Between the advent of cost of attendance stipends and the growing financial dominance of ACC powerhouses like Clemson and Florida State, Whit Babcock saw an immediate need to overhaul the athletic department's fundraising apparatus.
Now, the department is rolling out the results of more than a year's worth of work, unveiling a series of changes to the "Hokie Club" Monday designed to simultaneously raise revenue and put a greater emphasis on fan loyalty as the department allocates seats in both Lane Stadium and Cassell Coliseum. The biggest alteration is the institution of minimum donation requirements attached to each season ticket, a move away from the department's previous policy that used a donor's annual gift to determine their standing in securing tickets, parking spaces and other benefits.
In an interview with The Key Play ahead of the announcement, Bill Lansden, the Hokie Club's executive director, cast the new model as a necessary shift for the department as it tries to adjust to the rapidly changing college football landscape.
"The current model we're in helped us with all these great facilities, it got us into the ACC, it helped our coaches recruit really good players," Lansden said. "It was the right decision at the right time, but we're at a point where we're not covering our costs."
Indeed, Lansden noted that as recently as the 2010-11 fiscal year, the department managed to raise enough money from donors to cover the costs of its scholarships without dipping into its operating budget. But for the last three years, he said the department's failed to meet that standard.
In fact, he points out that the department fell $1.6 million short of that goal in the 2014-15 year, and the 2015-16 year will likely produce a $2 million gap once they crunch all the numbers. Without a change in annual revenue, Lansden's projections suggest that the discrepancy would reach $3 million or more by next year.
"Since 2010-11, scholarship costs have gone up and we've leveled out in donations," Lansden said. "If we didn't make a change, then Whit Babcock would need to take more and more money from the budget to pay the difference."
The explosion in revenue for other Power 5 programs makes this sort of position especially untenable for Tech, Lansden said. Not only is Babcock enviously eyeing the coffers of playoff programs like Alabama and Oklahoma — both of which boasted department revenues topping $100 million in the latest USA Today study, Lansden notes — but schools closer to home are also raking in cash at rates that dwarf Tech's fundraising program.
In particular, Lansden points to the fact that the Hokies ranked 11th in their own conference in donations a year ago. Louisville and Florida State led the way, and Clemson's $22 million in gifts certainly stands out compared to the $9 million Tech collected.
"Where do you think they're putting that extra $13 million? That's why they have coordinators making 1.3 (million), right?" Lansden said. "Just because you have a budget over $100 million doesn't mean you'll make the playoffs, but you can make the case that if we really want to compete at that level, we have to generate that revenue, and this is just one part of it."
Lansden's also worried that the Hokies lag behind the rest of the ACC in the sheer number of donors. He estimated that the Hokie Club currently boasts 10,000 members, but with Florida State, Clemson and even N.C. State all doubling that figure with their own donor groups, he sees cause for concern.
"Our peers are beating us substantially," Lansden said. "Across the board, they're beating us, and we as Hokies, we always want to win. We want to be vying for the top three in the ACC in everything we do, and well, we're not."
So the Hokies are overhauling their fundraising program with an eye on closing that gap. Lansden notes that the change to gift requirements per seat now puts Tech in line with the model that every other team in the Power 5 is currently using (with the lone exception of Notre Dame, who he notes will move to such a system in two years).
Before these changes, Lansden said the Hokie Club let donors pick their seats and parking passes in accordance with their annual gifts, dividing people into tiers by the size of their yearly contributions. He believes that created two problems: one financial and one of fairness.
From the department's perspective, they felt they were losing out on revenue due to the caps on giving that exist for the most committed donors.
"Under the current model, if you're a donor and you reach $100,000 of lifetime giving, you're no longer required to make an annual gift for parking or tickets," Lansden said. "We have a large number that met that threshold, and they did what we told them to do, and they're not giving us an annual gift."
But Lansden said the department was also concerned that the old system made it possible for a new donor to cut a sizable check and automatically leap ahead of someone who's been steadily giving at a smaller amount over a period of years.
He's hoping that the new model resolves both those issues. The department examined how much money season ticketholders tended to give each year based on where they sit (in both Cassell and Lane) in an effort to come up with minimum gift requirements that felt right, Lansden said.
In Lane, he said the highest gift stipulation is for people sitting around the 50-yard line at $800 per ticket, then "it fans out, so as it goes around the curve, it goes 800, 600, 350, 200, 150." In Cassell, there's a similar arrangement: seats in between the baselines come with a $500 requirement, then it changes around the bowl.
"There's a wide variety for people," Lansden said. "If you're on a fixed income, and you know you can't afford 800 for six seats, then you can take eight in the 100 dollar section."
Similarly, he said the department's developed options for younger alums.
"In both Cassell and in Lane, we've set aside quite a few seats that do not require a donation, so if they're a young alum who's 25, got a job in Northern Virginia, but they want to start their points and buy season tickets, they can buy some at the 50 dollar donation or you can buy them where you don't have to give anything," Lansden said.
But when it comes to rewarding the program's most consistent supporters, Lansden thinks the new system still excels. The minimum gifts per seat will replace annual gifts for donors, Lansden stressed, while accounting for the length of time they've been giving.
"Under this new model, we've changed up the points system so the vast majority of points will be accumulated based on your lifetime giving to athletics," Lansden said. "You're going to get two points per one hundred dollars you've ever given to athletics. We're rewarding loyalty, so for those donors who have been giving us $500, $1,000, $2,000 a year for all those years, they're gonna come out way ahead. The emphasis is on lifetime giving to athletics."
In all, Lansden believes these changes will generate a "minimum" of an additional $3 million to $3.5 million more for the department annually.
"But I tend to be an optimist, I think we'll do better than that," Lansden said. "We told Justin, 'Just beat Tennessee and Notre Dame and we'll take care of it.'"
Yet even with the extra cash stuffing Tech's coffers, Lansden acknowledges that the change may rub some donors the wrong way. He said he previewed the changes to about 200 club members already, and feedback has been supportive, if hesitant.
"In theory it sounds great, but people say, 'You know what, you're right, we've got to raise more money, but how does this affect me?" Lansden said.
To help assuage those concerns, Lansden and the rest of the Hokie Club leadership will be hitting the road in the coming weeks for a series of 26 town halls starting Tuesday in Roanoke, and covering all of Virginia, Charlotte, Raleigh and Atlanta.
"We're doing everything we can to communicate," Lansden said. "We're confident in why we're doing it, we're confident in the system, it's gonna work."
Indeed, Lansden hopes that the more people hear about the changes, the more they understand just how transformative they could prove to be for all of Tech's teams.
"We know it's change, we know there are going to be some people who are required to pay more money," Lansden said. "We understand that, but we feel like the reasoning behind why we're doing this is solid. We've got to start covering our scholarship costs so we can invest money into our programs."
Comments
I'm not going to lie...I figured this was going to be a spoof video. I thought Lansden was Vladimir Putin.
I was concerned when I first heard about the per seat giving requirements but this does not seem unreasonable to me.
Yea Justin you just go and do the easy part and we'll take care of our side. No pressure or anything.
/s
There's a circular trap in the logic here. If we beat the best teams on our schedule, the easy part is getting donations. If we don't beat those teams, the hard part is getting donations.
Putting my cards on the table: after 2002 graduation and free-riding for that fall, I split a $500/yr donation 2003-15 for 4 tickets until '15, 2 in '15, now none and a $100/yr maintenance donation (real life kicking in). I've been in sections 37, 35 and 33 for that investment.
From that perspective, I'm surprised at how *reasonable* this plan is -- if this is going to return an increase in donations, it suggests that way more than just the $100K lifetime whales weren't donating at all or were donating very little for big blocks of prime seats. That's gotta change. I'd rather it just be bundled into the face value of the tickets -- on a blank slate that's a more honest approach -- but since you're dealing with tax-deductibility you're kind of stuck.
The tax deductibility is key, especially for the more premium seats. As a Platinum Hokie, I don't want to pay $7100 for 6 season tickets, but if I can write-off $5000 on my taxes, that changes things significantly.
Hopefully the additional per-seat charge results in them allowing people to donate who do not intend to buy season tickets. Due to my family status (4 young children) and having access to tickets via family, I am not currently a Hokie Club member as a means to getting season tickets. However, I would be willing to make a small donation similar to Clemson's program. Unfortunately, a gift of less than $100 is not allowed (last time I checked).
I assume the prices by level will be covered at the town halls and released later. This will be key in determining whether this is successful or not. Hopefully it's not $100 per seat as the minimum, as some of the season ticket holders in the upper level who are either donating $100 or are not Hokie Club members are likely price conscious and may just keep their money.
The new giving levels are already on the hokiesports website. Just scroll down to see them.
http://www.hokiesports.com/hokiescholarshipfund/
I can't make any home games usually (living in Chicago), but I still donate to the Hokie Club. Knowing how far behind we are compared to schools like Clemson, Louisville, NC State, etc., motivates me to give even more regardless of receiving season tickets.
The question is what "Opportunity to purchase priority seating for Football and Men's Basketball" means. That's a stated benefit at Hokie Club level starting at $100 (which is where I am). Does that mean we get an early shot at otherwise-public purchase -- season tickets, 3-game packs, single-game?
Clemson's IPTAY has a $60 level with minimal benefits (not even the printed club magazine) and no season ticket purchase eligibility, then their regular program starts at $140. I'd like to see us do something like that at maybe $50/yr.
If you're a Hokie Club member you have priority over non-members for season tickets, away game tickets, post-season tickets, and, assuming they are available (i.e. not sold out via season tickets, which has been the case since 2012), mini-packs and single game tickets. The level of your priority is determined by your Hoke Club ranking, which is driven by the number of priority points you've earned as compared to the number of priority points earned by all other active Hokie Club members.
I agree with your point that it may make sense to have a lower level club for people that have no interest or ability to attend games but still want to support the athletics department. Maybe they feel $100 is the minimum they want to entertain even for that, but I'm not sure. Might be a good question for someone to pose at one of the Town Halls.
http://www.hokiesports.com/hokiescholarshipfund/#seating
Seating map.
