Reseat Question

[SMU Section F]

Again, for me it was not the pricing of the reseat, but the thought of giving my money and not knowing where the seats will be was the reason i said Goodbye.

Did you meet with your rep when they reached out to you? I did and he told me I should add another 1k to my donation to stay where I was. I did that and actually improved my seats by a couple of rows.

I did. He said I could probably keep my seats without an increase. I told him that if he'd drop the "probably", I'd gladly increase my donation 50% or more. He didn't/couldn't, so I decreased it by 100% instead.

EDIT: I should add that he was right, by the way. New people in my seats gave less than I did last year. Don't regret my decision at all.

[SMU Section F]

I gave SMU every chance to fix its error and they chose not to.

The other myth that I feel the need to dispel (again) is that the reseat was financially beneficial to SMU. Outside from an additional 35 individuals who gave over $60,000 to the school, the reseat lost money on the previous year. So to justify the reseat financially means that the school has to take the position that those 35 people are worth more to the program than all the rest.

And chances are those 35 souls were giving money to athletic causes anyway that have now been classified as MC eligible donations (which I understand was a recent change) so its not actually all new money but money that would in previous years have been categorized differently.

Smoke and mirrors.

I have heard several different things. If the program actually hit a home run on this, I would be thrilled if they would just spell it out and let all know what the real situation turned out to be. Who knows, many might just say congrats, job well done. I would, and I was minimally re-seated.

Part of the problem is that the new structure for athletic giving makes this year almost completely incomparable to previous years, so it's really hard to judge without far more information than SMU would ever provide publicly. (I tend to think that was intentional...)

[RGV Pony]

Posted this before, but here you go:

Categorized however you want, total athletics giving was 24.5 million last year. A record for athletics by millions, surpassing even the last year of the second century campaign. Also, approximately 25% of all donations made to the university last year were athletics.

Separate from the 24.5 million number is 3.6 million in capital campaign projects.

Current-use giving (what's always been known as the "Mustang Club" number was just over 6 million. Previous high was 5 million.

These numbers are in the donor guide on page 20. There are no smoke and mirrors...it's clearly spelled out what comprises the 24 and what comprises the 6. As far as "far more information than SMU would ever provide publicly," the information quoted above and on that page are straight from the reports presented to the BoT's and reported to same by yours truly. I didnt get a "behind closed doors only" version to go along with the "public" version.

A couple of other things:
Credit to Section F, as that's exactly how the process worked. At no point did anyone say "yep, we'll guarantee that if you'll pay this much more." The process was the same for everyone. If the AD played fast and loose and "let's make a deal" by saying yep, 50% more makes it happen, that wouldve absolutely been shady. Ranked all the donors by gift amount, highest picked first, all the way down. Leading up to that, town halls, in-person meetings, phone calls, etc etc etc. I probably couldve given less. May have been able to improve by giving more. Stayed where I did giving wise and stayed where I did seating wise. Same decision everyone else had.

[smusportspage]

Now you have gone and let facts get in the way of posturing. Thanks a lot!

[Blunt Pony]

The success or failure of the re-seat remains to be seen. I don't doubt RGV's numbers. I would have guessed that giving increased as well. The unknown is going forward. We lost a lot of season ticket holders that just plowed money into the program year after year without much fanfare. As has been mentioned before, this was the base (the 1500). Many of these folks were decades long season ticket holders that just hit the renew button each year because it was easy and they wanted to support their team. They endured price increases and tying donations to ticket purchases without many complaints. I have said before, I think this would have gone a lot smoother if SMU would have allowed fans who had tickets for say 10 years or more to retain their seats at the NEW prices and donation levels. I would not think this would have been a large number and it would have gone a long way towards rewarding the loyalty that this group showed SMU. For the last time, we are not Duke, Kentucky, Kansas etc. We do not have that kind of winning history and presenting statistics that put us in comparisons with these programs when trying to raise money is an insult to any SMU graduate's intelligence.

Now, I would say after all that, we damn sure should have rewarded those fans that did Pony Up to renew or did make big donations to move up by putting out a decent non-conference home schedule. Talk about a pie in the face!

I will agree with a previous poster that the positive in all this is that the heat is on to win. If we don't show some commitment on the court, and on the recruiting trail, we will be back to free hot dogs with ticket purchase.

[RGV Pony]

I agree with you Blunt Pony as to the scheduling and the heat being on. To whom much is given, much is expected should always be the mantra.

The 10-year thing can be debated-I liked my three rows from the court seats under Doh, can't remember exactly where my Dement seats were. That said, there weren't "new prices"..though there are new donor levels in many areas. As mentioned my donation & ticket per seat stayed the same. Someone else said theirs went down. Take on the other hand section 104...there were, to be transparent, some long timers in that section whose giving amount was 5k. Now, everyone in that section is at a 25k annual level. A 20k annual bump wouldnt have been something palatable for me, but it wouldnt have prevented me from doing so if I so chose...same with those formerly in 104.

