I saw what I expected

[GP1]

All I have to go by are the numbers. ..... All I have been asking for this season is for Nicely to improve his accuracy. Accuracy is what makes a good QB. He completed 33% of his passes. That's terrible. I don't care how hard you throw it, it doesn't matter if you can't throw it close to someone. .....

As someone who has been accused of focusing too much on statistics, I believe I am eminently qualified to address the issue of Nicely's 12 of 35 (34%) pass completion percentage.

Unless you actually witnessed the game, you wouldn't know that Nicely put more than 50% of the passes that he threw to his receivers into or near their hands, i.e. catchable. About a third of his statistical pass attempts were not actual pass attempts. They were passes deliberately thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack because all of the receivers were well covered and the Syracuse defensive line was pouring through the Zips offensive line.

Since intended incompletions (deliberately throwing the ball away) do not have their own statistical category, they get lumped in with unintended incompletions under pass completion percentage. Without knowing that a large percentage of the incompletions were deliberate, one cannot fairly and accurately judge the QB's actual pass accuracy performance.

The fact that Nicely threw no interceptions indicates that he was smart enough not to try to force the ball into a tight Syracuse secondary when his receivers were smothered, which was most of the time.

Nicely's performance was obviously not that good, but it was far from the Zips biggest problem last night. The QB did not have a lot of support, and he's not good enough to win games by himself.

That's all well and good. However, great QBs thread the needle with or without support. If you can thread the needle, the rush backs off.

40% completion, maybe I back off. 33%, no way. It's terrible regardless of how you look at it.

Your last statement may be the most profound of all. If he isn't enough to win games in the MAC, we have a problem. The MAC is a QB driven league and there are times he will have to be enough to win.

[bobbyake]

FAIL to encourage apathetic Akronites to come back to a game by GOUGING them $10 to park a car in a "Tailgate Lot."

Agreed. I had my three teenage boys waiting for me in the car, when I found out not only were tickets going to be $20 a piece, but I was also going to be charged for parking. That's $70 before we got in the door (I'm a student). Who do they think they are, the New England Patriots?

$10 is not too much to charge to attend a college football game. If you want to park for free, drive up and down the side streets looking for a spot in front of a house.

$20 is a reasonable price to pay to attend a college football game and watch a BCS team play.

When is the last time you paid to attend an NFL game? GA seats at the Big Dialer are similar to a club level seat at an NFL stadium. Those run in excess of $100ea plus parking. You saved around $400 by going to the Zips game.

Like I've said here many times now..... We are a I-AA school for many reasons. Fan attitudes about what prices should be paid to watch a D-1A game are strange at best. When I see a fan say $70 is too much to watch a D-1A football game with four other humans, I know we can never make it in D-1A.

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

Being a D1-A program should have nothing to do with ticket prices. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Prices need to reflect demand. The demand isn't high enough to charge the prices UA is charging and they'll make less money overall unless they drop the prices to bring in more people. 15,000 people paying $10 a ticket and $5 to park will bring in more money than 5,000 people paying $20 a ticket and $10 to park.

It doesn't matter if it's D1-A or D1-AA, prices need to reflect demand!!

[ZachTheZip]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

[Zipmeister]

FAIL to encourage apathetic Akronites to come back to a game by GOUGING them $10 to park a car in a "Tailgate Lot."

Agreed. I had my three teenage boys waiting for me in the car, when I found out not only were tickets going to be $20 a piece, but I was also going to be charged for parking. That's $70 before we got in the door (I'm a student). Who do they think they are, the New England Patriots?

$10 is not too much to charge to attend a college football game. If you want to park for free, drive up and down the side streets looking for a spot in front of a house.

$20 is a reasonable price to pay to attend a college football game and watch a BCS team play.

When is the last time you paid to attend an NFL game? GA seats at the Big Dialer are similar to a club level seat at an NFL stadium. Those run in excess of $100ea plus parking. You saved around $400 by going to the Zips game.

Like I've said here many times now..... We are a I-AA school for many reasons. Fan attitudes about what prices should be paid to watch a D-1A game are strange at best. When I see a fan say $70 is too much to watch a D-1A football game with four other humans, I know we can never make it in D-1A.

