Yes the athletes have a name for the rest of the student body. It is not a put down - it's a reference to books that most of the student body hit at a perfect time. It's not a culture problem - it is just fun. The student body knows that the athletes call them muggles - this is not offensive to the student body and it should not be offensive to the public.
Yes the athletes have a name for the rest of the student body. It is not a put down - it's a reference to books that most of the student body hit at a perfect time. It's not a culture problem - it is just fun. The student body knows that the athletes call them muggles - this is not offensive to the student body and it should not be offensive to the public.
Tom Crean personally tried to get my son kicked out of the game last night for yelling "get off the court -you're not the 6th man". How does Crean make this happen? He brings his own cops to the game - the only coach in the conference who does so. Yes -Crean's own cops came up to my son and said that they will kick him out if he addresses Tommy again. Apparently Tommy stared him down a couple of times last night. His attention to our crowd and his heckling our players while the game is going from on the court explains why he is the most hated coach in the big 10 (and one of the least effective bench coaches.).
Indiana's got a real winner in Crean.
Students taking pot shots at the maize rage have serious misplaced anger. Are the meetings private and closed? Do they meet in secret? All these people with ideas about how the organization sucks should show up and lend their expertise. Beyond actually doing something - maybe they should stop being whiney bi
Wow. Your first post on a 300 message thread is to look me up and call me dumb. I must have really pissed you off the other day. You must be a very insignificant person.
But I will play -
So your argument is that being a student should not give you access to reduced tickets? Wow. I don't think many people would support you on that one.
But I am glad you advanced the thought process on this thread by pointing that out.
I don't doubt that there is some lawyer bullshit fine print in there somewhere. That's what we want - the university of Michigan relying on legalese bullshit rather than doing the right thing. Why would anyone expect to buy season tickets and get season tickets?
Lawyer responses crack me up. Just because it is legal to screw people over does not mean it's right to screw people over.
Stop talking about "discounted" tickets!!! The students are paying $30,000 for the right to buy "discounted" tickets. It is college sports forgodsake! Your lack of "remorse" for a legitimate complaints to a bait and switch scheme pulled by the athletic department on the students is mystifying. Students are the good fans for basketball! Maybe you are letting your football attendance frustrations color your perception of the basketball issue?
Are you thinking that the lower students seats aren't full for all the games? Because that impression is wrong. The empty seats (and there are a lot of them) in the lower area that would look bad are on the non-student seats. We should probably allow students to occupy these seats if they aren't full after 5 min of game time and then make the skippers forfeit their right to the bigger games.
Your argument works for football. Not basketball. Student attendance for basketball is much better than general admittance. Obviously the problem for basketball should be handled by giving students the lower tickets if season ticket holders miss a game or two. If the general admittance people don't show up for even one game we should give the rest of their tickets to students. The old fan doesn't bring any passion to the game anyway. Maybe we should just get rid of the lowered tickets for anyone but students. The lower bowl non students are an embarrassment to the school.
They weren't sold with restrictions. The restrictions came after the sale
Heavily discounted ? The average student is buying a $30,000 licensing fee for the privilege of purchasing "discounted " tickets. Lets not forget that college athletics exist because it is a school with students. Become a pistons fan if the "discounted" student tickets piss you off.
Point of clarity - the best student seats are always full. The upper overflow seats are just as empty as the general admission upper seats. Also - not all of the lower "high price" seats bought by alumni/older fans are full for mid-week crap games. Where is the outcry to oversell these tickets?
Maybe this analogy would be better for you. You rent a hours and sign a lease for a whole year. After you sign the lease the renter comes to you with a new lease and says" statistics show that people vacation one month a year, because of this we have sold the rights to your house for a one month period. Don't question me - its for the best."
It is quite easy to understand The athletic office sold student season tickets for the entire package. Well after the deal was made they changed the conditions of the sale.
As far as it not looking good on tv - the parts of Crisler where you could see students was always full. The upper bowl was rarely full. Even non students were shitty fans apparently. Even for a top 10 team.
I wonder how the good 900 seats for students compare to seating for students at other basketball schools?
For those people saying that similar things are being done at other schools I would say not after the sale was made.
Great - we have higher interest from the student body than in a very long time. This must be bad for business because shitting on the students is a great way to kill the momentum.
"So you think that turning away 1500 potential customers (now and in the future) from all games is better than turning away a far smaller number from a selected few games? Let's be real, I bet there will only be over 3,000 tickets claimed and used for a handful of the total number on the schedule. I'm honestly curious if you think that's better."
I will try to answer.
If only 3000 students had tickets and their was a demand for 4800 tickets, these tickets would be used if they could be easily transfered. Student tickets are not easily transferred.
There are no restrictions for non-student ticket transfers so they are easy to get rid of.
The solution should be to allow free flow of the tickets. The answer that was chosen maximizes revenue.
"but the Athletic Department’s policy assures that every student will be able to attend the games they want, as long as they purchased the season ticket package."