Worth noting: looks like the new wordmark is going to be in maroon in both endzones this year.
will they also repaint/refinish the bball court (not indicated by the graphic)?
To note for basketball, "the Paint" section that is $500 minimum gift per seat is the area that is going to get the upgraded seats next summer. Two vendors have come through and there will be a couple more to do demos/sampling before a seat is even picked.
So... I'm a little confused by this change (probably haven't read enough), but please correct me if I'm wrong anyone...
I am currently a Silver Hokie = $1000 / year donation
And have 2 tickets in section 6 row RRR = $650
Going to leave parking off for now...
Under the new system, am I correct in thinking that:
1) I would be a Bronze Hokie using the $1000 gift
2) I would have to cough up $200 or $350 per seat as a gift + another ~$325 each for the tickets themselves
Is that correct?
What's confusing is further down on the Hokie Scholarship Fund site it says something like... how to determine your SINGLE, annual gift...
1) Minimum per seat donation for football tickets
2) Minimum per seat donation for basketball tickets
3) Minimum per seat donation for parking
What is the greatest of these 3 donation amounts = Minimum donation to be eligible for all desired Hokie Scholarship Fun season ticket and parking benefits.
Based on this, I'm thinking it means to keep my same tickets I'd have to donate 200+200 or 350+350 at a minimum knowing your selection order will be impacted by total gift value.
I think you total giving would have to be $1200 but you would have to give that during this calendar year. What I am not clear on is what is considered your giving level. Is Silver Hokie considered your giving level or the $1000. Because if it is Silver Hokie you would need to give all $1200 this year. If the $1000 is the giving level, you could give the $1000 this year and pay the extra $200 when you purchase tickets next year.
Thanks! I didn't read the whole website before posting my questions... whoops!
In the FAQ I saw the text below which basically clears it up... you give 1 lump sump and still pay for the tickets (~325) and there is just a new $check vs the tickets you select to buy. Your total donation has to be >= the sum of the per seat minimum gift.
Is the Scholarship Priority Seating donation in addition to my annual gift?
No, your per seat gift will count towards your annual giving level. For example, if you choose to give at the Golden Hokie Level ($2,500) and have four tickets in section 7L of Lane Stadium ($600 per seat minimum donation required), the $2,400 total needed to cover your per seat minimum requirement is met through your gift at the Golden Hokie giving level. In addition, if you have men's basketball season tickets, so long as your per seat donation requirements for men's basketball does not exceed $2,400 you will be covered for basketball as well.
Calendar year has nothing to do with anything but tax deductibility now.
Giving level is still what you donate in the Hokie Club/Scholarship Fund year, which used to end 31-Dec before and now ends 31-Mar. In his case, if he donates $1K by 31-Mar-2017, the old Silver standard, he's Bronze now. If he wants to maintain Silver Hokie title/benefits, he's gotta give $1200. However, if all he wants to do is maintain similar seats to what he has, those are $200/seat, i.e. $400 total and O&M Hokie Club level.
Ah, I missed that date change. Very good to know. The reseating next year might make me up my giving level to move up to better seats.
The one caveat I would add as a potential caution: especially given that 2017 will be a full reseating, just because someone donates $400 and wants to purchase 2 tickets, there is no guarantee there will be any $200 seats remaining when that person's turn comes up in seat selection. It just means when their turn comes up they can select any remaining seats that are available up through the $200 section (or in a higher section if seats are available and the person wants to make an extra donation atseat selection time to make up the difference).
Thats why cumulative Hokie Club Points are also important. So people should donate now and get some points built up.
6/RRR looks like $200/seat/yr donation. Assuming the $325/ticket/yr ticket price, you're looking at $400 donation and $650 ticket payment: total $1050 to hold tickets roughly where you're at, though only O&M benefits.
Yes, that's a huge discount over what you're getting now.
You're like me, formerly $500/yr donor in 35/4B then 33/4F. Our seat locations were held back by the people who got location priority by STH tenure while donating very little per seat (or nothing once they reached $100K/lifetime).
Does anyone know which row in the lower bowl the minimum giving level switches tiers? Trying to determine my current giving level vs. what my future expected giving level will be.
Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere, but I couldn't find it. Did anyone ever learn the answer to this question? For example, in Section 11, where does the $800/seat requirement (maroon on the map) change to $600/$350 (purple/green on the map)?
There's an interactive map on the Hokie Club website that might answer your question.
Thanks, but unless I'm missing something that map doesn't answer my question. You can punch in your donation amount and the number of tickets you want, but that only tells you which color sections you're eligible for. It doesn't say in which row the $800 minimum changes to a $600 minimum in section 9, for example. Looking at the map it appears to be somewhere near the transition from ZZ to AAA, but I was wondering if anyone knew for sure.
Unless there is some windows-only animation going on here, since I use a mac...
So, will you will be able to maintain your seats if your giving level will match or exceed the requirement? I'm in the cheap seats of the south end zone and I'm fine with staying there and still giving.
Probably unless a bunch of people drop their level.
You can keep them as long as you meet that level's requirements. I didn't scroll down to the FAQ earlier.
The only thing is the reseating next year. I would assume that means nobody is guaranteed to keep their seats from 2016 to 2017. I would expect that you would have no problem keeping your seats from 2017 to 2018.
There will also be a reseating in 2020.
Edit: the reseating will happen EVERY three years from now on.
Reseating is a little different in this model for sure. It's a lot closer to what you'd see in pro stadiums with seating tiers -- your seats are defined by a per-year per-ticket total cost band.
Stated differently, the season ticket holder you sit next to will almost certainly have spent the same per-ticket as you now. I also suspect there'll be more movement between blocks year to year now -- for one thing, it's just simpler with the seat selection software they've used since the last reseating.
I've been pretty swamped and haven't been able to review all the materials in full detail yet. I did see a reference to a planned 2020 reseating- did it mention it was going to be on 3-year cycles? Or did you see/hear that elsewhere?
In the Donor Guide page 20 or 23.
found it. thanks.
I hoping they send out these in hard copy.
In the email I received yesterday, it mentioned they would be mailing the information out in the next 5-10 days. Will be on the lookout for that- it's been a lot of scrolling trying to flip back and forth between things the last 2 days!
Yep, I'm an idiot and completely misread.
A little off topic, but when did the student seats move all the way to the edge? My student season tickets during my senior year were ~50 yard line, very top of East.
I think it's pretty much always been like that. For the purposes of the seating chart, I think it really just means "you can't buy tickets here." Most of the upper sections in the East are a mix of alumni season tix and students.
Well, depending on the where the seat break is, according to the new map (and thanks for the link above) I might not be eligible to keep my existing seats. Section 18 is now a $600/seat area for the lower two thirds.
I was joking with the wife that I might downgrade from Golden Hokie to Silver Hokie, based on those costs, I am thinking that is a definite. In fact, there isn't a lot of incentive to give between $1400 and $2400. Four tickets @ $350 per seat to next tier at $600 per seat. This new arrangement might end up saving me $600 per year in donations.
Am I the only one who thinks that the middle of the stadium will be half empty beginning in 2017? Will are out of conference schedule still include the likes of Liberty and directional Michigan? I understand they have to raise more money but this seems extreme I've always thought you had to give more to get more you're giving more to get the same. I think the effort should be geared towards getting an extra 10,000 people to give 100 bucks not to get the 10,000 who already give to triple their giving
Why are you reading it that way? The minimum cost for the top tier tickets is LOW, 800 a year per seat in giving.
Hey all! I've lurked for awhile, finally took the plunge.
While this may be a low sum to you, for people like me it is a huge increase. It will likely mean that in '17 or '18 I will have to move to the other side of the stadium, or give up my season tix. Selling is an option, but are you really going to get $94 (and up) on a seat for ODU, Furman, Delaware?
Yes, Tech should be getting more from alums and fans to help with costs. I agree. But punching some of us in the mouth with it is not good business.
There's no other way to read it that's the truth
Yea it is, if you donate at the Golden Hokie Level, $2,500, you qualify for 3 tickets in best section, $800 a seat.
How many of those people are out there, and how many of those seats are there? I don't have access to the numbers but it looks like a lot of seats compared to the number of current donors, all the way down the line of donation levels.
As of the Feb 2016 Hokie Club priority ranking, there were 1304 donors at Diamond Hokie or higher, 391 Platinum Hokies and 1887 Golden Hokies. Using the new ticket guidelines (where GH can get 6 tickets, PH can get 8, DH can get 10, and all the way up to 16 tickets for the new top level), I would estimate ~20,000 tickets to Golden Hokies and higher. If everyone were to max out the number of tickets they can take, it would be closer to 30,000. I think there are less than 20,000 seats at the new $600/$800 levels, but I would definitely be curious what the actual number is.
Let me put it another way I've been a hokey club member since 1997 I give $250 a year to buy four seats in the section that my seats are in. Now are going to be $600 PER SEAT that's $2400 and I am not going to raise my donation level from $250 a year to $2400 a year how many people who sit near me and are out there in the same situation. Most likely I'm going to move up to a much higher seat where my current seats will now be unfilled because you already have thousands of available seats in the corner of the stadium, and there's not enough people willing to become Golden Hokies IMO
I agree with what you're saying. I'm seriously hoping this plan doesn't completely backfire and piss off long-time Hokie Club members. Just like your case, I don't know many 20+ year donors who are going to be thrilled about that big of a hike in donations just to keep their current seats. I think cumulative donations and length of continued support should count for something, but like anything else these days, people just want more money.
It does count and counts a lot. Hokie Points are now cumulative instead of resetting every year.
Hokie club priority is now almost exclusively what you said- longevity and cumulative donations. The people that have been giving the longest will benefit from the new priority point system. They will get an earlier choice of seats than someone who has only been giving a few years. The difference is that when it is their time to select a seat, they can only select seats in a section that are within the amount they donated that year.
I am with you, I have only been a HC member since 2004, but have been giving $2000 a year for 11 years. But at my currently giving level I will drop from a Golden Hokie to a Silver Hokie. Now according to the chart I am going to have to move my seats. It will be easier to drop to a $350/seat ticket for four tickets than it will be to increase my giving.
