What in tarnation? Sorostitute? women in the endzones? wow.
On behalf of the "drunk sorority girl"
2005 graduate here - so I think that qualifies me as not some young punk! However, how can we sit here and talk about student entiltelment. Any student who wants to attend the game should be able to do so - and in my opinion it should be free! You can say what you want about the market, yada, yada - but since when does Michigan or the NCAA give a flying F about the market?
If we did student-athletes would get paid and the University would stop taking so much money from Michigan taxpayers. I'm fine with the system the way it is and people not showing up to games definitely sucks - but we all talk about student entitlement - and yes I do think that they are and should be entitled!
It's not that I hate the policy, its that I hate the policy changing right now when I was going to get good seats rather than the last three years where I had bad seats.
To be fair, we always had a large seating group and I think that contributed to our consistently bad seats.
They should have announced but delayed the policy for two years so that current upperclassmen were not impacted. If you are an incoming freshman and it's the policy when you come in, you don't really care.
It would be reasonable to ask them to delay this for two years.
Assuming your geography based argument is correct, that still doesn't excuse students for showing up at halftime. They go to the school, they bought tickets, they should show up to support the team. If they're not interested they shouldn't by season tickets. This argument does nothing but support the reasoning for GA tickets. The kids that do care should be rewarded.
Cigol - I respect that you are trying to defend your brethren here, but you honestly aren't doing a very good job of it. Your arguments make it even stronger that this should be a meritocracy where the most passionate fans have the opportunity to get the best seats.
All you've really done is try to convince us why this policy had to be instituted in the first place (the students kind of suck).
I like the new rule. I got tired of having to walk in at Section 29, then move over to 26. Im just making the point as to why students dont care as much any more. "Not caring as much" is still nowhere near the justification to take tickets away from students so some Class of 78ers can sit on their seat cushions with wine teeth.
Also, by taking away student seats, youll go to a lottery system like Wisconsin, where the "drunk sorority girls" still get tickets and boot out some of the better student fans.
You get called out and then take a pot shot at alums.
Kids these days with their no respect, god damn Bieber music and autotuning...
"Not caring as much" isn't enough reason to take away tickets. "Not caring enough to F*CKING SHOW UP" is a damn good reason to take tickets away.
Greetings from Class of 81 and my wine-stained teeth.....
I'm struggling with your premis that football has been bad lately so we current students are less compelled to go to games. And that people from the Mesozoic era like me went to games cause we had Bo posters growing up.
Did you guys happen to notice that we HAVENT LOST A GAME AT HOME IN TWO FREAKING YEARS????? I know in my old age my memory is somewhat flawed but I sure dont remember that happened during my stay in Ann Arbor.
And we went to all the games and we got there on time.
The question I need answered is: What the f-ck else is there to do that could be anywhere near as important as attending a football game? Everyone knows that college is a lot of work. But Michigan games are the highlight of the week during football season. I could understand if we were talking about a different school with a lesser football atmosphere. But there is nothing like a Michigan game on a Saturday afternoon. Hell, I have friends who always talk about wanting to attend a game there - non-Michigan fans want to attend just to see the spectacle! And kids less than a mile away can't pull themselves away from whatever they are doing to get to a game on time?
Trust me on this one: You kids that are against this new plan (other than the seniors who are potentially losing great seats and actually arrive to games on time) will be kicking yourself in the nuts in 10 years when you realize how precious those Football Saturday experiences are to you.
We haven't played a great team at home in 2 years either. It's a cool streak, but I don't think we should be beating our chest about marquee victories over an ND team coming off of a loss to USF, an 6-6 MSU team who may or may not have fielded an offense, a 6-6 OSU team, and a fringe top 25 Northwestern. Those were all incredible games to witness as a Michigan fan, but its not exactly some unprecedent streak of Michigan home dominance.
to never experience a home loss to a 6-6 team. No one else on this board has had to suffer such a disappointment, why should you?
... at home for two years in a row. There is no excuse for half empty sections.
So basically, you're saying that the current students are fair-weather fans who don't care about their football team since they're attending Michigan because of its relative prestige compared to the mediocre schools that they would have otherwise attended.
