Intrust Ticket Sales

[Shockm]

WSU is still living on 2010s era pricing. Seems like a stupid philosophy.

IIRC, the SASO Board were the ones who emphasized a more shared commitment from the community, which included the inflationary practice of ticket pricing. When they were winning, the season tickets were selling out each year, but towards the end, there were some empty seats (not sold) in the upper couple of rows. Also opposite of the students, the upper (behind the backboard) section had seats that most games filtered toward the middle. Most conference games and Big games were still totally full, but one could see that rougher times might be ahead. I think that the "boomers" are passing away (along with a few other reasons), and getting too old to walk distances without help, and the Gen Z, and Millenials aren't picking up the slack.

[asiseeit]

Price has to be in line with the product and demand

[ABC]

Just a reminder that SASO contributions pay for the scholarships for all athletes. KSU probably uses football revenue to do the same.

[WstateU]

Just a reminder that SASO contributions pay for the scholarships for all athletes. KSU probably uses football revenue to do the same.

That's what kinda "grinds my gears" with select fans. They're only fans of Women's Shockers Softball, Volleyball, etc., and don't care about or follow Shockers Men's Basketball... the program that's historically carried the mail for everyone. All Shockers fans should be fans of Shockers Men's Basketball.

[WuShock16]

Just a reminder that SASO contributions pay for the scholarships for all athletes. KSU probably uses football revenue to do the same.

That’s where my “apples/oranges” comment comes in. K-State’s media/football money allow them to not be overly reliant upon men’s basketball ticket revenue. WSU doesn’t have that luxury, so I understand its necessity for aggressive men’s basketball pricing.

My personal budget doesn’t care though.

[SubGod22]

Empty seats = no revenue

[ShockTalk]

Just a reminder that SASO contributions pay for the scholarships for all athletes. KSU probably uses football revenue to do the same.

However, that "type" of donation is no longer deductible and hasn't been for a several years. People paid that donation because their level of seating (or seating at all) depended on it. That may no longer be an issue. One can donate the same amount outside of SASO to WSU and be able to deduct it. This may be something they need to reevaluate along with the no seating benefit to the next generation (something businesses do not have to be concerned about).

[1972Shocker]

That's what kinda "grinds my gears" with select fans. They're only fans of Women's Shockers Softball, Volleyball, etc., and don't care about or follow Shockers Men's Basketball... the program that's historically carried the mail for everyone. All Shockers fans should be fans of Shockers Men's Basketball.

Or at least boosters. That said I am not sure you are talking about a large enough group of folks who would or could make a significant impact.

[Kung Wu]

Just a reminder that SASO contributions pay for the scholarships for all athletes. KSU probably uses football revenue to do the same.

I think Division 1 state universities that are receiving state taxes to support their football programs should revenue share those football revenues with Division 1 state universities that don't receive taxes for football. I call this the State of Kansas Higher Education Redistribution (SOKHER) welfare program. Our current governor should champion the very concept, if she's consistent.

[rjl]

However, that "type" of donation is no longer deductible and hasn't been for a several years. People paid that donation because their level of seating (or seating at all) depended on it. That may no longer be an issue. One can donate the same amount outside of SASO to WSU and be able to deduct it. This may be something they need to reevaluate along with the no seating benefit to the next generation (something businesses do not have to be concerned about).

This cannot be understated. In 2017 the TJCA eliminated deductions for donations to college athletic departments. They used to be deductible up to 80% of the donation, but no more.

Further, the TJCA raised the minimum standard deduction to the point where the tax incentive was gone for a lot of families to make charitable donations in general if those donations were not going to be enough to put the family significantly over that minimum deduction.

Businesses could maybe still deduct their tickets as advertising/marketing expenses if they used them to bring clients/customers/prospects, but a lot of businesses have been cutting that sort of expense for several years.

[Kung Wu]

Further, the TJCA raised the minimum standard deduction to the point where the tax incentive was gone for a lot of families to make charitable donations in general if those donations were not going to be enough to put the family significantly over that minimum deduction.

So instead of having to deduct it and your charitable deductions, you automatically get a much, much bigger deduction whether you buy any tickets or donate a single penny?

[1972Shocker]

That's what kinda "grinds my gears" with select fans. They're only fans of Women's Shockers Softball, Volleyball, etc., and don't care about or follow Shockers Men's Basketball... the program that's historically carried the mail for everyone. All Shockers fans should be fans of Shockers Men's Basketball.

Your point is a very valid one, and as I previously mentioned I'm not convinced this is a large enough group of folks to have a big impact. On the other hand, the WSU D-1 basketball program requires the existence of all these other sports as well to meet the D-1 requirements and a Title XI further impacts the make up of these sports as well. So, assuming you want to have a D-1 program under current rules then not only should all fans of the other sports be fans/boosters of men's basketball but all the Shocker men's basketball fans should be fans/boosters of these other sports. I think this interdependency is why AKDS (and Jim Schaus as well) has put his 15:1 philosophy at the forefront.

So, arguably, every dollar spent by fans/boosters of the other sports does help men's basketball as it is a dollar less that the men's basketball program has to subsidize.

Perhaps if these rules on the number of men's and women's sports required would go away then perhaps WSU could get by with women's volleyball, men's basketball, baseball and softball and everything else could just be a club sport, although in that case men's basketball would still have to carry the load, but the load would be quite a bit lighter.

[rjl]

So instead of having to deduct it and your charitable deductions, you automatically get a much, much bigger deduction whether you buy any tickets or donate a single penny?

In some cases, yes. If you are married and filing jointly and your itemized deductions never get over $29,400, you have no incentive to itemize your deductions and no tax incentive to donate to any charity. Put another way, if in that same example your itemized deductions hover around $15,000, you'd have to donate at least $14,401 to charity before you can even start seeing any tax benefit to making a charitable donation. And even then you are out an additional $14,401, so you'd have to really like that charity in order for it to make financial sense to you to donate that much or more.

[Kung Wu]

In some cases, yes. If you are married and filing jointly and your itemized deductions never get over $29,400, you have no incentive to itemize your deductions and no tax incentive to donate to any charity. Put another way, if in that same example your itemized deductions hover around $15,000, you'd have to donate at least $14,401 to charity before you can even start seeing any tax benefit to making a charitable donation. And even then you are out an additional $14,401, so you'd have to really like that charity in order for it to make financial sense to you to donate that much or more.

Or put another way, instead of that $10,000 deduction you were getting every year due to SASO and charity contributions, you are now getting a $29,400 deduction no matter what. If you continue buying the tickets and donating as you were, you are getting $19,400 more in deductions than you were before?

[rjl]

Or put another way, instead of that $10,000 deduction you were getting every year due to SASO and charity contributions, you are now getting a $29,400 deduction no matter what. If you continue buying the tickets and donating as you were, you are getting $19,400 more in deductions than you were before?

Well, the standard deduction used to be $12,600, so if that was all you were deducting, it wouldn't have made any difference.

But more to what I think you are trying to say, sure. But you could also keep the $10,000 you used to donate to SASO and still get the $29,400 standard deduction. A tax deduction is a financial incentive to maintain charitable contributions just the same as it is to initiate them.