I don't like that there is fallout like this happening, but to play devil's advocate:
At the moment, our current Hokie club strategy isn't fulfilling our budget requirements. I don't like that someone, like yourself, who has loyally given at a high level for years is probably going to make a decision to decrease their donation instead of increasing it. But if we're falling behind, then maybe a strategy to get more new donors will be able to outweigh scenarios like yours.
I think there would have been a lot less squabbling by alumni if they had put the seat tier at $500 instead of $600. That would have allowed people to give the same and keep their tickets for the most part.
I think the big thing they needed to fix was the $100,000 and no more donations or even paying for tickets??? I can see potentially skipping the required donation, but they should have at least had to pay for tickets.
To clarify, the benefactor levels still required paying for tickets, they just didn't have a required annual donation.
There are two sides to every coin though. I agree there are a probably a lot of folks in your situation trying to weigh what to do. On the other hand, there are a good number of younger alumni who have been trying to move down but unable due to the seats being locked in for several years. For example, I was a Golden Hokie last year (and giving above even the new Golden minimum), but my seats were in a section that is designated as a $350 minimum donation. Now I will theoretically be able to get seats in the $800 section without changing my donation at all.
I agree 100%. Whit mentioned today that 4% of Hokie Nation donates - why not lower the entry cost into the HC and offer advanced sales on individual tickets, swag, dinners, meetings with staff and players, open practices, etc?
If the demand for seats goes up after getting people in the door, people will donate more to get better seats. I started out giving 100 my senior year in '12 (I wanted Alabama tickets #BEATBAMA) and I moved up a level this year ($250) and had planned on moving up another the next year. I wanted to move closer to the 50s. My current seats would cost me 1900 bucks (2x 600, 2x 350) before the actual ticket prices. I think that is a bit of a hike.
I am seriously considering continuing to give at my current rate and just scalping after this year.
I'm not sure if this will make you feel better or worse, but even if there were no changes to the Hokie Club, you'd still be bumped out of your $600 seats in the next reseating. There's no way those seats would still be available by the time it got to your turn to pick-- the seat selection dynamic is just totally different in reseating years vs non-reseating years.
With the new point priority formula, even if you ultimately scalp a set of tickets to actually sit in, I'd still encourage you to consider continuing donating and buying at least 1 season ticket every year in order to maintain your consecutive streak.
That's purely speculation.
But the last reseating didn't have a yearly donation amount tied to it.
Half the fanbase sees a reseating coming up, and are all like:
Meanwhile, the other half sees ticket prices going up, and are all like:
In a sense I agree it's speculation since I can't guarantee the future (and it's a moot point since they are in fact changing the priority process), but I'm just saying in the previous reseatings there's zero chance you'd get a seat in one of the $600 sections at O&M Hokie Club level ($250 annual donation). I was a Silver Hokie ($1000 donation) in the 2012 reseating and my seats are in what has been defined as a $350 section.
My guess is that Whit's team has run the numbers on this, and believes that this is the best way to raise money for the program over the next X number of years. What happened to trust in Whit?
Yep. I understand what they are trying to do, but I think they should have focused on getting more people involved with the Hokie Club and donating (50-60 dollar minimums) than holding out their hand and asking for more from the people who have continued supporting the team through the down years recently. I just joined the HC last year, and I will have to triple my annual donation to keep my three current seats (which weren't anywhere near the top tier anyway).
Similar predicament here. I have had season tickets the last 6 years now. I have moved from East stands to West without being part of HC. Last year, I joined during the 110% campaign. The demand simply is not there to justify the hefty price hikes. The reseating opportunities are proof.
Couldn't agree more. I don't see how this is the move at this point in time. Our first priority should have been an all out campaign to get HC numbers up. Then, we could do this down the road. I fear this could empty Lane as well. We don't have great schedules in the immediate future and god forbid we have a lackluster season this year. If that happens, this could seriously bite us in the ass.
I agree with Ass Pocket. Lackluster schedule and God forbid, a so-so season and we could see many empty seats. Let's work on the Alumni first. Hell, I didn't go to Tech and I'm a member in good standing.
Yep. If season ticket demand was completely through the roof, this plan makes sense. But we don't sell out our season tickets to HC members and have gobs left over for the general public. Plus, couple this change coinciding with our enthralling home OOC schedule of Delaware and ODU next year, and you may have some seriously unhappy long-time donors.
There are still seat sections where the seat donation is zero.
Right, but my issue is: why would someone want to triple-quadruple their donation to keep their current seats when they know they can continue their current donation and move back to a lower level? Just worried about a gigantic hole in the middle 50-yard line for those who don't want to up their contribution to keep the same seats.
those seats would be available to those without the lifetime points but currently have the cash, correct?
Another point are the parking permits. To park in Zone A (Cassell) you must donate an extra $2500. That doesn't even guarantee you a spot. Also, there are no reserved spots. First come, first serve, IF you get a spot there. Which may work better for some of the actual, big money donors. I park off-campus.
Does anyone else think this puts unfair pressure on Fuente to win early/win often? Bad OOC games with higher donation premiums and a new coach/coaching staff seems to be a bad situation.
I will likely pony up the first year, and see how the reseating goes. We will probably lose our seats due to someone with higher priority dropping down. It does not sit well with me.
Page 25 of Donor Guide Book
Edit: Nevermind, totally misunderstood the comment. Carry on.
To be eligible. Reserved a slot, but numbers won't be assigned.
Not according to the Donor Guide, Level
parking spots are reserved. Level
and
are first come first pick of spot in lot each game.
I guess I misread or completely misunderstood some of the parking. Looks like the $2500 amount for A is not in addition to your per seat. Man this gets deep lol.
And am I reading this right, but most of the per seat donation is for capital improvements and not the actual scholarship money?
Every dollar the Hokie Club gets right now goes directly to scholarships.
What I saw was the per seat gift on the premium seats, which is separate from the scholarship fun donation per seat. Those will be a hard sell now.
There has been a "per seat donation" to the capital fund for club seats for at least a few years already, that's not new.
Right. Starting next year those seats will also have the scholarship fund added to it. From the way the FAQ reads. So will it be the sum of both add-ons, or just the higher of the 2?
There has always been a require Hokie Club donation amount(level)+capital fund amount+ ticket price for club seats, none of that is new.
Jeep if your around would you mind talking about your club seats?
I've only checked the SEZ club seats, but the required donation now is the sum of the two required donations next year. No change for those.
Thanks. Is this having any impact on you? Are you still intent on keeping your seats?
No negative impact whatsoever. In reality, this is better than the old system because $125 of the $500 per seat is now tax deductible and counts for HC status.
That's great! I am glad some people can benefit from the amount they give and the points system.
My situation is on the other end of the spectrum. I will have to put up significantly more to stay in the running for my seats, and will likely not be able to keep them because my points are too low (after the reseating).
All spots in Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11 are reserved, which means when you select your parking, you select your exact, numbered spot.
The "to be eligible" clause is due to the fact that everything is based on one's Hokie Club priority. Said another way, just because someone donates $2500 doesn't mean they are guaranteed a spot in a reserved lot, just that they have a chance to park there if its available based on their priority ranking. For example (and I'm making these numbers up), let's say there are 2,000 parking spots in reserved lots and someone is a Golden Hokie with priority ranking of 2,500. That person is eligible to pick a parking spot in a reserved lot if one is still available when it's their turn to select, but based on their priority in this example, the odds of there being a spot still unclaimed is low since there are 500 more people ahead of them than the # of reserved spots.
With the loss of three lots in last 4 years parking level B and C are finding parking passes even harder to get.
Yes, I'm actually surprised they didn't put more of a premium on parking- it is MUCH harder to get good parking than the new guide seems to suggest. The lot I've tailgated in the last several years is marked as a Zone C lot, but my buddies who are mid-level Silver Hokies have not had high enough priority to get a pass in the lot since 2012.
As for OOC conference scheduled it gets better ALOT better: ND, Mich, WVU, PSU all at home in next 6 years.
In 2021 we actually play Michigan and Notre Dame in Lane plus at WVU. Can't ask for much stronger scheduling than that.
Well, you could ask to not play WVU, but that's picking nits. :)
This won't go into affect until the 2017 football season, and after this year home schedules get a lot better.
Clemson in 2017. Notre Dame in 2018. Penn State 2020. Michigan & Notre Dame 2021. Hopefully we can uschedule Furman or Old Dominion in 2019 and get a real opponent.
i actually read somewhere that penn state had a very similar problem to this about 4-6 years ago:
they instituted a seat surcharge/premium fee and not long after they got hit with the ncaa punishments, so the team wasn't very good, so people were paying for 1.5-2x the price for a product that was the same or worse. People ended up just going to the edges of the stadium leaving large holes around the middle of the stands.
i just started at the hokie club level and have no idea if im going to be getting season tickets anytime soon. i agree the better move is to get more people to pay, not ask for the few that are paying to pay more
Yup
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/413914#comment-413914
How long should Whit and Co have waited to get numbers up and still fall short in the budget? There is the issue, VT needs more members long term but we also need money NOW.
So Whit was quoted as saying the system in the past was "transactional" and basically donating was a way to get tickets. He wants to make the system more "philanthropic" to attract more donors and bigger money for the betterment of the entire athletics department. Yet, the plan they roll out aims to increase donations by charging more for football/basketball seats. I thought fundraising was supposed to be more aimed at philanthropy now, not centered around tickets. Why don't we just reach out to huge corporations and other investors for some big time cash? Let's just call a spade a spade and go ahead and realize college football has become the farm league for the NFL. Why not get the NFL to invest in "big boy" college football? Go all in and have a partnership for a developmental league. The NCAA has basically become "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" where everything's made up and the points don't matter, so if this is the direction college football is headed, I say let's just go all in.
Maybe I'm late to the party, but midfield seats that are not picked up as season tickets will just be single-game tickets at face value, right? Does anyone actually think those seats will be empty at game time? I sure don't. It was only recently that the very corners stopped selling out.
