Report on the Student Relationship with Michigan Athletics

   

October 15, 2014  

Prepared by Bobby Dishell President, Central Student Government

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

  2  

Executive Summary The 2014 University of Michigan football student section is made up of less than 12,000 ticketholders, down from just under 20,000 ticketholders in 2013. At $295, Michigan student football tickets are the most expensive in the Big Ten. In recent weeks, the student body at the University of Michigan has expressed deep dissatisfaction and frustration with the Athletic Department, in particular Athletic Director David Brandon. A UPetition titled “A Petition to Remove Mr. David Brandon from his Duties as Athletic Director,” received 11,298 signers, under half of which were students. A “Fire Dave Brandon” rally was held on the Diag later that week. Some students planned to protest kickoff of the Penn State game to express their dissatisfaction with the Athletic Director. On October 10, Central Student Government President Bobby Dishell sent a survey to the student 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 this survey. 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 student frustration with the Athletic Department and the Athletic Director, and makes recommendations to repair that relationship. We conclude from the report that the Athletic Department needs to make drastic changes to improve its relationship with the student body. These would include significant price decreases, regular meetings between students-at-large and the Athletic Director, a commitment 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’s relationship with the current student body is repairable. Central Student Government is committed to working constructively with the Athletic Department, Mr. Brandon, the President of the University, and the Board of Regents to repair 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

  3  

Background On May 28, 2014, the University of Michigan Athletic Department projected student ticket sales in 2014 would be somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000 tickets sold, compared to about 19,000 tickets sold in 2014. Following sales to freshmen, the actual number of student tickets sold was less than 12,000. Members of the Athletic Department attributed dropping sales due to a weak home schedule and a national trend of declining ticket sales.1 The University of Michigan has the most expensive student tickets in the Big Ten, at $295 for seven home games.2 Other Big Ten schools charge: Ohio State: $252 for 7 games Penn State: $218 for 7 games Wisconsin: $188 for 7 games Iowa: $175 for 7 games Michigan State: $175 for 7 games Nebraska: $166 for 7 games Purdue: $119 for 7 games Illinois: $99 for 7 games Rutgers: $99 for 7 games Minnesota: $90 for 7 games Indiana: $60 for 6 games Maryland: Free with tuition and student fee Northwestern: Free with tuition and student fee On Saturday, September 27, Michigan lost to Minnesota. The Athletic Department and football staff received heavy criticism for a decision to leave a possibly concussed player in the game. On Monday, September 29, Rackham student Zeid El-Kilani created a petition through the Central Student Government’s online UPetition service.3 The petition, “A Petition to Remove Mr. David Brandon from his Duties as Athletic Director,” is the most-signed UPetition in the service’s four-year history, with 11,298 signers. The petition reads: “Dave Brandon is the current Director of Intercollegiate Athletics at the University of Michigan. He has held the title since 2010. Upon being named the Athletic Director, Mr. Brandon stated "athletic programs play [a role] in helping to shape the culture and image of our university community." Unfortunately, under Mr. Brandon's tenure, the football program, one of the most prominent programs at the University of Michigan and in the nation, has become a black eye for the University of Michigan. Instead of adding to                                                                                                                1http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/05/michigan_football_projecting_s.html    2http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/06/as_michigan_student_ticket_sal.html  3  https://csg.umich.edu/upetition/p/fire-­‐brandon/  

  4  

the image and prestige of the university, the state of the athletic department has hurt the connection shared between alumni, fans, and the university. Furthermore, policies and decisions of the athletic department have alienated the current student body. As a result, the university risks producing a generation of alumni that are disinterested and disengaged. 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 wonderful things that are happening on campus..." When the athletic department produces overwhelmingly negative media attention, it distracts from the main mission of the university. In accordance with the principles that athletics are supposed to unite and bring positive energy to campus, we request that President Schlissel remove Mr. David Brandon from his position as Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.” On Tuesday, September 30, a “Fire Brandon” rally was held on the Diag and in front of the 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 was attended by several hundred students and received widespread media coverage. Some students began planning a boycott of the kickoff of the Michigan football team’s night game against Penn State to express dissatisfaction with the Athletic Department and the Athletic Director. On October 10, Central Student Government President Bobby Dishell sent an email to all students enrolled at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus titled “[Action Requested] Michigan Football and Athletics.” In this email, President Dishell discouraged boycotting kickoff of the Penn State game and encouraged students to voice their concerns via a Qualtrics survey linked in the email. 5,208 students completed the survey as of October 14.

