Season Ticket Prices | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Season Ticket Prices

Status
Not open for further replies.
In other words, we should do nothing for any of the season ticket holders, or reward each individual ticket (through the account holder).

I'm all for the latter, but doing something is better than nothing. Looks like you prefer nothing.
 
I'll make another point. Point systems are designed to encourage people to donate to the school over and above what they pay for tickets. The carrot is seating preference. The reason that they don't allow, for example, high-roller donors to buy 50 seats at Gampel, is so that other folks feel compelled to donate. If football ever got to the point where we were sold out, they would probably cap the number of seats that each person could buy.

For those that are part of "other" people's ticket package, I would surmise that there is little to no giving to the AD because there is no benefit for you to do so. That clearly isn't the intent of the program. I know people want to keep this simple and make it about supply/demand for football tickets for their own sake, but all of this is a complicated ecosystem.

So the account holder is being recognized for being an account holder and a donor. The other people are just spectators going to games. It isn't that they don't matter. But it isn't the same thing.
 
Jimmy Serrano said:
In this state, you literally cannot give stuff away without people complaining.
Expand ...

People aren't complaining about the stuff, they're complaining because they want it too.
 
.-.
J187Money said:
In other words, we should do nothing for any of the season ticket holders, or reward each individual ticket (through the account holder).

I'm all for the latter, but doing something is better than nothing. Looks like you prefer nothing.
Expand ...

I noticed you didn't quote me. I wonder if it's because what you wrote is nowhere near what I said. I said the benefit should either be extended to each ticket holder, or the season ticket holder should have the choose of refusal. In other words (that makes sense), The account holder would get 8 hats - 1 for each ticket - and distribute 7 to the other ticket holders or the other 7 people would indicate to the account holder their ambivalence toward the reward and he would only request a number less than the due allotment.

J187Money said:
I'll make another point. Point systems are designed to encourage people to donate to the school over and above what they pay for tickets. The carrot is seating preference. The reason that they don't allow, for example, high-roller donors to buy 50 seats at Gampel, is so that other folks feel compelled to donate. If football ever got to the point where we were sold out, they would probably cap the number of seats that each person could buy.

For those that are part of "other" people's ticket package, I would surmise that there is little to no giving to the AD because there is no benefit for you to do so. That clearly isn't the intent of the program. I know people want to keep this simple and make it about supply/demand for football tickets for their own sake, but all of this is a complicated ecosystem.

So the account holder is being recognized for being an account holder and a donor. The other people are just spectators going to games. It isn't that they don't matter. But it isn't the same thing.
Expand ...
Not really picking up what you're putting down. Are you suggesting that any of the account holders who act as point person for their group eat the cost of the donation per ticket out of the kindness of his heart? Or are you suggesting that the donation is only compelled on the account? Those are the only two scenarios in which your post makes the remotest bit of sense (I have no knowledge of the high-roller at Gampel deal, as I am neither a high roller, nor Gampel season ticket holder). If it's the former, I want to meet those people so I can butter them up and get $100 off the cost of my weekend entertainment for 6-7 Autumn Saturdays. The latter scenario hasn't existed since UConn began playing at Rentschler. A donation has always been required on each ticket purchased. The account holder we go through isn't even a UConn Alum and probably couldn't care much less about being recognized as a donor.
 
Husky25 said:
I noticed you didn't quote me. I wonder if it's because what you wrote is nowhere near what I said. I said the benefit should either be extended to each ticket holder, or the season ticket holder should have the choose of refusal. In other words (that makes sense), The account holder would get 8 hats - 1 for each ticket - and distribute 7 to the other ticket holders or the other 7 people would indicate to the account holder their ambivalence toward the reward and he would only request a number less than the due allotment.
Expand ...

Agree with this 100 percent. That would be the best scenario. But the account holder getting something is way better than the account holder getting nothing. My biggest dispute with you is about "who" a season ticket holder is. I contend you aren't one, because the school has no idea who you are (in the context of tickets anyway).

