Season Tickets

Redenbacher said:
I am disagreeing - vehemently- with your statement that "opaqueness is a feature and not a bug." Of course it's an arms race, just as every professional sports team is in an arms race for talent every year. But the Mets don't try to use opaqueness to scare me into spending more. They just tell me what the price is. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...
Yes but St. John's isn't the Mets. STJ wants this to be opaque.
 
dk423 said:
Yes but St. John's isn't the Mets. STJ wants this to be opaque.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know they want it to be opaque. They made that patently obvious with the convoluted system they rolled out. As I said, they will get away with it this time, but I think they will be forced to go to a professional ticket model the next time. I hope they do.
 
Redenbacher said:
Yes, I know they want it to be opaque. They made that patently obvious with the convoluted system they rolled out. As I said, they will get away with it this time, but I think they will be forced to go to a professional ticket model the next time. I hope they do.
Click to expand...
They'll get away with it as long as they have a coach of the caliber of Pitino. If this was happening under Anderson, forget it. lol
 
Redenbacher said:
You're missing my point. It's not about the cost. It is about the process. I am fully aware that seat donations have been around for many years. But we're in a brand new world now, aren't we? SJU is now a professional sports team. So just make the ticketing process transparent and drop the opaque, annoying priority points component and bake whatever amount is required to pay the players, coaches, GM, overhead, etc into the ticket price. It can't be that hard.
Click to expand...
Professional sport or not, I think the school is trying to relate support for the team with support for the college they represent to some degree. I personally don't see anything wrong with that although as a fan who is not an alum the only thing I spend my money on besides tickets to an occasional game is SJU merchandise.
In any event this is a great time to be an SJU fan and seems like most of the STHs are reasonably happy.
 
I've never considered the per seat contribution a donation, it is tied to the seat, and we all know how to add up two numbers. As for the extortion that went on with the "points system" everyone is different, and I would guess they made some good money on it.

For me it had the opposite effect. I am very far from a "major donor" but made some donations to the school and program in the past. I considered this exercise blackmail and didn't put up a dime. In fact, we discussed this as a family and we will never donate to anything related to SJU again, including NIL. We recognize this is an entertainment product and will buy tickets as long as we feel the prices we need to pay equal the overall entertainment value and also recognize as product owners SJU can do what they want including this. But I deal with real charities that would never resort to anything like this, to the extent I have any extra money to donate it will go to them. And no anger here - I see the situation for what it is and have adapted accordingly.

I cannot emphasize enough I am not telling anyone else not to donate or what to do with their money. But nothing about this process has made me feel charitable toward SJU.
 
IDRAFT said:
I've never considered the per seat contribution a donation, it is tied to the seat, and we all know how to add up two numbers. As for the extortion that went on with the "points system" everyone is different, and I would guess they made some good money on it.

For me it had the opposite effect. I am very far from a "major donor" but made some donations to the school and program in the past. I considered this exercise blackmail and didn't put up a dime. In fact, we discussed this as a family and we will never donate to anything related to SJU again, including NIL. We recognize this is an entertainment product and will buy tickets as long as we feel the prices we need to pay equal the overall entertainment value and also recognize as product owners SJU can do what they want including this. But I deal with real charities that would never resort to anything like this, to the extent I have any extra money to donate it will go to them. And no anger here - I see the situation for what it is and have adapted accordingly.

I cannot emphasize enough I am not telling anyone else not to donate or what to do with their money. But nothing about this process has made me feel charitable toward SJU.
Click to expand...
But donating to the mjmaherjr msg beer stand fund is still a worthwhile donation in the IDRAFT Household

Just to be clear in case anyone was thinking of the same fund to donate to
 
My main frustration with this process is the ability to increase to up to 6 seats. Seems fair to me to have been entitled to your current number of seats. If you wanted to add more that’s great but that’s a separate list that starts after everyone has selected. The people who were there through the tough times but don’t have the financial means have become an afterthought and the loyalty has been disrespected because it’s all about the almighty dollar.
 
WestchesterJohnnies said:
My main frustration with this process is the ability to increase to up to 6 seats. Seems fair to me to have been entitled to your current number of seats. If you wanted to add more that’s great but that’s a separate list that starts after everyone has selected. The people who were there through the tough times but don’t have the financial means have become an afterthought and the loyalty has been disrespected because it’s all about the almighty dollar.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. The point system and increase in prices are fine. Allocating six seats is what penalized all the long time, loyal season ticket holders. Almost the whole bottom level of CA was gone by the end of yesterday. Garden moved us out of seats we've had for many years. The first round of selection should have been based on the number of present seats you had and once everyone selected, go back for a second round in the same order as round one and allow for additional seats if available. Not nearly enough consideration for the long time season ticket holders.
 
It is unfortunate people are having to move out of seats they’ve had for a long time. I haven’t chosen yet so I guess I might have to as well, though it doesn’t really bother me.

I guess they could’ve gone directly to current ticket holders and told them “give us $x,xxx and you can keep your current seats”, but I’m not sure if that would’ve been received any better. I probably would’ve given them some money within reason if that were the case. The approach they chose really doesn’t seem calculated to maximize donations or to minimize ticket holder frustration.
 
jimredd517 said:
Absolutely agree. The point system and increase in prices are fine. Allocating six seats is what penalized all the long time, loyal season ticket holders. Almost the whole bottom level of CA was gone by the end of yesterday. Garden moved us out of seats we've had for many years. The first round of selection should have been based on the number of present seats you had and once everyone selected, go back for a second round in the same order as round one and allow for additional seats if available. Not nearly enough consideration for the long time season ticket holders.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. In my case I’ve been thinking about adding an extra seat for a couple years (family is bigger) but hadn’t because I liked my current spot. Now I’m going to take the plunge, so sju just sold one extra season ticket they wouldn’t have otherwise.
 
Hardy said:
It is unfortunate people are having to move out of seats they’ve had for a long time. I haven’t chosen yet so I guess I might have to as well, though it doesn’t really bother me.

I guess they could’ve gone directly to current ticket holders and told them “give us $x,xxx and you can keep your current seats”, but I’m not sure if that would’ve been received any better. I probably would’ve given them some money within reason if that were the case. The approach they chose really doesn’t seem calculated to maximize donations or to minimize ticket holder frustration.
Click to expand...
It was impossible for people sitting lower level, opposite the benches at CA, to keep their exact same seats. It's a totally new seating format, with less seats, so it would be impossible to accommodate everyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top