You're also implying that attending a state university is somehow negative and you seem to believe that out-of-staters come from better states (or countries) than the state of Michigan (or the USA!).
The only thing I can say is... too bad that you and your ilk didn't get into your first choice college so that you can root for your "exciting" football teams wherever that may be....
Any bets this is a classic ad hominem fallacy?
1. How can you say that the 2011 season was "relatively dark for Michigan football." We had an awesome season, beat OSU to break a far-too-enduring streak of losses, and won a BCS game in exciting fashion.
2. I don't get the whole "geographic diversity" think, at least with respect to students from the US. I came to Michigan from NY knowing little about their football tradition. Coming to Michigan, I was basketball and hockey obsessed (NBA and NHL, respectively, not college), but I had little interest in football. It wasn't all that popular in NY in the mid-1990s. By the second game of the season, I was hooked and never missed (or came late to) a single home game for the next 4 years. The fact that Michigan has kids that did not grow up idolozing Bo, Woodson, Desmond and Tom Brady shouldn't make a difference past week 1.
3. Please don't ever lump Lloyd's tenure (during which we never had a losing season or missed a bowl) with RR's. Thanks. You may not remember this but late in Lloyd's tenure (the season before his last), we went into the Game undefeated and were a Shawn Crable late hit penalty away from playing in the National Championship Game.
The reference to Lloyd's late years is based, largely, on the The Horror. You can't deny it. There was slippage in the last few Carr years, notwithstanding the fact that Henne, Long, and Manningham hung on to keep up appearances.
If it makes you feel better, I laugh at the umbrage toward current students. I happened to be one of the students, back in the day, who sometimes slept until 1 or 2 pm because I was socializing or playing music or reading or watching movies or running around the arb until 4 in the morning. Regardless, it doesn't seem like too much for current students to have less than 20% of the stadium's capacity, including some of the worst seats, and to have a some relatively small percent of those seats empty in the lesser important games of the season. And the RR years cannot have helped.
Now, that does not mean the AD is wrong for going to GA and rewarding kids who come early or doing some other rewards program. But all the anger toward current students for not filling up their section to absolute capacity right at tipoff is goofy.
Its fine to not have football games as one of your priorities as a student. I don't think anyone criticizes that at all. What many of us have a problem with is those students that don't have football as a priority but buy tickets anyway and fail to use them or show up late. To be honest, its a slap in the face to a lot of us zealots who would die for those seats as such a low cost. If some students don't want to show up early or on time, that's totally cool. But don't expect to be treated as equals with students that live and breathe Michigan football. I think thats what many of us are saying.
I agree completely that students who show up late -- especially after the game starts -- shouldn't automatically get better seats than students who were there early. But this "slap in the face" thing, I mean, for some students Michigan football is a fun part of going to the school but they don't live and breathe it. I don't remember for sure, but I don't think students can even buy single game student section tickets. Some students want to go sometimes but not others, or for a half but not the whole game. It's frustrating for others that they have such good tickets and don't make use of them like devoted fans, but being jealous doesn't make anger a sensible or productive response. Part of being a student at UM is getting perks re: UM athletic games. The fact that worst seats in the student section are not always full is not intended as an insult to alumni (and others) who wish they could have those seats, it's just college kids making decisions. A few empty rows in one corner of the endzone isn't a crazy price to pay for being a college team.
but the main anger towards these people is that they show up late and expect you to move out of their seats. If you wanna show up late and go to row 90, that's fine I guess. Still makes the student section look bad. But don't show up in the 2nd quarter and act shocked and appalled that someone sat in your empty row 15 seat. Go to row 90
Too bad people can't bring in coolers with their own drinks anymore... that way the sorority girls could get drunk AT the game and be there on time.
We had this back in my freshman year of 1986, but they dropped it the next year. Of course, for the following three years we still managed to get stuff in and get to the game on time... but perhaps it's somehow totally different now.
Cigol makes some excellent points about how great the new policy is, and how only over-entitled non-fan students could whine if enough seats were moved from the student section to non-student seating that we reduced the absences at kickoff to 3,000 or so.