Then when the product on the field returns to form, the market will rule, and those willing to pay for the seats all year will get them.
You can add me to the list of examples that support this. I started donating a couple of years ago at the $250 level and have bought 4 season tickets in what will become a $350/ticket level. My thought back then was buy low and get tickets that I could keep until the program picks up in a few years. Now that my donation is going to increase almost 6x, I guess I'll just have to get seats that aren't as close. I'm not complaining, I just feel like there must be many in my boat, especially considering that we haven't sold out lately. The demand just isn't there. Unless we do much better in the coming years I could totally see a PSU situation as others have mentioned. Hope that doesn't happen!
It's almost like certain folks >cough< hokiefireman >cough< are completely or purposefully overlooking/ignoring this.
I'm not ignoring it, what other options are there? The current model is outdated by 10 plus years. VT is one of the last basketball or football programs to do this. The gap between money coming in and money needed was only getting bigger.
Look, I believe the majority on here agree that the system is outdated and needs to be changed. It's just that the timing that they're attempting to implement it is...well, it sucks. I think a lot (who knows, perhaps even most) believe they should wait till Fuente starts improving in the W column and just let it snowball from there. I hope this decision won't backfire on the HC and morph into a situation that resembles PSU. From my (very limited) perspective, this seems like a massive gamble that Fuente is going to achieve a more successful season than the previous 2. It's on him and the team to deliver to get the landslide rolling.
There will already be another 2-4 million shortfall for the 2016 season so they should wait till the shortfall totals 15-20 million over 5 years? That is not doable.
keep fighting the good fight sir...i'm giving you as many turkey legs as i can!
i understand change is hard to accept and the university is asking for more money at a time that seems inconvenient for many WITHOUT seeing any results in the (football) field.
i'm not gonna tell a person how to spend their money but i've already accepted this as the path that sets us straight. will we lose donors? sure. but i hope we gain new ones to replace them. these are exciting times with a progressive-minded AD and i'm happy with Babcock's moves.
if you really must know what sold me, it's that the model we were using was outdated and we're upgrading to one that's effectively used by schools that are doing better than us. that's all you had to tell me...
i'm tired of taking a backseat to the teams which have blown past...we were on a roll after the championship game and then we stagnated. the money gained from this will help right the ship to cover for the expenses needed to compete with the big boys...
You sound a little back and forth. Not a criticism. It's just that at multiple points you sound off that the current new course is absolute fail-proof in all facets, but then you sound not completely convinced that there will be new investors.
Good points. I agree with the sentiment. For people like myself, this is pricing us out of the football realm and into the couch/HD tv realm.
There are numerous examples of major college football teams that throw money in large sums at their programs with little return on that investment. Tennessee seems to come to mind.
This system will put more stress and pressure on HC members (to pay more of the burden) and the coaching staff (win now, win big). We may have a new, hip system, but we will also adopt the problems of those bigger, better programs that are mediocre every year and have irrational fanbases.
I might be lighting a couch fire. But is the reason that we apparently have a budget shortfall is Whit has been spending money like crazy? Buzz has a huge contract and now our new football staff also has a huge contract? We never had a budget shortfall under Weaver.
There may be a budget shortfall because of that, but all the writing indicate that they want to fund all the scholarships from donations and not the athletic budget. The increasing cost of scholarships plus the COA money is why there needs to be more donation $. Whit has been very specific when he talks that coaches salaries are paid from the athletic budget and won't be funded by donations.
One thing to add- donations could be used to cover a portion of coaching or staff salaries in the future, but only after all of the scholarship costs are covered. Right now, donations aren't even covering scholarship costs.
Coaching and staff salaries are covered by athletic department revenue (ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, ACC revenue sharing, etc.) The shortfall is in regards to scholarship costs. The reason for the gap is the cost of scholarships has increased 60% in the last 5 years (tuition and room/board increases + change to allow schools to pay cost of attendance) and our donations have leveled off . The reason the Hokie Club was established was to pay for athletic scholarships and as a fanbase we are not currently doing that.
But then there's this side of the issue.
If we want to play Big Boy football things need to change. Yeah it might be rocky at the beginning but the overall benefit if/when people start donating more/donating to begin with is HUGE. Whit seems to be working to make the Hokie Club more involved/easier to deal with.
I see what they are trying to accomplish here, but I am not so sure they going about it correctly. Too many people (in their definition) are recieving benefits that are no longer donating and these are high $ seats. I have been a Golden Hokies for the past 7 years and have donated much longer than that and I have always wondered why my seats never seem to get better, now I know. It is a slippery slope they are walking on because in the end they just might piss off a lot of people, similar to what they did around the 2001, you know after we went to NCG. It will take time to work out the kinks, I just hope they don't do too much damage because to me the most important thing is bodies in the seats, not $'s in the coffer. Remember it's about balance and fairness.
The issue is VT has not had either one in recent years.
Very true and you would hope that never becomes a problem.
Y'all need to realize that this needed to happen. To win like a top program the alumni/fans have to give like a top program. We were in the extreme minority in P5 before adopting the per seat donations, and the rest of our system was antiquated and in desperate need of change. There may be growing pains, but changes like this had to be made lest we keep falling behind.
Just to put things into perspective, we have had George Mason B-ball tickets for 30+ years and they went to this system 15 years ago. Very good point.
I realize this is the nature of the beast these days, but I wonder sometimes when the college football bubble is going to burst. The sport has become an absolute arms race. Schools who have the alumni and donor bases are flooding their programs with money to hire the best coaches, recruit the best players, build the best facilities, etc. etc. Pretty soon (and probably way sooner-than-later) someone is going to build an indoor facility bigger and better than ours, so we will have to compensate and invest in something new and attractive. Cost of tuition keeps going up with no end in sight, so these scholarships will get more expensive. Pretty soon you're going to have people giving absolutely absurd amounts of money for college football tickets, and we already have seen the effects that television has had on football attendance around the country. At what point are people going to say "enough is enough"?
In my opinion, Virginia Tech, at it's foundation, is a very blue-collar work ethic school. A lot of older alumni came from very modest means and worked hard for a good education and career. Juxtapose that with other schools' alumni bases (UVa) where a large portion come from very wealthy families and are used to having tons of discretionary income to throw around for entertainment. Not to say there aren't exceptions, but I think we really need to understand that we aren't historically a blueblood university with tons of big money backing us.
Again, I'm not complaining. I recognize that this is the reality of the sport today. I will continue to support VT Athletics. But big picture, I seriously worry about the direction this is headed.
Yet schools with lower starting and average salary ranges have higher total giving, more givers and higher average giving than Tech.
Don't have any statistics to go from, but I think our efforts should have been focused on getting more people involved and donating. I don't disagree with the intent behind the seat premiums, but I think it is very poorly timed. We are coming off of two back-to-back 7-6 campaigns, barely making bowls. If demand for season tickets was already through the roof, it makes sense, but not when we currently can't sell out. The administration must have A LOT of faith that Fuente can get this thing turned around quickly. If we struggle and limp to bowl eligibility again this year, I fear this will backfire immensely. At some point people are going to have to see the on-field product improve before they give more. I know it takes money to be competitive, but we really need a spark on the field to reignite the fanbase, IMO.
You can't keep kicking the can down the road. Already at over 5 million shortfall in last two years could have been 10 by end of upcoming season, you have to change course at some point. Roll out this for 2017 season and reseating completely takes place in 2020.
Exactly. This is putting the cart before the horse. No one is disagreeing that we need more money to stay competitive, but we need butts in the seats first. This should have happened during our sellout streak. Right now, it's just not the time.
Then when is the time? Find me a school that has kept up a sellout streak in the last 5 years without resorting to having local business buy up ticket blocks?
Then Whit and the Hokie Club have a marketing job to do. "Secure your seats now to be the first to witness the start of the new era of Virginia Tech football. Will you be there at the start of Coach Fuente's legacy?" Of course, it's a gamble to sell it like this, but so is anything these days.
Exactly my thoughts. It is a huge gamble introducing this plan now. Hopefully it works out, and Whit must really think Coach Fuente can get us going in a hurry. If we have a bounce-back year this season, this could really pay off. But that's a huge 'if' considering we're in a four year lull with little to sell ourselves on right now other than the coaching change. I just look at the effect that Buzz had on the basketball team this year and hope Fuente can emulate that. I'm not talking 13-0 and a trip to the playoffs, but competitive in the ACC and an exciting offense that gets people hopeful for the future.
Wait - I think horses normally get put before carts. Not an expert though, I loathe manual labor.
Indeed. Fixed it.
I agree, Chris. Seems like it had to happen.
I also agree it's become a bit of an arms race. The numbers are getting so big.
You wonder how long it will continue to rise.
It seems like a lot of us are looking internally and seeing how the change affects ourselves (which is perfectly reasonable - there is a chance my seat's donation requirement may triple my contribution), but everyone also needs to see things externally. Virginia Tech was being left behind and the truth of the matter is if we want to holler about being a top tier athletics program, we will need to pony up like top tier athletics programs.
Yes, it is circular logic where performance and draw are intertwined, but we can either spiral downward or we can start taking steps upward.
While I understand that there's some valid concern about upsetting long-time donors, I think most are missing the point of the overhaul. I could be off base here, but I think it's a call to action and the real goal here is to establish a younger donor base.
For various reasons, I have not yet joined the Hokie Club. I was single, paying student loans and barely scraping by, and have no real reason to buy season tickets because I'm not going to be able to make most games. I've since gotten married and had a stable job for a few years now, but still found no reason to join the Hokie Club. But seeing all the info about where VT stands in the pecking order, it's made me think, "You know what, we can probably spare a few hundred dollars even if we never make it to a game."
I think that's the real issue at hand here - they're starting to target more people like me, who never had any real incentive to donate. Even if I don't buy season tickets now, I'll be accruing points if I want to do so later. Lastly - I'm sure Whit has done his homework, but I'd be willing to be that most people who care about having good seats on gameday will continue to do so.
Exact same situation here. I didn't realize how low we were compared to the competition. In the last year I got married and bought a house- I don't have a ton of money sitting around. We live in Seattle, won't be making it to many games (if any) in the next year or two. But I just sent in $100 for the first time and I intend to continue going forward.