[SMU Section F]

Posted this before, but here you go:

Categorized however you want, total athletics giving was 24.5 million last year. A record for athletics by millions, surpassing even the last year of the second century campaign. Also, approximately 25% of all donations made to the university last year were athletics.

Separate from the 24.5 million number is 3.6 million in capital campaign projects.

Current-use giving (what's always been known as the "Mustang Club" number was just over 6 million. Previous high was 5 million.

These numbers are in the donor guide on page 20. There are no smoke and mirrors...it's clearly spelled out what comprises the 24 and what comprises the 6. As far as "far more information than SMU would ever provide publicly," the information quoted above and on that page are straight from the reports presented to the BoT's and reported to same by yours truly. I didnt get a "behind closed doors only" version to go along with the "public" version.

I was referring less to "behind closed doors" versus "public" than two bar graphs versus actual financial statements. I've spent most of my career tearing apart overly optimistic and simplistic financial presentations (albeit in a very different field); maybe my cynicism is getting the best of me. Regardless, I don't really expect SMU to provide more than they have - no private* universities do - it's just not gonna be the metric I use to judge success. I won't judge a race car by how much was spent to build/maintain it; I'll judge it by how many races it wins.

A couple of other things:
Credit to Section F, as that's exactly how the process worked. At no point did anyone say "yep, we'll guarantee that if you'll pay this much more." The process was the same for everyone. If the AD played fast and loose and "let's make a deal" by saying yep, 50% more makes it happen, that wouldve absolutely been shady. Ranked all the donors by gift amount, highest picked first, all the way down. Leading up to that, town halls, in-person meetings, phone calls, etc etc etc. I probably couldve given less. May have been able to improve by giving more. Stayed where I did giving wise and stayed where I did seating wise. Same decision everyone else had.

I wasn't saying that he should've given in to me; just letting him know that's what it would've taken to keep me as a donor. I agree; "special" agreements for some donors would've made things even more shady. I was trying to highlight to my representative that I believed the process SMU chose for the reseat was short-sighted, very poorly selected, and even more poorly executed. I still believe this and SMU's post-reseat behavior has thus far done nothing to convince me otherwise (quite the contrary).

EDIT: *'public' to 'private'

[H-E-B Mustang]

They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.

Not true.

[Mustangsabu]

I appreciate all that RGV does for SMU, first of all. But my point was missed. If the MC club raised $6.1 million in 2018 I have no reason to say that's not true, what I will say is that my calculations suggest that as much as $2 million of that came from big donors who give more than $60,000. If you look at the lower levels of donors, the MC received less money than in previous years. And those lower levels are where the most fans are. SMU has fewer donating fans today than it did two years ago and are more reliant than ever on the most generous wealthy fans. I do not see that as being a good position to be in. Suggesting that there is a positive link between the reseat and the $1 million increase is something I would be skeptical of also.

[RGV Pony]

They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.

Not true.

Absolutely true.

If that wasn't the case for you, pm me and I'm glad to help find out exactly why not.

In times past when I've held feet to fire they've provided emails, phone call times and durations etc, mostly I assume to get me to stop being such a smartass.

[SMU Section F]

They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.

Not true.

Absolutely true.

If that wasn't the case for you, pm me and I'm glad to help find out exactly why not.

In times past when I've held feet to fire they've provided emails, phone call times and durations etc, mostly I assume to get me to stop being such a smartass.

If most former season ticket holders were contacted, I was in the group missed as well. Honestly, I don't really think the discussion would be very fruitful, but if they intended to do this it's clear a number of people were missed.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

SMU has fewer donating fans today than it did two years ago and are more reliant than ever on the most generous wealthy fans. I do not see that as being a good position to be in. Suggesting that there is a positive link between the reseat and the $1 million increase is something I would be skeptical of also.

I also question if SMU will really make the people who gave big money in 2018 to get their seats will be required to maintain that donation in order to keep their seats as the rules stated.

[SMU Section F]

SMU has fewer donating fans today than it did two years ago and are more reliant than ever on the most generous wealthy fans. I do not see that as being a good position to be in. Suggesting that there is a positive link between the reseat and the $1 million increase is something I would be skeptical of also.

I also question if SMU will really make the people who gave big money in 2018 to get their seats will be required to maintain that donation in order to keep their seats as the rules stated.

I think there was a loophole to that for donors over $100k. (Don't quote me; I forget the specifics.)

[RGV Pony]

Of the 6.1 annual giving /traditional MC total, a grand total of two (2) are north of 60k.

[RGV Pony]

[quote="RGV Pony"]

They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.

Not true.

Absolutely true.

If that wasn't the case for you, pm me and I'm glad to help find out exactly why not.

In times past when I've held feet to fire they've provided emails, phone call times and durations etc, mostly I assume to get me to stop being such a smartass.

If most former season ticket holders were contacted, I was in the group missed as well. Honestly, I don't really think the discussion would be very fruitful, but if they intended to do this it's clear a number of people were missed.[/quote]PM me your email and Ill find out the deal and guarantee you a response from whomever was responsible within 24 hours.