THE ATHLETICS Department at the University might have gone a little bit over the line this time in an attempt to increase revenue.
In an effort to raise money, the Athletics Department has created a new policy regarding the distribution of season football tickets. Starting this upcoming season, seating will be prioritized based on annual contributions to the Virginia Athletics Foundation, the organization that funds the University's intercollegiate sports programs. This means that season ticket holders are no longer guaranteed to retain their current seats and that longevity of support for Virginia football will be a secondary consideration in the assignment process. It's understandable that VAF is looking for innovative ways to secure funding. The problem is that this policy does more damage than good, while sending the wrong message to longtime Virginia football fans. By neglecting the loyalty factor and leaving long-term supporters without anything to show for their dedication, the Athletics Department risks losing alumni and community support for the University's sports teams.
The new procedure divides ticket requesters into four categories, labeled as Groups A through D. Group A is the cream of the crop and receives top priority for seating. Contribution levels for this group range from $6,200 annually to over $22,600. Following is Group B, with donation amounts from $2,500 to $6,199, then Group C, consisting of gifts from $100 to $2,499. The lowest rank is Group D, which includes donors of $99 and below, as well asnon-donors. Within this lowest class, longevity of season ticket purchase finally becomes a determining factor in seating location. That is, of course, after Groups A through C have had their choice.
So, why shouldn't the Athletics Department be allowed to disperse tickets based on monetary contributions? After all, y if the price is something people are willing to pay, it's their decision to pay it. This is true, and the demand for season tickets has, in fact, gone up substantially in recent years. However, this increase in demand has already been met by rising prices. The price tag for season tickets for one person is now $269, which is no small order..
The new policy is not simply a matter of supply and demand, though. The fee looks the same; yet behind this façade, the Athletics Department is essentially requiring fans to pay anywhere from hundreds to thousands of dollars to hold onto their football seats. Some of these people might have been sitting in the same spot for years, while others have developed friendships with those around them at the stadium. Maybe a few daring individuals simply don't think they should have to shell out exorbitant sums of money for decent seats at a Virginia football game.
Bob Crytzer, a 1973 graduate of the College and a '77 graduate of the Curry School, sums up their argument well. He said in an e-mail interview, "The new ticket policy is a slap in the face to alumni and fans who have supported the team and athletic program through many lean years. It trashes the loyalty component built into the VAF point system. Why not just make the ticket cost $1,000 a game per game, which is the suggested formula for A Section seats?" Another concern is that many Wahoo faithful are selling their tickets to opposing teams' fans in order to earn back the money lost on large ticket expenditures.
He also points out that the change could even hurt VAF fiscally, defeating its entire purpose. "Many fans who are upset, but are caving into the extortion, are actually reducing their donation to the minimum in the next lower seating category. As a result, the University is losing money for its greedy demands of loyal fans."
To be fair, the Director of VAF, Dirk Katstra, made his case well. In a phone interview, he went over the necessity of the new plan. "VAF funds scholarships, operational budgets and academic advising costs. There is a heavy reliance on the annual fund, especially for scholarships." He also explains the challenges of instituting a new policy and compares the program to similar ones at other colleges. "The hardest part is talking to people who have given or bought tickets for a long time, and say it's not fair. But I think it depends on how you define "fair." People who are donating large sums of money think it's unfair that they cannot improve their seating location. We are actually one of the last universities in the conference to implement this kind of plan."
Still, the numbers from around the rest of the ACC seem a little more modest. According to a comparison done by the Clemson Athletics Department, the average annual contributions for donors sitting on the 20-30 yard line in the 2006-2007 football season ranged from $204 at Clemson to $750 at Virginia Tech. Based on the University's "best guess" projection, people sitting on the 20-30 yard line at Scott Stadium would most likely be classified as either Group A or Group B contributors. Recall that the minimum required donation just for Group B is $2,500.
Since the new ticket policy clearly has a high collateral price, the Athletics Department and VAF should pursue more productive measures to encourage donations. For example, VAF could occasionally offer free guest tickets to donors or allow them first chance at buying surplus basketball tickets. They can market these privileges in the season ticket brochures. After all, it is fine to reward those who can help out the University financially; however, it is not right to punish those who cannot afford to do so or choose to invest their money elsewhere.
Perhaps the Athletics Department should regard this column as an open letter from many alienated, exasperated members of the University community. If fan solidarity is of any importance to VAF and the Virginia Athletics Department, they might want to take a look at the raw deal they have given their supporters.
Ross Lawrence is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
