People Sitting at the VCA

[jwinslow]

You still haven't addressed my point about getting everyone else to cheer that isn't in the front sections (whether that be the endzone or sidelines). Don't do anything about the students or front row knitters, but get everyone else to cheer like they do in football... and the crowd will be plenty loud.

Hmm, I don't know the exact seating capacity of any of those sections.

I just used the schott map (obviously imperfect) and graphically compared the area of the endzone vs 75% of one sideline.

Straight up I would like to follow Duke's example, period.

Hiring the most successful coach in the entire country sure helps build a program.

 

[jwinslow]

That's it, thats all you have to add to this conversation? Nice! Solid post.

Actually he addressed your points directly... and you posted 2 min later. You might try addressing those points before making more statements like this.

 

[zincfinger]

Hmm, I don't know the exact seating capacity of any of those sections.

Straight up I would like to follow Duke's example, period.

Fair enough. One final question, and I'm actually interested in your non-snarky response to this. I would submit that the Horseshoe and VCA have similar seating arrangements, as far as reserved seating for students, and premium seats going to high-paying donors and faculty with long tenure records. Obviously, the Horseshoe does not suffer from any lack of atmosphere. Does this difference result from some architectural difference between the Horseshoe and VCA, or is it a product of the difference in passion that OSU fans, on average, have for football vs. basketball? And if the latter, do you view your proposals for altering student seating in VCA as a means to jump start the lack of passion (relative to football) that currently exists, but is continually diminishing with each success of the roundball program? And given that success, is such a jump start necessary, and worth the loss of revenue that it would inevitably entail?

 

[Jeffcat]

personally as a student OSU frequently has students be pawns to all other university related ticket holders. so in reality yea OSU students get screwed in about every sporting event however i understand the guys with the green being down low. however i wish they would allow some students down on the lower level since most of the PCL holders usually dont even show up for the games. on average games only 1/5 of them are there if you are there on a good day. that being said not all the students show up either but i think better seating would be more incentive for them too. i dont think VCA is really that bad of an arena. it has a modern feel and has some flaws but overally i think its a versatile and nice facility. there isnt much to work with now after what has been done but i would just suggest adding more student seating down lower but not so much so that it upsets the PCL holders. as much as i hate duke they pretty much had the perfect idea of having the students down low which gives them their atmosphere and the boosters of the program see that as the tradition of the school to have it that way and they are comfortable in having it that way. OSU boosters are a lil more extreme and are a lil more greedier. personally if it was me i would of had about 75% of the lowermost level be made into student seating and then 25% for the PCL holders being in the middle section of one side and then also have the rest of the PCL holders be put in the area in between the lower most area and below the suites wherever but i dont have the kind of money to make that kind of proposition.

 

[Sky]

Fair enough. One final question, and I'm actually interested in your non-snarky response to this. I would submit that the Horseshoe and VCA have similar seating arrangements, as far as reserved seating for students, and premium seats going to high-paying donors and faculty with long tenure records. Obviously, the Horseshoe does not suffer from any lack of atmosphere. Does this difference result from some architectural difference between the Horseshoe and VCA, or is it a product of the difference in passion that OSU fans, on average, have for football vs. basketball? And if the latter, do you view your proposals for altering student seating in VCA as a means to jump start the lack of passion (relative to football) that currently exists, but is continually diminishing with each success of the roundball program? And given that success, is such a jump start necessary, and worth the loss of revenue that it would inevitably entail?

OK, thanks for the honest response. I agree with your point that the student allottment is similar for both arenas. However, I think it plays a larger role in basketball. I think it is very hard to make a basketball arena hostile while it is easier with football. Likewise, I think the different types of game flow you see dictate the need for a different fan setup. Maybe it has something to do with the architecture but I don't know if that is the final answer.

In football you have very short instances where you need the crowd involved. 3rd down for example, or a goalline stand. However, there is often a build up to this and the fans know on thrid down they have to get up and cheer. In basketball I think the fans need to be loud during the opponents entire posession. Thus, your "cheese and wine" fans are more apt to get loud during the occasional need in football while I think they are less willing to do it during a basketball game. I think it requires different levels of fan participation.

That being said I think the only people that can provide that level of particiaption are fans (or some of us more die-hard fans). Unfortunately the people with the money for the good seats are not those type of fans.

If we gave our students a few good sections (say the 40yrd line and wrap around one of the end lines) I think we would see a nice change in our fan response. First of all, I would be stoked to sit that close regardless of the opponnent. And I think the students would equally get excited and get pumped up for the game (again, regardless of the opponnent). Maybe have a rotating schedule where you get a package of 10 tickets with 5 on the sideline and 5 behind the hoop.

Still, financially I don't think it is something that will provide a winfall for the University right away. However, as I said earlier, I think a program where you reward senior students for buying upper-level tickets for four years and then give them the prime seats will create a better basketball atmosphere. This way, when recruits come, when prospective recruits and students watch on TV, and when visiting teams come, they all see an excited atmosphere. An atmosphere filled with fans and students who create a truly dominant home court advantage. Additional, it would bring a lot of students and fans to the game which would create monies on multiple levels (TV and radio commercials, merchandise, in stadium sales, advertisers, continued increased ticket demand). I want us to be the best on all levels--I want basketball to be as popular as football.

If we keep things the way they are where are students are relegated to the endzone I don't think we will reach that level. I don't think we can keep such a high level of recruiting, participation, and support w/o this. Maybe this will happen anway...but I remember thinking OBrien was the same kind of answer. But he began to fail before he got committed a violation. I think we should give Matta the best we can. Just my opinion.