Real fans in the student body will get better seats, more real fans among the non-students will get seats period, a the only people who lose anything are (1) people who don't identify themselves as Michigan football fans and (2) people who identify themselves as Michigan football fans but won't deign to attend games (except as an afterthought) until the team proves it is worthy of their support (through multiple mega-winning seasons).
Conclusion: This is a great policy, and will be better when we get rid of some of the student seating (especially the high end zone seating that gets abandoned anyway).
You made great points, but no one will care. you have my sympathy.
As a student, I enjoyed the annual migration from meh seats to fantastic ones by the time I was in graduate school. I went to every game, and went on time (to the big games because they were big games, and to the laughers because I wanted to see it while it was still "a game"). By my last season as a student my friends and I had worked our way to great seats right behind the band.
With that background, I'm sympathetic to the folks grousing about the new GA policy. I'd typically be in my seat about 10 minutes before kickoff, and stayed for the duration unless it was a laugher. But in a very competitive grad school - and I worked my way through school, which made time very tight - I needed Saturday mornings to study.
My concern is that folks will now need to piss away an hour or more just to secure decent seats. Time is a valuable commodity to some segments of the student body, and this policy forces those students to choose between study and crappy seats.
Again, I've no dog in this fight as I'm not likely to be a student again. I also recognize that, unless things have changed very recently, seat assigments were often ignored anyway. But having been the beneficiary of the old policy and having been a good fan, I think reasonable folks can oppose this new policy.
But I think the percentage of people who are worried about the tradeoff of an hour in the stands or an hour STUDYING are pretty damn low.
I hear you regarding studying. But the bigger point is that for a larger percentage time is a valuable commodity. It seems that there's a presumption that a student's time has no value, but that varies from student to student. With a seat assignment, I can choose to visit friends, exercise, tailgate, etc. Another point is that the old system (at least back in the day) resulted in a group migration to better seats, with camaraderie developing with your fellow once-a-year nomads.
Here's a modest proposal: How about implementing two tiers of student tickets. If a student makes it to (e.g.,) 80% of the games on time (based on ticket scanning), they qualify for the lower section of the student section. If a student doesn't meet the threshold, they get booted to the upper section. And have ushers enforce the two sections. The size of the sections could be dictated by prior year's performance. All freshman go to the upper section to prove their commitment.
Seems like that would resolve some of the problem.
A: Don't give me the time argument. Everyone is busy. However, everyone also has the ability to set aside time before football games 7 times per year. Most do it and are getting trashed doing it.
The time argument is totally bogus.
B: I love your idea, but would make it 100%.
If you show up before kickoff 100% of the time, then next year you get into GA in the first X rows. If not, then you get into GA in the upper rows. That row will be determined based on how many people got to games on time last year. Simple, should be able to be implemented with ushers properly located.
On A, uhm, that's just ... like ... your opinion, man. My opinion is that everyone is equally busy, but some are more busy than others. (I.e., there is legitimately busy and there is "busy".) No profit in us arguing back-and-forth on that one it seems.
On B, consider this modification to my initial proposal. Upper tier is GA, lower tier is assigned seats based on full-time semesters at the U. Freshmen still have to show their commitment, so they spend the first season in GA. Sophomores through graduate students get seniority based assigned seating as they do now, but if they slip past X% on-time arrivals (based on ticket scans), they get kicked back up to GA for a season, and the clock starts again. Ticket "seeding" would need to be determined on an annual basis, to simplify it.
And ushers would have to firmly enforce it, especially as between tiers. So the good and timely fans get rewarded with the better seats, and the folks who value other activities over timely arrival get the thinner air.
I find your logic questionable. Michigan has been a broad-ranging national/international school for decades.
As for the "no exciting games theory, what in the tapdancing hell are you talking about? There weren't many exciting games in 2010. Great. But 2011 had the UTL game, damn entertaining wins over Illinois and Nebraska, and a nice little battle with Ohio State. They also won a damn Sugar Bowl. And yet 2012 saw TERRIBLE attendance. Just brutal.
But regardless of the reason, what is the problem here? If a quarter of the students aren't gonna show, why are we going to continue to reserve a seat for each and every student? It makes no sense.
I agree with all of that, but keep in mind we had a pretty bad home schedule this year, especially to the average fan. We only had one big time game, MSU.
