Ticket Prices for The Game
Ticket Prices for The Game are currently available for approximately $65 for corner seats and $95 for sideline seats. On Stubhub, ticket volume stands at 5,800 tickets with a majority of those priced towards the lower end.
It appears that resale prices are trending towards approximately 25% of the resale prices that were commanded at the start of the season.
Effectively, there is no price premium anymore and season ticket holders appear to be selling at break-even prices (i.e., season tickets are $65 per seat) without recouping their PSD contributions.
That being said:
If your excuse not to attend The Game was because of finances, then I call BS. This is one of the most affordable (inflation-adjusted) opportunities to attend The Game in the Big House! Let's at least show up and support The Team, The Team, The Team!!!
November 26th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^
Plus an extremely exorbitant (hey, they gotta make money) StubHub Fee and 4.95 download fee.
It appears that I may have overpaid, but honestly I dont give a flying $uck - it'll be well worth it when we wipe the field with Urban Meyer and the Buckeyes.
All you chicken little, bandwagon fans can stay home. I'm not letting this stadium be full of scarlet and grey, no matter how dissatisfied I am with the way the season has gone.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:18 PM ^
Man where did you get your stuff from? I need to meet your guy.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^
We can win if we score. Ohio D gives up points... we just have to pray that Borges calls in sick so we can let Fred Jackson call the plays. 3 RB Triple Option!!! Lol
November 26th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
The biggest 'if' in the world
November 26th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
$90/each + StubHub fees.
Section 21, row 40.
Cheer hard. Yell loud. Go Blue!
...I bought my MBB tickets this morning. So I'll be there as well.
STILL LOOKING FOR HOCKEY TICKETS!!! If anyone is selling (or giving, lol), please let me know!!!
November 26th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 12:58 PM ^
you sir are a patriot and true american.
or at least a fine football fan. have fun!
November 26th, 2013 at 1:17 PM ^
Sad bc no matter how good or bad the Bucks are they would never and have never let us invade their stadium in that capacity.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:36 PM ^
If Ohio was going through the kind of extended doldrums that we've been experiencing the past 6-7 years, they'd be just as apathetic as we've become this season.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:31 PM ^
Any chance you can guarantee a victory Saturday like it's a Demar Dorsey commitment?
November 26th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
Next year will be CARNAGE. Especially student tickets. Vast majority of students I know will not pay $295 again for seasons. Most won't even pay $200.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:31 PM ^
I plan on going to every game next year and there's no chance in hell I'm buying the student tickets. I figure I should be able to grab App State and Miami (OH) tix for $20, absolute max. Utah, Minnesota, Indiana, and Maryland, maybe $30 each if I'm too lazy to negotiate properly. I'll probably have to shell out at least $50 for Penn State. Darn. All in all, I expect to pay less than $200 for tickets next year. I only wish I had done the same this year.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:36 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
With 5,800 tickets on the market, it's going to be hard to move the needle by picking the price up on a few tickets. You need some sort of collective action and that's going to be difficult to organize with only a few days left.
This reaffirms the need for a better Michigan fan to Michigan fan marketplace, where we can unload the tickets to other Michigan fans (for a few bucks less) than to the overall market (which would likely be OSU fans at this point).
November 26th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^
The genius of the marketplace.
Yes, this demonstrates to all season ticket holders that our PSD payments are mostly a waste of money. No, wait. We get the great pleasure of knowing that we helped support women's lacrosse, among many other worthy endeavors. Thanks!
November 26th, 2013 at 12:21 PM ^
I mean you may not like it but yeah thats the point, if you don't like it, dont buy season tickets and stop saying you support michigan because clearly based on this post the only parts of michigan you care about are the big sports. If supporting the existence of another michigan team isn't worth it to you you aren't a michigan fan, you are a football fan who picked michigan for whatever reason.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^
I think he was just joking....
November 26th, 2013 at 12:30 PM ^
I took it as he was upset that he was saying paying slightly inflated prices wasn't worth it because it wasn't going back to the football team and he'd rather pay lower prices and cut lacrosse funding, sorry if i misinterperted.
And I agree ticket prices are too high, but I'm also comfortable of allowing ads in the stadium as a revenue stream rather than having to keep increasing ticket prices so i'm in the minority on that one.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
I'm as serious as a Mark Dantonio heart attack.
Bo Schembechler and Don Canham knew what a bad deal Title IX would be. Bo testified against it in Congress. Canham lobbied President Ford to not sign the bill.