"In promising that no student season ticket holder will be turned away from a game they wish to attend, the Athletic Department is merely playing the percentages."
Somehow I am not being "assured".
Are they guaranteeing that my tickets are valid? If so, how?
My solution - don't sell tickets that you don't have.
In addition - give all of the student's 1/3 of their money back. On average - it would be fair. Sitting on the money while saying "oops" is saying "sorry we screwed up but take it".
Don't misconstrue that by being fair it doesn't still suck.
My guess is that they sold you tickets for half the games. Not that they sold tickets for all the games to you and then said that you could only attend half.
I know, the current students could get lucky and be able to go to all of the games that they bought tickets for. But they might not.
The policy is not "if you go to every game, you will have top prority for the big games (that you already bought a ticket for)". It is not a carrot - it's a stick. Even if you go to all the games, there is no guarantee that you can go to the big games. Your argument is trying to deflect this basic truth.
No this is not to avoid rampant stubhub resale and gaping holes in the stands. Is about collecting 4500 ticket sales for 3000 seats. (and a policy to try to cover up this one - most important fact)
You are proving my point. (Just saying that does not mean anything)
By setting up straw arguements for what I will or will not attend, you are trying to paint every student as only showing up for four games. I attended every home game the past two years. Despite me buying the tickets - there is no guarantee that the ticket I bought will be honored.
Severely discounted? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I bought tickets to every game - I am not guaranteed a seat to every game.
People bought the tickets. There is no guarantee that they can go to all the games they bought tickets for. Their opportunity, and money, has been stolen.
Even if you go to every other game there is a chance you can't go to a big game because you didn't "claim"a ticket. I would argue that by purchasing a season ticket you already "claimed" a ticket. Lets say they oversold the OSU football game by selling 165000 tickets. You don't get to go because ,although you already bought a ticket, you werenot quick enough to "claim" yours. The only way they think they can get away with this is because in their minds, "f*** them, they are just students.
The AD isn't screwing anybody but the students. If the same policy were in place for everyone - maybe the logic (or lack thereof) would be apparent to everyone.
Rational is not selling 4500 tickets to MSU when only 3000 are available. Agains your "test of fanhood" sucks. Does your lack of tuition bill excempt you from thinking?
No. They are forcing the fact that 1500 students who bought tickets for the MSU game can't go because they are not deserving. They are forcing 1500 students who bought tickets to sit at home because of some "test of fanhood". It is indefensible.
The only reason they think they can do this is because f*** the students. If they oversold the OSU football game by 55000 and you bought a ticket - they aren't giving your money back. You are just screwed.
If you can't be bothered to look at the facts and say what the AD is doing is undefensible - your opinion is invalid.
4500 people bought tickets for 3000 spots. Just claiming a ticket will not guarantee me a seat. Just going to the games is not an option. What don't you understand about this?
They didn't just oversell the bad games. They oversold all the games. They sold tickets for 4500 people to 3000 seats. People who bought tickets for the good games CAN'T go! I swear the ad office must be paying people to defend this policy because it makes no sense.
When an airline overbooks it offers the person who got screwed a sweet deal. I don't see the athletic department offering free tickets in the future to make up for their screw up. Honestly I can't figure out how people can attempt to defend the athletic department on this.
So D. Brandon. Lets say you just contracted with a company to build a new track. They start building the track but stop after 300 meters because f**** you.
If Izzo is concerned about the image of his program maybe he shouldn't name a rapist as the captain of the team. Short of that, maybe he should just accept that his team will be viewed as thugs.
Has there been any discussion about the play where Michigan tipped the ball, the UMASS player went out of bounds and then came back in bounds before he caught the ball? I know the announcers said that it was ok because we tipped the ball but I don't like to rely on the announcing "experts" for rules. I'm not sure that I see the difference between this situation and a receiver running out of bounds before he catches the ball.
Recent Comments
Class of ‘86. Which Joe are you? I was football and track.
Yes the athletes have a name for the rest of the student body. It is not a put down - it's a reference to books that most of the student body hit at a perfect time. It's not a culture problem - it is just fun. The student body knows that the athletes call them muggles - this is not offensive to the student body and it should not be offensive to the public.
Yes the athletes have a name for the rest of the student body. It is not a put down - it's a reference to books that most of the student body hit at a perfect time. It's not a culture problem - it is just fun. The student body knows that the athletes call them muggles - this is not offensive to the student body and it should not be offensive to the public.
"So you think that turning away 1500 potential customers (now and in the future) from all games is better than turning away a far smaller number from a selected few games? Let's be real, I bet there will only be over 3,000 tickets claimed and used for a handful of the total number on the schedule. I'm honestly curious if you think that's better."
I will try to answer.
If only 3000 students had tickets and their was a demand for 4800 tickets, these tickets would be used if they could be easily transfered. Student tickets are not easily transferred.
