New Student Basketball Ticket Policy

Submitted by goblue7612 on September 17th, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Looks like they VASTLY oversold basketball season tickets, and thus they need a new policy since they sold 4500 student tickets and only have seats for 3000. Information found in…

"Students will have a 72-hour period to select individual tickets to an upcoming group of games. If a student fails to use claimed tickets to two or more games, he or she will not be eligible to claim tickets for upcoming games."

"Though he does not anticipate that students who purchased season tickets will miss out on games they want to attend, they will review an individual’s attendance to determine who will receive entry to the Wolverines’ marquee fixture against Michigan State."

I thought someone had mentioned a policy like this for football tickets that they wanted to see in the sad picture thread.

I imagine ticket holders are pretty upset by this. The ticket office is essentially selling 4500 tickets, and taking the money, but only providing 3000 tickets. One question that is unanswered is what happens if more tickets are claimed than there are seats? Is it first come first serve? Also, it's real risky to sell your unused tickets because if the buyer ends up not using it, you get punished, severely.

Seems like the ticket office didn't plan ahead well, they should've just cut off sales when they hit 3000 and moved everyone else to a wait list. But in the email they sent on April 23, they said "The deadline is May 3 at 5:00pm. Student basketball ticket policies are available at under Students.  To be guaranteed a seat you should order now." Guess they couldn't do that after saying that.

Take your anger to them at @DaveBrandonAD and @HunterLochmann, or more conventional email methods.



September 18th, 2013 at 12:34 PM ^

This is the major issue I see with this policy. I'm going to try to make sense of this with the car dealer metaphor that was being used elsewhere in the thread. 

If you pay for your season tix, and you attend games, but the game you want to go to more than any other is MSU. For whatever reason, you are unable to secure a ticket for yourself for MSU. You receive a refund for the value of one student ticket, but the value of that particular ticket is in reality much greater than 1/17th of the total price of your ticket package.

Isn't this like paying for a car, but then you stand a chance of being told "Well, you can't drive during rush hour, but here's 1/24th of your money back since you can't drive for that one hour per day." If the primary reason for buying the car was so that you could drive home from work at five, it's nice that you can still take it to the store, but you are going to be pretty pissed that you can't drive at the time the car offers you the greatest subjective value.

Is my logic wrong? I'm happy to hear arguents to change my mind, but this is the primary issue I have with this policy.


September 17th, 2013 at 10:55 PM ^

In theory, I agree 100%.  However, if you went to most of the bball games last year, it's pretty clear that a huge number of students don't care about paying.  I'm not even joking when I say that there were a serious number of unclaimed season tickets going into the Indiana game, which was the last home game of the season.

Not saying there won't be problems, but there is some logic behind it.


September 17th, 2013 at 10:56 PM ^

So you get a refund now on your tickets. If you don't use your tickets, then what does it matter that you already paid for them? What are you losing by not having the tickets for future games? If you do use your tickets, then you're getting your money's worth for them.  Fact is I'm fairly certain we oversold tickets last year as well, it's just that since during a year where we spent the entire year in the top 10, we only had 46% student attendance. Other than the Arizona and maybe Indiana games, I doubt we'll see much problems with this policy. 


September 17th, 2013 at 11:09 PM ^

Alright let's say you buy a brand new luxury car.  After purchase, the dealer calls you up and says that you need to claim when you're going to drive it, and if you say your going to drive it to work one day and you don't, well then you can't drive it anymore.  Also, even if your drive it every time you claim you're going to, you still might be forced to let your neighbor borrow it when you need it most because the dealer actually sold your neighbor an interest in your car without your knowledge. Your other option is to return the car immediately to the dealership.  

Does that really sound fair to you?


September 17th, 2013 at 11:17 PM ^

That's a bad metaphor.  I implies that whether or not you drive the car doesn't positively or negatively affect the dealership and other car owners.  If you buy a ticket and you don't show up, then your wasting a seat that some other fan could have filled.  It affects the other fans who are not students (or students who do not have season tickets).  It affects the AD because it's money they could have made selling a different ticket and concessions/merch etc.  It affect the fans and the team at the game, because people not showing up negatively affects the environment of Crisler Arena.


September 17th, 2013 at 11:22 PM ^

Furthermore, the last situation "I do everything I'm supposed to and get screwed over." is probably not going to happen. First priority is based on attendance and there just are not going to be 3000 students who attend every game. We can barely get that many to be there for kickoff for MAC football games, much less for South Carolina St basketball games on a weeknight. 


