Rate your season ticket buying experience

rcatalano said:
I would give it a 10. I ended up 5 rows from where I wanted to be and the communication from the ticket office was excellent!
Click to expand...
See mostly these are good stories. Communication as far as points isn’t ticket office fault . It was definitely clunky but my quintile improved but. Didn’t matter we didn’t want better seats anyway we just want 114. Somehow 1 of our rows was stolen that’s annoying but we still got the last 2 back rows
 
rcatalano said:
I would give it a 10. I ended up 5 rows from where I wanted to be and the communication from the ticket office was excellent!
Click to expand...
It was.not only ticket office and folks from Learfield, but also Nick.V's development staff fielding questions and providing support as well. Agree - great job.

Have a friend who chose yesterday. Low points but not an sju grad but fantastic fan. His seats in 108 on the aisle were gone so he opted for 104 in a very low row. They were a lot cheaper so he bought 3 seats instead of two.

I'm waiting to hear the final nimber of season tix sold. Going to bet a really nice bump.
 
Hardy said:
5/10. My seats didn’t really move meaningfully. I also didn’t donate anything extra, bc it was unclear what that would get me. I also had to read a bunch of emails (and emails correcting those emails) for a process that didn’t move my seat or gain the school any money. The software worked, but it was just a waste of my time.
Click to expand...
One correction to your post:

Just this week I had lunch with a very close friend who is one of our most successful and generous alums in all ways. We spoke about charitable donations, and they were adamant that you don't donate to get something in return, you donate to support the mission.

Of course, as others have noted here accurately, by tying priority seat selection to donations, St John’s (and many other schools) adulterated charitable giving by this process.

It's a huge topic that strikes at the heart of building a donor base, but the challenge is to increase the number of alums who really believe in the mission of the school and elect to support it as part of their charitable giving. Dangling better seats or loss of prime seat locations is just not a healthy way to grow a donor base.
 
Beasts of the East said:
One correction to your post:

Just this week I had lunch with a very close friend who is one of our most successful and generous alums in all ways. We spoke about charitable donations, and they were adamant that you don't donate to get something in return, you donate to support the mission.

Of course, as others have noted here accurately, by tying priority seat selection to donations, St John’s (and many other schools) adulterated charitable giving by this process.

It's a huge topic that strikes at the heart of building a donor base, but the challenge is to increase the number of alums who really believe in the mission of the school and elect to support it as part of their charitable giving. Dangling better seats or loss of prime seat locations is just not a healthy way to grow a donor base.
Click to expand...
Idk, this was a pretty explicit quid pro quo, they just did a bad job of explaining what the we’d get
 
Hardy said:
Idk, this was a pretty explicit quid pro quo, they just did a bad job of explaining what the we’d get
Click to expand...
Well all they promised was moving up in the line in terms of priority order. 50% of STHs had close to zero points after mandstory donstion and 100 points per year. So many moved from tail end of pack to middle. However that was not good enough for those who had great seats that were gone by the time the top 15-20% selected.
 
Beasts of the East said:
Well all they promised was moving up in the line in terms of priority order. 50% of STHs had close to zero points after mandstory donstion and 100 points per year. So many moved from tail end of pack to middle. However that was not good enough for those who had great seats that were gone by the time the top 15-20% selected.
Click to expand...
I reviewed the calculation of my point total with SJU, and mine was calculated as follows:

- 4 points for every dollar donated
- 1,000 points for every year as a STH for the account

Other than mandatory donations I would say I fall into a category who donated fairly little. Being upfront. My account was for 12 years as before that my tickets were under someone else's account (which eliminated a LOT of years.) With 12 years and not being any kind of a real financial supporter of the school, I landed at between the top 35% and 40%.

My point being anyone who had tickets even from Mullin on probably made the top 50% without really donating. My other point would be that for anyone attempting to move into the top 15% from where I was or below should have realized it was going to take a VERY large financial commitment. The people in that area based on the calculations above were already doing that previously, logically to move up on them you had to do much more than them. That isn't many people. It would have been easier to move from the bottom to say 60%, but the seat incentive for that was zilch, I know someone who just picked this Wednesday, almost a full week after me and they now sit next to me in both arenas as those seats were still available. And I haven't published my location - hold all jokes of that being a reason they hadn't been taken.