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

Being a D1-A program should have nothing to do with ticket prices. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Prices need to reflect demand. The demand isn't high enough to charge the prices UA is charging and they'll make less money overall unless they drop the prices to bring in more people. 15,000 people paying $10 a ticket and $5 to park will bring in more money than 5,000 people paying $20 a ticket and $10 to park.

It doesn't matter if it's D1-A or D1-AA, prices need to reflect demand!!

At last, someone talking economic sense. What is your best estimate of the demand function? I'm thinking it may not really be very elastic. Any thoughts on using a reverse Dutch auction to price tickets?

[TexanMark]

FAIL to encourage apathetic Akronites to come back to a game by GOUGING them $10 to park a car in a "Tailgate Lot."

Agreed. I had my three teenage boys waiting for me in the car, when I found out not only were tickets going to be $20 a piece, but I was also going to be charged for parking. That's $70 before we got in the door (I'm a student). Who do they think they are, the New England Patriots?

$10 is not too much to charge to attend a college football game. If you want to park for free, drive up and down the side streets looking for a spot in front of a house.

$20 is a reasonable price to pay to attend a college football game and watch a BCS team play.

When is the last time you paid to attend an NFL game? GA seats at the Big Dialer are similar to a club level seat at an NFL stadium. Those run in excess of $100ea plus parking. You saved around $400 by going to the Zips game.

Like I've said here many times now..... We are a I-AA school for many reasons. Fan attitudes about what prices should be paid to watch a D-1A game are strange at best. When I see a fan say $70 is too much to watch a D-1A football game with four other humans, I know we can never make it in D-1A.

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

Being a D1-A program should have nothing to do with ticket prices. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Prices need to reflect demand. The demand isn't high enough to charge the prices UA is charging and they'll make less money overall unless they drop the prices to bring in more people. 15,000 people paying $10 a ticket and $5 to park will bring in more money than 5,000 people paying $20 a ticket and $10 to park.

It doesn't matter if it's D1-A or D1-AA, prices need to reflect demand!!

At last, someone talking economic sense. What is your best estimate of the demand function? I'm thinking it may not really be very elastic. Any thoughts on using a reverse Dutch auction to price tickets?

A little bit of D-1 reality...$20 to sit on the 40 yard line is insanely cheap...a few Cuse buddies are traveling to Washington next week and will get to pay $66 a tix to sit in the end zone. BTW, your stadium is really nice. The best MAC stadium I've been in.

[RootforRoo44]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

Being a D1-A program should have nothing to do with ticket prices. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Prices need to reflect demand. The demand isn't high enough to charge the prices UA is charging and they'll make less money overall unless they drop the prices to bring in more people. 15,000 people paying $10 a ticket and $5 to park will bring in more money than 5,000 people paying $20 a ticket and $10 to park.

It doesn't matter if it's D1-A or D1-AA, prices need to reflect demand!!

You're making it sound like UA has some sort of idea in terms of what do to business or marketing wise.

[Zipsrifle]

I think next week we'll have a smilar crowd if the weather is nice. I think people will know we should win and people like to watch a win. Next week should be a good week to work out the kinks. The following two weeks will be ugly, but I hope by the time we hit MAC play, we'll still be healty and competitive.

I am one of the people who wasn't happy with the decision of hiring Rob. I wanted someone with a background of winning in FCS. With that said, we have what we have and I don't see the use in running around screaming that the sky is falling. Settle down give it some time, I think a lot of it is growing pains. A lot of these kids have only played in the spread and it will take some time for them to get comfortable. I expect to see a lot of improvement over the next few weeks. The worst thing we could do to our program now is to FIRE everyone involved in the team. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy right now. I'm not happy that we basically HAVE to give Rob I 2 years to turn things around but I must remind myself, I was convinced that we were doomed when Ken Lolla left the soccer team. Give it a chance.

[bobbyake]

I think next week we'll have a smilar crowd if the weather is nice. I think people will know we should win and people like to watch a win. Next week should be a good week to work out the kinks. The following two weeks will be ugly, but I hope by the time we hit MAC play, we'll still be healty and competitive.

