BC announces ND-Fenway ticket policy; fan grumbling follows

I don't get it. By "it" I mean everything. From the moment it was announced, BC's away game at Fenway with Notre Dame generated plenty of excitement. But the "road" aspect of the game and Fenway's limited capacity also triggered warnings that tickets were going to be an issue. Those warnings should have been reset expectations for BC and BC's fans. Friday BC released their plan and shortly thereafter, the hardcore BC fans took to social media and message boards to gripe about the plan.

Here is a quick summary of BC's allocation process:

1. Staff and players first (as it should be)

2. BC takes care of big donors (as it should be)

3. Lottery among season ticket holders and smaller donors

Tickets are going to be expensive. The face value plus the expected giving make it inevitable. How is this a surprise to anyone?

I wish BC had handled this a bit better. They could have negotiated more seats from Notre Dame in the process. Maybe had lower gift minimums. Or perhaps they should have just lowered fan expectations about access from the very beginning. 

As for the fans complaining, what did you expect? That BC shouldn't use this to drive interest and giving? That lifetime loyalty should be rewarded over players and staff? There are only 5,000 tickets. Even if BC gave a priority strictly to season ticket holders based on seniority there wouldn't be enough tickets to go around. 

Fenway is not ideal for football or the average-sized American in 2015, so you'll be cramped and have a bad view. If you think it is not worth it or you think BC is being unfair, then don't go. It will be on TV. There are plenty of other, better and cheaper road games to attend. This is just a special one-time event. I am excited about it, but I would get excited about BC playing most anywhere. This should be a fun event. If you have the money and want to attend, go and enjoy it. If you're upset at how BC handled it, I suggest writing a composed, thoughtful and polite email to Brad Bates. 

This game is supposed to be special. If the price and availability squeezes you out, I am sorry. I hope that doesn't keep you from enjoying the game or the season.

NFL attendance problems a lesson for BC

BC's faced some attendance issues the past few years. We like to blame the tailgating or Spaz or the schedule, but the reality is there are multiple factors. Just look at the attendance issues facing the most popular league in American sports -- the NFL. If they can't get butts in the seats, how can BC? The NFL has a few different solutions in play. Perhaps, BC can learn from them.

Fewer Seats

The NFL is lowering the bar, so that blackout rules don't require sellouts. Blackouts are not an issue in college, but perhaps few seats will help demand and make Alumni seem full. I don't want to tear out seats, but maybe we can replace the bleachers with actual seats. That would take up more space, eliminate seats and improve the watching experience. 

Lower prices

The internet has added fluidity to the ticket market. It used to be BC fans would buy season ticket packages to assure themselves Notre Dame tickets or some other desirable game. Now most know that they can buy the game they want without committing to others they don't. One way to win them back is to lower the investment. BC will miss out on the mark up of the premium games, but at least they will have more people invest in a whole season. BC is indirectly doing this already with their discounts of the less desirable games. If the NFL is lowering prices on parking and concessions, BC should also explore it. Like the NFL we are getting more and more money from TV. Why not make the ingame experience more affordable.

In-game experience

This has been discussed ad nauseum, but needs to be looked at again. I don't think it is as simple as the NFL's push for wireless. We need the game day experience to be inviting from the moment the gates open to the moment the last fan is leaving. It is about the music, the ushers, the video boards, the halftime, the activities during commercial breaks. I don't want BC to turn into a barrage of nonsense, but we can do more. 

I don't go to many BC games. That's mostly because of my location. But I also like the watching the game in my home. The convenience, the visuals, and the costs all factor into my decision. But live sports is still a great experience...especially college football. I just hope BC doesn't wait around until the Alumni is empty. We need to learn from what works for the NFL and what doesn't.  

BC using custom marketing to sell tickets

We bemoan many of BC's marketing efforts, but you have to give them credit for this campaign. (Fill in your information and see what happens. I promise, it is harmless and not some internet scam.)

I don't know how many more tickets this will sell. The good news is that it will get attention. The phone message also plays up the option of customized ticket packages.

Marketing aside, I think the economy, low expectations and the lack of Notre Dame or Clemson on the schedule are going to be tough to overcome.

Interview with the Flynn Fund’s Steve Novak

I have never given to the Flynn Fund. I am not a season ticket holder and always felt it was more important to give to the BC Fund as opposed to an athletic-specific fund. The Fund’s recent success and a few controversial initiatives have me thinking a little differently. In order to get more information about the changes, I interviewed Steve Novak, Associate Director of the Flynn Fund. In our exchange below we talk about use of the Fund, donor-based seating and long-term goals.

[Full disclosure: my wife and I are on the Class of 1998 fundraising committee and for the first time I am going to allocate a nominal amount of our total donation to the Flynn Fund.]


ATL_eagle: First explain how the Flynn Fund is used: Are you building a sports endowment or is the money raised going directly to pay for annual athletic department expenses?

