Season Tickets-Reseating

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Points for attendance would never work. I go to a huge majority of games and when I don't I try to unload my tickets. If somebody's sitting in my seats, I get credit? It wouldn't work.

Also, to Skatastrophy's absurd post...I will tell you right now I will NEVER wear a gold t-shirt to a game. Asking people to dress the same is a bizarre trend and when you add to that the fact that "gold" represents the most appalling chapter in the history of our basketball program you can bet I'm not alone. In fact, when I see people wearing gold shirts I lose respect for them.

[Skatastrophy]

Also, to Skatastrophy's absurd post...I will tell you right now I will NEVER wear a gold t-shirt to a game. Asking people to dress the same is a bizarre trend and when you add to that the fact that "gold" represents the most appalling chapter in the history of our basketball program you can bet I'm not alone. In fact, when I see people wearing gold shirts I lose respect for them.

You usually put more effort into your trolling than that.

I'll give it a 2 out of 10.

[WarriorMU]

I've been a season ticket holder since 1946, so obviously I think that consecutive seasons should be weighted more heavily but what can you do, its all about the mighty dollar.  I think the current system does a decent job of balancing the two.  Some tinkering may be useful though.

[bilsu]

They could use attendance as a tie breaker. I have 256 points and I assume I am not the only one with that amount. I have no idea how they break the tie. Maybe they do it based on donations in the reseating period, that would be fair also.

[mu_hilltopper]

It is absurd...and self-serving.  Sorry, but the truth is the truth.

Absurd?  Please.

Every "point" rule, whether it's points for degrees, 2nd degrees, money, consecutive years, whatever .. every rule may have its supporters and detractors, depending on whose ox is being gored.  Can we rise above that?

The current system is designed to encourage people to do certain things: buy tickets every year, get 2nd, 3rd degrees, (marry MU alums - hah), be involved in athletics, and donate money.  Some of that I've achieved, some I have not.  I think it's fair to give prioirty to letter winners, and mutli-degree folk, even though I am not one.   Looks like I'm not so self-serving after all.  I'd also give points to MU employees, even though I am not one.  Why?  It just seems fair.

Does MU have a vested interest in having more fans actually attend?  Absolutely, and Marquette ALREADY DOES THIS with their "fanatics" program whereby the students earn points for attending sporting events (soccer, WBB, volleyball) to encourage attendance.

Adding an attendance factor adds a new encouragement to the system: Show up.  Use your tickets and you shall be rewarded.  If you choose not to, others who actually come, shall earn better seats, by virtue of their desire to attend, and effort to do so.  Sorry, but that makes a hell of a lot of sense.  One could argue it makes far more sense than +5 points for a 2nd degree being rewarded with better seats.

Ticketmaster has actually built this function into their system.  Clearly, MU/fanatics and other organizations think it makes sense and use it.  

And honestly?  I'd like to see EVERYONE earn that point.  No one likes an empty BC.  Not the coaches, not the players, not the BC, not the fans.

I think the vast majority of STHs use (have someone use) their tickets every game, as the lower bowl is usually 75%+ full for every cupcake.  It's pretty easy to flip your insult: Those who argue against it are the "self-serving" ones, ensuring others don't get a benefit that they themselves choose not to earn by their non-attendance.  "Sorry, the truth is the truth."

Would the small minority of STHs who live hours away lose out on this reward?  Yes, admittedly, but by choice.  If encouraging attendance is something MU wants to do (and it is) then some folks will go up, others will go down, based on their own choices.

Points for attendance would never work. I go to a huge majority of games and when I don't I try to unload my tickets. If somebody's sitting in my seats, I get credit? It wouldn't work.

Why would it would "never work"?   To answer one point, yes, if your ticket is scanned in, you get credit, as MU, nor anyone in the crowd cares if Mr. John Q. Ticketholder or his neighbor uses the seat, just as long as someone does.  True, that means it's not always rewarding personal loyalty, but that's an understood quasi-limitation.  At least someone is using them.