Purpose This report aims to assess the student experience at Michigan football games and the student 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 of the University, and the broader University community as we assess how to move forward to improve the student relationship with the Athletic Department.

  5  

Conclusions Had student seating remained general admission in 2014, less than 9,000 students would have bought season tickets this year (as opposed to under 12,000 this year under assigned seating). However, even fewer students intend to purchase next year at a price of $295. To maintain a student section of just under 12,000 students, the Athletic Department needs to drop student tickets to roughly $210, or $30 per game next year. To regain a student section of 20,000 students, the Athletic Department needs to drop the price of student tickets to roughly $150 next year. The Athletic Department effectively communicated its sales of single game tickets this year, with 91% of respondents indicating they were aware they can buy single game tickets. However, only 41% of respondents indicated they were aware they can buy and sell tickets through the HAIL mobile application. The open-ended questions at the end of this survey indicate students overwhelmingly feel disrespected and alienated by the Athletic Department, with anger being directed at Athletic Director David Brandon for his decisions regarding student ticketing policies and prices, marketing gimmicks, and mishandling of the Brendan Gibbons’ separation and Shane Morris’ concussion. According to the data, it is unclear whether Mr. Brandon can repair his relationship with the student body. A further discussion of the frustrations of 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 the makeup of the student body at Michigan. Among respondents who are 2014 season ticketholders, respondents skew younger: 34% are freshman, 22% are sophomores, 17% are juniors, 15% are seniors, and 13% are graduate/professional students. Among respondents who were ticketholders in either 2013 or 2014, 23% are freshman, 21% are sophomores, 20% are juniors, 19% are seniors, and 16% are graduate/professional

  6  

students. This suggests much of the drop in student ticket sales is a result of upperclassmen 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 last year’s seating policy. Last year, students were seated on a first-come, first-serve general admission basis. This year, students are assigned seats based on seniority and loyalty from 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 these students, 76% of respondents prefer the 2014 policy while 17% prefer the 2013 policy.

  7  

“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 view available 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 the HAIL app. This response is markedly difference from that of the previous question, however, among current ticketholders, 46% of respondents are aware of the ticket community 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 is roughly consistent with attendance data provided by Athletics, which indicates 60.2% of student ticketholders have earned at least 12 attendance points (the equivalent of attending 4 games). This question was only asked of respondents who are currently season ticketholders:

  8  

“Have you validated any tickets this season?”

Among those who have not attended all four home games, 22% of respondents have validated tickets. “Would you have bought student season tickets for $295 in 2014 if the student section 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 student seating 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 bought tickets if the student seating policy were general admission. This suggests that, were the student seating policy still general admission, less than 9,000 student tickets would have been sold. Currently, there are just under 12,000 student season ticketholders. In 2013, there were just under 20,000 student season ticketholders. Consistent with data from last year’s surveys, general admission was less unpopular among underclassmen: 72% of freshmen would have bought tickets if the policy was General Admission, 76% of sophomores, 58% of juniors, 46% of seniors, 57% of graduate/professional students.

  9  

Note: The following question was only asked of students who are currently season ticketholders or were season ticketholders last year. “Rank the importance of these factors in your decision to purchase student season tickets:” All Respondents Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average Strength of Home Schedule

706 959 802 632 482 310 40 3.08

Price 850 723 674 597 512 527 48 3.25 Team Performance

473 678 889 773 550 533 35 3.51

Seating Policy 186 345 606 773 895 1052 74 4.35 Love of the Sport

652 533 449 569 760 915 53 3.82

Tradition 951 653 471 566 703 550 37 3.31 Other 113 40 40 21 29 44 3644 6.69 Note: The table indicates the number of respondents who ranked each variable in each place. For example, 706 respondents said strength of the home schedule was the most important factor in their decision to purchase season tickets. The “Average” column is the average ranking students assigned to each factor. A lower average indicates the factor is more important in students’ decision to purchase season tickets. This Year’s Season Ticketholders Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average Strength of Home Schedule