Moving up won't be zero folks - the guy who sat next to me at MSG bought his seats two years ago and I know him, decent guy who clearly has what I will call FU money. Good chance he jumped on this to make a forward move and hats off to him. Overall, though, there just couldn't be a tremendous amount of churn and we can see in this thread most people haven't moved much if at all.

I have heard the school made a lot so good for them, and the theory is us too with the money that will support the program. Whether they bother again next year when the people who just did this have found it isn't much of anything will be determined. In the future I'm in the camp that there might just be more money to be made with straight price increases which is easier to do and will accomplish the same goal of making sure those who pony up the most have the best seats.

Don't know only spit balling and there is a season, thankfully, to be played in between.
 
I logged in at the exact time I was instructed to; I attempted to purchase my seats, and was unable to complete the order.

I called the ticket office. I spoke with Sean/Shawn, nice kid, very professional. He heard me out (lol), and proceeded to complete my order over the phone.

PIBs rankings:

- Sean and the good folks on the phone deserve a 10/10.

- The collective process pales in comparison to the customer service I experienced from the good folks at the tix office. Let's just say it's less than a 10/10.

Bottom line: Will I renew my tickets next season? Absolutely.
 
Beasts of the East said:
Well all they promised was moving up in the line in terms of priority order. 50% of STHs had close to zero points after mandstory donstion and 100 points per year. So many moved from tail end of pack to middle. However that was not good enough for those who had great seats that were gone by the time the top 15-20% selected.
Click to expand...
I was in the top 15-20%, possibly a few percentage points higher and my MSG seats were long gone by the time I picked on Monday 8/4. To me that proved new ticketholders, that donated a lot, were given some priority which the AD said was not going to happen.
 
RM86 said:
I was in the top 15-20%, possibly a few percentage points higher and my MSG seats were long gone by the time I picked on Monday 8/4. To me that proved new ticketholders, that donated a lot, were given some priority which the AD said was not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Honestly, i would think it was a combination of increasing # of tix and sponsors.
 
91law said:
We were in the top 6-7% and tickets long gone at both MSG and CA. My gut certain tickets were never going to be available as they were set aside prior to the official re-seating process.
Click to expand...
I had a different experience. Top 10% and although my CA seats were gone, there were others available nearby. I just moved to the other side and am now in row CC, down from JJ. MSG tickets, same section 108, literally only 1 row back. Aisle seats in both places.
 
RM86 said:
I was in the top 15-20%, possibly a few percentage points higher and my MSG seats were long gone by the time I picked on Monday 8/4. To me that proved new ticketholders, that donated a lot, were given some priority which the AD said was not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Agree this was a major factor in the seat selection process. Great point regarding what the AD said was not going to happen. Going forward, AD credability and trust factor for future initiatives took a hit.
 
I am hearing anecdotally that the people who took the biggest hit location wise were the people in the primo sections at MSG, which would be sections 4-6 and 10-12. That makes sense, given the relatively short supply in those sections, the increase to 6 seats and the fact that corporate sponsors would covet those sections. But that's also not a good group of season ticket holders to piss off, I would think.
 
WestchesterJohnnies said:
I’d like to preface this by saying it is appreciated and not unnoticed that the athletic department lead by Mike Cragg had very good intentions with the seatbacks and tried to do their best with a difficult situation. However, after a few years it is now crystal clear now that the project was a failure. After they were installed my brother and I lasted one game before moving down to the bleachers. It is frankly shocking just how uncomfortable these “seatbacks” are. Unfortunately, we will be back in them now after the reseating. I know firsthand the athletic department is well aware of the fans’ disapproval and frustration with the “seatbacks”. They are looking into removing them and going back to bleachers as soon as possible. I, for one am praying they will be removed in time for the 2026-27 season.
Click to expand...
Why not for the 2025-26 season? They have two months to remove seatbacks. Seems like it could be done or at least prioritized. However, since it doesn't affect the "big donors seats" it is probably "low priority:. :cry:
 
Redenbacher said:
I am hearing anecdotally that the people who took the biggest hit location wise were the people in the primo sections at MSG, which would be sections 4-6 and 10-12. That makes sense, given the relatively short supply in those sections, the increase to 6 seats and the fact that corporate sponsors would covet those sections. But that's also not a good group of season ticket holders to piss off, I would think.
Click to expand...
Good point, The "domino affect" is that the people who lost their primo MSG sections probably impacted people in the best 100's sections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top