I am one of the people who wasn't happy with the decision of hiring Rob. I wanted someone with a background of winning in FCS. With that said, we have what we have and I don't see the use in running around screaming that the sky is falling. Settle down give it some time, I think a lot of it is growing pains. A lot of these kids have only played in the spread and it will take some time for them to get comfortable. I expect to see a lot of improvement over the next few weeks. The worst thing we could do to our program now is to FIRE everyone involved in the team. Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy right now. I'm not happy that we basically HAVE to give Rob I 2 years to turn things around but I must remind myself, I was convinced that we were doomed when Ken Lolla left the soccer team. Give it a chance.

I think most of us agree with you. It's knowing that there's a high probability we'll have 2 more bad years that has me upset.

It seems there's a lot of us that believe hiring Coach I was a bad choice. We have to suffer the consequence of that bad choice for 2 more years.

It's the 'I knew it' factor coming into play now. We're all voicing our 'I told you so' opinions.

If Coach I doesn't prove us wrong, things are probably going to get very ugly here. My way of coping with this is by rooting for our soccer team as much as I can.

[cornbread]

All I have to go by are the numbers. ..... All I have been asking for this season is for Nicely to improve his accuracy. Accuracy is what makes a good QB. He completed 33% of his passes. That's terrible. I don't care how hard you throw it, it doesn't matter if you can't throw it close to someone. .....

As someone who has been accused of focusing too much on statistics, I believe I am eminently qualified to address the issue of Nicely's 12 of 35 (34%) pass completion percentage.

Unless you actually witnessed the game, you wouldn't know that Nicely put more than 50% of the passes that he threw to his receivers into or near their hands, i.e. catchable. About a third of his statistical pass attempts were not actual pass attempts. They were passes deliberately thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack because all of the receivers were well covered and the Syracuse defensive line was pouring through the Zips offensive line.

Since intended incompletions (deliberately throwing the ball away) do not have their own statistical category, they get lumped in with unintended incompletions under pass completion percentage. Without knowing that a large percentage of the incompletions were deliberate, one cannot fairly and accurately judge the QB's actual pass accuracy performance.

The fact that Nicely threw no interceptions indicates that he was smart enough not to try to force the ball into a tight Syracuse secondary when his receivers were smothered, which was most of the time.

Nicely's performance was obviously not that good, but it was far from the Zips biggest problem last night. The QB did not have a lot of support, and he's not good enough to win games by himself.

That's all well and good. However, great QBs thread the needle with or without support. If you can thread the needle, the rush backs off.

40% completion, maybe I back off. 33%, no way. It's terrible regardless of how you look at it.

Your last statement may be the most profound of all. If he isn't enough to win games in the MAC, we have a problem. The MAC is a QB driven league and there are times he will have to be enough to win.

Nicely threw away 4 balls at least instead of throwing a pick or getting sacked.

Taken for granted that throw-aways are always a part of a QBs completion ration, 12/31 is 39% (Nicely was 12/35 passing).

[MaxZIP]

All I have to go by are the numbers. ..... All I have been asking for this season is for Nicely to improve his accuracy. Accuracy is what makes a good QB. He completed 33% of his passes. That's terrible. I don't care how hard you throw it, it doesn't matter if you can't throw it close to someone. .....

As someone who has been accused of focusing too much on statistics, I believe I am eminently qualified to address the issue of Nicely's 12 of 35 (34%) pass completion percentage.

Unless you actually witnessed the game, you wouldn't know that Nicely put more than 50% of the passes that he threw to his receivers into or near their hands, i.e. catchable. About a third of his statistical pass attempts were not actual pass attempts. They were passes deliberately thrown out of bounds to avoid a sack because all of the receivers were well covered and the Syracuse defensive line was pouring through the Zips offensive line.

Since intended incompletions (deliberately throwing the ball away) do not have their own statistical category, they get lumped in with unintended incompletions under pass completion percentage. Without knowing that a large percentage of the incompletions were deliberate, one cannot fairly and accurately judge the QB's actual pass accuracy performance.

The fact that Nicely threw no interceptions indicates that he was smart enough not to try to force the ball into a tight Syracuse secondary when his receivers were smothered, which was most of the time.

