PonyFans.com

Rough math indicates over 1,000 fewer season tickets to be sold.

If 5,000 season tickets sold in 2017-18 with 2350 members, that's 2.13/member.
Assuming a higher 2.3 tickets sold/member for next year (more enthusiasm!) yields 3,910 season tickets.

Not accounting for those that buy season tickets without a MC membership. Seems harder to do that after the reseat.

Maybe something will be done to reel in "lost" fans by the beginning of the season to have less of an attendance impact.

tristatecoog wrote:Rough math indicates over 1,000 fewer season tickets to be sold.

If 5,000 season tickets sold in 2017-18 with 2350 members, that's 2.13/member.
Assuming a higher 2.3 tickets sold/member for next year (more enthusiasm!) yields 3,910 season tickets.

Not accounting for those that buy season tickets without a MC membership. Seems harder to do that after the reseat.

Maybe something will be done to reel in "lost" fans by the beginning of the season to have less of an attendance impact.

There were 1600ish sth accounts and an average of 3 tickets per account.

Frankly I was sick of staring at the back of you and the elephant Riders head anyways lol. My offer is still available to write a check 4 the single second row available floor seat

I ran the donation numbers to get a range using the bottom level of each donation category (the minimum you can donate to be in the category) and the next category up. I would assume that most people give the minimum needed to be in their category (perhaps not the higher levels) but the range is accurate. The findings are interesting (to me at least)

I also grouped the donors into three groups. Less than $500 (most premium ticket buying rights), $500-$15,000 (club access), and above $15k.

The number of donors donating under $500 increased from 516-520 between last year and this. Basically this did nothing to the size of that group of donors. But because this group saw more donations at the lower levels than previously the donations as a total from this group fell from between the 95k-185k range to the 80k-150k range. MC lost between $15k and $35k from this group.

The middle group of donors shrank in numbers from 1763 to 1035. The donations from this group fell from the $3.3 million to $5.4 million range to the $2.3 to $3.8 million range. MC lost between $1 million and $1.6 million from this group.

My analysis of the top group shows that their numbers increased from 69 to 114. As far as the $$ given, I include only the $15k and $25k groups since we don't have number on the top group. Their donations have increased from the $1.3-$2.8 million range to the $1.6-$3.3 million range. MC increased donations from this group by between $300k and $500k.

Overall, with the exception of the money brought in from the donors above $60k, the MC has lost between $700k and $1.1 million from donations.

That is a huge exception though. The 35 people giving more than $60k gave more than $2.1 million (only the MC would have the real number) so the MC has increased its coffers over last year. This is probably job well done to the MC and the AD.

I can't help feeling that there was a better way to do it than lose 30% of your donors to simply get more $$ out of your top 7% of donors. But that's just me.

Couple of things:

I think you could be making the wrong assumption about the giving levels being at the minimum. I have been about 25% at my level just because it is something I wanted to do - not everyone in college sports does it to get something back - in fact clearly at SMU almost all of us do it for emotional reasons not connected to success since we have had only limited success by most measure.

Also - now that they are capturing all the "excellence funds" into Mustang club giving what they are counting as new money may in fact just be money that is not new, but is now being tracked.

Not sure we will ever know the "net/net" of this. Clearly there are some IPF and other bigger donors that will have better seats, and about an equal number of fans who will have worse seats, meanwhile lots of angst from at least half your fan base.

Agree there was a better way to do this. Hope they really think through it next time because we cant afford the drama every 4 years of this - we aren't making new fans fast enough.

I find it laughable that anyone thinks those numbers are up to date

smupony94 wrote:I find it laughable that anyone thinks those numbers are up to date

You mean because hey have as “as of” date on them?

If they are not up to date then there was nothing point in having an online matrix to rank yourself.

I would be amazed if they are up to date too, but that just gets filed away as another reason why I think the AD are incompetent and untrustworthy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Either that or people have made pledges and will get followed up with between now and end of FY or donations have gone to general fund and haven't been migrated to MC or a number of other possibilities.

Last year as of 3/31 we were 1600ish as well and wound up north of 3000 by end of FY which is 5/31.

Suffice it to say this time around the by-the-31st-of-March folks are largely bball sth.

Interesting to see if they really enforce that 3/31 deadline. Glad I have pictures for ranking as of Sunday.

Made mine last week through Ticketmaster and it wasnt showing up this weekend or this morning. Had to call them to make sure it got credited. I know at least one other person who was that way also

Mustangsabu wrote:

smupony94 wrote:I find it laughable that anyone thinks those numbers are up to date

You mean because hey have as “as of” date on them?

If they are not up to date then there was nothing point in having an online matrix to rank yourself.

I would be amazed if they are up to date too, but that just gets filed away as another reason why I think the AD are incompetent and untrustworthy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just curious, who was the last SMU Athletic Director you thought was competent and trustworthy?

smusportspage wrote:

Mustangsabu wrote:

smupony94 wrote:I find it laughable that anyone thinks those numbers are up to date

You mean because hey have as “as of” date on them?

If they are not up to date then there was nothing point in having an online matrix to rank yourself.

I would be amazed if they are up to date too, but that just gets filed away as another reason why I think the AD are incompetent and untrustworthy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just curious, who was the last SMU Athletic Director you thought was competent and trustworthy?

You know the school’s only 107 years old right? Lol.

I have only lived here during the Copeland, Orsini, Hart tenures.

I’m not impressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mustangsabu wrote:

smusportspage wrote:

smupony94 wrote:I find it laughable that anyone thinks those numbers are up to date

You mean because hey have as “as of” date on them?

If they are not up to date then there was nothing point in having an online matrix to rank yourself.

I would be amazed if they are up to date too, but that just gets filed away as another reason why I think the AD are incompetent and untrustworthy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just curious, who was the last SMU Athletic Director you thought was competent and trustworthy?

You know the school’s only 107 years old right? Lol.

I have only lived here during the Copeland, Orsini, Hart tenures.

I’m not impressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Forrest Gregg was a far better O-Lineman than AD. You probably have to go back to the early 80s...

Definitely Bob Hitch.

The AD from the early 80s is easily the most incompetent in school history given we received the death penalty. Orsini was pretty good because he fired up our alumni. Hart has maintained that momentum with a more delicate touch. I am thankful to Gregg for stepping in at a difficult time but don't think he knew what he was doing. Copeland was incompetent. While we are not where we want to be in football, basketball, or conference affiliation we are at least trending in the right direction.