Report on the student relationship with U-M athletics

8/10/2019 Report on the student relationship with U-M athletics

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/report-on-the-student-relationship-with-u-m-athletics 1/18

Report on the Student Relationshipwith Michigan Athletics

October 15, 2014

Prepared by Bobby DishellPresident, Central Student Government

Michael Proppe (B.S. Statistics, ’14), assisted in the design and analysis of the survey referenced in this report



"

Executive Summary

The 2014 University of Michigan football student section is made up of less than 12,000ticketholders, down from just under 20,000 ticketholders in 2013. At $295, Michiganstudent football tickets are the most expensive in the Big Ten.

In recent weeks, the student body at the University of Michigan has expressed deepdissatisfaction and frustration with the Athletic Department, in particular AthleticDirector David Brandon. A UPetition titled “A Petition to Remove Mr. David Brandonfrom his Duties as Athletic Director,” received 11,298 signers, under half of which werestudents. A “Fire Dave Brandon” rally was held on the Diag later that week. Somestudents planned to protest kickoff of the Penn State game to express their dissatisfactionwith the Athletic Director.

On October 10, Central Student Government President Bobby Dishell sent a survey to thestudent body to try to assess the student experience at Michigan football games and the

student body’s relationship with the Athletic Department. 5,208 students completed thissurvey.

This report analyzes the effects of various factors, including ticket price and seating policies, in students’ decisions to buy tickets. It also discusses the source of studentfrustration with the Athletic Department and the Athletic Director, and makesrecommendations to repair that relationship.

We conclude from the report that the Athletic Department needs to make drastic changesto improve its relationship with the student body. These would include significant pricedecreases, regular meetings between students-at-large and the Athletic Director, acommitment to transparency, and a focus on Michigan tradition over commercialization.However, based on student responses to this survey, it is not clear whether Mr. Brandon’srelationship with the current student body is repairable.

Central Student Government is committed to working constructively with the AthleticDepartment, Mr. Brandon, the President of the University, and the Board of Regents torepair the student relationship with the Athletic Department.

Contents

Background ………………………………………………………………………………3

Purpose ……………………………………………………………………...……….…...4

Conclusions …………………………………………………………………...….………5

Data and Results …………………………………………………………………...……5

Next Steps and Recommendations ……………………………………...……………..16

Methods and Limitations ……………………………………………………...……….17





:

the image and prestige of the university, the state of the athletic department has hurt theconnection shared between alumni, fans, and the university. Furthermore, policies anddecisions of the athletic department have alienated the current student body. As a result,the university risks producing a generation of alumni that are disinterested anddisengaged. Finally, President Mark Schlissel previously stated that one draw of the

athletic program is to provide an avenue for "public attention on to the other wonderfulthings that are happening on campus..." When the athletic department producesoverwhelmingly negative media attention, it distracts from the main mission of theuniversity.

In accordance with the principles that athletics are supposed to unite and bring positiveenergy to campus, we request that President Schlissel remove Mr. David Brandon fromhis position as Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.”

On Tuesday, September 30, a “Fire Brandon” rally was held on the Diag and in front ofthe President’s House. The rally had no formal organizer and was spurred on by a post by

a user on the popular fan site MGoBlog on the morning of September 30. The rally wasattended by several hundred students and received widespread media coverage.

Some students began planning a boycott of the kickoff of the Michigan football team’snight game against Penn State to express dissatisfaction with the Athletic Department andthe Athletic Director. On October 10, Central Student Government President BobbyDishell sent an email to all students enrolled at the University of Michigan Ann Arborcampus titled “[Action Requested] Michigan Football and Athletics.” In this email,President Dishell discouraged boycotting kickoff of the Penn State game and encouragedstudents to voice their concerns via a Qualtrics survey linked in the email. 5,208 studentscompleted the survey as of October 14.

PurposeThis report aims to assess the student experience at Michigan football games and thestudent body’s relationship with the Athletic Department. In particular, it aims to assess:

• The new student seating policy’s effect on student ticket sales• The price of student tickets’ effect on student ticket sales• The effectiveness of the Athletic Department’s communications with the student

body• Ways to improve the student experience at Michigan football games• The source of the student body’s frustrations with the Athletic Department

The findings in this report will act as a valuable tool for the Central Student Government,the University of Michigan Athletic Department, the Board of Regents, the President ofthe University, and the broader University community as we assess how to move forwardto improve the student relationship with the Athletic Department.