I wonder how much Whit is going to charge Worsham to keep his seats...
He doesn't need a seat, he's on the field.
I'm pretty conflicted over this. On the one hand I always really appreciated how cost conscious supporting Virginia Tech athletics could be. With a $100 donation and pretty reasonably priced season tickets, my wife and I could make it to every game and support the team. I kind of took pride in that in comparison to family members belonging to blue-blood schools who donated insane amounts of money for over a decade just for a shot at season tickets. That model seemed exclusionary, and we pride ourselves on being anything but. At the same time, to attain the kind of success we want, and really just to continue being a program that isn't losing money something had to change.
On one hand, I think I see where we're going with this. There were wrinkles that needed to be worked out, ie. the best seats going to people who weren't donating. The focus on cumulative giving to accrue points was long overdue. There's now a legitimate reason to give to the HokieClub even when you don't plan on buying season tickets, as you can be gathering points for the future.
What I think is a big mistake is how high the minimum seat levels got so quickly. This should have been tapered in, and are probably too high ultimately. My main problem with this model, I think, is that while it's what works for the most successful schools, it doesn't seem tailored to what Virginia Tech really is. The upper crust at those blue bloods are doctors and lawyers and politicians. Our upper crust is engineers and scientists and in agriculture. There's not a lot of Hokies I know (maybe I'm projecting here) interested in throwing around huge amounts of money for exclusive access. There are COUNTLESS Hokies with immense pride in their school and their team.
Ultimately, I see these changes as a necessary step in the right direction that may have gone too far. A more fitting model for this school would be one that tries to engage every member of Hokie Nation first and foremost, whether they can give $10,000 or $50. Whether they can make it to every game, want to start contributing for the future, or just want to support the school and team they love. One that ultimately rewards loyalty, people doing what they can over long periods of time, as much as splashing around with a lot of money at once. I think we all want to see our team be as successful as possible, but just like how our football team didn't reach the levels it has by playing by other people's rules, I think our fundraising needs to work with a similar level of innovation and dedication to the values of it's alumni base.
(sheesh, way more soap-boxy then I intended,)
Are there?
Put it this way, happened to see the other day that the UNC Athletic Department has 1.12 million likes to their facebook page. You know what the VT Athletic Department has? About 120k. I know this isn't necessarily the most scientific of surveys, but it is eye opening. UNC's fanbase is enormous, but its also riled up and rabid. Ours has a loyal following... for those who follow it, but for the fast majority of alumni we have, they just seemingly don't give a shit.
*checks to make sure I've liked the VT Athletics FB page*
Phew.
Hey VT got to 192 thousand !!
That is sad.
Edit: UNcheat Twitter has 130 thousand more followers than VT.
Oh yeah, and its not just there. I know in the Raleigh metro area there are about 6k alumni. Largest alumni base outside of the Commonwealth to be exact. And this is just alumni, not spouses who went to another school, or fans who didn't go there. For any given alumni chapter event we have we might max out at 30 participants, for a whopping turnout of 0.5% of the alumni base.
People love flying the VT flag, they love putting the stickers on their car, and they love wearing the colors, but the second you ask them to get active and actually participate in what it is that they say they love, oh boy do the excuses come out.
For someone who hates the "real fan" moniker you throw out some pretty big gusto and some nice accusations. There could be a million different legitimate reasons why people don't participate that means nothing about their pride in VT. Do all 6k people even know it exists? Or what the benefits of joining are?
I wasn't accusing anyone in particular of anything. Just stating that in general, our alumni and booster giving and participation levels pale in comparison to what they should be and what they are at our peers. This is not debatable, our giving levels are bad, and are actively discussed in Blacksburg where they hold annual conferences and think tanks to figure out how to fix the issues we have with this.
True... When you're talking about it on a per person basis. But I'm not. I'm talking about the 99.5% inactive level of participation that a majority of our alumni and Hokie Club chapters see on an annual basis. You can't make an excuse for a 99.5% inactive participation level, you can only look for ways to improve upon it.
They should. Annual mailings go out to everyone in the area to the mailing addresses on file through the main VTAA, of which they are extremely thorough in tracking you through life (like, eerily thorough). And if you're an alumni of VT, you're enrolled into the VTAA for life with no membership dues. However, the events that area alumni chapters put on help to fundraise for VT as well as funding a scholarship for area students, which can be desperately needed, especially for those out of state students.
What you are saying here vs. what you stated above are night and day. Obviously it has to improve.
This has not been my experience at all; actually far from it. I've attempted to update mine and my wife's address with the school multiple times to no success. We both graduated from Tech. I've never received anything about any events in the mail (I live in NOVA so there are plenty around) and have never had anyone from VT attempt to reach out to me. I don't feel like I'm alone either given that Fernley mentioned the issues he's had with the alumni database with Tech as well.
The other part of this that snail mail doesn't work like it used to. To get people to come out to events you have to give them a reason to and just because isn't good enough. I'll use me as an example. If there is an alumni event on any given weekend there are likely 4 or more things that are competing with it for me to attend. I usually have some sort of kid's sporting event, some sort of birthday party, a hunny do list, and family time/date night that I want to do. I don't have the luxury of attending something "just because", I need an actual reason to do so. Hell there have been many TKP happy hours that I would've loved to attend but haven't been able to for one reason or another.
Put it this way, you took a totally random and arbitrary factoid and used it for the sake of argument. Why would I like the VT Athletic Department facebook page? Among alumni, I see a group of people extremely proud of their school. Every time I mention that I went to Tech I get the same response, "People just seem to really love it there. They never stop talking about it". The pride and the interest is there, the engagement isn't. Part of that is winning. A lot of it has to be awareness and proactive steps from the Hokie Club.
That may be true, but according to Bitter's article, only 4% are willing to support the program financially: "Despite having 238,169 living alumni, Tech has only 10,158 donors." [article]
Hopefully there will be a lot of emphasis on increasing that 10k number, as well. How many alumni don't give simply because no one's ever asked them to?
Exactly my point. We really need to increase that number.
A heckuva lot I would think. The problem isn't a lack of interest, it's a lack of engagement.
This is true. I graduated in 2014 and started donating the minimum to be in Hokie Club, but I was never called or emailed to do this. Meanwhile, Pamplin calls me just about every 3 months asking for money. I'm sure if VT alumni were called up and asked for a Hokie Club donation at least some would be willing to give $100
Until this year there was a wall between the Hokie Club and the VT Alumni association.
Engineering/tech jobs are some of the highest paying jobs in the country. Payscales for professional engineers/scientists (especially with graduate degrees) are not disparate to lawyers or doctors, they can actually be pretty close. For large majority of our fan base I am sure they are pretty well off.
Also most alumni are more involved/supportive of their undergrad alma mater so I think the fact that tech doesn't have a med school or law school is somewhat irrelevant as a lot of Hokies still continue on to become doctors and lawyers.
I do agree that they need to get more people involved at lower amounts though.
I probably could have stated this better, but my larger point was that while pay is certainly good in those fields and there's no shortage of well off alumni, it doesn't necessarily lead to the huge outliers that traditionally have funded athletic programs. The kind of people kicking in $100,000 to put their name on stuff or to show off. It also doesn't lead to a whole lot of people getting season tickets every year for appearances or for schmoozing purposes. Engineers make good money for a lifetime, but they typically get capped off eventually and typically never reach the "throwing around money for influence" level.
I'll readily admit this was probably my most anecdotal and least articulated point though, so I see what you're getting at.
Registered PE, and I don't make anywhere near the money of a doctor or lawyer. Not sure where you got that information.
And on the other hand, my husband (a CS PhD) makes as much as my father (a retina surgeon)... Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
You also paid a lot less in student loans than a lot of doctors and lawyers and was in the work force making money a lot sooner. My wife didn't get her first real salary until she was 32.
Depends what kind of engineering you want to do.
You also don't pay malpractice insurance...
They can have professional liability which is also pricey I believe
Correct, not to mention registration fees, and continuing education requirements to keep the PE.
http://vcuathletics.com/sports/ramFund/1516ArenaMap
This is VCU's current per seat donation model. It fits exactly into what VT is doing.
I didn't know VCU had a football program /s
undefeated since 1932.
Hate to break it to you, 2-5 all time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCU_Rams_football
Also, I thought I heard that the Richmond Professional Institute had a football team. Perhaps that was the 1932 referenced in another comment.
The donation levels according the the seating areas don't appear to be on a per seat basis, though. Based on your level, that gives you the opportunity to purchase a minimum of 2 tickets and up to 4,6, 8, or 10 tickets in higher levels.
http://vcuathletics.com/sports/ramFund/1516RAFBenefitsChart.pdf
So for instance, if I wanted to donate $1,000 dollars a year and be in the "Black&Gold Society" I can purchase up to 4 tickets in my section. I think more people would be onboard if the donation levels were higher but you could purchase a certain number of seats, not charged on a per seat basis. It looks like Tech's model may be designed to discourage larger ticket orders per Hokie Club membership and incentivize more members with smaller orders.
Yea as someone whose parents have had season tickets since 1979 VCU has gone through the same growing pains and anger about the system.
can't read through this whole thread to catch up, so apologies if already covered, but doesn't it seem as though we're simply keeping ticket prices low/equal while increasing donation requirements to purchase them? donations are tax deductible while tickets are not, so i appreciate this approach (even as someone who doesn't buy tickets).
ie midfield seats could cost $150 each per game (6 tickets = $7200 for 8 games, none of which is tax deductible) or they can cost $60 ea ($2,880 for 8 games) after making a $5000 tax deductible contribution. So the total cost is $680 more using my made up numbers, but $4000 of it is tax deductible vs $0 being tax deductible if we simply increased ticket prices without focusing on the donation model.
seems like a fair model for the donor IMO unless i'm oversimplifying/missing something.
So I've been reading this whole thread as well as the vid with "Laaser", and while I agree that something needs to be done, why don't they just raise it to the bare minimum (ie $50-$100) and after (assuming) Fuente lights the effin shit up next season start raising it to $200-$300? I feel like there's gotta be something to show first.