 

[jwinslow]

You made some good, tangible suggestions above.

Will more strategically placed students inspire the other 15,000 fans to make some noise consistently? That's the key to this whole thing.

If we keep things the way they are where are students are relegated to the endzone I don't think we will reach that level.

There are plenty of hostile arenas with students in the endzone. What needs to change is how the rest of the fans cheer.

I don't think we can keep such a high level of recruiting, participation, and support w/o this.

Unless Matta is leaving, I don't understand why his unbelievable ability to recruit will suddenly disappear... especially since he landed most of those kids with virtually no postseason success.

Maybe this will happen anway...

It's already happening... Matta is bringing in an 08 class that may be stronger than the Thad5, especially if Pryor is a walkon via football.

but I remember thinking OBrien was the same kind of answer. But he began to fail before he got committed a violation. I think we should give Matta the best we can. Just my opinion.

O'Brien was complacent and pessimistic when it came to recruiting. Matta showed up and made himself the premiere recruiter in america. I don't understand the comparison.

O'Brien was a highly regarded X's and O's guy, but his personal goals for the program were disappointingly limited.

I think it is great to try and improve the atmosphere to benefit the fans, team, coach & recruits. I disagree that OSU's bball program will fall apart without it, however.

 

[jwinslow]

Well, it looks like this is a moot point.

OSU was featured three times in the latest "College Superfans" gallery on SI :phttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0702/campus.superfans.0227/content.7.html

 

[OH10]

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?

It's the hypocrisy of telling the other students that it's all about money when they want good seats to see their classmates play basketball - and then calling those classmates "amateurs" and "scholar-athletes".

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.

It's an essential debate that's difficult to ignore when "money" is used to defend the seating and availability of tickets to students. It can't be about "money" on one hand and "amatuerism" on the other.

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.

Honestly, I don't give a shit about the donors. I freely admit it. If it was about "school pride", they would have been more than happy to fork over money for the building for seats behind the baskets rather than at center court. So it's not about that. It's not about the university and the students. It's about them and their sense of entitlement and power.

As for the alternative to the donations, I say "one call only dream." I wish the Schott were never built. I would have preferred reasonable revonations to St. John's or a more modest venue befitting a "college" basketball program rather than an NBA team.



One question: All things being equal, would it be preferrable for the students to be given center court seats and be placed in a more prominent position for televised games?

I say, unquestionably, yes. I am embarrassed by the fat cats sitting on their paws during games.

 

[OH10]

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

Of course it is. That isn't the point.

The point is that these student-athletes have talent and skill that generates millions of dollars. They have marketing value that is untapped. But we don't allow them to share in that.... supposedly on the theory that it's not "all about the money."

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Heads up the SKY is falling...

We can't win at home b/c the students arent on the sidelines...

 

[Mike80]

Of course it is. That isn't the point.

The point is that these student-athletes have talent and skill that generates millions of dollars. They have marketing value that is untapped. But we don't allow them to share in that.... supposedly on the theory that it's not "all about the money."

Playing basketball and football is a privledge, not a right. While I agree that the players should get something akin to endorsements, it can't come from the university.

The university is giving them room and board, travel expenses and an Education.

 

[OH10]

Heads up the SKY is falling...

We can't win at home b/c the students arent on the sidelines...

Yeah, that's what I said...

 

[OH10]

Playing basketball and football is a privledge, not a right. While I agree that the players should get something akin to endorsements, it can't come from the university.

The university is giving them room and board, travel expenses and an Education.

Please. These colleges are directly benefitting from an NBA rule that restricts the ability of these individuals from capitalizing on their worth. And benefitting substantially I might add.

For other players, their marketability and earning potential based on their basketball skills is at a peak during a time which they can't capitalize. (i.e. Ivan Harris, Ron Lewis).


And I hate to sound like someone who believes that college athletes should be paid. Because I believe in amateurism, I don't think that at all. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[zincfinger]

It's the hypocrisy of telling the other students that it's all about money when they want good seats to see their classmates play basketball - and then calling those classmates "amateurs" and "scholar-athletes".

While you're certainly providing a criticism of sorts, I still fail to fully grasp your point. Are you saying that the University has to either provide salaries to its athletes, or else provide unlimited (insofar as possible) cheap seating to all its students? I really fail to see the connection between those two things. Being an amateur sport and being a free spectator event are not the same thing. Do you expect free (or heavily discounted) tickets to the Olympics as well?

It's an essential debate that's difficult to ignore when "money" is used to defend the seating and availability of tickets to students. It can't be about "money" on one hand and "amatuerism" on the other.

Money in this context is not a defense, it's merely a reality. Providing those seats costs money. Money is required to pay for them. It's really not a moral argument, in either direction.

Honestly, I don't give a shit about the donors. I freely admit it. If it was about "school pride", they would have been more than happy to fork over money for the building for seats behind the baskets rather than at center court.

That's fine, and I don't ask you to give a shit about donors. However, one could just as easily say that if it was just about school pride, the students would be happy with their discount rate level-2 or level-3 tickets, show up in force, and scream their heads off regardless. And if it had nothing to do with school pride, some of those donors probably would have been smart enough to realize that they could have gotten very good seats for far less money than what they contributed to the construction costs.

 

[crazybuckfan40]

Yeah, that's what I said...

Check the times on the posts, they came up at the same time, and if you notice the word SKY was capitilized...