;

Conclusions

Had student seating remained general admission in 2014, less than 9,000 students wouldhave bought season tickets this year (as opposed to under 12,000 this year under assignedseating).

However, even fewer students intend to purchase next year at a price of $295. Tomaintain a student section of just under 12,000 students, the Athletic Department needs todrop student tickets to roughly $210, or $30 per game next year. To regain a studentsection of 20,000 students, the Athletic Department needs to drop the price of studenttickets to roughly $150 next year.

The Athletic Department effectively communicated its sales of single game tickets thisyear, with 91% of respondents indicating they were aware they can buy single gametickets. However, only 41% of respondents indicated they were aware they can buy andsell tickets through the HAIL mobile application.

The open-ended questions at the end of this survey indicate students overwhelmingly feeldisrespected and alienated by the Athletic Department, with anger being directed atAthletic Director David Brandon for his decisions regarding student ticketing policiesand prices, marketing gimmicks, and mishandling of the Brendan Gibbons’ separationand Shane Morris’ concussion. According to the data, it is unclear whether Mr. Brandoncan repair his relationship with the student body. A further discussion of the frustrationsof the student body is outlined in the Data and Results section of this report.

Data and Results

“Year in School”

This demonstrates that the respondents to this survey are relatively representative of themakeup of the student body at Michigan. Among respondents who are 2014 seasonticketholders, respondents skew younger: 34% are freshman, 22% are sophomores, 17%are juniors, 15% are seniors, and 13% are graduate/professional students. Amongrespondents who were ticketholders in either 2013 or 2014, 23% are freshman, 21% aresophomores, 20% are juniors, 19% are seniors, and 16% are graduate/professional



A

students. This suggests much of the drop in student ticket sales is a result ofupperclassmen electing not to buy tickets.

“Are you currently a student season ticket holder?”

“Were you a student season ticket holder last year?”

This question was only asked of students who purchased season tickets in 2013 and 2014:

“Which student seating policy do you prefer?”

This question was used to determine the reception of the new seating policy versus lastyear’s seating policy. Last year, students were seated on a first-come, first-serve generaladmission basis. This year, students are assigned seats based on seniority and loyaltyfrom last season. The general admission proved less unpopular among freshmen in 2013,

because they could get seats near the front regardless of seniority. Filtering out thesestudents, 76% of respondents prefer the 2014 policy while 17% prefer the 2013 policy.



E

“Are you aware you can buy single game tickets this season?”

This question was used to see how well messaging from Athletics reached the student population. 91% of respondents are aware that they can purchase single game tickets.

“Are you aware of the ticket community via HAIL mobile application to viewavailable tickets for sale or to sell your student tickets?”

This question was used to see how well messaging from Athletics reached the student population. 59% of respondents are unaware that they can buy or sell tickets through theHAIL app. This response is markedly difference from that of the previous question,however, among current ticketholders, 46% of respondents are aware of the ticketcommunity through HAIL.

This question was only asked of respondents who are currently season ticketholders:

“Have you attended all home games (4 to date) this season?”

61% of students who were asked this question attended all four home games. This isroughly consistent with attendance data provided by Athletics, which indicates 60.2% ofstudent ticketholders have earned at least 12 attendance points (the equivalent ofattending 4 games).

This question was only asked of respondents who are currently season ticketholders:



F

“Have you validated any tickets this season?”

Among those who have not attended all four home games, 22% of respondents havevalidated tickets.

“Would you have bought student season tickets for $295 in 2014 if the studentsection were General Admission?”

This question was asked to gauge the student opinion on both price and the seating policy. 61% of students would not have purchased season tickets this year if the studentseating policy were general admission. Among current season ticket holders, only 65%would have bought season tickets if the policy were general admission. Among those

who did not purchase 2014 tickets but did purchase 2013 tickets, 13% would have boughttickets if the student seating policy were general admission.