Suppose he doesn't light things up? Then you'll have people complaining that Fuente hasn't proven anything yet they demand more money.
I said "assuming". Am I assuming an ACCCG and/or playoff appearance? No. However, I am assuming that it will be an improved record next year, which automatically gives hope and optimism. Then it just rolls from there.
I'm assuming an ACCCG appearance, but either way it really doesn't change that the best time to change things up is when interest in the program (and hopefully translate that into ticket sales and donations) is at a five-year high.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/virginia-tech/dp-spt-teel-column-vt-tic...
There is a lot of great info in this. If I didn't need to head to bed for my final in the morning at 8 I would point out some things I saw and then found on Clemson IPTAY site.
You dropped the 'l' off the end of your link.
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/virginia-tech/dp-spt-teel-column-vt-tic...
Thanks, phone typing gets me a lot.
I'm not negating or disagreeing. But it's still a gamble. Personally, I feel like if they were gonna do something like this, they should've done it during the '05-'10/'11 seasons. Like I said, for the sake of the program, I hope this gamble works.
Unfortunately we didn't have Whit back then and I don't think Weaver was that aggressive on this front. Also, we didn't know that the cost of attendance scholarships were coming. This is the hand we have been dealt and we have to act according to the situation we are in.
I get what you're saying. My question with that is, did the HC really need/require Weaver's permission/blessing/whatever to take initiative during our almost decade of success?
I feel like I'm misunderstanding the discussion here. I'm not aware of any power that the head coach has over the booster club, other than an opinion that he could push for implementing.
HC = Hokie Club, not head coach.
Aha! I knew I wasn't getting it. Thanks. :)
"I want national championships! Just don't don't change my ticket prices! Also change the jerseys! Wait....F**** these jersey changes!!! Change everything!!! but I will probably hate the next thing you change! Also make sure we WIN!!! Just don't change my ticket prices." - Hokie Fan Base
Yep... we are acting like that awful restaurant customer who is overwhelmingly demanding, has special customization requests for each item ordered, sends at least one plate back to be redone because it isn't exactly what he wanted, and suddenly gets alligator armed when the bill arrives, only to argue costs on every item on it trying to get comped for as much as possible claiming bad service, but finally paying the check. Only then, after they walked away do you notice you got a $0.50 tip on a $100 bill.
Did somebody say "Yelper Elite"?
In all fairness some of that can be blamed on the administration. Tech used to be the Boise State of college football. Take some cast offs some walk on's work hard and be competitive with the big boys. Didn't have the highest paid coaching staff didn't have the biggest stadium didn't have the money. But then we had a taste success we put up an empty national championship trophy we started raising ticket prices we started renovating the stadium putting in luxury boxes building huge indoor facilities and now decided we want to compete with the Alabama's of college football and not the Boise States. So yes there is a period of adjustment for the Hokie faithful.
Seems to me the current Hokie faithful are going to be along for the ride no matter what. Most of those who were going to drop probably dropped already. We want a good program, and I think those who are on board currently will dig a little deeper. They'll do what is asked of them.
Sure, we might lose a few. Some will be disappointed that they have to pay more or that their seats will move. Some may even choose not to attend the games. But if the Hokies have success on the field or on the court, they'll be quickly replaced.
Right now, donations aren't covering the costs. If we want to be competitive in the ACC in football or basketball, we need to cover the costs. I think the changes are what we need.
As an alumnus who doesn't live in the area, I don't buy season tickets. I'd like to see something tangible for us for our contribution. Maybe some kind of priority for away games near me. But regardless of that I'll continue to give at my current level, even now that my level is a little more expensive.
Whit is a guy who swings for the fences, and that's exactly what we need.
While I understand there are tough choices for many on whether they can increase their current Hokie Club donation, it is extremely disconcerting to me that some are reading the material published by the Hokie Club regarding our multi-million dollar gap between donations and scholarship expenses, as well as our 11th place ACC standing in donors & dollars, and their takeaway is they are going to reduce or eliminate their current donation.
Hence why I thought they should've only raised it by $50-$100 first and then implement the $200-$300 after this upcoming season.
just playing devil's advocate here.
I think we all agree that any time the price of anything goes up people are going to complain. Right?
So if you raise the price by $50-$100 people are going to complain. Eventually, after the dust settles, people will move on and everything will go back to normal and be peachy again.
Well, if you turn around and raise it AGAIN the following year, people are really going to wonder what the heck is going on. "The prices are going up EVERY YEAR" they'll say. And that could actually lead to more problems. If you raise the price once people will complain and then get over it. If you raise it a couple times in quick succession people will start to wonder when the price hikes will stop. Fear could drive them away.
No, I totally get what you're saying. I just believe (at this particular time and juncture) $50-$100 is more palatable for folks vs $200-$300. Yes there will be some gripes, but less so with only $50-$100 vs the other.
Then it's a good thing here is 50 per seat sections and 100 per seat sections and zero dollar per seat sections.
I guess it just comes down (for me) as an agree to disagree HOW it's being done. Like I said previously, I hope this gamble pays (for lack-thereof) off.
I think in the end people will fall in line. People overreact initially but this is what everyone wants right? A winning program (and who cares about that more then the people ALREADY involved in Hokie Club)....and this is the stepping stone to a winning program so people should be on-board with this mission because its the winning mentality.
Then the Hokie Club and Athletic Department need to do what Whit stated and make fundraising less "transactional" and more "philanthropic" in nature. We can keep raising our ticket prices, seat surcharges, concessions, whatever. Eventually, the overall cost per game to come watch football is going to very strongly outweigh the benefits for some. "Why should I keep paying more and more for football tickets when I can just watch at home?" They need to figure out some other angle to approach fundraising other than a means of paying for football tickets. What's in it for me as a Hokie Club member other than tickets? What other benefits or advantages can they offer for my philanthropy? I keep hearing that this aspect has been missing in our fundraising, but I see little in the way of solutions offered that don't focus on football tickets.
well said! the price should not be going up especailly after 3 subpar years. go 10,11 wins and people will pay to watch i really wouldnt mess with basketball because there is just now beginning to be a groundswell to watch Buzzketball y jack up prices and run people off.
And while the shortfall adds up to over 20 million what do you think will happen to the program?
there are other ways then gauging fans to go see an average product. Not everyone has loads of cash laying around to GIVE to vt. im a recent college graduate with a child and soon to be married giving tech an extra 1200 a year isnt in the budget and im gonna guess more are in my category then in the 100,000 a year donation category.
This is true, but some tickets are aligned with that. They're just not on the 50 yard line.
The bigger issue is how did we fall so far behind with this stuff? We're just starting to implement PSL's (Personal Seat License's) when 80-90% of P5 teams did this in 2007. Why did we fall behind 6-7 years especially when in 2007 VT won the Coastal and the ACC title game finishing 11-3. From 2007-2011 we were winning 10+ games a year, that was the perfect time to do this.
Whit is just cleaning up the disjointed/chaotic mess that Weaver left behind. Yeah the Hokie Club was a great idea but it seems like it was done half assed. Can't blame the guy in charge now when the guy he followed didn't really have it all together.
I think now is the perfect time to do this. Why wait 2-3 more years for football to be good again because by then we're in the hole another 10-15 Mil. Might as well ruffle some feathers now so come 2-3 years down the line VT athletics as a whole is healthy and winning ACC Titles and pulling in top recruiting classes.
At the end of the day no one is making you/anyone up their donation. If it doesn't fit the budget then find some tickets/seats that do and pick the best ones. (< not meant to come off bitchy) Obviously they will be in a different section and views of the field will be different but us Hokies donate because we love VT and want the best for the school.
I think the philanthropic message is getting lost in the shuffle a bit as most are (at least initially) focusing on the seat donation minimums. The Hokie Club spent the first 12 pages of the Donor Guidebook to explaining the philanthropic need. The guidebook and the other communications that are going out are highlighting the fact that Hokie Club donations go towards paying for athletic scholarships and right now we have a multi-million dollar gap between donations and scholarship expenses.
100% understand your point about the cost of attending a game. That is a challenge for almost very college in America. Nebraska had season tickets available to the public in 2015 for the first time in years. They kept their sellout streak going (347 games now), but the inability to sellout season tickets to your donor club is generally a forwarning that the sellout streak will die as well within 2-3 years (as we saw at Tech). The focus has to be on creating a memorable gameday experience-- giving fans something they can't get by sitting at home and watching on the couch. This is part of why Whit started the Hokie Village and expanded concessions. I know they have been working on other initiatives as well. I've sent Whit some ideas in the past and he's very receptive to suggestions. Several of the ideas I've sent were things they were working on and have either come to fruition or are coming in the future.
Football (and maybe basketball) ticket priority will always be the biggest perk for an athletic donor club. They added a few additional perks last year (e.g. discount at Hokie Shop, opportunity to get professional on-field photographs taken of your family, opportunity for guided tours of practice facility, etc.). I'm sure they will continue looking at this and tweaking things to try to find small perks that people find attractive (esp those that can't physically attend games), but at the end of the day there is only so much they can offer and eventually it comes down to whether fans want to support the program. FWIW, our perks for the $100 Hokie Club level are on par with those offered by Clemson for their $160 level.
Fair points. I am of the mindset that winning will cure all. If we can get a spark on the field and a little momentum going, I think fans will become reinvigorated with the program and donations. We've just been in a funk for several years now where the costs are rising and the on-field product continued to spiral downward. Things can turn around if Fuente can get us there, but he has his work cut out for him.
100% on the money ... I like to think our fanbase is less fair weather than most, but for better or worse there is a certain portion of demand that will always be linked to on-field performance.
I definitely don't think our fanbase is a fair weather one, but I think the seeds of cynicism for the program were sown years ago. Fair or not, VT graduated to big boy football status very rapidly in the 90s-early 2000s. Fans came to expect us being able to compete at the highest level. When Beamer failed to properly address a worsening and increasingly anemic offense for YEARS by not making the tough decisions and parting ways with some friends, I think that started the 'wait and see' stagnation that we are seeing with fundraising. Other big boy programs fix problems very quickly to stay ahead of the curve; we didn't see this under the old guard. In sum, I think a lot of donors got tired of being asked to fork out more while it was obvious we were not adhering to our own set standards. In a word - stagnation. We need to break the fanbase out of the lull, and the best way is through seeing progress.