November 26th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
Proof that not everybody is 100% correct about everything, and even the father of Michigan football can be in the wrong
November 26th, 2013 at 1:00 PM ^
Bo didn't like it because it took money away from the football team. He couldn't give two shits about the positive value it could have for women both in college and their lives leading up to and past college because he wanted as much money as possible going to football. It happens, doesn't make it right and I still stand by my point that this shows you are a football fan who chose michigan, not a michigan fan.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:19 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 1:33 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 2:16 PM ^
They assuredly don't think that they are dumb sports. More power to them. Have fun; play lacrosse, and field hockey and gymnastics.
I don't want to go off too much on non-revenue sports. Some of the very best stories in our Athletic Department are the swimmers and wrestlers and gymnasts. But there were great stories like that before the federal government told collegiate athletic departments how to spend money.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
So then why don't we tell every non-revenue sport that they can go support little Johnny and Billy and Bobby?
Why are singling out the female sports?
(besides the obvious answer of course)
November 26th, 2013 at 3:00 PM ^
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TITLE IX DOES!
I completely trust Michigan Athletics administrators to do what is right, between revenue and non-revenue sports. At least I used to. Personally, I'd like it all to be more like non-revenue sports, with a lot less emphasis on raising revenue and spending money and emulating pro sports franchises.
Someone else a while back wanted to berate me with the point that nowadays, saying that Title IX is not even needed, to mandate a level of spending on women's intercollegiate athletics at Michigan. That the U-M Regents, and a thoroughly pc administration under their superintending control, would see to it on their own. That might be true; I don't know. But it wouldn't be the first time that the Regents as, uh, currently constituted, made things much more expensive at the University of Michigan.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:09 PM ^
NO IT DOEN"T (see I can use all caps too).
Title 9 says you have to have the same number of male and femal scholarships, if you want that number to be zero fine, if you want that number to be 85 fine the whole point is that you can't have 200 male scholarships than female.
And before title 9 schools including michigan were left to their own devices about what to fund, and guess what, they all chose to lose money on male sports (baseball has never been revenue generating, neither has swimming) and not to do the same for femal sports. athletic departments had their chance and they fucked up, and honestly if given the chance would probably do it again, most schools (maybe not michigan but title 9 isn't targeted at us) would cut softball before baseball even if neither had won anything ever.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:37 PM ^
What makes you think that athletic departments "fucked up" pre-Title IX? Why would anyone think that the interest -- both for participants and spectators -- is the same for male and female athletics? I don't. I'd much rather watch the Detroit PSL Junior Varsity on television, than NCAA women's basketball. There are only a few women's athletic events that interest me. This is not mysogyny; I actually like women's golf, for instance. But don't let me be the final arbiter; I am just one guy. Let's let the market decide. The Big Ten has its own television network. They can decide if they want to replay the Michigan-Ohio State football games from 1976, 1995 or 2006; or if they want to play the latest Michigan-Ohio State women's lacrosse game, live. I think I know how the programmers might vote on that one.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
November 27th, 2013 at 9:50 AM ^
ak47 pretty much already summed it up, but I'll add on
The 50-60 years pre Title IX just about proved that we can't "trust Michigan administators to do what is right" to ensure equal participation for both male and female sports.
And yes, you are singling out female sports. Nobody in Michigan is watching the UM Baseball team, why don't we cut their funding? That would probably drive UM football ticket prices down
November 26th, 2013 at 4:30 PM ^
It's not so much as supporting them as not belittling others. God you are truly the most insufferable poster on this site.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:33 PM ^
I can only hope and pray you're not in a high enough position where Dave Brandon is forced to listen to you
November 26th, 2013 at 1:44 PM ^
Of course there are a lot of issues that cause ticket prices to go higher, I'm just saying title 9 isn't one of those issues, if my ticket was going from 40 to 50 soley because of title 9 id be ok with it, the problem is that its starting way higher than it should.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:12 PM ^
Why stop there? Why aren't we funding organized sports for all of Michigan's students if the positive benefits of athletics are such a worthy endeavor to fund?
I'll never understand how your ability to hold a ball in a stick and run around somehow entitles you to money for academics. You've talked about "giving people a chance to attend who normally wouldn't have it," but I still don't see what lacrosse (or whatever sport) has anything to do with that. Football surplus would be better thrown into needs-based financial aid if you want to make a fair impact.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:04 PM ^
It probably wouldn't have a greater impact if you put it in needs based financial aide. And how the hell is running around with a football qualify you any more for academic aide then running around with a ball in a stick, you just like it more. I don't really give a fuck if a school chooses to only fund sports which make money, I give a fuck, and the federal government gives a fuck because schools were choosing to lose money on sports being played by males and saying it wasn't worth their time for sports being played by females. The entire point of title 9 is to remove gender bias in athletic departments. Beyond that what a school wants to give kids money to do is up to them as long as its not gender limited.