[GooooMarquette]

Adding an attendance factor adds a new encouragement to the system: Show up.  Use your tickets and you shall be rewarded.  If you choose not to, others who actually come, shall earn better seats, by virtue of their desire to attend, and effort to do so.

Would the small minority of STHs who live hours away lose out on this reward?  Yes, admittedly, but by choice.  If encouraging attendance is something MU wants to do (and it is) then some folks will go up, others will go down, based on their own choices.

Why would it would "never work"?   To answer one point, yes, if your ticket is scanned in, you get credit, as MU, nor anyone in the crowd cares if Mr. John Q. Ticketholder or his neighbor uses the seat, just as long as someone does.  True, that means it's not always rewarding personal loyalty, but that's an understood quasi-limitation.  At least someone is using them.

First off, I am happy to see that you agree that points should be based in part on "desire to attend, and effort to do so."  Thing is, I have as much desire to attend as anybody, and I'd bet my effort in attending even 10 games as much as that expended by most in attending 18.  The problem with your analysis is that it assumes a lack of effort if someone doesn't attend.  But you keep ignoring that....

As for the concept of "choice."  Yes, in an overly simplistic way, everything is a matter of choice.  In the real world, however, choices have consequences.  If I had "chosen" to get to every 7 pm weeknight game, it might have led to reprimands (or more - firing eventually?) at work.  When the result of a "choice" might be to put one's livelihood in jeopardy, it suddenly doesn't look like so much of a choice.  My guess is that even the most die-hard Milwaukee-based fans would get to fewer games if that was a possible result of their "choice."  (Of course, the speedometer in my Odyssey says it can hit 140 mph -- so maybe you're right that I could still have made it by halftime if I left right after work.)  And what about my "choice" not to come to several games over the years when there were blizzards?  Sure, I could have "chosen" to drive 4 or 5 hours at 70 mph through a blizzard when everyone else was driving at 30 mph -- or would my drive have ended pretty quickly?  Or instead of getting up and starting my drive at 6 am for that game at around noon, perhaps I could have left at 2 am -- silly of me to have made such an awful and selfish "choice."  Yes, it's easy (and naive) to talk about everything as a choice when your choices are easy.

And if I could still scalp my tickets (perhaps even to a fan of the opposing team), or simply send them to someone who is already going to the game and ask them to get them scanned in (they could enter with my tickets, leave, and come back in with theirs), that's more than a "quasi-limitation" on rewarding loyalty.  It's a real one.

Fortunately, I'm not too worried about our idea, because I suspect the powers that be at MU have thought through the system quite a bit more than you have....

[mu_hilltopper]

Thing is, I have as much desire to attend as anybody, and I'd bet my effort in attending even 10 games as much as that expended by most in attending 18.  The problem with your analysis is that it assumes a lack of effort if someone doesn't attend.  But you keep ignoring that....

Fortunately, I'm not too worried about our idea, because I suspect the powers that be at MU have thought through the system quite a bit more than you have....

I certainly understand your effort is high.   But as I wrote before, EVERYONE has mitigating factors.  Distance is yours.  Mine is two kids and babysitting.  Others work 2nd shift.  Some take night classes, or volunteer somewhere.  The bottom line is, every single human that walks in to a game has a whole panoply of responsibilities and difficulties, AND ALL OF THESE FACTORS ARE RELATIVE AND UNMEASURABLE.   

The one measurable item is whether the ticket is used, or not.  If you want to encourage attendance (they do) then, well, you gotta break some eggs.  Most will earn the reward, others will not.

As I wrote before, every element excludes someone.  This isn't t-ball, where everyone gets a trophy.  Not everyone gets points for extra degrees, athletic participation, marrying a MU spouse.  Are you ready to protest that, too?  If not, why not?  Those policies aren't fair to you, right?

Honestly, your best argument would be to suggest that people like yourself, who live far away, would chose not to buy season tickets because losing a point would push you over the edge, and make it not worth it for you.  There's some cost/benefit math to that, at least.