Northwestern and Air Force were great games, but to the average fan, a non-MGoBlog reading, football obssessed, Michigan die hard, Northwestern and Air Force had no big name appeal.
I'm only saying this because for a lot of these kids, if you tell them that we're playing Northwestern the next day, they'll have no problem missing the beginning of the game because they think it's going to be a boring game and if they miss the beginning to drink they won't miss much.
If you give us this year's home schedule, however, with ND, OSU, and Nebraska, I doubt we see nearly the attendance issue. I'm still for the change, but I do think last year was an anomally with the awful home schedule.
3400 people missed Michigan State. For a 3:30 kickoff.
When more than 15% of the students just flat no-show for a late afternoon game against your second-biggest football rival, the problem isn't with the schedule.
the entitlement displayed by the original poster is nauseating.
We should be grateful you bother to show up at all? no. but maybe you'll understand how poor your logic is when you grow up a bit. Sorry kids - get over yourselves. And be thankful you get to see the games you attend for a fraction of the cash the average season ticketholder shells out.
All the kids who go to UM Dearborn and Flint end up getting screwed. Not that any of you or myself care that much. Just something to bring up. If tickets go to a lottery system AA students will get most if not all of those tickets. I am not sure how the UM Flint/Dearborn lottery system now works but they ONLY have a lottery where every student in AA is promised tickets if they want them
An excuse that needs to die is the one involving the huge number of students who grew up out of state and didn't know anything about Michigan's history or tradition until they arrived on campus as freshmen. That was the same thing for students a decade, two decades, three decades ago yet they always got to the game on time.
If you went to the trouble of spending money on season tickets, why the crap would you waste them by not showing up until the halfway into the second quarter? Why bother going at all then? If you want to drink all day, drink all day and let someone who actually wants to be there for a whole game buy the tickets.
I never, never, NEVER thought we would ever reach the point where half the students would put conditions on them coming to games or even making an effort to get there on time. Noon starts? Sorry. A non-rival opponent? Sorry. RichRod is gone but his seasons sucked three years ago....sorry. What the hell is this? I feel like I'm living in backwards world where up is down, hot is cold and Buckeye fans are classy.
An empty student section for pregame is pathetic. Devin Gardner having to put out a video pleading to students to get to the game on time last year is pathetic, especially since it fell on deaf ears. And your whole post, I'm sorry to say, is pathetic.
Students today act like U-M was a community college before they got there. There were no hard classes or need to study for them, no broad international student body, and no one ever found time to stay up late and drink so they could be up bright and early for kickoff. Because the school has CHANGED, man... When the only thing that's changed is the inability of recent students to manage their time and their ability to make excuses. I think a lot of the "back in my day" things is selective memory, and yes, many a Michigan student of every generation is naturally self-important. Goes with our arrogant asses reputation, and that the world revolves them. That hasn't changed either. But something that noticably and mesurably HAS changed is the amount of students showing up for the games. The section shows that. Somewhere we got to the point where we guaranteed all students tickets. And that wasn't always true either.
And OP, upvoting your own post is lame.
...used to create a happy middle ground:
1- Student tickets should be print at "home" only - Where your seat is assigned the Monday before the game
2- Seat assignments are based on "Good vs Bad vs (no show)" entrance scans - Over your entire student "career"
a- Seniors with exemplary attendance get the best seats
b- Upperclassman who miss or are late here&there pay a lil penitence - But don't get totally screwed
c- Freshman are once again low on the todem pole but get to earn their stripes
d- "Habitual Offenders" are justifiably sent to top and toward the end zone - Or simply denied a seat that week and their ticket is reissued
3- Students without season tickets ..or.. Fans on the Season Ticket interest list get a shot at attending, in place of the "habitual offender" students that have game tickets denied any given week - A non-student fan is significantly better than a non-attending student
4- Students can create "groups/blocks" of tickets that would be assigned together - And scored as a collective for location priority
5- Students that know ahead of time that they will not be able to attend can avoid a "no-show" demerit by confirming online in advance and their ticket can be reissued to either: Students without season tickets ..or.. Fans on the Season Ticket interest list
I may have missed a scenario to consider, but I believe you get my point
I've seen this idea (or variants) thrown around a few times and I really like it. I suppose the only sticking point would be how to track each student's data. Perhaps they'd have to start scanning MCards too? Then somebody would need to build the database and find a way to link the MCard input to the ticket scanners. Very possible, just may take a lot more work than it appears on the surface.
