22.Oct.2009 Zero Sellouts Followed by No TV: Coincidence?
Tonight scout.com published an article saying Bob D made the right choice by not putting the homecoming game on TV. The article states that Bob did this with the fans’ best interest in mind. Call me cynical, but given that our AD called these same fans out for not showing up at home games just one week prior, and we have had 26 straight games on TV, I have a hard time accepting that this decision was made with the fan’s best interest in mind. Bob wants a sellout, and he thinks between the ticket prices, concessions, and parking, he’ll make more money getting fringe fans (i.e. those fans who will only go to a game if it’s not on TV) into the stadium. The decision is also a statement aimed at the fans who were standing outside Reser staring at the Dam Cam. Cynical? Maybe. But…
To answer the question of motivation we need not look further than the money trail. The remaining tickets are priced at $65. Assume the game gathers an average crowd for this year, which is about 41,000. Well, Reser can seat 45,500 or so. That leaves 4,500 seats @ $65 or $292,500. Coincidence that the TV contract was for approximately $300,000? Factor in parking and concessions and it becomes clear this is a financial decision wrapped in fan’s clothing. I’d have a lot more respect for Bob D if he came out and said he can do better selling out the game and not putting it on TV. But to say this is about family and kids and Halloween is simply lame. The guy has been a great athletic director, and for the most part a straight shooter, but it’s clear he’s frustrated with Beaver fans and sticking it to them here. The downside is that fans like myself, who can’t get to Reser (i.e. live in California), are the ones who suffer, while the dolts who tailgated outside the stadium and caused this problem can either buy a ticket and watch the game in person or tailgate the parking lot yet again and watch the scoreboard.
Just a really bad situation between the AD and fans the past few weeks, and this latest decision seems more like a culmination of that frustration rather than a coincidence, or, as spun by Scout, a nicety on the part of Bob D. Maybe I’m missing something here in the finances and numbers, and if that’s the case, by all means point out my error because I’d like to believe the published story. I just don’t.