People Sitting at the VCA

[Sky]

Players win games, not crowds.

Well you are right. Maybe I went a little too far with that one. How about:

I don't think tOSU's BBall program will reach its max potential unless we put students in more of the lower bowl.

 

[zincfinger]

And aren't we, as fans, getting the entertainment of these unpaid scholarship players at well below market value?

You mean because the players aren't paid a salary? In answer to your question, no. We all pay competitive market value for tickets or television viewing, unless we have seats reserved for us at a reduced rate, due to status as student, faculty, etc.

My other problem with the "money" argument is that the Schott doesn't generate money. It's a drain. It hasn't been as profitable as first imagined, because Nationwide has picked up most of the entertainment acts that come into town. So why again should I be thanking the PSL holders?

What does that have to do with it? If you're losing money, you seek to minimize losses. Just as if you're making money, you seek to maximize profits. There's no difference. And moreover, no one is asking you to thank PSL holders, any more than I would ask you to thank me for paying for cable television and receiving cable television in return. They paid money, partly out of school spirit in many cases, and partly in return for a benefit in all cases. They're receiving the agreed upon benefit, that is all.

 

[Mike80]

Well you are right. Maybe I went a little too far with that one. How about:

I don't think tOSU's BBall program will reach its max potential unless we put students in more of the lower bowl.

let's see here...back to back Big Ten championships, possible #1 seed in the NCAAs, great recruiting classes both last year and the coming year, with the one after that showing great promise....

Sorry I'm just not seeing any of your points. The University, as it has been said already, is on the hook for MILLIONS to those PSL holders. That's not going to change.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

So it would be OK if we gave money to recruits to get them to join our business? Would it also be OK if we just let them skip class, stay eligible, and be able to play? Just wondering what the business ethics would say.

Smart businesspeople take advantage of their opportunities without violating the "rules", whatever those may be (for college athletics, see SMU; for the real world, see Enron).

Smart businesspeople try to maximize the "sales" of their product, and they certainly don't give their product away just to earn praise from people who would not otherwise consume that product; in the business of college athletics, that is why the best seats cost the most, and are sold to the people who can afford to pay full price for them (typically, rich alumni) and are not sold at discounted rates to people who cannot (such as impoverished 18-year old students). The proceeds from such sales are then used to to improve the product through personnel (coaches), reinvestment (new facilities), and research and development (recruiting).

I'm sorry if these concepts are too difficult for you.

BTW, Thump is entirely correct - players win games, fans don't. Even if your ideas made sense economically (which they don't), they would not improve the product anyway. So, it looks like a losing proposition all around.

 

[bkochmc]

Well you are right. Maybe I went a little too far with that one. How about:

I don't think tOSU's BBall program will reach its max potential unless we put students in more of the lower bowl.

That argument doesn't work... the university HAS put students in the lower bowl, just not where YOU want them.

 

[bkochmc]

Looks like the students are getting pretty organized in this picture:

 

[Sky]

Pile it on boys because you are fighting a losing argument. Does anyone remember the title of this thread?

Regarding the Dean Smith Center

In its early years, the arena was known as among the quieter ones in the country because many seats that would have been occupied by students at other schools were occupied by alumni who weren't very inclined to cheer. This led Florida State player Sam Cassell to say that the Dean Dome was home to a "cheese and wine crowd." Since 1992, however, expanded student seating has made the Smith Center louder. For example, after the then top-ranked Connecticut Huskies were defeated by Carolina at the Dean Dome in 2004, Huskies coach Jim Calhoun said, "I don't know what they are talking about because there was no 'wine and cheese' crowd here today."

And this from Tayshaun Prince after a loss to ND at South Bend:

Tayshaun Prince agreed that a prominent student section was a boost for the Irish.

I love playing in front of my crowd (in Rupp Arena), but it would be crazy if they would have the students on the floor. It would be louder and help get us into the game. I think it would be a big advantage.

The crowd does a lot for (Notre Dame) with the gym being smaller and the students near the floor, the senior forward said. It gives them something to feed off of.