Fortunately, I'm not too worried about our idea, because I suspect the powers that be at MU have thought through the system quite a bit more than you have....

Hah.  Good fallback position, it won't happen because of someone other than yourself can explain all those quality reasons not to do it.  Or perhaps they won't do it because of the sliver of fans who would pitch a fit because they live out of state (or wealthy non-attenders) and it's their 1-point ox being gored, preventing MU from encouraging a beneficial behavior.  That, we can agree on.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I have a question about loop holes? What if, for instance, I decided to add my father-in-law's name to my tickets? He has a degree from Marquette. Is that something that's done or would it drop me back in line?

[🏀]

I have a question about loop holes? What if, for instance, I decided to add my father-in-law's name to my tickets? He has a degree from Marquette. Is that something that's done or would it drop me back in line?

Unfortunately, no. The way I was told that you cannot add someone for the points. My brother has had season tickets for awhile, and I am not splitting them with him. We tried to add my points, and were told it was not possible.

[mu_hilltopper]

And if Gay Marriage was ever legalized in Wisconsin .. would MU be required to add +10 if the spouse also went to MU, or would they get a religious exception?   

Oh, wait, no politics.

[GooooMarquette]

I certainly understand your effort is high.   But as I wrote before, EVERYONE has mitigating factors.  Distance is yours.  Mine is two kids and babysitting.  Others work 2nd shift.  Some take night classes, or volunteer somewhere.  The bottom line is, every single human that walks in to a game has a whole panoply of responsibilities and difficulties, AND ALL OF THESE FACTORS ARE RELATIVE AND UNMEASURABLE.   

The one measurable item is whether the ticket is used, or not.  If you want to encourage attendance (they do) then, well, you gotta break some eggs.  Most will earn the reward, others will not.

As I wrote before, every element excludes someone.  This isn't t-ball, where everyone gets a trophy.  Not everyone gets points for extra degrees, athletic participation, marrying a MU spouse.  Are you ready to protest that, too?  If not, why not?  Those policies aren't fair to you, right?

Honestly, your best argument would be to suggest that people like yourself, who live far away, would chose not to buy season tickets because losing a point would push you over the edge, and make it not worth it for you.  There's some cost/benefit math to that, at least.

Hah.  Good fallback position, it won't happen because of someone other than yourself can explain all those quality reasons not to do it.  Or perhaps they won't do it because of the sliver of fans who would pitch a fit because they live out of state (or wealthy non-attenders) and it's their 1-point ox being gored, preventing MU from encouraging a beneficial behavior.  That, we can agree on.

You keep going back and forth.  First you say you want to reward things like "loyalty" and "effort."  Then, when I show that my loyalty and effort levels are just as high as yours -- that simple attendance is a poor proxy for "loyalty" or "effort" -- you argue that we should still use this system...well, basically because it's measurable.

No, my "best argument" is not that your proposal would push me ovet the edge.  It's that MU already has a system that rewards contributions to the program that actually make a ($$$$$) difference.  Yours would not contribute to that goal, and is being proposed by you because (surprise, surprise) it would allow you to move up the line without changing anything you're doing.

And no, my comment about it never happening isn't a "fallback position."  Go read the dictionary -- a "fallback position" is an alternative or second-choice option.  I am not proposing that we switch to a different option -- I am simply saying that your absurd proposal will never happen, and that the current system is already fine.

You want to make an informed judgment about this issue?  Next season, try this:  Before every game, drive from Milwaukee to Mauston (the approximate halfway point of my drive).  Then turn around and go to the game.  After the game, do it again before going home.  Every game.  Don't ever go to a game if you haven't done this.  After the season, see if you can still tell me with a straight face that number of games attended is a reasonable proxy for "loyalty" or "effort" - and that I should be penalized if I only make it to 10 games.  In return, I will happily arrange for babysitting for your two kids (oh, the horror!).  Or you could keep making blind statements about issues you really know nothing about....

