|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Feb 18, 2011 14:16:25 GMT -8
Ha ha, love the pic!
|
|
|
Post by aztec00 on Feb 18, 2011 14:32:17 GMT -8
As long as they are not sold to a BYU fan I have no problem with our students paying part of their tuition with some smart business sense. It does suck that not all students want to actually go to the game though. I think this "free tickets are paid for by SDSU student's tuition" is a bad argument for allowing students to sell them. SDSU students have their tuition subsidized by California (taxpayers), so we non-students also help pay for those tickets. The reason they give students free tickets is to encourage SDSU students to attend games and to generate interest in athletics and improve our home court advantage. If the school sold those student tickets, especially this year, they could jack the price and SDSU athletics would be better for it. Students who sell their free tickets are taking advantage of SDSU and, although it is not yet against the rules, misusing the tickets.
|
|
|
Post by yusef on Feb 18, 2011 14:34:00 GMT -8
Any BYU fan that buys a student ticket will be forced to stand far away in a safe place, cuz they won't survive 2 seconds in there
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Feb 18, 2011 14:37:31 GMT -8
I think this "free tickets are paid for by SDSU student's tuition" is a bad argument for allowing students to sell them. SDSU students have their tuition subsidized by California (taxpayers), so we non-students also help pay for those tickets. No we don't. IRA fees are a totally seperate fee that vary in amount from campus to campus. The IRA fee at SDSU is the only fee used to subsidize athletics, and hence, the 'free' tickets. Taxpayers aren't, and never have, paid for SDSU students to attend sporting events.
|
|
|
Post by azlumni on Feb 18, 2011 22:29:58 GMT -8
As long as they are not sold to a BYU fan I have no problem with our students paying part of their tuition with some smart business sense. It does suck that not all students want to actually go to the game though. I think this "free tickets are paid for by SDSU student's tuition" is a bad argument for allowing students to sell them. SDSU students have their tuition subsidized by California (taxpayers), so we non-students also help pay for those tickets. The reason they give students free tickets is to encourage SDSU students to attend games and to generate interest in athletics and improve our home court advantage. If the school sold those student tickets, especially this year, they could jack the price and SDSU athletics would be better for it. Students who sell their free tickets are taking advantage of SDSU and, although it is not yet against the rules, misusing the tickets. You could make the opposite argument. Jacking up the price of the athletics fee and making all students pay makes SDSU athletics better. The school forcing all students to pay this fee regardless of if they attend games could be considered taking advantage of the students. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by hbaztec on Feb 19, 2011 9:41:13 GMT -8
Well, back in the day, our ID was our ticket for all games. We did not get the extra ticket.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmadness on Feb 19, 2011 10:13:20 GMT -8
I'm all for if students wanting to make some extra money but it sucks for the students who actually want to get tickets and can't. I guarantee you that there will probably be students standing in line who won't be able to get tickets because they will all be gone by the time they get up there.
And I bet no college student has $150+ to go to the game that he should be able to go to for free. Thats why I don't agree with students trying to scalp their tickets.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 19, 2011 10:29:02 GMT -8
If they were to only get one ticket and not be able to buy another to scalp and if they had to dress up like a banana or a Mormom on a mission, then it should be free.
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 19, 2011 10:32:21 GMT -8
No we don't. IRA fees are a totally seperate fee that vary in amount from campus to campus. The IRA fee at SDSU is the only fee used to subsidize athletics, and hence, the 'free' tickets. Taxpayers aren't, and never have, paid for SDSU students to attend sporting events. IRA fees don't come close to covering the revenue shortfall of the athletic department. They have always been heavily subsidized by the general fund. So while you can claim the "student fee" is why they get the free tickets, there would be no athletics at all without the taxpayers subsidizing the entire athletic department. $15 Million of the AD budget came from subsidies (more if you count the loans to cover the deficit). 31k students x $200 = $6.2 Million in fee's towards athletics. Considering the student fees don't even cover half of the subsidies to athletics, I'd say the taxpayers are definitely paying more than their share for the "free" student tickets. If the school doesn't care then nobody else should, but considering the school has had to borrow from the general fund forever, I'd also have no problem with the school unilaterally instituting a rule that charges for tickets, requires a student ID for entry, and raises the IRA. After all, there's no place like college to teach kids about the free market, right? They are always free to transfer if they don't think it's fair. Considering there are 8-10 times more applicants to SDSU than can be admitted, I guess the free market is saying that SDSU isn't charging students enough, so a fair trade-off would be for the school to charge students what the free market will support, and the students sell their tickets for whatever the free market will support.