But I'm sure Prince doesn't know anything about the importance of a loud home crowd.

And does anyone remember how good O'Brien was his first few years? I find it humorous you are all enamored with our current situation. Anyone know Matta's average tenure with a program? Anyone want to bet he will be gone in a few years if the athletic dept doesn't step up?

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Yeah but even with that how loud was our crowd during the PSU game or the Purdue game. Look at UNC this year. They lost a couple "easy" games and are now on the verge of losing their #1 seed. I think you have to have a STRONG home court advantage game in and game out. Showing up for the big games is easy. Likewise, it isn't any great stretch to expect those games to be sold out. However, this program won't really turn the corner (IMO) until it gets more students on the floor and makes a hostile environment for every game.

The students are on teh floor at both ends, and I have no problem with that...IMO they were the big reason why Taylor missed that free throw down the stretch as they were behind the board going crazy...

I don't understand why it matters if the students are on the sides or not, we are winning home games the fans are filling the house, we are building a great bball program and the fans are realizing that. These fans were there during the last years of Obie and deserve those seats...

I am a student as well as I believe you are, but they emptied their pockets for those seats and what is the logic behind why they should be moved. If you tell me it is for better homecourt advantage I will tell you that we havent lost a home game since last year and have won every single one this year...

 

[zincfinger]

Pile it on boys because you are fighting a losing argument...

So your evidence for the importance of reserving all the best seats for students is a paragraph from about.com and a quote from Tayshaun Prince. Regardless of the strength, or lack thereof, of your evidence, you still haven't addressed the point of how seats, which have been paid for in advance at a high price, are to be taken from the people who paid for them and given at a pittance to students. Without setting off lawsuits for breach of contract which the University is sure to lose.

 

[OH10]

You mean because the players aren't paid a salary? In answer to your question, no. We all pay competitive market value for tickets or television viewing, unless we have seats reserved for us at a reduced rate, due to status as student, faculty, etc.

I'm saying that it is hypocritical to make it all about money in a sport that isn't all about money. That's my problem with the argument. You're getting basically slave labor out there on the court in the name of amatuerism, but in the stands, it's pure money. It doesn't make sense.

What does that have to do with it? If you're losing money, you seek to minimize losses. Just as if you're making money, you seek to maximize profits. There's no difference. And moreover, no one is asking you to thank PSL holders, any more than I would ask you to thank me for paying for cable television and receiving cable television in return. They paid money, partly out of school spirit in many cases, and partly in return for a benefit in all cases. They're receiving the agreed upon benefit, that is all.

My comment was mainly in response to earlier posts that the PSL holders gave us the Schott. They didn't "give" me anything. I can't stand that building. It was a poor investment, and they have forfeited good will towards the future donors of the university, i.e. the students that become alumni.

That argument doesn't work... the university HAS put students in the lower bowl, just not where YOU want them.

I will agree that the argument is moot as the PSL holders have a lock on the center court seating. But the students should have, from the beginning, been given the center court seating shown on tv to the audience at home. It probably would not have required giving more seats to students, as they do have an alottment on opposite ends of the court. But it would put them together and in front of the camera so that there would be an easier channel to louder student cheering and an improvement on the public perception of how the university treats students.

 

[zincfinger]

I'm saying that it is hypocritical to make it all about money in a sport that isn't all about money. That's my problem with the argument. You're getting basically slave labor out there on the court in the name of amatuerism, but in the stands, it's pure money. It doesn't make sense.

Aside from the fact that it's not slave labor unless the laborers are coerced into performing it, what is your point? That Universities are morally obligated to sell tickets at well below market value due to the fact that college athletes are not paid salaries? I don't want to get into the separate debate of whether college athletes should be paid salaries, but the fact is that operating a college athletics department costs a lot of money. I don't see how the fact that that substantial cost does not include direct salaries paid to the athletes means that colleges shouldn't try to cover those costs as best they can.