329 530 570 495 394 276 40 3.41

Price 386 420 468 450 425 442 43 3.61 Team Performance

334 477 635 500 346 320 22 3.41

Seating Policy

95 172 326 517 681 789 54 4.56

Love of the Sport

576 458 302 357 412 504 25 3.45

Tradition 839 547 299 300 351 274 24 2.88 Other 75 30 34 15 25 29 2426 6.67 The students who purchased 2014 season tickets value tradition above all else. The price of season tickets is one of the less important factors in the decision to buy tickets, though it is not far behind the strength of schedule, team performance, and love of the sport. This suggests that strength of schedule and team performance should be considered a factor in setting the price in future seasons. The seating policy was the least important factor, on average, in their decision to purchase tickets. However, we did see in a previous question

  10  

that only 65% of current season ticketholders would have purchased tickets under a general admission seating policy. Last Year’s Season Ticketholders who did not buy tickets this year Answer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average Strength of Home Schedule

377 429 232 138 88 34 0 2.41

Price 464 304 206 147 87 85 5 2.51 Team Performance

139 201 255 273 204 213 13 3.69

Seating Policy

92 173 280 256 214 263 20 3.92

Love of the Sport

76 75 147 212 348 412 28 4.56

Tradition 112 106 172 266 353 276 13 4.17 Other 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 tradition were the least important factors in their decision. This suggests that many of these students would purchase tickets again should the price significantly drop or the schedule significantly improve. This question was only asked of respondents who indicated that they are currently season ticket holders or were season ticket holders last year. “Who pays for your student tickets?” All Respondents

  11  

This year’s ticketholders

Last year’s ticket holders who don’t hold this year

This question was asked to determine who bears the burden of paying for tickets. The majority of respondents pay for tickets on their own. However, when we compare last year’s ticketholders who are no longer with us, and this year’s ticketholders we see an important distinction. Two-thirds of last year’s ticketholders who are no longer ticketholders paid for the tickets themselves. This year, over half of our ticketholder’s parents bear all or part of the cost.

  12  

This question was only asked of respondents who indicated that they are currently season ticket holders or were season ticket holders last year: “Please select the highest price you would be willing to pay for student season tickets next year, given that this is the home schedule: 9/12 Oregon State 9/19 University of Nevada Las Vegas 9/26 Brigham Young University 10/10 Northwestern 10/17 Michigan State 11/7 Rutgers 11/28 Ohio State” Percentile Price 10% $299 20% $276 30% $252 40% $250 50% $225 60% $210 70% $200 80% $185 90% $150 100% $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. This suggests the price of a student season ticket should be drastically lowered in future seasons. 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 of Michigan?”

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

  13  

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 back to Athletics. This question was asked to evaluate student attitudes towards giving back to the Athletic Department as it is frequently listed as a place that receives a lot of donations. 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 Average Student Organization

1051 1097 917 599 338 34 2.55

Alumni Association

609 1030 1121 859 372 45 2.87

University of Michigan General Fund

818 1080 1002 770 336 30 2.71

Not Sure 724 315 369 747 1532 349 3.77 Michigan Athletics

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 are able to. The top three places people plan to give back is to a student organization, the General Fund, and the Alumni Association.

  14  

“Before coming to the University, what is one word that you would use to describe Michigan Football?”

This was an open-ended question where we hoped to see how people’s expectations had shifted over their time at the University of Michigan. Words like tradition and legendary seemed to come to most students’ minds when thinking about Michigan football before they came here. “What is one word you would use to describe Michigan Football today?”

Today, many students describe Michigan football as disappointing, corporate, bad, embarrassing, or as a business.