|
|
|
Post by azlumni on Feb 19, 2011 11:28:13 GMT -8
No we don't. IRA fees are a totally seperate fee that vary in amount from campus to campus. The IRA fee at SDSU is the only fee used to subsidize athletics, and hence, the 'free' tickets. Taxpayers aren't, and never have, paid for SDSU students to attend sporting events. IRA fees don't come close to covering the revenue shortfall of the athletic department. They have always been heavily subsidized by the general fund. So while you can claim the "student fee" is why they get the free tickets, there would be no athletics at all without the taxpayers subsidizing the entire athletic department. $15 Million of the AD budget came from subsidies (more if you count the loans to cover the deficit). 31k students x $200 = $6.2 Million in fee's towards athletics. Considering the student fees don't even cover half of the subsidies to athletics, I'd say the taxpayers are definitely paying more than their share for the "free" student tickets. If the school doesn't care then nobody else should, but considering the school has had to borrow from the general fund forever, I'd also have no problem with the school unilaterally instituting a rule that charges for tickets, requires a student ID for entry, and raises the IRA. After all, there's no place like college to teach kids about the free market, right? They are always free to transfer if they don't think it's fair. Considering there are 8-10 times more applicants to SDSU than can be admitted, I guess the free market is saying that SDSU isn't charging students enough, so a fair trade-off would be for the school to charge students what the free market will support, and the students sell their tickets for whatever the free market will support. That may be true, but the fees were instituted along with the promise of free tickets. Part of the trade off for the added fees was the elimination of paid student tickets. When I was a student it cost $50 for season tickets to both football and basketball. I think the school got the better end of the deal by charging every student $200 instead of 2,500 (at best) $50.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Feb 19, 2011 11:40:52 GMT -8
That may be true, but the fees were instituted along with the promise of free tickets. Part of the trade off for the added fees was the elimination of paid student tickets. When I was a student it cost $50 for season tickets to both football and basketball. I think the school got the better end of the deal by charging every student $200 instead of 2,500 (at best) $50. This. Somebody who actually understands how things work up there. My guess is you passed the upper division writing exam the first time around?
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 19, 2011 12:11:16 GMT -8
That may be true, but the fees were instituted along with the promise of free tickets. Part of the trade off for the added fees was the elimination of paid student tickets. When I was a student it cost $50 for season tickets to both football and basketball. I think the school got the better end of the deal by charging every student $200 instead of 2,500 (at best) $50. This. Somebody who actually understands how things work up there. My guess is you passed the upper division writing exam the first time around? Apparently it's possible to pass the writing exam without knowing the meaning of "Subsidy". Claiming that taxpayers have never subsidized student tickets, while ignoring the fact that taxpayers provide more of the athletic department budget than the students, is either dishonest or obtuse. I understand how things work up there. The school provides the students with something for less than it's actual value, the difference is made up by the taxpayers because as a whole, they believe that there is value in providing the students with the opportunity to participate in something which might otherwise be unattainable. If only there were some word in the English language that could express: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Feb 19, 2011 12:33:15 GMT -8
Wrong.
Let's use the 2010-2011 sports season as an example.
When the IRA fee increase was instituted by President Weber circa '04 it was a $160 year increase, 80 of which would be returned to the general fund in a doubiously legal move, the other 80 went directly to athletics with the explicit agreement that students would no longer have to pay for tickets to sporting events.
80 bucks per year x ~28k students = 2.25 million dollars from increased student fees that specifically promised 'free' tickets.
Using the lowest rates avalible to the public via season ticket sales. If SDSU would have sold out student season tickets for football ($66), men's basketball ($99), and women's basketball ($60), they would have collected $982,000.