Nicely's performance was obviously not that good, but it was far from the Zips biggest problem last night. The QB did not have a lot of support, and he's not good enough to win games by himself.

That's all well and good. However, great QBs thread the needle with or without support. If you can thread the needle, the rush backs off.

40% completion, maybe I back off. 33%, no way. It's terrible regardless of how you look at it.

Your last statement may be the most profound of all. If he isn't enough to win games in the MAC, we have a problem. The MAC is a QB driven league and there are times he will have to be enough to win.

Nicely threw away 4 balls at least instead of throwing a pick or getting sacked.

Taken for granted that throw-aways are always a part of a QBs completion ration, 12/31 is 39% (Nicely was 12/35 passing).

I saw about 8 balls that were thrown away.

[ejcool27]

Guys this is a completely new offence they are running from last year...Give them time to settle in if they are playing like this at the end of the season then lets start complaining...i expected this for the most part...I wanna see the offence do better by the end of the season...of course I also don't think Nicely is the greatest Qb in the world he's a gunslinger with poor accuracy

[Spin]

$20 is a reasonable price to pay to attend a college football game and watch a BCS team play.

When is the last time you paid to attend an NFL game?

Well, considering we haven't had an NFL team since 1994, I would say '94 or '95...

GA seats at the Big Dialer are similar to a club level seat at an NFL stadium. Those run in excess of $100ea plus parking. You saved around $400 by going to the Zips game.

If it were the Colts and Patriots, I would agree. They're a I-AA school (your quote) playing the 91st ranked team in the country. BCS my arse. They'd be third best in the MAC. They were 1-6 against the Big Easy last year. Still a lot better than us, but not quite a game big time college football fans schedule on their calendar as a must see. You guys act like they brought in the Crimson fricken Tide.

Like I've said here many times now..... We are a I-AA school for many reasons. Fan attitudes about what prices should be paid to watch a D-1A game are strange at best. When I see a fan say $70 is too much to watch a D-1A football game with four other humans, I know we can never make it in D-1A.

That's right, it's all my fault. I'm the one recruiting, I'm the one teaching these guys the most basic fundamentals, I'm the one who can't figure out how to sell ice water in the desert. WE'RE the reason we're a I-AA school. Funny, the soccer program built itself into a powerhouse, without gouging the fans for years beforehand. No excuse.

Maybe it's the people willing to pay Big Time College prices for a 124th ranked team, and get gouged to see them play a top 100 team (barely) is the reason they don't build this program. Just like the Browns and the Indians.

What is Larry Dolan's incentive to put even a handful of major league players out there? Those idiots will pay for anything, because it's "Major League Baseball". And they'll pay $50 more per ticket to watch the team get slaughtered by a top team than play a team almost as bad as they are. He's sitting on one of the most profitable franchises in baseball.

Why try?

I see no reason to pay filet mignon prices for a McNugget Value Meal.

[Spin]

Patch up the Rubber Bowl? With what? The place was literally on the verge of being condemned. They would have spent tens of millions of dollars, which they dont' have, to fix up something they were only going to use for a few more years.

Some people think they made this "huge investment" in the Info because they want to build a Div I-A level football program.

No, they looked at how much it would cost to patch up the RB, and used it (and sponsor money they attracted by building it) to build the Info. It was virtually paid for the day it opened.

It was cheaper to build the Info than to patch up the RB. That's why it's here.

And for those who don't think we should play I-AA football in such a nice place, have you been to Canal Park? Pro Freight Stadium? Classic Park? There's nothing wrong with having a really nice venue to watch a team play. Even if they aren't considered top level.

[cornbread]

fault. I'm the one recruiting, I'm the one teaching these guys the most basic fundamentals, I'm the one who can't figure out how to sell ice water in the desert. WE'RE the reason we're a I-AA school. Funny, the soccer program built itself into a powerhouse, without gouging the fans for years beforehand. No excuse.

There is a lot of talk about the soccer program on here.

When it comes to having an awesome soccer program, I am happy for UofA, but isn't it stupid to draw comparisons? 2 different sports, etc? And speaking in terms of the football board, would anyone skip watching a football game to watch a soccer game?