  15  

The following questions were open-ended: “Once you have purchased student season tickets, what would incentivize you to go to the game? Please be specific.” Common responses included:

• A winning team • A strong opponent • A less commercialized atmosphere • More music from the marching band • Cheap or free concessions, especially water and food • Friends attending the game

“In an ideal world, what does Michigan Football look like to you?” While many responses focused on having a winning team, very few mentioned winning national championships. Respondents ideally want Michigan football to be “respectable,” contending for Big Ten championships, and regularly ranked in the top 25. However, most responses contained references to other aspects of the Michigan football experience, including:

• Being able to purchase tickets at an affordable price • Enjoying the games without long television timeout interruptions • Feeling respected by the Athletic Department • Being a part of a unified Michigan community

“Are there any other comments you would like to include on Michigan Football or the Athletic Department?” Student responses in this question echoed many of the comments made in the previous questions. Respondents indicated the price of tickets is too expensive, the commercialization of the Athletic Department and the football team in unpopular, and they feel disrespected and alienated by the Athletic Department. Many students wrote they no longer want the Athletic Department to feel like a “business” or a “corporation.” Many respondents indicated they believe members of the Athletic Department have lied regarding the separation of Brendan Gibbons and the Shane Morris concussion. Though the Athletic Director was never mentioned, by name or by title, in the survey, David Brandon is mentioned 1,208 times by respondents (the phrase “Fire Brandon” was used 110 times by respondents). Almost none of the respondents have positive things to say about Mr. Brandon’s tenure as Athletic Director. Common complaints included:

  16  

• 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 with the student body is repairable at this point. Drastic measures need to be taken to demonstrate the Athletic Department values its students beyond the revenue dollars they bring in when they purchase tickets. Many students indicated that after several years of growing ill will, this might need to include a change in the leader of the Athletic Department.

Next Steps/Recommendations There are several steps the University can immediately take to begin repairing the Athletic 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 a source of revenue. Some of these steps include: Lower the price of football tickets. Per the results in this survey, students are not going to continue paying $295 for a low-performing team and a weak home schedule. Some students are being priced out of enjoying Michigan football; others are resentful of having 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 Department has 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 would motivate them to get to games on time. This is a win-win for the student body and the Athletic Department. Expand the men’s basketball student section in the lower bowl. There are over 3,000 men’s basketball student season ticketholders. The Maize Rage bleachers only accommodate 400 students, with another 250 students in a section in the corner in the lower bowl. Students reported waiting in line in the winter for over 8 hours to receive a

  17  

seat in the lower bowl. Meanwhile, hundreds of seats sold to the general public and donors go unfilled in the lower bowl. Michigan could create an intimidating home court advantage 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 an integral role in the experience of thousands of students, athletes and non-athletes, each year. By holding regular meetings with members of the (non-athlete) student body, the Athletic Director will become more in tune to their concerns and be seen as more approachable. Be forthcoming and transparent when crises occur. Students feel lied to about Brendan 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 clear that the public relations responses surrounding these incidents were not handled well and fostered 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, Michigan football looks like it did when their parents or grandparents attended the school. Students value tradition at Michigan. While students appreciate the need to modernize, this should not come at the cost of tradition. We should limit the amount of music that is piped in to games and advertising in the stadium. Additionally, there needs to be shift away from the way that Michigan Athletics is talked about. It is often referred to as a brand, instead of a tradition. 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 focus on tradition and building relationships, we can begin rebuild trust. Additionally, student organizations with charitable aims should not be charged rental fees to utilize athletic facilities and a process should be published for all student organizations to have access.

Methods and Limitations Responses were collected via a Qualtrics survey emailed to all University of Michigan students on the Ann Arbor campus, who could then choose themselves whether or not to take the survey. The survey was only emailed once, and yielded a response rate of roughly 12%. Approximately 22.7% of current student season ticketholders responded to the survey. The demographics of the respondents are roughly consistent with those of the student body and the student section. Since the entire population of students could be reached via email, there was no need to sample students. A glitch in ITS’ email distribution prevented students enrolled in the Law School from receiving the email on the same day as everyone else. The survey was designed and analyzed jointly by Central Student Government President Bobby Dishell and Masters of Accounting student Michael Proppe, who holds a B.S. in Statistics from the University of Michigan. Proppe previously served as Central Student

  18  

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