Steve Novak: The money that comes in for the Flynn Fund is designated to one of three purposes:
1. Flynn Fund (annual operating expenses such as scholarships);
2. Endowment;
3. Plant (i.e. Yawkey Athletics Center ).
Scholarships will cost us $13 million this year. We will offer 272 full scholarships at the cost of approximately $48,000 each. Salaries are the other significant expense for the department and there are regular cost of living increases.

ATL_eagle: I understand why a public school with a separate athletic associations would need an athletic fund, but I’ve never understood why BC, a private institution, would need an athletic fund. Why is allocating money to the Flynn Fund different than giving to the BC Fund?

SN: The great thing about giving to the Flynn Fund is that it is the same as giving to any other area of the University. By giving to the Flynn Fund you are a member of the University’s giving societies. We are not competing for dollars as many University’s around the country do. As far as needing a fund, the most important thing I can tell people is that we do not make a profit in the athletics department. In fact, we receive a subsidy of approximately $9 million annually to cover women’s and Olympic sports. With the way we are financially structured the more money we raise for athletics, the less money the University must subsidize – thus, freeing that money up for other University priorities. In addition, it is important to note that Athletics is a University priority. As part of the mission of Boston College we remain committed to sponsor a broad-based sports program. We currently sponsor 31 varsity sports – more than any other ACC school. In addition, all schools, public or private have athletics fundraising organizations. We compete with schools like Duke, Wake Forest and Miami within the ACC – all of whom do a very good job fundraising – not to mention the other public institutions.

ATL_eagle: The Athletic Department is obviously very proud of the record setting year for the Flynn Fund. What percentage of that money raised can be tied back to the donor-based seating programs?

SN: I would say there was approximately a $2 million increase directly attributable to donor-based seating. I would also say there was additional money that came in from individuals who stretched gifts in order to try to get better seats. I would consider this indirect revenue. We raised $19M last year compared to $15M the year before and just $3M about ten years ago. So, as you can see, fundraising has been on a steady incline independent of DBS.

ATL_eagle: Donor-based seating was a obviously the boldest move the Fund has made…can you share some stats (i.e. percentage of seat changes, people giving up their tickets)?

SN: I can tell you that season ticket sales are better at this time than they were at the same time 1 year ago. The fear of hurting sales has not appeared to happen. Of all the individuals who chose to seek seats where donations were not required nearly 100% of them accepted the alternative. This is a great tribute to the passion fans have for BC and the willingness to enjoy the game anywhere in the stadium. Also, our ticket office worked personally with anyone who wanted seat options to do the best we could for them. Obviously there were some people who gave up seats completely, but we have not found this percentage to be far different than any other year.

ATL_eagle: Why mandate a donation instead of raising ticket prices? How important was it to improve the University’s “percentage giving” rate in the US News Rankings?

SN: Although it is true that participation rate is a factor in the rankings, it was not a driving force behind this decision. The need to increase revenue and unrestricted support for BC Athletics was paramount.

ATL_eagle: Was there any consideration to a “loyalty” clause? Some fans felt that you penalized long-time holders who have supported the team through some rough patches only to strong-arm them now?

SN: All of us at BC will be the first to say that this is not a perfect system. However, given our circumstances, we felt we came up with the system that was most appropriate for us at the time. It was imperative to all of us that no one be kicked out of the stadium and that’s why only 16% of the seats were impacted. In addition, we have a relatively intimate stadium with only 44,500 seats. Consequently all seats are closer to the action than at many other venues. Finally, we held out on implementing such a system as long as possible. Many schools have been doing this for decades. This was a last resort and something that was considered very carefully.

ATL_eagle: Fans felt that the donations were heavy handed at best. In hindsight is there anything you would like to have done differently or communicated better?

SN: There are always things you would do differently when you look back. However, given the information at the time I believe we did the best we could. When something is perceived by some to be “bad” news there is no good way to communicate that. That said, I would not have changed anything specific.

ATL_eagle: What are the future plans? Will the donor-based seating be expanded into other areas? Have you considered creating an IPTAY model like Clemson in order to get all fans to give a nominal amount?

SN: As of now there are no plans to expand. As with everything, we will reevaluate as necessary, but there have been no discussions for expansion. I would love to see the day when all fans give voluntarily to BC so that it is not “forced.” As you mention if we did this and our participation rate was naturally higher these things could go a little differently. What IPTAY and other fundraising organizations tell us is that their fans feel passionately about their program. And, although they all cannot give millions of dollars – many hands make light work. Their volume is tremendous. Our challenge at BC, both athletically and as a University, is to translate the affinity so many people feel for the Heights into financial support. Obviously financial support means different things to different people. We ask that all people give what they feel is appropriate. The challenge we have had is that there are too many individuals not making a gift at all – even at a “nominal” level.

[If you want to give to the Flynn Fund or any BC Fund, you can do so online here.]