This suggests that, were the student seating policy still general admission, less than 9,000student tickets would have been sold. Currently, there are just under 12,000 studentseason ticketholders. In 2013, there were just under 20,000 student season ticketholders.

Consistent with data from last year’s surveys, general admission was less unpopularamong underclassmen: 72% of freshmen would have bought tickets if the policy wasGeneral Admission, 76% of sophomores, 58% of juniors, 46% of seniors, 57% ofgraduate/professional students.





$9

that only 65% of current season ticketholders would have purchased tickets under ageneral admission seating policy.

Last Year’s Season Ticketholders who did not buy tickets this year

Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AverageStrength ofHomeSchedule

377 429 232 138 88 34 0 2.41

Price 464 304 206 147 87 85 5 2.51TeamPerformance

139 201 255 273 204 213 13 3.69

SeatingPolicy

92 173 280 256 214 263 20 3.92

Love of theSport

76 75 147 212 348 412 28 4.56

Tradition 112 106 172 266 353 276 13 4.17Other 38 10 6 6 4 15 1219 6.74

Among students who decided to drop season tickets in 2014, strength of schedule and price were the most important factors in their decision. Love of the sport and traditionwere the least important factors in their decision. This suggests that many of thesestudents would purchase tickets again should the price significantly drop or the schedulesignificantly improve.

This question was only asked of respondents who indicated that they are currently seasonticket holders or were season ticket holders last year.

“Who pays for your student tickets?”

All Respondents





$"

This question was only asked of respondents who indicated that they are currently seasonticket holders or were season ticket holders last year:

“Please select the highest price you would be willing to pay for student season ticketsnext year, given that this is the home schedule:

9/12 Oregon State9/19 University of Nevada Las Vegas9/26 Brigham Young University10/10 Northwestern10/17 Michigan State11/7 Rutgers11/28 Ohio State”

Percentile Price10% $299

20% $27630% $25240% $25050% $22560% $21070% $20080% $18590% $150100% $150

The vast majority of respondents are not willing to pay $295 again for next year’s

schedule. On average, respondents were willing to pay a maximum of $223.26. Thissuggests the price of a student season ticket should be drastically lowered in futureseasons. To regain the size of the 2013 student section, the price of a ticket will need to

be lowered in $150.

Note: Respondents could not indicate a price lower than $150.

“Do you plan to give back (financially or with your time) to the University ofMichigan?”

This question served as a demographics question so we can see who plans to give backand where they plan to give back to the University. Over three-quarters of respondents

plan to give back to the University.



$#

Note: The following question was only asked of respondents who indicated they plan to give back to the University:

“Would you give back to Athletics?”

2/3 of respondents who said they plan to give back to the University would not give backto Athletics. This question was asked to evaluate student attitudes towards giving back tothe Athletic Department as it is frequently listed as a place that receives a lot ofdonations.

Note: The following question was only asked of respondents who indicated they plan to give back to the University:

Please rank where you would give back

Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 AverageStudentOrganization

1051 1097 917 599 338 34 2.55

AlumniAssociation

609 1030 1121 859 372 45 2.87

University ofMichiganGeneralFund

818 1080 1002 770 336 30 2.71

Not Sure 724 315 369 747 1532 349 3.77MichiganAthletics

282 338 571 984 1218 643 4.10

Other 552 352 168 304 1200 17616 5.00

This question was asked to gauge where respondents would give back, when they areable to. The top three places people plan to give back is to a student organization, the

General Fund, and the Alumni Association.







$A

• The perception that Michigan Athletics is a brand to be sold• The move to general admission seating in 2013• Overselling the student section for men’s basketball games• Skywriting “Go Blue” over Spartan Stadium in 2013• The handling of Brendan Gibbons’ separation from the football team and the

University• The increase in the price of student tickets• Giving away tickets to the Minnesota game with the purchase of two Coke

products in the Michigan Union• The handling of Shane Morris’ concussion and the subsequent public relations

failures• The perception that Mr. Brandon micromanages the football team• Creating an “us” (members of the Athletic Department) vs. “them” (the rest of

the University community) perception in media appearances

Respondents indicated that it is unclear whether the Athletic Director’s relationship withthe student body is repairable at this point. Drastic measures need to be taken todemonstrate the Athletic Department values its students beyond the revenue dollars they

bring in when they purchase tickets. Many students indicated that after several years ofgrowing ill will, this might need to include a change in the leader of the AthleticDepartment.