Paging Whit...do you have any idea how great our concession stands could be? We have the best campus food in the country.
Hell, just open West End early and sell chicken caesar wraps and london broil out the back door.
Oh man! I would DEFINITELY buy an Owens Cheese Steak or 4 over the course of a football game!!
via GIPHY
I can't imagine how long the line would be for these. I mean, it's 15 minutes to get one of these made at Owens and that's with 4 people ahead of you. You'd miss the whole game waiting for one of these at a concession stand, much less 4.
Not to get too far off topic on this thread, but while we're talking about food, my two suggestions:
(1) Bring in food trucks around campus on gamedays - yes a lot of folks grill their own stuff, but I still think there would be a big market for this. Btw, for those who missed it, VT dining is starting two food trucks on campus this fall as an extension of the normal dining program.
(2) I know concessions in Lane are currently contracted out, but I would love for us to take a different approach on this. Rather than having generic CONCESSIONS stands around the stadium, build in variety by bringing in brands that fans know and love. Certain stands could be allocated to VT dining to operate (e.g. West End Wraps, Owens Philly City, etc.) and others could be allocated to local businesses (Cabo, Mellow Mushroom, etc.).
Minor quibble, mellow mushroom is in no way, shape, or form a local business, and companies like them throwing their weight around main street is why that area has become a bastion of chains. Now throw in the Cellar and we're talking.
Unlike some of the other chain restaurants on Main Street, at least Mellow Mushroom is franchised and locally owned & operated by a Hokie family, but point taken.
And for the record, I love the Cellar and frequent it often when in the Burg.
I don't know... this is a lot of effort for what I think is very little return. I've been going to games for 7 years now, and I've only bought food a handful of times. And if I do buy food it's always a Turkey Leg. I just don't see concessions as a large source of revenue, or something that would dramatically change the gameday experience of fans.
EDIT: it appears I'm in the minority.
It's something cited in every teams survey on fan experience at every level of sports.
When I go to games, I buy food/drinks... every single time. It's part of the experience for me, whether I'm taking in a minor league game, watching VT football, bowl games, etc... I would be absolutely ecstatic to have West End or Owens themed stands to go to (though, admittedly, I'm not on the east coast anymore and haven't made it to a game in ages...)
Concessions bring income, and the VT food service-to-games is a great idea, as long as it doesn't affect service to the students.
I'm with you. The food aspect of game day, for me at least, is centered around the tailgate. That's one of the best parts of the day to me, just hanging out with everyone and cooking out. I tend to not buy food in the stadium because I've eaten a ton/have a ton more to eat back at the car, and what I get doesn't really justify what I pay.
For the first decade of going to games, I skipped the concessions for the most part. For the last couple of years, it has been extended to getting one of the big drinks and maybe a pretzel. The schools manning the booths depend on that income as a part of their fund raising.
I don't think it's a matter of being in the minority/majority. It's just a fact that many people buy food/drinks at the concessions. I know I do, sometimes twice per game. Especially true if I'm driving to the stadium for a noon game.
There are two main things that we need to do with food in the stadium:
1) No one has to go to a concession stand ever again. Let's have food people in every section so people can place orders and pay for their food from their seat, and then the food is made under the stands and runners deliver the food to the seat they're in. Beer could work this way, too. Track your order with your smartphone with one of those ETA timers that Dominos has on their website.
2) Bring the campus food to the masses. It's already so good. No need to make a special menu or anything.
#1 will happen at some point (at least in HC sections) but there are some issues that will need to be worked out related to cell service/wifi before it can be implemented.
#2 Overall, I like this idea (as mentioned in my other comments) but would need to work out some of the details. For example, would VT Dining pay the athletic department for the rights to the stands they are operating in order to replace the lost revenue of removing the outside vendor? I don't think there is probably anything insurmountable here; there are just some details I'm curious about and don't have insight into.
One thing that should be brought up about point #2 is that the people running concessions are often schools, teams, churches, etc. from the Blacksburg community. VT provides them the opportunity to use the leverage of a football game to earn some much-needed cash in the best way to do it. This talk of VT Dining taking over concessions would require some changes to that operation, unless VT Dining were to literally just replace the food and still allow volunteers to sell it. But I don't see that happening; maintaining sales of cheap hot dogs and nachos is a lot easier than making a West End wrap.
Those damn dairy club milkshakes. For more on the story, let's go to former Head Coach, Frank Beamer. Frank:
It appears Frank is unavailable at the moment. We'll get back to you with more on that story tonight at 6.
It appears that Frank finished his VT Dairy Club milkshake and then stole his granddaughter's shake. Shane knew right away that he was not going to be able to pry Franks hands off that shake and consoling his daughter was the only course of action.
Right, and I think there will always be demand for nachos, hot dogs, burgers, and the like. I haven't been to a game since I graduated, are there food vendors in the lots where people tailgate?
The Hokie Village has some. BBQ, pizza etc
Yep, this is a community outreach method. I don't think removing that fundraising path to the community would be a good idea...
I would envision the kitchen being run by VT dining but still using the volunteer organizations to run the registers and expedite.
I might not always buy food, but I always buy drinks. Gotta have something to mix or chase what's in the ol' ass pocket.
All I will say is man my HD tv is looking like a better option every time the prices rise.
You can still buy tickets with ZERO donation, or 50 a seat or 100 a seat.
His point is valid though and seems to be the angle that Whit talks about. The HC was tied to buying tickets for too long and got us to the point we are at now. You have to give people another reason to join other than buying season tickets. Make it about something different and advertise the hell out of it and people should start giving again.
You keep taking the buying season tickets angle when defending it and that, IMO, is shortsighted for what we need the HC to become. All this to say that I'm not opposed to the change.
I think that's why the name Scholarship Fund is being pushed out there.
Though it may be controversial, this tells me VT is serious
about the athletic department being successful.
In some ways, it seems fair.
First, let me say that I have the utmost confidence in Whit and I'm sure he has run the numbers. I have been thrilled with every decision he has made. I have no doubt that long term this is a necessary move and change was sorely needed. Having said that, this worries me a bit.
One thing that worries me with the map is the small number of seats available for the mid tier donors. 3700 of the 9900 hokie club members are Bronze or lower and there aren't many seats in the $500 or less range which means these donors will be pushed up the stands or reduce the number of tickets they are buying. We cannot afford for ticket sales to drop further. In my situation-Im a high bronze giving 500 year consecutively since 2002. My seats are in the $350/per range and I have 4. I either have to go from 500 to 1400 a year, or go up to 700 and drop 2 of them, or move higher. I will certainly drop from 4 tickets to 2.
The other thing I see happening is a lot of empty seats in the prime sections going empty which isn't a good look. There are only 3,584 Goldens or higher and golden level starts at just $2,000/year which would only get you 2 seats in the prime sections.
What the emphasis should be on IMHO is getting more donors overall-regardless of giving level. I have watched the Hokie Club dwindle from almost 12k at the high point down to 9,897 currently. That is way too low. Why aren't people giving? Well, for the longest time the only perk was the "right" to buy tickets, because every game was a sellout. We can't sell out most games right now. It has to be more than that. Recently, that has improved. There is the magazine, golf tournaments, special behind the scenes events, store discounts,etc.
I am in the Raleigh area, and as Alum07 referenced above, there are a ton of alumni here. Every year I play in the Orange/Maroon tour golf event which is at a fabulous golf course, with tons of booze, good speakers, raffles, food. Every year the SAME 30-40 people attend. I may be the youngest dude there most years and I am 36!! I personally recruited 3 new guys who joined the hokie club to complete my foursome last year. They were amazed at the event, and now its a must do. I wonder if the Hokie Club even gets the flyer out to all of the members herein the triangle. Surely there are a few under 40 dudes who are hokie club members that would pay $110 to play one of the nicest courses in the NC and get to hear Frank Beamer speak, get tons of booze, and a great meal!!!
I think there is a sizable number of friends who pool there money to be golden hokies and get 4 tickets and therefore the number of donors is lower.
Buying season tickets is not a good financial decision. I spend 500 on donation and then buy 4 season tickets. I may go to 4 games max. I've always been able to sell my extras, but I could take that $2,000 and buy scalped 50 yard line seats for all 4 games I wanted for less money. I do it because I am damn proud to be a HOKIE, and I want to support VT, and have teams I can be proud of.
GO HOKIES!!
Growing the Hokie Club is a long term project. I wish I had enough quotable #sauced information to write a article on this, but most of my info is not verifiable. But until recently the Hokie Club and the Alumni Association did NOT share information. This the only way the Hokie Club got new members was someone was referred by a current member or they called the Hokie Club themselves. Many areas with large amounts of alumni with active alumni groups have almost no Hokie Club members; LA, Charleston. Looking at the Hokie Club chapter list ( which I can no longer find online), there are no chapters West of the Mississippi, South of Atlanta, none in SC, FL, NY (outside of NYC) there are Hokie Club individual members but no chapters because of the amount of work required to run it and the money A club must send in.
Here is an idea, why not cut a per seat discount for every member you bring in to the Hokie Club?
1 person: 20% off 1 seat donation requirement
2: 40%
3:60%
4: 80%
5: 1 seat doesn't have to have a donation
This could happen tomorrow and would motivate all these people (including me) who are worried about upping their donation to help find new members.
5 new people every year? Is their a minimum amount those new people must donate? Does this work for any seat even the Club seats?
This was just a thought. Not a real plan.
But I was thinking per year - anyone who stayed in the club for more than one year would make the HC a profit. Most seat locations (50, 100, 200, & 350) would produce a profit in year one.