I don't think I would.

[Spin]

I have.

Just because they play football and I was born and raised football and nothing else, I'd still rather see a top ranked team. A first class program.

[skip-zip]

I went to yesterday's game with low expectations and Coach I managed to put a product on the field that didn't even meet those expectations.

• Coach I after the game "We new they were a blitzing team" Me talking to the radio "Then why the hell didn't you keep a running back in the back field to help?"
  
  
• I did not see all of the "dropped" passes someone else saw. I saw a "dropped" pass by Jalil Carter and tons of poorly thrown passes.
  
  • The defense played well (even though the score didn't indicate) but I think they were on the field for like 72 plays.
    
  • Most unimaginative offense I've ever seen and I'll be surprised to see this team score more than 10 points again on average playing like they did yesterday.
    
  • I think Alex Allen is done. His one run was nice but the rest of the time he was in the game he showed he has lost a step and is very tentative running the ball.
    
  • Nate Burney is 5'6 and ran with more heart than Allen yesterday.
    
  • Nicely looks lost. He can't find open receivers. He throws balls way late...often throwing them after the player has completed his route. He threw into double coverage all day. And my personal favority 3rd and 3 he rools right has a chance to run to try to get the first down and throws it away...are you kidding me it was like he had no clue threre were only three downs.
    
  • Going for the field goal on 4th in 2 on Cuses side of the field with a chance to make a game of it? Pathetic chicken shit play calling.
    
  • Did anyone expect a coach from a school that sucked the entire time he was there to come to a program that has sucked and turn it around? I haven't liked the hire from day one and today just emphasized my thoughts. There is no excuse for the lack of preperation other than you are in over your head.
    
  • No enthusiasm from the coaching staff from the start of the game on yesterday. Coach I came lumbering out with the team and looked like he didn't want to be there.
    
  • I think this team is going to be lucky to win a division 1 game this year.
    
  • I've seen high school coaches who were better prepared than these guys and far more imaginitive.
    
  • Shawn Lemon, Bryan Wagner and Mike Thomas are some really good ball players. Marcox looked good too but the other three are all MAC type players.
    
  • Some pretty acrobatic catches by our Wide Receivers yesterday because they certainly didn't get the ball hitting them in their numbers.
    
  • Punting was so uneven...how is it there aren't 120 kids between 18-22 in our entire country that can punt good enough that all schools should have a stud?
    
  • I tried to take the family to Barley House before the game (decided not too tailgate for this game) and got there at 3:30. There was a line and open tables....told us they were understaffed. Are you fucking kidding me what a incompetent bunch of fucks running that place. We went to Brubakers where there were properly staffed decked out in their Zips gear, happy to have us and better food than I thought they would have.
    

  I could go on but I'm guessing that is enough. I have no idea how we can't get this football coaching thing right after all this years and watching other programs succeed time and time again.

It's unbelievable. I'm seeing comments like "ok...so maybe he wasn't perfect", which honestly, would be absolutely laughable to most people who saw this game. And the lofty predictions that a few people have placed on his career here are further widening the gap with reality.

Every QB has to deal with dropped passes, blocking breakdowns, getting blitzed, throwing the ball out of bounds, etc. Yet, 30% passing performance are still not the norm. This performance was highlighted by a ton of passes that were off the mark, or thrown into coverage...plain and simple. And everyone in my group of fans, and everyone sitting around us saw it the same way. And probably the one play that highlighted this inaccuracy the most was the short dump-off pass attempt to a wide open Alex Allen late in the game that was thrown at his feet. Once again, it's the same things we've seen over the two seasons this guy has been here, and consistent with everything I have been told about him.

With that said, I am still NOT ready to see a revolving door of QBs yet. I'm not convinced we have anything better to turn to right now. And If our coach feels that PN is our "best" option right now, I will trust that and hope there is some kind of improvement in the weeks ahead, especially since he has already gotten the majority of reps with the 1st team offense over the last couple of weeks in practice. Obviously, the GW game will show us nothing. But, if we stink offensively through the KY, IN, and N. Ill. games, I'm hoping that Matt is a little healthier and ready to go by that time, and can add a little spark to the offense with his playmaking ability.