I brought up the positive impacts that funding sports can have because thats the entirety of the argument behind college athletics period. If you want to disregard that fine, then go the way of the ivy schools and stop giving out athletic scholarships. Should the kids on the football team practice squad really be recieving the same amount of money as lets say a denard? If you are only going by how much they bring back to the school say goodbye to 99% of athletic scholarships.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^
Wouldn't have a greater impact? Kids who play lacrosse and hockey generally come from pretty stable families. I'd really like to hear how many athletes actually have dramatically less means than any other potential enrollee. Take the partials from lacrosse/whatever and get some kids who actually couldn't get in a chance that make it.
How does running around with a football qualify you for academic aid to go to the school? Because people pay to come see you run around with the football. That's where the money comes from in the first place. My point isn't about Title IX, it's about non-revenue sports in general. I could not care less if you want to go to school to play water polo or something else, go for it, but I don't see why the school should be paying you to do so. So yeah, your last sentence is fine with me.
November 26th, 2013 at 11:38 PM ^
November 26th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
I have a feeling Section 1 is an elderly gentleman.
Section 1 even knows the play-by-play legislative dialogue behind the Ten Commandments. Moses said what?!?
November 26th, 2013 at 12:37 PM ^
I say screw all of you fair weather FOOTBALL fans. I bleed Maize and Blue. I gave 5 years of my life to this University and Athletic Department. Five of the best years of my life. Met a girl who was a part of one of these so called "worthy endeavors" and now she is my wife. Proud to wear Maize and Blue and always will be. The ONLY thing I am not proud of are some of our idiot "fans".
GO BLUE!!!
November 26th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^
but from your post it sounds like UM and the athletic dept gave you back a lot too. congratulations and go blue!
November 26th, 2013 at 12:38 PM ^
Can you actually get a full ride for this? The same that the football players get? Talk about discrimination against males vs value created...
November 26th, 2013 at 12:55 PM ^
Nope all the girls on the lacrosse team are on partial scholarships. And lol at giving a shit about value created. The reason title 9 was created is because schools were happy to sponsor boys sports that lost money but said it wasn't cost effective for girls. If you cut every sport at michigan that didn't bring in enough money to fund itself you would only have football, basketball (though without tv money thats tied in with football it probably gets cut by the end of the amaker years) and maybe hockey. Say goodbye to swimming, wrestling, softball, soccer, any other sport, and at a lot of schools one of football or basketball could be cut too. The rule should be that schools can either fund mens and womens scholarships equally for sports or can only have sports that pay for themselves. Title 9 exists so that schools cant pour money into baseball programs that amount to nothing but cut softball, and thats what the athletic landscape was before title 9.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:11 PM ^
Good stuff. I really think football needs to be taken out of the equation. IMO there are too many sponsored sports as is. If there is demand then athletes/donors will pay for the sport to exist. Cal did it with their golf team last year.
Or, you could have one team per sport that is open to both sexes, and the best players earn scholarships. But some people would not want to do that because men are better athletes, which really makes the whole idea of equal numbers illogical anyways.
November 26th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^
It's not illogical because the premise of amateaur sports and especially college sports is that the athlete is recieving not money value in return. In college thats a chance at an education for a lot of people who may not normally be able to access it or afford it. At lower levels like high school it comes in pride and the lessons you learned. You can't measure the impact the title 9 has had if you don't look at how many high school girls teams were started after it was implemented. If you want to just call a spade a spade and pay athletes and rid ourselves of the idea that this exists for anything other than money than fine do that, but you better cut every sport that doesn't make money, even if that includes basketball or football and might as well stop asking the players to go to class.
And the Cal system worked because there were successful alumni of the golf program to pay for it, that wouldn't have been able to work for womens sports prior to title 9 because there were no alums of any sports teams to give back, and thats not really a suistanable model anyway.
November 26th, 2013 at 2:05 PM ^
Just have one team per sport, open to both sexes. Best "student athletes" make the team. Can't get anymore merit based than that.
November 26th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
I mean yeah sure if you want to choose to ignore biology and just let everyone play together that would be technically equal. Though if we are both honest with ourselves a woman would not only have to be at least as good as her counter parts on the team but probably better than them by a lot to ever have a chance of breaking the gender stereotypes of people and getting on the team. (obviously a stupid movie but she's the man had this basic premise, girl was good enough to make team but guys laughed her off the field because she was a girl, once again stupid movie but probably an accurate reaction to what would happen to most women going out for the teams.)
November 26th, 2013 at 12:08 PM ^