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

And if Gay Marriage was ever legalized in Wisconsin .. would MU be required to add +10 if the spouse also went to MU, or would they get a religious exception?   

Oh, wait, no politics.

In that case, they could share a seat.

[mu_hilltopper]

Wow.   Just wow.

You keep going back and forth.  First you say you want to reward things like "loyalty" and "effort."  Then, when I show that my loyalty and effort levels are just as high as yours -- that simple attendance is a poor proxy for "loyalty" or "effort" -- you argue that we should still use this system...well, basically because it's measurable.

I have conceded that it is impossible to imagine any precise system by which loyalty/effort could be measured. 

What can be measured is attendance.   Can you move on, please?

No, my "best argument" is not that your proposal would push me ovet the edge.  It's that MU already has a system that rewards contributions to the program that actually make a ($$$$$) difference.  Yours would not contribute to that goal, and is being proposed by you because (surprise, surprise) it would allow you to move up the line without changing anything you're doing.

Unfortunately, your premise is incomplete. MU's system encourages donations, which is A GOAL, not THE goal: The system also encourages other things, like extra degrees, athletic participation, women's ticket purchases, etc.  Those are all legit goals, right?  So is encouraging attendance.  -- And, drum roll .. it WOULD encourage donations .. as some would choose to donate +$100 to keep up. 

And, for the record, my wife and I choose to miss about 3-4 cupcake games/year.  Ouch, that must hurt your "self-serving" argument tremendously, seeing as I WOULD NEED TO CHOOSE TO CHANGE MY OWN ATTENDANCE BEHAVIOR to earn the full award.

I am simply saying that your absurd proposal will never happen, and that the current system is already fine.

You can call it "absurd" all you like, but it won't change the fact that MU ALREADY DOES IT WITH STUDENTS.  Nor will it change the fact that Ticketmaster has a system for exactly that, that other orgs use.  Clearly, these guys are wrong, and you're the one who is right!

Indeed, the current system is "fine" .. it just doesn't encourage attendance, which would be beneficial.

You want to make an informed judgment about this issue?  Next season, try this:  Before every game, drive from Milwaukee to Mauston (the approximate halfway point of my drive).  Then turn around and go to the game.  After the game, do it again before going home.  Every game.  Don't ever go to a game if you haven't done this.  After the season, see if you can still tell me with a straight face that number of games attended is a reasonable proxy for "loyalty" or "effort" - and that I should be penalized if I only make it to 10 games.  In return, I will happily arrange for babysitting for your two kids (oh, the horror!).  Or you could keep making blind statements about issues you really know nothing about....

No need.  I completely know what it's like, I've driven across the state 100 times.  I've said about four times now: Everyone has their difficulties.  Yours is distance.  In the end, your argument boils down to, not what's good for MU, but what discriminates against one class, the long distance ticket holder.  Looks like we need to re-tool the whole system:  Donation points discriminate against the non-wealthy.  Athletic points discriminate against the non-athletic.  Those are WAY bigger groups of discrimination, compared to the long distance STH.

After the season, see if you can still tell me with a straight face that number of games attended is a reasonable proxy for "loyalty" or "effort" - and that I should be penalized if I only make it to 10 games.  In return, I will happily arrange for babysitting for your two kids (oh, the horror!).  Or you could keep making blind statements about issues you really know nothing about....

As I see, you're really hanging on this # games/loyalty and effort thing.  Please drop it.  As I've explained repeatedly, there's no precise measurement for it.  I'll make it really official and clear, so you don't need to bring it up again: I hereby disavow the notion that attendance precisely measures loyalty or effort.  I am deeply sorry I may have offended your superior sense of effort and loyalty with the thought that it is less than those who attend more games.  Happy now?

Truly, this proposal is not singling you out, the sliver of long distance purchasers of season tickets.  Its goal is to encourage those who don't use their seats to do so, and for 98% of STHs, that doesn't entail driving for hours. -- Naturally, everyone has their difficulties, as discussed above.