In the end it's up to the Alumni base to decide what kind of athletic programs they want to run. I often see the desire expressed by fans here for our football team to former heights, for the basketball team to compete to win in the ACC, and for baseball to be something other than a laughing stock. The athletic department has replaced both our basketball and football coaches with excellent - and expensive - hires along with increasing staff. We want top tier facilities. We want the best recruits. We want to win. Any cursory analysis of winning programs in the major money making sports reveals that those athletic programs are extremely well funded by a very rabid alumni base. I for one am not surprised by the backlash I'm seeing about the sudden changes to the Hokie Club - I for one am going to have to pay significantly more to retain my same location if I want to keep my current seats and stay Gold - but I'm tempering that with the understanding that if we want to support the athletes and want to win it's going to cost us some money to do so.
I know we need to grow the Hokie Club, and a lot of people have hammered this type of tier seat premium is apparently standard everywhere else. I am a little upset that right now based on their calculators I can't see how longevity is making any affect on where you can get your tickets. Wasn't that supposed to be one of the big perks of the new system?
As the system is laid out right now, my seats are in a $600/seat section. Three rows up is apparently a $350/seat area. So I either need to pony up an additional $400 per year for my four tickets or move three rows up (and potentially reduce my contribution $600 per year.) But nowhere in that do I see my membership since 2003 affects anything? Or is it just that I can select my tickets earlier in the process than others.
You will get an earlier selection time based on your cumulative points priority, but if you don't donate the required amount per seat, you will only be eligible for seats in sections that you do qualify for.
It's your last sentence. Most of the comments here have understandably focused on the seat donation minimums, but the priority points system has been completely overhauled to provide significantly better priority to those with longevity of giving and/or buying season tickets.
In the old system, the first and overriding factor in priority was your Hokie Club level, i.e. how much you gave in the previous calendar year. That is completely removed from the new equation. Now it's based on cumulative giving, # of year of consecutive giving, # of years of consecutive season tickets, # of season tickets you've bought (all-time) and number of neutral-site/postseason games to which you've bought tickets (all-time). I'm not sure this will get as much attention from folks until they see their new ranking, but what is going to happen is the people who have been giving at a lower level/going to games for a long time are going to suddenly jump up in the priority ranks. For example, starting in 2017-18 a Bronze or Silver Hokie who has been donating for many years could have a higher Hokie Club priority ranking than a Golden Hokie who has only been donating a few years.
Football seat location is one factor (and the most important one for most folks) but your HC priority also impacts your selection order for your tailgate spot, your priority for high demand away games, etc.
Keep it up brother.
The way that it was laid out, about 35% of season ticket holders through Hokie Club would be able to decrease their donation amount and keep their current seats. 15% required minor changes, but it was mostly a wash, and about 50% needed to donate more. Your membership since 2003 means that you get more points. You get points for cumulative giving amount, length of giving, number of seasons you've been a season ticket holder, number of season tickets bought, and post-season/neutral site game tickets bought. That gives you an earlier priority to pick your seat, but the giving level determines where that seat is. Listening to Whit and Bill Landsen talk about this, they did their research. During the 2014-15 season, when our season ticket sales were at their lowest in over a decade, had folks met the donation requirement they need now, we would have raised an additional $2 million. At the current giving level, we are not meeting the need to fund all our scholarships. That means that any additional money needed comes out of the $80 Million budget for the Athletics Department, which is already close to 40th compared to the rest of CFB. I believe 3 of the 4 playoff teams last year had budgets of over $110 Million. So we are taking money away from projects on campus that require that money. Whit refused to say that it limited us in our coaches and providing competitive salaries when suitors come knocking, but they were happy to mention how much money Clemson brought in over their need and how many coaches they have on staff to help with recruiting and other football operations. The biggest problem was that the structure before allowed folks to have donated a lump sum years ago that gave them a higher priority than those that have been giving annually for many years and have exceeded that person in total giving. If you want 4 seats on the 50 yard line, donate $3200. That will fulfill the $800 per seat requirement. It will also meet the $2500 donation needed for a parking pass in zone 1. And it will allow you to get 6 seats at midcourt for basketball where they are $500 per seat.
EDIT: Also, in the Hokie Club presentation, they made a point that shows just how far behind we are. Of the top 30 nationally in attendance, 28 schools use a per seat donation model for football. The only 2 who don't are us and Notre Dame, who is also going to this model soon. Of the 65 teams that are part of the Power-5, 5 teams don't use this model. Us and Notre Dame, as mentioned before, as well as Indiana, Kansas, and Duke, all basketball schools who use it for basketball. Louisville, who is tops in the ACC and pulls in about $27 Million compared to our $9 Million annually in donations, does a separate donation level for basketball and football. We are behind the curve and need to catch up.
So I am not a member of the Hokie Club, but a (relatively) recent alumni thinking about joining. I have no intent of buying season tickets in the next 3-5 years. Maybe one day down the road, but until then, just 1 game/season in Blacksburg, one neutral site game every year, and 1-2 away games each year. What do I get if I donate $100/year, for the next 5 years?
As a recent graduate you might qualify for the reduced price membership check on that. But it will get you Hokie club points. Which are cumulative so in 5 years with 500 given you should have 10 points. Which will help with your seating selection when you do decide to join. It also get you the Hokie Sport magazine, a window sticker, if you have a local Hokie Club it will get your name on their rolls.
I'm struggling to figure out how to 'value' points... Here's the chart I'm referencing.
Questions:
I understand that this system is subject change every three years(?) - but for the sake of discussion, let's assume it remains unchanged.
That chart is for the old priority point system (being used for 2016 seat selection). That was the process in place (with minor tweaks for the last few decades). You can throw it away for 2017 & beyond. The new priority point system can be found here. Scroll down to where you see "PRIORITY POINTS PROGRAM" below the Benefit Chart. Going forward, your giving level aka Hokie Club level is independent from your priority point ranking. See my post below for the explanation of your points in the new system.
To answer your last question- outside of the club seats, the ticket for every seat in the stadium costs the same amount. However under the new process, there is a minimum donation required each year to be able to select seats in certain sections (minimum amount varies by section- ranges from $0 to $800 per seat). Your priority points impact your selection order. The more points, the earlier you pick. When it is your turn to pick seats, the only limitation in picking is that your donation for that year needs to at least cover the min donation amount for the section you select. If you try to select a section with a minimum above what you donated, it will prompt you to either make an extra donation to cover the difference or re-select in a section with a lower minimum donation. Once you select your seat, you will have the option to keep the exact same seat in future years, until there is a reseating. I don't anticipate them changing the point priority system again for a long time, but in the future, they do plan to reseat Lane every 3 years. At the time of a reseating, all seats will be released and everyone will repick seats based on their priority ranking at that time. Hope that helps.
Fireman covered the benefits of the base level, but I want to add onto the priority points explanation. As noted, you would accumulate 10 points for the cumulative $500 in donations. But you'd also get another 20 points for 4 years of consecutive HC membership (5 pts per year starting with your 2nd year), and another 1 point per neutral site game (assuming you buy the tickets thru Tech). So in 5 years you'd have 35 points. To put that in context, a new Hokie Club member at that point in time would need to donate $1800 to catch up to your priority ranking.
EDIT: Meant to reply to above question. Moved my comment.
I had not seen this because for some reason I missed the thread.
I also had no idea there was such a thing as a donor guide. I'm a Silver Hokie and have been for a few years now.
Last week I witnessed people being turned away that had passes, at lot 18.
I have been up all night trying to figure out what I can do. I already give as much as I can. I can't swing an increase. I'm also opening a new business and that extra cash is just not around. Running the numbers...
So I am stuck. I'm not going to be able to get seats in the same section I was. If I keep my donation but get worse seats for something I already feel is an indulgence, I am going to feel bad about it. If I reduce my donation, because I can, I'm going to feel like a fair weather fan.
Right now, it seems like my solution is to keep a small donation, to make me feel good about donating, but drop the season tickets.
This needs a bump. Got first information packet for the new program, about Hokie Club and membership levels going forward. There are 10,604 total Hokie Club members as of November 20th (or whenever they printed info).
Ayyyy 10,604 on my bday, hopefully that number is much higher next year!
In the email from the HC, I feel like I remember one of the highlights would be that all donations made through the end of March? would be counted towards the 2016-2017 Football and Basketball benefits. Still waiting on my packet - can you confirm?
Donations are due by March 31st. Keep in mind there is a Reseating for seats and parking in the 2017 season/giving cycle, so only gifts given by March 31st will count.
Thanks man!
One thing I'll add- 3/31 is the donation deadline for football benefits and 6/30 is the donation deadline for basketball benefits. Donating by 3/31 will cover you for both, but your ranking on 3/31 will be used to determine your football priority and your ranking on 6/30 will be used to determine your basketball priority. If you don't donate between 3/31 and 6/30, your ranking likely won't change significantly, but you can expect some variation since some people do monthly donations and some people only donate for basketball.
By March is better than my normal due date of December 31st. Having that big lump sum on top of Christmas sucked every year.
Damn reading this really makes me fell like a jacknob for not ever being a part of this, I am military and do not live in Virginia anymore but I still could have donated some, especially on my deployments and let my family have the tickets and such. I am gonna dive into this and help do my part. We have 65000 people in them stands we should have way more than 10,000 Hokie Club members. I also think that Justin Fuente and his staff will help contribute to this especially with the on the field product we have now along with Buzzetball also. We can do this Hokie Nation!
I apologize if this has already been answered, but I searched and didn't see anything. I am definitely purchasing four tickets next year, somewhere in sections 7-13. Those are $800/yr seats, so my minimum donation is $3200. Suppose I wanted to add a pair of tickets in a different section (say 16, which is $600/year). Is my total minimum donation $4800 or $4400? I think it's the latter, but wasn't sure how this will work if you split across multiple scholarship sections.
You just add up the minimum donation for each seat to get your total minimum donation. So for that scenario, you're correct- it would be $4400.
The Drive for 25 tracker shows membership at 10,825 as of 12/21. Gonna be a long, slow grind. Hopefully we get to 25k one day.
That's only 221 new members.
According to the website they were at 10k at beginning of 2016
When they sent out data just prior to "Drive for 25" kickoff it was 10,604.