new seat selection email? | Page 6 | The Boneyard

new seat selection email?

Disappointed in new seats

  • Total voters
    19
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vancat said:
But the seats going wider? That’s stupid. And the cushions I suppose will be nice but certainly not necessary.
Expand ...
If they are going to re-do something, nothing wrong with making it nicer.
 
John said:
It’ll be a snap decision to see what we can get for a new location versus our excellent (for us) section/row of the past several years versus scrapping season tickets if we’re pushed high up and picking up just the preferred games on the secondary market.
Expand ...
It's funny, that's the way I feel. I've had tickets for 40 years and if what I end up with isn't worth it to me; I'll have no trouble saying good bye. Never thought I'd feel that way.
 
In one of the final scenes in the movie North Dallas Forty , John Matuzek's character says "Every time I call it a game, you call it a business and every time I call it a business, you call it a game."

To some extent I understand what they are doing from a business standpoint but they could have gone about this in a way that leaves the customer base feeling less overlooked than they now feel.

Yes, there is a very large business aspect to this, but the customer base, specifically the sustainable customer base should be viewed with a but more importance than it currently is.
 
Waquoit said:
It's funny, that's the way I feel. I've had tickets for 40 years and if what I end up with isn't worth it to me; I'll have no trouble saying good bye. Never thought I'd feel that way.
Expand ...
Times have changed. Season tickets used to be the best deal by far. Now you can just play around with 5 different secondary market apps a few hours before tip off and get in for the same price or less. No need to spend money on the East Texas A&M games. They’ll literally go for 2-3 bucks on game day or find someone on Twitter or BY begging to give them away lol
 
I reviewed again:
1) What was striking is the stand alone red unavailable seats. The main value to that is if UConn is selling seats to their partner Seats Geeks who have access before its loyal season ticket holders, who have already loss their “Seats for Life”. I guess the math would be UConn could make more money this way. The money is made on reselling the elite games. So overall is UConn taking tickets off our selection table to sell to Seat Geeks and if so how many?
2) Some red dots resemble where university administrators sit. How many seats are going to administrators who may or may not be making a seat donation or purchased a ticket? The same for state politicians.
3) Over-all, how many seats in each building are Unavailable (other than student tickets) before what we were told was the Start of the 5/19 Seat Selection process? I recognize the need for player and coaches families, visiting teams, former players. But, far too many red dots for that.
4) How many seats are being sold to corporations and million $ donors before Seat Selection. There’s a need to do that but very legally questionable to break a contractual promise to thousands of UConns fans to accomplish that objective.
 
Last edited:
Vancat said:
I will say that we did need handrails at Gampel and people were constantly tripping on the rickety stairs. But the seats going wider? That’s stupid. And the cushions I suppose will be nice but certainly not necessary. I think a big part of it was so they could shuffle us around and have a reason to do it.
Expand ...
Exactly - with the we are doing you a favor (by screwing you). Oldest marketing trick in the book that unethical consultants share with clients.
 
Last edited:
Chief00 said:
I reviewed again:
1) What was striking is the stand alone red unavailable seats. The main value to that is if UConn is selling seats to their partner Seats Geeks who have access before its loyal season ticket holders, who have already loss their “Seats for Life”. I guess the math would be UConn could make more money this way. The money is made on reselling the elite games. So overall is UConn taking tickets off our selection table to sell to Seat Geeks and if so how many?
2) Some red dots resemble where university administrators sit. How many seats are going to administrators who may or may not be making a seat donation or purchased a ticket? The same for state politicians.
3) Over-all, how many seats in each building are Unavailable (other than student tickets) before what we were told was the Start of the 5/19 Seat Selection process? I recognize the need for player and coaches families, visiting teams, former players. But, far too many red dots for that.
4) How many seats are being sold to corporations and million $ donors before Seat Selection. There’s a need to do that but very legally questionable to break a contractual promise to thousands of UConns fans to accomplish that objective.
Expand ...
About 50% lower bowl sideline seats are presold before season tickets are available--seems excessive and deceptive .
 
Lambeau said:
About 50% lower bowl sideline seats are presold before season tickets are available--seems excessive and deceptive .
Expand ...
I wonder what it was when they went to the online seat selection 8ish years ago. I can’t remember if that many were held back or not. I’m gonna assume no
 
Lambeau said:
About 50% lower bowl sideline seats are presold before season tickets are available--seems excessive and deceptive .
Expand ...
And do you really think they will tell you truth if you asked why so many seats are gone?
 
They take away our seats for life and tell us you can get the same number of seats based on your priority points and seat selection starts on 5/19.
But, lol but maybe 30% to 40% of lower level seats are selected before the process starts. However if they are kicking people to the second level that’s a huge issue that will end up costing UConn a huge amount of money long term. I noticed very few seats are pre reserved in the upper level at XL. So if pushed that will be the narrative and they will include those seats in % available to justify their actions.
It is hard to believe this operation had any kind of legal review - to disregard ethics and arguably a contract at the outset (seats for life gone) but then it just gets much worse. What are they thinking?
 