Marquette wins, the program wins, the team wins, fans win, and the BC wins, if attendance goes up.   Folks who go to cupcakes win.  Folks who don't, over a long long long time (1 point per year) infinitesimally lose their seats to those who want to use them more.  And yes, GoooMarquette gets caught up in the net and loses.  Sorry. 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

For the record, I believe my drive, which is close to 2 hours each way with drop-offs, etc., is beneficial to me. If I didn't have to drive all the way home, I'd likely get be too liquored up to remember the end of some of these games.

I should get points for that.

[StillAWarrior]

For the record, I believe my drive, which is close to 2 hours each way with drop-offs, etc., is beneficial to me. If I didn't have to drive all the way home, I'd likely get be too liquored up to remember the end of some of these games.

I should get points for that.

Just think, if MU ever renegotiated the lease at the BC so that they get a cut of beer sales, they could give points for the number of beers you drink at games because that would bring $$$ to the program.

As an aside, I'm really enjoying this thread.  I wish I had some popcorn.  I also wish I was a season ticket holder...imagine how many points I would get for my eight hour drive (each way)...no, wait...

[mu_hilltopper]

I will give you points for that, if you give me points for wearing gold.  hah

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Just think, if MU ever renegotiated the lease at the BC so that they get a cut of beer sales, they could give points for the number of beers you drink at games.

This is absolutely the best idea I have ever read on this site.

[StillAWarrior]

This is absolutely the best idea I have ever read on this site.

You're only saying that because you'd have the seat next to Buzz.

[GooooMarquette]

Wow.   Just wow.

I have conceded that it is impossible to imagine any precise system by which loyalty/effort could be measured.  What can be measured is attendance.   Can you move on, please?

Marquette wins, the program wins, the team wins, fans win, and the BC wins, if attendance goes up.   Folks who go to cupcakes win.  Folks who don't, over a long long long time (1 point per year) infinitesimally lose their seats to those who want to use them more.  And yes, GoooMarquette gets caught up in the net and loses.  Sorry. 

Wow is right....

OK, you've conceded that you can't precisely measure effort/loyalty, so your proposal is to use only "measurable" factors (like attendance), and apply a randomly chosen multiplier (like your randomly chosen 0.1 point per NC game) to it, right?

Well, distance from MU or the BC can easily be measured -- just like whether or not my ticket is used.  MU knows my home address -- they've sent my tix there for years, they know it's the same mailing address as my CC, and in fact someone from the B&G Fund visited a few years back.  They have this same information from other ticket holders as well, and it would not take much effort to get exact distances from MU or the BC.  Therefore, they could take this easily measurable information, and then apply some randomly chosen multiplier (like you did for the 0.1 ppg) to recognize the varying distances from which people travel.  That way, someone who lives right in town could/would be expected to get to all or most games, whereas people who live further out wouldn't.  This uses the "measurability" criterion that you keep spouting off about, with a random multiplier pulled out of the air.  Even though this meets your own criteria, I'm guessing you'll find a problem with it, because it doesn't benefit you personally....

To others who are reading this -- no, I am not saying we should use this system.  I'm just showing that, if someone ever took muhilltopper's scheme seriously, the exact same "measurability" criterion could be used on other factors to create a more complicated (but far more fair) system.  

And no need to say sorry to me -- you're the one who doesn't have the absurd system you're advocating.  Sorry muhilltopper.

I just can't wait to hear why this wouldn't work, even though it uses your criterion of being "measurable."

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Can I just point out that I love it when the seats next to me are vacant.

I will never complain about having too much room.

And I am on the side of both Gooo and hilltopper. Some people just can't make all the games. I don't go to a lot of NC games and I don't think I should be penalized. But I think people who go to every single game should get a point extra (or have their heads examined?) or something. But not a per game reward.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Points for attendance would never work. I go to a huge majority of games and when I don't I try to unload my tickets. If somebody's sitting in my seats, I get credit? It wouldn't work.

Also, to Skatastrophy's absurd post...I will tell you right now I will NEVER wear a gold t-shirt to a game. Asking people to dress the same is a bizarre trend and when you add to that the fact that "gold" represents the most appalling chapter in the history of our basketball program you can bet I'm not alone. In fact, when I see people wearing gold shirts I lose respect for them.

Why do you think it's absurd to wear the team colors?  I think it's awesome and very intimidating for opponents.  It was great at the Ducks - Red Wings game on Tuesday night with the Wings fans in red and white and all of us Ducks fans in Orange or black.  Looking forward to tonight's game...colors are cool by the fans.

[mu_hilltopper]

Well, distance from MU or the BC can easily be measured -- just like whether or not my ticket is used.  MU knows my home address -- they've sent my tix there for years, they know it's the same mailing address as my CC, and in fact someone from the B&G Fund visited a few years back.  They have this same information from other ticket holders as well, and it would not take much effort to get exact distances from MU or the BC.  Therefore, they could take this easily measurable information, and then apply some randomly chosen multiplier (like you did for the 0.1 ppg) to recognize the varying distances from which people travel.  That way, someone who lives right in town could/would be expected to get to all or most games, whereas people who live further out wouldn't.
...
And no need to say sorry to me -- you're the one who doesn't have the absurd system you're advocating.  Sorry muhilltopper.

I just can't wait to hear why this wouldn't work, even though it uses your criterion of being "measurable."

You're going to be waiting a long time then, because I love your system.  You've indeed made it better.  

True, it creates a system that could give you an advantage, as your max point award would be higher if you went to all 10 cupcakes, versus my max .. but you won't, and the class of folks that could have a higher max is a small class.  It creates the incentive to attend, and holds harmless those who live far away.  I'm on board.

As a systems guy, that wouldn't be all that tough, either.  A little zip code, longitude and latitude magic, and presto, everyone has a miles to mecca value. -- Or make it simple.  You're either in the 9 (?) county area, or you're not, giving the system just two multipliers to deal with.  Miles are more accurate, though, true.

Finally, please.  Every time you call this "absurd" you look foolish, as this system has been implemented for MU's students, and inside Ticketmaster.  It's clearly a legit system, made better by your "distance" variable.

[reinko]

So I flew from Boston to both the NC State and Syracuse games last year...do I get super awesome travel points??

[GooooMarquette]

You're going to be waiting a long time then, because I love your system.  You've indeed made it better.  

True, it creates a system that could give you an advantage, as your max point award would be higher if you went to all 10 cupcakes, versus my max .. but you won't, and the class of folks that could have a higher max is a small class.  It creates the incentive to attend, and holds harmless those who live far away.  I'm on board.

As a systems guy, that wouldn't be all that tough, either.  A little zip code, longitude and latitude magic, and presto, everyone has a miles to mecca value. -- Or make it simple.  You're either in the 9 (?) county area, or you're not, giving the system just two multipliers to deal with.  Miles are more accurate, though, true.

Finally, please.  Every time you call this "absurd" you look foolish, as this system has been implemented for MU's students, and inside Ticketmaster.  It's clearly a legit system, made better by your "distance" variable.

Fair enough -- I will stop calling it absurd, and appreciate your thoughts on this latest point.  

That said, even though this current iteration would benefit me, I'l be the first to admit I'm surprised if/when MU goes to an attendance-based model, as I'm not sure how well it would translate into real practice.  It's one thing to do it with students, who are a pretty captive group and pay little for their tickets.  With the much greater variability in season ticket holders, it seems like we could find ourselves on a slippery slope where one party or another could keep coming up with proposals to adjust the formula based on some additional factor that we haven't thought about (and which may be more or less measurable).  Next thing you know, we could have something that looks like the tax code, and I hope we can agree that NOBODY wants to go there....

Anyhow, peace.  A good debate is always fun....

[Skatastrophy]

So I flew from Boston to both the NC State and Syracuse games last year...do I get super awesome travel points??

Yes.  I will keep them in my super-special spreadsheet