A couple stories that I worry I may enjoy too much for the wrong reasons.
Pitt isn’t the only one in Pennsylvania raising ticket prices. Penn State is, and with less to back-up the move.
Would you pay more for a share of stock in a company that has been drenched with red ink in four of the last five years? Didn’t think so.
Yet, in essence, that’s what Penn State is asking its fans to do. Single game tickets, if you can get them, will cost you $44 next year. Season tickets are up to $308 plus your contribution to the Nittany Lion Club.
On the surface, an extra two bucks a ticket is an insignificant amount, especially for the people who can afford to buy the season package.
It’s the principle that’s galling, the idea that a school that would ask its fans to pay more for a product that has deteriorated.
It’s been explained that the increase is part of an overall plan to raise prices incrementally. So this is one small increment for fans, one big piece of change for Penn State.
Wouldn’t it make sense, or at least be seen as a recognition of the situation, for the school to put the increase on hold for at least one year, especially in a year when there will be seven home games, which will produce an extra million dollars?
Fans will answer that question by their response to the season ticket applications they’re receiving.
Penn State fans can or will take some solace in the fact that Pitt has also announced it is increasing its season ticket prices. But there are two differences. One, Pitt has been to a bowl game the past several seasons and so it can justify asking for more money. Two, the increase is not in the cost of the season ticket package — it remains $144 for seats between the 40-yard lines — but in the fact that fans will be required to make a donation of $100 to be able to buy those tickets.
Then there is the spin Penn State puts on its declining attendance.
Group snicker.
Then, there is former Pitt basketball coach Ben Howland, still working to rebuild UCLA. Still not there, and, big surprise, the natives are getting restless.
Questionable discipline. The Bruins didn’t bother working for high-percentage shots, instead just jacking up three-pointers. Eight of 16 went down in the first half, and UCLA led 39-38. Eleven of 13 stayed out in the second half, and Arizona led by as many as 21.
Shaky fundamentals. UCLA was outrebounded 26-12 in the second half, and had no idea how to stem a 19-0 Arizona blitz. The Bruins were clueless as to how to beat Arizona’s interior double teams, or how to get their best player into the game; Dijon Thompson scored only 10 points and took three rebounds in 32 dreadful minutes.
And old-time UCLA fans winced. Again.
Ben Howland came to Westwood from Pitt, where he was beating up folks in the Big East. His rep was rebuilding programs.
But with nearly two seasons on his Westwood watch complete, Howland’s Bruins are 24-25, including 14-17 in the Pac-10. With nine defeats on their home court.
Howland complained of the impatience that comes from inexperience. “We took a number of questionable shots that fueled their (19-0) run,” he said.
Indeed, the Bruins start three freshmen. But it seems as if they have been young for decades now, and their highly touted kids rarely turn out to be much of anything.
Not unexpected from the frontrunners of LA, but still comical. Less than 2 seasons in, and they are already acting like it is time for a change. I still haven’t forgiven Howland for the way he bolted Pitt — not that he left for the UCLA job, but his actions. Aside from the weather, you have to imagine he has nights where he wonders why he decided to go that path.