There are no restrictions for non-student ticket transfers so they are easy to get rid of.
The solution should be to allow free flow of the tickets. The answer that was chosen maximizes revenue.
So - you hate students - I got it.
Down in Front!!!!
Become a Piston's fan if you don't want student interference!
"but the Athletic Department’s policy assures that every student will be able to attend the games they want, as long as they purchased the season ticket package."
I think that collecting money for things that can't happen is wrong. I would be arrested for the same thing.
If the point is try to encourage student attendance and enthusiasm, listen to the students the next time Dave Brandon is introduced.
Offering refunds to unhappy students does not help the student who is unhappy but wants to go to all the games that he bought tickets for.
The policy should be condemned because the Athletic Department is sitting on money selling things that they have no intention of providing.
My solution - don't sell tickets that you don't have.
In addition - give all of the student's 1/3 of their money back. On average - it would be fair. Sitting on the money while saying "oops" is saying "sorry we screwed up but take it".
Don't misconstrue that by being fair it doesn't still suck.
My guess is that they sold you tickets for half the games. Not that they sold tickets for all the games to you and then said that you could only attend half.
I know, the current students could get lucky and be able to go to all of the games that they bought tickets for. But they might not.
Tend to? Sorry students don't get to tend to anymore. The rest of the spectators do.
Paying more for the tickets should not entitle you to different rules about attendance. You have a ticket - you should have a guaranteed seat.
If you don't think students should be a part of the college game experience - become a Piston's fan.
Tend to? Sorry students don't get to tend to anymore. The rest of the spectators do.
Paying more for the tickets should not entitle you to different rules about attendance. You have a ticket - you should have a guaranteed seat.
The policy is not "if you go to every game, you will have top prority for the big games (that you already bought a ticket for)". It is not a carrot - it's a stick. Even if you go to all the games, there is no guarantee that you can go to the big games. Your argument is trying to deflect this basic truth.
No this is not to avoid rampant stubhub resale and gaping holes in the stands. Is about collecting 4500 ticket sales for 3000 seats. (and a policy to try to cover up this one - most important fact)
Because it isn't right.
You are proving my point. (Just saying that does not mean anything)
By setting up straw arguements for what I will or will not attend, you are trying to paint every student as only showing up for four games. I attended every home game the past two years. Despite me buying the tickets - there is no guarantee that the ticket I bought will be honored.
Severely discounted? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I bought tickets to every game - I am not guaranteed a seat to every game.
Seriously - your arguements are tired. I am mad that I could go to all of the games but not the big games because they sold my ticket to someone else.
Are they overselling those tickets? If you can't oversell all of them - you can't oversell any of them.
There are guaranteed to be 1500 unuseable tickets for every game. This is a gain for every single game.
You are obviously not the one getting screwed over. So you might as well say f*** the ones who are.
Your arguement has no empathy for the victims - yes victims. You should go into politics.
It is easy if you will be honest.
People bought the tickets. There is no guarantee that they can go to all the games they bought tickets for. Their opportunity, and money, has been stolen.
Because even if you want to go to all the games - there is no guarantee that you can! It is a risk. Why are you missing this?
Even if you go to every other game there is a chance you can't go to a big game because you didn't "claim"a ticket. I would argue that by purchasing a season ticket you already "claimed" a ticket. Lets say they oversold the OSU football game by selling 165000 tickets. You don't get to go because ,although you already bought a ticket, you werenot quick enough to "claim" yours. The only way they think they can get away with this is because in their minds, "f*** them, they are just students.
The AD isn't screwing anybody but the students. If the same policy were in place for everyone - maybe the logic (or lack thereof) would be apparent to everyone.
Rational is not selling 4500 tickets to MSU when only 3000 are available. Agains your "test of fanhood" sucks. Does your lack of tuition bill excempt you from thinking?
No. They are forcing the fact that 1500 students who bought tickets for the MSU game can't go because they are not deserving. They are forcing 1500 students who bought tickets to sit at home because of some "test of fanhood". It is indefensible.
The only reason they think they can do this is because f*** the students. If they oversold the OSU football game by 55000 and you bought a ticket - they aren't giving your money back. You are just screwed.
If you can't be bothered to look at the facts and say what the AD is doing is undefensible - your opinion is invalid.
4500 people bought tickets for 3000 spots. Just claiming a ticket will not guarantee me a seat. Just going to the games is not an option. What don't you understand about this?
we tipped the ball, then he went out of bounds and then came back in. So he was the first player to touch the ball after he went out of bounds.
It just sounded to me like the announcers were making up the rule.
Sorry - I can't start my own thread yet - however
Has there been any discussion about the play where Michigan tipped the ball, the UMASS player went out of bounds and then came back in bounds before he caught the ball? I know the announcers said that it was ok because we tipped the ball but I don't like to rely on the announcing "experts" for rules. I'm not sure that I see the difference between this situation and a receiver running out of bounds before he catches the ball.
Any thoughts?