I really do not think you would see a lot of people leaving the Sukup area for regular seating if they were selling alcohol throughout the stadium. Most of the people that sit there are doing it for reasons not just the ability to purchase alcohol. The ability to get into a warm space and still watch the game, stadium seats, better food selection and quicker time and cleaner bathrooms for many are just as important as the ability to purchase a beer or five of them. Some people would leave, but not many, and those that left their seats would quickly be snatched up by others wanting those perks.
2025 Athletics Update
- Thread starter IcSyU
- Start date
Most people I know that are in Sukup are paying the $999 a seat because of alcohol. I think a lot would leave but who knows. I do know they have done a lot of research into it and the financials of selling alcohol to the public.
Don't get me wrong, the ability to purchase alcohol is a big plus, but we have friends that sit in the section, and they like to point out the ability of getting a beer is over shadowed by being able to get out of the weather and the cold. They would lose some people, but there is still a waiting list to get in, its not like everyone would drop down to the cheaper seats.
There’s not a waiting list to get in Sukup. You can get in for 2024 now if you want although it’s close to being full.
I think this increase for donation levels is unlikely to be a problem. The increase of 50% a few years ago didn’t change CC numbers much, so I doubt this will either. The revenue that is being left on the table is having premium seating underpriced. Since there is a long waiting list for Jack Trice Club and donors who qualify can’t get seats in the lower bowl of Hilton, it tells me that those tickets are underpriced. He should double the price of JTC tickets and side sections of the lower bowl of Hilton. If you price the tickets high enough, reseating takes care of itself and then provides an incentive to make the higher donation.
In the current world we're in, I couldn't feel better with our sly, gritty, accountant AD, and our bold and aggressive commissioner.
We (ISU & Big12) to be aggressive, creative, and cut-throat with how we proceed. In some ways, I would say let's be the first to put a major sponsor on our jerseys. It's been there for years with euro league and it's gone well and tastefully in the NBA.
Pull out some Bill Veeck promotions. Generate buzz. Be competitive. The Pop-Tarts Bowl couldn't have come at a better time as well, and is largely being lauded for bringing back the fun. It's a game. It's entertainment. It's competition between young men and women vs true professionals.
Considering what my family and I can give now.
So for those of us that have been there when the AD was begging for people or show up for games when they offered season tickets at $99/seat for the last 15 years or so, that are now paying $350/seat, you want to displace them?
I have no problem with the increased tickets prices every year. You put a good product on the field, I would expect increases in order to keep up, but with the way college football has changed over the last few years, you want to keep alumni, donors, students, and fans attending games at an affordable price.
Yes. I doubt we’ll ever have so much demand that there will be no affordable tickets, they just won’t be the premium seats. The fact that you bought tickets 15 years ago doesn’t have anything to do with what the price should be today.
No ones really mentioned it but the Junior Cyclone Club is pretty awesome. A family of 4 can get season tickets for right around $700(no donation), so about $100 a football game. That includes admission to wrestling, wbb, volleyball etc and some mbb games.
Iowa or KSU doesn’t do that for football games.
Iowa or KSU doesn’t do that for football games.
Last edited:
The real question for the Iowa State athletic department is who shares in the revenue? If I understand the $20 million increase / change, it is all going to pay athletes. Isn't that correct? If so, which ones? I hope it's only men's basketball, football and women's basketball. Women's basketball brings in the third most revenue. Only men's basketball and football actually make money and bring in more revenue than expenses. If swimming and diving and volleyball and women's soccer and all these other olympic sports are benefiting and their athletes are being paid, I worry the AD will view those olympic programs as expendable in the future and think a few years from now about cutting the programs entirely. That's a perverse effect of this athlete empowerment era, is that the olympic atheletes may end up losing lots of programs and opportunities. I think the concern is that Title 9 of the Civil Rights Act will be interpreted by the AD as they have to pay all athletes and not just the ones brining in revenue. Am I understanding this correctly?
Right now I think nearly all goes to the three you mentioned. Some will hate me, but I want FB and MBB to get 90% of it, or more. They will raise the tide for everyone and then open up funds for the other sports.
Agree completely. I think most of us rational fans - ones who understand economics - want it to go to FB and MBB. Heck, I'd say 95% of it should go to those two and only 5% to WBB. BUT, what I'm wondering about is the legal interpretation of Title 9 and how that's affecting revenue sharing with the non-revenue sports. I'm wondering what ISU's AD has concluded it's obligation is - MUST they share with all athletes, or can revenue sharing only benefit a few chosen sports. I suspect the safe choice and interpretation will be that ALL athletes need to share in the revenue, which then creates our problem for future survival of these olympic sports which will now take even more money to run...
How long until one of these schools goes directly at Title IX? In this, ahem, climate I can't imagine it standing up to a real challenge from someone with the commitment and resources to see it through.
Any school going after Title IX will lose...its federal law with teeth not an NCAA rule.
Gosh, I wonder if anything has changed federally in recent years, or in the next few weeks, that might potentially undermine the strength of longstanding federal statutes. Let me think about that and report back.
Per the NCAA, FBS schools must sponsor 16 sports.
That's where we are at right now, so I don't think cutting sports is an option for us.
The title IX sports already don't get nearly the same amount of funding as football/mens basketball so it's already not "equal". How much funding do those sports need to keep in line with the law?