Student tickets are already assigned to each student, why would you need to link it to an MCard?
There was a set amount of tickets, and if more applied than they had they just adjusted next year. There were even those couple of years where students got half season packages, and some of them were shuffled off to the south endzone when demand started growing.
The only reason to move to general admission is to oversell the section. If you're not overselling, the general admission is actually counter-productive.
There are 2 solutions to the 'ring of apathy" at the top of the student section:
(1) Move to general admission and oversell the section.
(2) Keep assigned seats and strictly enforce the seat assignments.
Option (1) eliminates empty seats by selling them to non-students. Option (2) does not eliminate empty seats, but distributes them more evenly across the section so you don't have blocks of 20 empty rows.
Since they are going to GA, they must be shrinking the section.
life is all about choices. yes, football saturdays are about more than just the game, it's the whole game-day experience. so, the students now have to make choices about which elements of that experience are more important to them. Those that prioritize a couple more games of beer pong over close seats have made their decision, and others can choose differently. And, when did students become so helpless that they can't figure out how to enjoy themselves AND get good seats?
get in line with friends, bring a flask, a snack, and anything else that adds to your gameday experience, and wait for the gates to open, then get your seat as close as you want/can.
it's not hard.
those arguing about sacrificing an hour of study time to get better seats - again, that's your choice. if you care that much about sitting 20-30 rows closer, that's your choice. if you're more invested in your studies, that's also your choice.
it's almost like this is the first time some of these kids have been told they can't have everything they want, their way, all the time. sad, really.
Don't agree with you often, DB, but in this case (Class of '87 here), fully agree with the "what constitutes good today" argument. Like you summarized, Fr was end zone, and the holy land was Senior or Grad seats in Section 26 (or so). Rows 25-50.
Maybe the YouTube see-me-on-the-internets generation insists Row A is the place to be...who knows?
To other comments above, the early arrivers will pack in the lower section/lower rows, and peter out around the corner, but arrive an hour before the game? You'll have your choice of Row 25 in any section, for however many friends you'll want to bring with you.
But I don't think for a moment that ALL the students are mashed into rows A through 60, leaving 30 rows empty above. Those 3500-5500 no shows make a visual impact, regardless.
And if the no-show splits go among each of the undergrad classes, Freshmen had no excuse to not show or be on time, as they had no "bummer seasons" to endure. Sophs had just enjoyed a banner 2011 season, so what was the excuse? Lousy sked? Juniors got to see some wins with RR, and enjoy a rebirth of M Football in 2011...why miss games or significant portions of them? Lame excuses abound. And thus, they reap what they sow.
My Take on the situation;
Keep in mind that it's not just the "drunk sorority" student who doesn't like this change. A vast majority of students who have been answering polls on Facebook have said they hate it, Brian acknowleged as much in his front page post.
So while everyone here likes to bash the kids who are drinking, the so called "drunk sorority girl", for hating this policy, every student does basically.
Whether kids are pregaming or just sitting in their dorm room, most students would rather have a guaranteed seat at a certain spot that they can get whether they leave at 11:15 or 11:45. Now they have no idea where they'll sit before hand, and most people would rather do whatever they want than have to stand in line for 30-45 minutes before they normally would and still not be guaranteed a good seat.
That being said, as a current student and someone in Greek Life, I'm in favor of the change. I'm willing to leave 30 minutes ealier to get a better seat, I'll just start pregamming 30 minutes earlier. I think if you're willing to wait in line for an extra 30 minutes, you should get a better seat. I'm also fine with reducing the size of the student section. But just keep in mind, this isn't just Greek life who doesn't like this change, most students don't.
To some it's overwhelmingly popular-
No shit it's depending on what group you poll. That's why I said students. The group I am talking about being polled in students. My point was specifically about students. The polls on Facebook I've seen are all student responses. The poll you posted is open to the public, majority non students, so of course the results are different.