[zen]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

[GP1]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

[ZachTheZip]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

Exactly. No more fans would have shown up even if we lowered the price to $5 a ticket.

And Can't's pricing structure simply lowers the value of their product. If people pay $5 to see them, they see that it's worth less than a high school game, and so must not be as important as one or as exciting, or worth the trip.

[zen]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

quite true.

However, since we aren't even coming close to selling to capacity, an attempt to drop prices to see what increase in volume would occur seems sensible.

The worst thing that could happen is that you don't sell significantly more tickets, and you have found out where you stand.

To use the above numbers, if you had a $3 ticket game and sold 30,000 of them, you'd get 90,000.

Of course, the disaster would be if you still only drew 15,000. lol.

I would trust experience and experimentation in these matters over some guy with a pocket protector and an abacus predicting optimal price.

[GP1]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

quite true.

However, since we aren't even coming close to selling to capacity, an attempt to drop prices to see what increase in volume would occur seems sensible.

The worst thing that could happen is that you don't sell significantly more tickets, and you have found out where you stand.

Without knowing if there is a demand or not, lowering ticket prices sets a bad precedent. It is easy to lower prices. It is difficult to raise prices.

There is no evidence lowering prices would have created a bigger crowd. Years ago, the Zips brought VaTech to the RB and had about the same number of people at the game at much lower prices. This tells me the demand is set for watching a bad football team play. In fact, there are 16,000 people around Akron who will pay to watch the Zips play an early season game against a BCS level team regardless of the price and quality of the product Akron puts on the field and regardless of where the game is being played. It happened over 10 years ago and it happened yesterday. The trick now is to hold pricing and put a better team on the field. Lowering ticket prices is not the answer.

[GP1]

To use the above numbers, if you had a $3 ticket game and sold 30,000 of them, you'd get 90,000.

Of course, the disaster would be if you still only drew 15,000. lol.

Historical evidence shows we would be more likely to draw 15,000 than 30,000. See previous post.

Now let's go eat a God damn snack....

[Zipmeister]

OK, so far we know that Zach believes the demand function for UA football tickets is perfectly inelastic while bobbyach refuses to specify a demand function. The rest of you appear to believe some degree of elasticity exists in the demand function, but also fail to specify the model. What is the optimal price? Your solution does not have to be Pareto optimal (but it wouldn't hurt).

[UAZip0510]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

Exactly. No more fans would have shown up even if we lowered the price to $5 a ticket.

And Can't's pricing structure simply lowers the value of their product. If people pay $5 to see them, they see that it's worth less than a high school game, and so must not be as important as one or as exciting, or worth the trip.

I fully disagree...I know six people personally who planned to attend then changed their mind when they saw the price...SIX! If I know that many alone, imagine how many total.

[GP1]

While you enjoy paying your D-1A prices with only 3000-5000 people to watch a Zips game, our friends in Can't will be paying $5 with over 16,000 others to watch the Golden Flushes. They'll be laughing at us all year.

They can laugh all they want. Anything less than $18 is selling at a loss, and won't be made up through concessions or merchandise. They're killing themselves financially (even more than usual) in an attempt to keep within the NCAA attendance rules.

huh?

By your logic, selling at $54 will be 3x less of a loss!

It really doesn't make sense if demand isn't there to sell at $54, and the same is true for $18.

Example of reducing price to make more money below. It's called optimizing volume versus price.

4000 tickets at $18 yields $72,000

6500 tickets at $12 yields $78,000

By lowering prices significantly, you drew more fans and offset price with volume.

Not only could you make more money, but you create a real event experience which increases future demand.

You assume a demand for tickets. What if there are no more people who wanted to go to the game Saturday than those who showed up?

Exactly. No more fans would have shown up even if we lowered the price to $5 a ticket.

And Can't's pricing structure simply lowers the value of their product. If people pay $5 to see them, they see that it's worth less than a high school game, and so must not be as important as one or as exciting, or worth the trip.

I fully disagree...I know six people personally who planned to attend then changed their mind when they saw the price...SIX! If I know that many alone, imagine how many total.

Then they really did not want to go and were looking for an excuse for not going. Akron can't build its future on this fan.