- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: It takes $ to win, stop complaining and pay your share, what am I missing?
Posted on 6/1/11 at 10:46 pm to LSU92
Posted on 6/1/11 at 10:46 pm to LSU92
quote:
I think that the high prices charged makes losing absolutely unacceptabe
Is there a problem with this?
quote:
Winning big is now the only option
Clearly winning "big" is not the only option. A win is a win. But I'd say "winning is the only option" which again I see no problem with
Posted on 6/1/11 at 10:55 pm to Tigerfan7218
quote:
quote:
I think that the high prices charged makes losing absolutely unacceptabe
Is there a problem with this?
Hell no it's not a problem.
quote:
quote:
Winning big is now the only option
Clearly winning "big" is not the only option. A win is a win. But I'd say "winning is the only option" which again I see no problem with
Not winning big on the scoreboard. Winning big in the W and L column. A BCS bowl should always be in reach, even though it won't always break our way.
Posted on 6/1/11 at 11:21 pm to LSU92
quote:
I would like to ask : What will everyone's thoughts on rising ticket prices be when the next Curley Hallman like dry spell hits....and it will hit at some point in the future.
The Curley Hallman dry spell hit BECAUSE LSU wasn't spending the money necessary to compete.
Posted on 6/1/11 at 11:32 pm to Dick Burleson
You are absolutely correct, however bad periods happen to everybody. Texas, Okla, USC, Penn St, Notre Dame, and Michigan have all hit extended dry spells at some point. Ours will probably come when we make a bad coaching hire.
Posted on 6/1/11 at 11:33 pm to LSU92
bad periods, sure.
8 losing seasons in 11 years, no.
8 losing seasons in 11 years, no.
Posted on 6/1/11 at 11:35 pm to Dick Burleson
How do you think the fans paying out the arse will react to just three consecutive losing seasons?
Posted on 6/1/11 at 11:59 pm to LSU92
a lot worse than they did in the early 90's, that's for sure.
a coach at LSU today would never get the chance to have 4 losing seasons in a row like Hallman did.
a coach at LSU today would never get the chance to have 4 losing seasons in a row like Hallman did.
This post was edited on 6/2/11 at 12:00 am
Posted on 6/2/11 at 12:11 am to Dick Burleson
quote:
a lot worse than they did in the early 90's, that's for sure.
a coach at LSU today would never get the chance to have 4 losing seasons in a row like Hallman did.
Again agreed. I think it's one of the hidden benefits of higher prices. The Joe Dean approach should never be seen again at LSU.
I think 3 or 4 years of losing would force more average fans to give up their tickets. That would be unfortunate because the corporations will buy more of the stadium. As someone said earlier, the old stadium atmosphere has taken a hit since 2003. That stinks, but I still prefer winning and competing on the highest level.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 3:05 am to tirebiter
quote:
How's that $28M +/- invested into the new A. Box looking the last two years? How about the new softball facility? How about the ROI on the men's and women's basketball coaching salaries the last two years?
You're really talking about a 2 year sample size as proof?
Tell me that didn't just happen.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:49 am to The312
quote:And therein lies the problem with the OPs model, imo.
I demand excellence from the university's athletics department and I recognize that such excellence comes at a rather dear cost.
No fan anywhere should ever have the idea in their mind that they "demand" anything from their team. Think about this: if you "demand" excellence from LSU athletics, and they don't deliver, then what will you do? Stop giving them your money? That means you stop going to the games, stop wearing the clothes, stop participating in the tailgates (since you're not paying the parking fees and not going to the games). Is that the behaviour of a fan, or a customer?
And if you do keep coming to games (and therefore giving them lots of your money), then in what way can you consider yourself to "demand" excellence?
The sense of entitlement necessary for a truly demanding attitude is entirely inconsistent with the nature of being a fan. "If you'll be great then I'll support you and cheer for you, but if you start making it not fun then I'll take my time and money and find something else to cheer for" is simply not the mantra of a fan. But as the financial investments (as specifically distinguished from "donations") necessary to participate get larger and larger, that mindset tends to imbed itself. In the old days, people could go to games for next to nothing, and some people still gave thousands and millions of dollars without getting the special perks and advantages that are given out now for "contributions" or "legacy funds". If attendence were still on a lesser ecomonic standard, and those with the means were simply donating the amounts they now pay in "contributions", the finances would still be just as flush but the sense of entitlement for the arrogant wealthy crowd would not be around to cause the problems we see plagueing LSU football on a regular basis (from tailgating to attendance to stadium behaviour). But apparently many of those with the money are such great fans that they refuse to give any to LSU unless they are rewarded with special benefits and perks and other such privileges to set themselves apart from the lowlifes that can't afford the required "contributions."
Posted on 6/2/11 at 4:53 am to Tigerfan7218
quote:"The only option . . ." or what? Will you quit going to games if we lose? Or will you just quit giving so much money . . . oh, wait; now you HAVE to quit going if you quit giving so much money.
But I'd say "winning is the only option" which again I see no problem with
Like I said before, in the old days you could go, or your could go AND give a bunch of money. Now the only way to go is to give a bunch of money. It is in fact the fans that are faced with "the only option".