My comment was mainly in response to earlier posts that the PSL holders gave us the Schott. They didn't "give" me anything. I can't stand that building. It was a poor investment, and they have forfeited good will towards the future donors of the university, i.e. the students that become alumni.

You're absolutely right, donors did not give you the Schott. If OSU donors wanted to "give" you something, they probably would have just written you a check. Which, if you're demanding that you be given their seats, is kind of what you're asking for. If you don't like the design of the Schott, your beef should probably be with the people who designed it, and principally with the University administrators who approved it. The donors who forked over the cash were probably operating under the assumption that they were getting a state of the art facility for the University, and great seats within that facility for themselves.

 

[Sky]

So your evidence for the importance of reserving all the best seats for students is a paragraph from about.com and a quote from Tayshaun Prince. Regardless of the strength, or lack thereof, of your evidence, you still haven't addressed the point of how seats, which have been paid for in advance at a high price, are to be taken from the people who paid for them and given at a pittance to students. Without setting off lawsuits for breach of contract which the University is sure to lose.

Do you want to do the math.

1. The Endowment Club - 150 seats on the floor

2. The Center Court Club - 1,100 seats endline to endline; opposite the team benches in the 100 level

3. The Arena Circle - 3,350 seats circle the Arena in the 200 level, just below the luxury suites.

#1 isn't taking possible student seats as they shouldn't be on the floor and #3 isn't even part of this discussion. So are you trying to tell me we only have 1100 seats in the lower bowl (endline to endline)? Well shit, let me apologize then. I rescind all of my previous arguments. Because if, and only if we had more than 1100 seats in the lower bowl would we have room for some students. Seeing as we don't I guess you are 100% correct.

 

[BayBuck]

slave labor.

One of the most hackneyed and disingenuous rhetorical phrases in discussion of college sports.

 

[jwinslow]

The front row seats are not the main problem.

OSU fans simply don't know how to cheer consistently at bball games (a TV timeout silences the crowd 95% of the time). If the rest of the arena cheered like they do in the Shoe, the arena would be plenty loud (maybe not 'maximum potential' but loud enough to be considered 'hostile').

To me, OSU bball as a force is still in its infancy. The interest and passion is still growing for bball. People enter the Shoe with the mentality to deafen the opponent, and nearly fill the seats for a simple scrimmage. Are we at the point where Columbus would support a Midnight Madness? I'm not sure.

Right now the crowd does not get up by itself very well (unlike in the Shoe)... they cheer after big plays, when the team is in a big dry spell, or there is a big-time game (Wisky). With time, they'll get better at cheering consistently during the average moments.

And does anyone remember how good O'Brien was his first few years?

I remember him telling us fans that if you want a perennial final four team, we should follow duke.

I find it humorous you are all enamored with our current situation. Anyone know Matta's average tenure with a program? Anyone want to bet he will be gone in a few years if the athletic dept doesn't step up?

You seem to deal only in absolutes and broad brush strokes.

I criticize the crowd at times, but also realize that it won't change overnight, and certainly am not going to join you in the "sky will be falling soon" club.

The athletic dept moved the media to accomodate the students and got two pretty good outings for the White & Gray Outs. I hope more is done, but they're definitely on the right track.

 

[zincfinger]

Do you want to do the math.

1. The Endowment Club - 150 seats on the floor

2. The Center Court Club - 1,100 seats endline to endline; opposite the team benches in the 100 level

3. The Arena Circle - 3,350 seats circle the Arena in the 200 level, just below the luxury suites.

#1 isn't taking possible student seats as they shouldn't be on the floor and #3 isn't even part of this discussion. So are you trying to tell me we only have 1100 seats in the lower bowl (endline to endline)? Well shit, let me apologize then. I rescind all of my previous arguments. Because if, and only if we had more than 1100 seats in the lower bowl would we have room for some students. Seeing as we don't I guess you are 100% correct.

If those numbers are correct, and if there aren't any other contractual obligations that preclude giving most floor-level seating to students, then you are correct that the relative lack of students along the sidelines of the court is only economically mandated, rather than legally mandated.

Best regards