Last edited:
Chief00 said:
They take away our seats for life and tell us you can get the same number of seats based on your priority points and seat selection starts on 5/19.
But, lol but maybe 30% to 40% of lower level seats are selected before the process starts. However if they are kicking people to the second level that’s a huge issue that will end up costing UConn a huge amount of money long term. I noticed very few seats are pre reserved in the upper level at XL. So if pushed that will be the narrative and they will include those seats in % available to justify their actions.
It is hard to believe this operation had any kind of legal review - to disregard ethics and arguably a contract at the outset (seats for life gone) but then it just gets much worse. What are they thinking?
Expand ...
They are only thinking about money now and worry about tomorrow tomorrow. Because of revenue sharing and NIL they will need people to want to donate in the future. The people that were around me have already said that they are done and they have given for years. This was shortsighted and dishonest, and they screwed so many people. It is a bit reminiscent of the Ollie debacle in some ways, and we all know how that came out.
 
I just got access to a computer, as I was out of town. I logged into the site this a.m. and was completely crushed by the amount of red-dots already in place, including in my seats that I've had since Gampel opened. This is beyond reprehensible. They have screwed over their most loyal fans for a quick $$$. If I get kicked upstairs, which I almost inevitably will, as I don't pick for 10 days- I will walk. I never thought I would feel this way; I BLEED BLUE....but clearly it isn't reciprocal. I hope someone takes legal action, I would love to join. I am just shocked this isn't getting any play in the press at all- wish it would....a light needs to be shined on them for their dishonest and piggish behavior.
 
Don't be mad if your new seats suck, folks! They will be wider and have cushions!
Ol Knee GIF
 
Scrutineer said:
I think you're referring to the example page they used in the explanatory video. I don't think that is the actual current status.
The one I went to only showed the student sections, the lower half of a section behind the UConn bench and a small section high up in the lower bowl across from the visitors bench as unavailable.
Hope I'm right..........
Expand ...
FYI, I'm a women's ticketholder, so the figures below are for them. Don't think the men's are going to be better...

I took a look at the sections along the lower bowl sidelines at Gampel. There's 3 sections on each side that have 12 rows with 12 seats per row. 144 seats per section, 6 sections. 864 seats. There's 2 end sections on each side with slightly fewer seats, each with 130 seats, or 520 in total. So 864 + 520= 1,384 lower bowl sideline seats. Of those, 676 are reserved for "institutional obligations". That's 48.84%!!

And if anyone made bigger donations this year for seat selection and donor benefits, forget about the latter. Even if you made them in calendar year 2025, they don't count for donor level (which increased by 50%). The donor year starts April 1. Oh, and if read the most recent communiques closely, things like Big East Tournament and NCAA tickets are now based on priority points AND donor level.
 
Chief00 said:
2) Some red dots resemble where university administrators sit. How many seats are going to administrators who may or may not be making a seat donation or purchased a ticket? The same for state politicians.
3) Over-all, how many seats in each building are Unavailable (other than student tickets) before what we were told was the Start of the 5/19 Seat Selection process? I recognize the need for player and coaches families, visiting teams, former players. But, far too many red dots for that.
Expand ...

Classic case of Chief’s Narcissim here- he doesn’t know how many, BUT ITS DEFINITELY TOO MANY!
 
zls44 said:
Classic case of Chief’s Narcissim here- he doesn’t know how many, BUT ITS DEFINITELY TOO MANY!
Expand ...
Narcissism? You don’t know the meaning of “?” marks. What they mean is I am asking questions. I did state some appropriate reasons for unavailable seats that I am very familiar with (player & coaches families, visiting teams, former players, students, certain university officials) but the red dots exceed those reasons.
 
One thing consistent with the University's recent actions seems to be is the disruption of the status quo. It apparently was viewed that maintaining the Seat for Life promised policy, did not produce the desired increasing revenue levels, hence the change in the first place. While we weathered both incremental ticket and seat donation increases over the recent years to keep our seats, that froze out other income streams. What they may be hoping for is that many take the bump to the 200 level with a smile, just happy to be in the building after 2 NC’s; while the new income streams the consultants are selling them can occur. My guess is they may get their wish of disrupting the status quo, but once you accomplish that there may be unexpected consequences that go in the wrong direction from the university perspective. Does this approach towards its most loyal fans weather bad season storms well? Does it attract more the fair weather fan?

Reliability vs. bells and whistles fans after NC type seasons. Be careful UConn, which one you pick. I know myself, I have set some parameters, and if those conditions are not met during seating, I will walk away. Perhaps Seat Geeks is now their new type season ticket holder?
 
Last edited:
Got a bad feeling we’ll be revisiting the issue of transparency when our XL hockey season tickets are revealed.
 
Chief00 said:
One thing consistent with the University's recent actions seems to be is the disruption of the status quo. It apparently was viewed that maintaining the Seat for Life promised policy, did not produce the desired increasing revenue levels, hence the change in the first place. While we weathered both incremental ticket and seat donation increases over the recent years to keep our seats, that froze out other income streams. What they may be hoping for is that many take the bump to the 200 level with a smile, just happy to be in the building after 2 NC’s; while the new income streams the consultants are selling them can occur. My guess is they may get their wish of disrupting the status quo, but once you accomplish that there may be unexpected consequences that go in the wrong direction from the university perspective.
Expand ...
Yeah like I said, they just wanted to oust our asses and found a method to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
2,341
Total visitors
2,554
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,958
Messages
4,376,695
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom