m6m.htm

http://www.goducks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?...=205174866

You "can" use synthetic, but you can't do javelin and shot put and discus on synthetic I wouldn't think.

George, I just feel that the use that the field will get if it is our only performance venue will be heavy and require a fair amount more investment than synthetic. I think advancements in turf have been significant and while we may be within a decade or two of needing the space occupied by the track for campus, I don't think we're to the point yet where this is a necessity.