Husky25 said:
Not really picking up what you're putting down. Are you suggesting that any of the account holders who act as point person for their group eat the cost of the donation per ticket out of the kindness of his heart? Or are you suggesting that the donation is only compelled on the account? Those are the only two scenarios in which your post makes the remotest bit of sense (I have no knowledge of the high-roller at Gampel deal, as I am neither a high roller, nor Gampel season ticket holder). If it's the former, I want to meet those people so I can butter them up and get $100 off the cost of my weekend entertainment for 6-7 Autumn Saturdays. The latter scenario hasn't existed since UConn began playing at Rentschler. A donation has always been required on each ticket purchased. The account holder we go through isn't even a UConn Alum and probably couldn't care much less about being recognized as a donor.
Expand ...

When you get to the wealthier ticket holders? In my experience that's exactly how it is. When you get to real money, someone isn't going to say "I'm going to buy tickets, but you need to give me $500/ticket" - the wealthy donor is going to give $5/$10/$15K to the AD anyway, and the ticket donation only serves to reduce his pledge. BTW I buy 6 - my sister pays for 2, and 2 go empty most games. I don't ask anything for them from anyone that uses them generally, and in the off chance I do, I don't ask for the pro-rata portion of the seat donation.

And donations AREN'T required for all seats at Rentschler.

"All Club, Chairback and Preferred season ticket orders require an annual seat donation (per seat)."

There are lots of seats (in a stadium where there are no bad seats) where donations aren't required. So you could all sit together and save $100/seat - you could also probably each buy your own season ticket in a non-preferred area and sit together anyway, and each accrue your own account holder benefits.

And THIS is the only point I'm really making. The system is how the system is.

If you want to sit with your friends? Sit with your friends.

If you want account holder benefits? Buy tickets under your own name.

I'm all about the account holder getting benefits for every seat that he/she buys, but that isn't the way the world works. Today is better than yesterday, and I'm hoping tomorrow is better than today. So as long as it isn't getting worse, I'm not going to complain.
 
I don't get the hang-up about seat donation. It's the bottom line per game that matters. A seat in the endzone costs $25, on the 30 costs $47.
 
J187Money said:
Agree with this 100 percent. That would be the best scenario. But the account holder getting something is way better than the account holder getting nothing. My biggest dispute with you is about "who" a season ticket holder is. I contend you aren't one, because the school has no idea who you are (in the context of tickets anyway).



When you get to the wealthier ticket holders? In my experience that's exactly how it is. When you get to real money, someone isn't going to say "I'm going to buy tickets, but you need to give me $500/ticket" - the wealthy donor is going to give $5/$10/$15K to the AD anyway, and the ticket donation only serves to reduce his pledge. BTW I buy 6 - my sister pays for 2, and 2 go empty most games. I don't ask anything for them from anyone that uses them generally, and in the off chance I do, I don't ask for the pro-rata portion of the seat donation.

And donations AREN'T required for all seats at Rentschler.

"All Club, Chairback and Preferred season ticket orders require an annual seat donation (per seat)."

There are lots of seats (in a stadium where there are no bad seats) where donations aren't required. So you could all sit together and save $100/seat - you could also probably each buy your own season ticket in a non-preferred area and sit together anyway, and each accrue your own account holder benefits.

And THIS is the only point I'm really making. The system is how the system is.

If you want to sit with your friends? Sit with your friends.

If you want account holder benefits? Buy tickets under your own name.

I'm all about the account holder getting benefits for every seat that he/she buys, but that isn't the way the world works. Today is better than yesterday, and I'm hoping tomorrow is better than today. So as long as it isn't getting worse, I'm not going to complain.
Expand ...

I understand a little better where you are coming from but I contend that the determination is not up to the school, especially at the level that John Q. Public typically operates. That is where most of us are and where their bread is buttered. Another consideration is if a single account holder is making a donation upwards of $15-20k, they probably aren't using the ticketing website. I don't know that for a fact, but it stands to reason given tax implications of a transaction at that magnitude.