September 17th, 2013 at 11:28 PM ^

Except that driving a car does do those things.  Most dealerships put their decals on the back of cars they sell, thereby increasing their advertising the more it is driven.  Heavy driving also means more traffic for other drivers, more GHG emissions, and more profits for gasoline refineries.  It also increases fast food profits, convenience store profits, auto mechanic business, and provides revenue for the construction of roads and highways via tolls, license fee renewals, and increases insurance profits.

Even if these things weren't true, the entire premise that I'm not entitled to a product I paid for because not using it might prevent someone from making even more money off of me is absurd.


September 17th, 2013 at 11:37 PM ^

Just becuase you invested 40,000 in the car company doesn't mean the dealership has seen a penny, the dealership is an economically seperate entity than the car company.

(to break from the metaphor for a bit, I think student absolutely should be given free tickets.  However, it should be noted that none of our tuition goes to the AD, rather it's its own economically seperate entity.  However, if you would prefer our AD make less money, we could go with the Rutgers model, where almost everything their AD does is paid by the main university and tuition.)


September 17th, 2013 at 11:46 PM ^

You got me there.  The 40,000 payment was actually to the dealership's attached auto garage which funnels customers to them when they can afford a new car.  

Shame on me for thinking that students should get a discount for watching their university sports teams fielded by other students who attend their university.


September 17th, 2013 at 11:56 PM ^

Your right, because I wouldn't want to go to one of the best universities in the nation if I can't see every single basketball game.  The sole reason why I attended UofM and paid my tuition was so I can get student tickets.

On a related note, why can't I watch an Olympics game for a discounted price or even? I just want to watch my fellow American citizens play for the country.  I pay taxes, I should get cheap tickets.


September 18th, 2013 at 12:10 AM ^

I really like that idea, but I don't think it's true.  I remember looking up Salt Lake City Olympics tickets prices in 2002, and remembering them being super expensive (almost definitely no american discount).  My guess is that Brazil is doing that so there are actually some Brazillian fans in the crowd, rather than having it be filled with fans from wealthier nations.


September 18th, 2013 at 12:05 AM ^

How about compared to me, a brand new alumnus? I just graduated this last year.  I am as affiliated as can be and have contributed a ton of myself to our university in culture and tuition.  I can't get student tickets for basketball this year, so if I want to go I have to pay full price, which to be honest, I can't really afford, as I plan on going to Med School, and will be swamped in debt without draining what little savings I have on full price tickets.  I could afford a student ticket priced ticket, but as a student, I should not get one.  And I agree with that.

However, if there is a game where a lot of students don't show up, I would much rather those empty seats be sold to fans like myself (I might be able to wing it to get a game or two if I can find cheap tickets).


September 18th, 2013 at 12:37 AM ^

I should note, I whole heartedly think all students should get tickets at the same prices, and agree with your statement above.  I was more just playing devils advocate to your prior comments. 

That being said, I still think there is an overwhelming sense of entitlement (as Geaux Blue said, the bad kind) to your argument.  As a student, you should get tickets at a cheap price, however, I think the fact that people feel that this is some sort of stone written contract that cannot be altered is silly.  If you want to go to the games, then take 10 minutes and write your shit down, it wont be that hard and it will benefit everyone.  If you want to play it by ear and risk losing your tickets, then yeah, that's your own fault for not acting in your best interest.


September 18th, 2013 at 10:41 PM ^

I like where your head is at...


Also, Ghost is right.


College sports should revolve around the college students and every enrolled students who wants a ticket should get them well before alumni like my self... and all you wannabe wolverines, just be glad you have our school to follow, who never went here I don't even understand why you care...


love you,




September 17th, 2013 at 10:51 PM ^

They should blame it on the SR Assoc AD, Chief Marketing Officer; Director of Ticket Operations, and Director of Marketing.  They are the ones who made the decisions, not Dave Brandon.....


September 17th, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^

Dave Brandon is the head of the organization, so of course he'll get the brunt of the attention. If he didn't like what hte plan was he could've shot it down, he didn't.

But that's also why I included Hunter Lochmann (Chief Marketing Officer) in the blame and included his email. He is the one that broke the news to CSG, and I believe he was very responsible for this decision and many of the other student policies as of late.


September 17th, 2013 at 11:15 PM ^

Dave Brandon doesn't make the decision and most likely doesn't know about it because of his duties (Student ticket policy is not included in his duties, it's mostly up to the Director of Ticket Office and Director of Marketing).  The final call is ultimately up to the Chief Marketing Officer which is Hunter Lochmann, not Dave Brandon.