Posted on 6/2/11 at 6:05 am to secman12
Exclusive. Exclude.
Excluding the most vibrant segment of our fan base, through high prices, will and some say already has, neuter that fan base.
When rich people and corporate tools are the only ones in the stadium it will be interesting to see if Tiger Stadium is still the feared venue it once was; the home of raucous and passionate LSU fans.
As I have stated at other times on this board, when a program caters to the wealthy set it hurts overall enthusiasm and energy levels in the stadium.
Why? IMO the wealthy set have entertainment options unknown to the working class. $20K tailgate trailers, condos on the Gulf Coast, European vacations every year, etc.
For the working class, Saturday nights in Tiger Stadium was their entertainment. It was the high point. For the wealthy it's just a place to be seen (social) and one of many interesting and fun options available to them.
Hence, they're less dedicated, passionate, loud or crazy.
I've been priced out. Not that I couldn't afford it. I chose not to do so. I have to prioritize my family, my retirement etc. Now I watch on the flat screen and don't come to BR for games anymore.
I don't begrudge the wealthy their status, I only regret that LSU, in it's haste to win it all every year, seems to have jettisoned it's most passionate and vocal fans by pricing them out.
The long term effects of this are unknowable but I believe, and others here have said similar, that the change in demographic in the stadium has had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere there.
2¢.
Excluding the most vibrant segment of our fan base, through high prices, will and some say already has, neuter that fan base.
When rich people and corporate tools are the only ones in the stadium it will be interesting to see if Tiger Stadium is still the feared venue it once was; the home of raucous and passionate LSU fans.
As I have stated at other times on this board, when a program caters to the wealthy set it hurts overall enthusiasm and energy levels in the stadium.
Why? IMO the wealthy set have entertainment options unknown to the working class. $20K tailgate trailers, condos on the Gulf Coast, European vacations every year, etc.
For the working class, Saturday nights in Tiger Stadium was their entertainment. It was the high point. For the wealthy it's just a place to be seen (social) and one of many interesting and fun options available to them.
Hence, they're less dedicated, passionate, loud or crazy.
I've been priced out. Not that I couldn't afford it. I chose not to do so. I have to prioritize my family, my retirement etc. Now I watch on the flat screen and don't come to BR for games anymore.
I don't begrudge the wealthy their status, I only regret that LSU, in it's haste to win it all every year, seems to have jettisoned it's most passionate and vocal fans by pricing them out.
The long term effects of this are unknowable but I believe, and others here have said similar, that the change in demographic in the stadium has had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere there.
2¢.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 7:41 am to Dick Burleson
quote:
Dick Burleson
You give a good speech
Posted on 6/2/11 at 8:07 am to I Speak As I Please
quote:
100% fact, but the arrogant OP made it perfectly clear that he could care less about the number of LSU die hard fans that have been priced out. He's got his tickets and screw everybody else. (More and more common self-centered attitude that's seen today)
This is one of the best threads that I have read on this site.
I think the OP and all of us wish that there was a system in which long-time tickets holders that don't have a lot of money could still go to the games. I don't think the OP or anyone in this thread don't care. I have multiple family members that have been priced out. It sucks. The key point is that it has NOTHING to do with LSU. This is a nationwide sports issue, realistically it is a national and world economy issue. I forget the stat but the increase in the differential between a CEO's pay and a worker's pay has increased expotentially. It's all sad. But there is no point in complaining about it, NONE. And it is worse when people act like it is an LSU issue. It's not.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 8:11 am to WNCTiger
quote:Great post and great sig quote. Do you see any solutions? I don't.
WNCTiger
Posted on 6/2/11 at 8:15 am to King Joey
King - I think your post makes some good points. No you don't ever quit being a fan. But to a great extent you do get what you pay for - i.e. Curley Hallman - we got cheap for awhile. Is your question that to demand or make change that you have to quit buying tickets? Makes sense on the surface but not really true. Major boosters and the fan base can exude great pressure on whether the President, AD, etc. keep their jobs. For those that don't think the fan base has any power, see Mallveto.

Posted on 6/2/11 at 8:30 am to trex1230
i like it better w/o as many poor people in TS
Posted on 6/2/11 at 8:36 am to secman12
I've heard this Proletarian "bruh, dey pricin da real fans out da stadium, yeah," nonsense for a while now. As a season ticket holder since the Curly Days, I can tell you this "pricing out" crap and watering down the atmosphere stuff is pure garbage. Just poor bitching. Every game is on TV now, go tailgate, watch the game on TV under a tent and get wasted.
Posted on 6/2/11 at 9:12 am to WNCTiger
quote:
Exclusive. Exclude.
Agree.
I have no problem with a profit-maximization strategy, but attempting to make Tiger Stadium into a country club will not maximize profits in the long run and will diminish the Tiger Stadium experience.
As for those claiming that "winning is the only option", you are only partially correct. Losing is still an option, but tolerating it will not be. There's no way a losing coach will be given 5 years in this environment. So rather than a "Curley Hallman era", the next losing stretch will be the responsibility of many coaches, not just one. It'll be more like what Bama had in their Price/Dubose/Shula era. And another losing stretch WILL happen. It's the nature of competition.
Popular
Back to top



2