I also contend that your situation and mine are not the same. You are a Season ticket holders, as is your sister. The people you may or may not bring on a rotating basis are not. And I agree. You aren't going to nickel and didn't e guest for an extra $15.20. In the early years, I was in a similar position where two friends and I bought four tickets and split the cost of the fouth to invite people who couldn't go every week. That rotating group are not STHs. In my current group, 6 season tickets are purchased, delivered, and at the first game, 5 are distributed to other individuals, who go every week.

Regarding donations, the seats we purchase require a donation and not a bad seat in the house is a matter of opinion. In 2003-2004, our seats we in the 5th row of 138 (on the 10 yard line or so). On its face, this seems pretty good. But every time play crossed the 50, we were better off watching the scoreboard. In fact, we used our "seniority" to get worse seats.
 
Husky25 said:
Regarding donations, the seats we purchase require a donation and not a bad seat in the house is a matter of opinion. In 2003-2004, our seats we in the 5th row of 138 (on the 10 yard line or so). On its face, this seems pretty good. But every time play crossed the 50, we were better off watching the scoreboard. In fact, we used our "seniority" to get worse seats.
Expand ...
I still maintain the "not a bad seat in the house" opinion. You go to other stadiums and certain sections seem to just be farther away, they aren't angled right, they have random obstructed views, etc.

Having said that, last season I made the jump to cheap chairback season tickets from young alumni tickets and watching the game 5 rows from the top of the stadium on the 45 yard line is night and day compared to watching from virtually anywhere around the end zones. Worth every penny assuming you can afford it and the product on the field is worth watching.
 
.-.
mets1090 said:
I still maintain the "not a bad seat in the house" opinion. You go to other stadiums and certain sections seem to just be farther away, they aren't angled right, they have random obstructed views, etc.

Having said that, last season I made the jump to cheap chairback season tickets from young alumni tickets and watching the game 5 rows from the top of the stadium on the 45 yard line is night and day compared to watching from virtually anywhere around the end zones. Worth every penny assuming you can afford it and the product on the field is worth watching.
Expand ...
Those are good seats and I would take them as well. I like watching the play develop. The top of the upper level at Rentschler would be a loge or mezzanine level at almost every other college stadium and some pro. Compare the lower bowl at BOA Stadium in Charlotte (just north of about 36,000 including bowl, club, and suits) to The Rent.

Bank-of-America-Stadium-Charlotte.jpg
th
 
Husky25 said:
Regarding donations, the seats we purchase require a donation and not a bad seat in the house is a matter of opinion. In 2003-2004, our seats we in the 5th row of 138 (on the 10 yard line or so). On its face, this seems pretty good. But every time play crossed the 50, we were better off watching the scoreboard. In fact, we used our "seniority" to get worse seats.
Expand ...

You can be too close. But what I mean is that you can sit in the cheapest non-donation seat in the last row and still have a good view. It isn't that you have to pay up to get a good angle.

My points dictate I should get better seats. But I like the sight lines from 241. I don't even take the first row because I want to see over the railing.
 
J187Money said:
You can be too close. But what I mean is that you can sit in the cheapest non-donation seat in the last row and still have a good view. It isn't that you have to pay up to get a good angle.

My points dictate I should get better seats. But I like the sight lines from 241. I don't even take the first row because I want to see over the railing.
Expand ...

We sit at the back of the lower level around the 25 YL. I got word a couple days ago that we are going to try and move closer to mid-field and we may have a decent shot, given the indication of people who may not renew.
 
J187Money said:
You can be too close. But what I mean is that you can sit in the cheapest non-donation seat in the last row and still have a good view. It isn't that you have to pay up to get a good angle.

My points dictate I should get better seats. But I like the sight lines from 241. I don't even take the first row because I want to see over the railing.
Expand ...

we are in Row 11 of 124 - I would NOT want to be any closer. As it is, I wouldn't mind moving back a couple of rows.
 
Agreed, I like 18 better than when I was in 11.
 
I used to have seats in the end zone under the scoreboard. Got those after my young alumni seats expired. Gotta say I preferred being in the up tier with young alumni than lower level.

Best seats for non chair backs and cheaper price would be corners. Can see plays develop nicely. Prefer that to being close to the field.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,366
Messages
4,568,265
Members
10,472
Latest member
MyStore24


Top Bottom