Next Steps/RecommendationsThere are several steps the University can immediately take to begin repairing theAthletic Department’s relationship with the student body. The Athletic Department needs

to demonstrate that it values students and their voices, and does not only view them as asource of revenue. Some of these steps include:

Lower the price of football tickets. Per the results in this survey, students are not goingto continue paying $295 for a low-performing team and a weak home schedule. Somestudents are being priced out of enjoying Michigan football; others are resentful ofhaving the most expensive tickets in the Big Ten. Student tickets should be no more than$150 next year, placing us right in the middle of the Big Ten in terms of price.

Offer students free concessions for attending games on time. The Athletic Departmenthas consistently complained about students arriving late to games—it was the impetus for

the move to general admission in 2013. Many students indicated free concessions wouldmotivate them to get to games on time. This is a win-win for the student body and theAthletic Department.

Expand the men’s basketball student section in the lower bowl. There are over 3,000men’s basketball student season ticketholders. The Maize Rage bleachers onlyaccommodate 400 students, with another 250 students in a section in the corner in thelower bowl. Students reported waiting in line in the winter for over 8 hours to receive a



$E

seat in the lower bowl. Meanwhile, hundreds of seats sold to the general public anddonors go unfilled in the lower bowl. Michigan could create an intimidating home courtadvantage by moving more of the student section to the lower bowl of Crisler Arena,closer to the court.

Meet regularly with members of the student body. Michigan Athletics plays anintegral role in the experience of thousands of students, athletes and non-athletes, eachyear. By holding regular meetings with members of the (non-athlete) student body, theAthletic Director will become more in tune to their concerns and be seen as moreapproachable.

Be forthcoming and transparent when crises occur. Students feel lied to aboutBrendan Gibbons’ expulsion and they feel lied to about Shane Morris’ concussion.Whether students actually were lied to, this report has no opinion. However, it is clearthat the public relations responses surrounding these incidents were not handled well andfostered a feeling of mistrust. Especially because these incidents surround student safety,

it is critical that the Athletic Department does not cover up or hold back information.Shift away from commercialization. Many students indicated that ideally, Michiganfootball looks like it did when their parents or grandparents attended the school. Studentsvalue tradition at Michigan. While students appreciate the need to modernize, this shouldnot come at the cost of tradition. We should limit the amount of music that is piped in togames and advertising in the stadium. Additionally, there needs to be shift away from theway that Michigan Athletics is talked about. It is often referred to as a brand, instead of atradition. When speaking about student ticket policies or behaviors a lot of blame is often

placed on students, creating an “us versus them” environment. Instead of this, if we focuson tradition and building relationships, we can begin rebuild trust. Additionally, studentorganizations with charitable aims should not be charged rental fees to utilize athleticfacilities and a process should be published for all student organizations to have access.

Methods and LimitationsResponses were collected via a Qualtrics survey emailed to all University of Michiganstudents on the Ann Arbor campus, who could then choose themselves whether or not totake the survey. The survey was only emailed once, and yielded a response rate ofroughly 12%. Approximately 22.7% of current student season ticketholders responded tothe survey. The demographics of the respondents are roughly consistent with those of thestudent body and the student section. Since the entire population of students could bereached via email, there was no need to sample students.

A glitch in ITS’ email distribution prevented students enrolled in the Law School fromreceiving the email on the same day as everyone else.

The survey was designed and analyzed jointly by Central Student Government PresidentBobby Dishell and Masters of Accounting student Michael Proppe, who holds a B.S. inStatistics from the University of Michigan. Proppe previously served as Central Student



$F

Government President. Both Dishell and Proppe advocated moving away from generaladmission seating and played a role in designing the new assigned seating system. Theseexperiences may affect their respective biases in analyzing the results of this survey,however, they took care to write unbiased questions and have reported all resultsaccurately.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	detroit-free-press
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Report on the student relationship with U-M athletics

Documents