How in the world can anybody say that student tickets are subsidized by taxpayers when the University is collecting more than double in student fees earmarked for student tickets than they would in revenue if they sold out every game to students at a rate that they are charging to the general public?
|
|
|
Post by azlumni on Feb 19, 2011 13:17:50 GMT -8
This. Somebody who actually understands how things work up there. My guess is you passed the upper division writing exam the first time around? I understand how things work up there. The school provides the students with something for less than it's actual value, the difference is made up by the taxpayers because as a whole, they believe that there is value in providing the students with the opportunity to participate in something which might otherwise be unattainable. This is where you are wrong. The school does charge students for tickets, it just doesn't happen at the ticket windows when they pick up their tickets. Every student, whether they plan on attending a game or not, pays for tickets every semester when they pay the IRA fee. I'm sure if you were to ask the entire student body if they would want to return to the old system, and charge just the 2,500 students who attend basketball games for their tickets, or keep collecting $200 from everyone on campus, they'd gladly give up the "free" tickets.
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 19, 2011 13:47:22 GMT -8
How in the world can anybody say that student tickets are subsidized by taxpayers when the University is collecting more than double in student fees earmarked for student tickets than they would in revenue if they sold out every game to students at a rate that they are charging to the general public? Short answer, they're both subsidized, which is why the school limits the number of those tickets sold to the general public, and why they limit the number of student tickets available. I know math is a difficult subject, so perhaps a refresher in basic arithmetic is in order. $35 Million > $6.2 Million in student fees + $17-18 Million other revenue. The athletic department is subsidized by $7-10 Million annually. It seems pretty obvious, but since you don't seem to grasp the concept, I'll give another example. Assume California decides to spend $50 Billion to build a high speed train from LA to San Francisco that will cost $5 Billion a year to finance. They plan to charge San Francisco residents $50/ticket because they're rich, and expect to make $500 Million a year from them. They will charge everybody else $40 a ticket, and expect to raise $2 Billion a year. The other $2.5 Billion comes from the California general fund. While the San Francisco resident is paying more than any other resident, they are still paying less than it should actually cost to to cover the cost of train, so they are being subsidized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2011 13:52:15 GMT -8
Any BYU fan that buys a student ticket will be forced to stand far away in a safe place, cuz they won't survive 2 seconds in there I would sure hope so. Screw those mofos. No way should more than several hundred of them be in our house for the biggest home game in school history. And this. If SDSU basketball is to truly become top notch, there needs to be a system created to give alumni like yours truly the first shot at purchasing extra tickets. Create some kind of system in which the seller knows he or she isn't going to be helping some phuckin' Young Borg U fan invade our house.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2011 14:06:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by 1611Luginbill on Feb 19, 2011 14:15:21 GMT -8
Short answer, they're both subsidized, which is why the school limits the number of those tickets sold to the general public, and why they limit the number of student tickets available. The ticket prices for the public are set at what the Athletic department thinks the market will bear. It has nothing to with a ticket subsidy. Good tickets cost more, s#!++y tickets cost less. You are confusing the idea that the students have to subsidize all athletic operations. I agree with you on that, they don't. But ticket sales, whether they come the general public or student fees, is one of many sources of revenue for the department. There's not a single college in the county that can fund all of their athletic expenses through ticket revenue alone. When it comes to ticket revenue however, using prices that are set for the general San Diego public, SDSU students pay their own way and more. The only ticket subsidy here is SDSU students who don't go to the game pay for the SDSU student that does go to the game. The bottom line is that the Athletic department makes more money from the $80 student ticket fee than they ever would if they had to sell them to students at a rate that they charge to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by azteckev on Feb 19, 2011 16:09:13 GMT -8
Those who brave the lines will earn their tickets and the right to do with them what they will. If they sell their GA tickets (even to Who supporters), they will be scattered around the arena. Our (non-student) responsibility will therefore be to be as cold and unwelcoming to those scattered enemy fans as possible...
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Feb 20, 2011 6:16:46 GMT -8
Short answer, they're both subsidized, which is why the school limits the number of those tickets sold to the general public, and why they limit the number of student tickets available. The ticket prices for the public are set at what the Athletic department thinks the market will bear. It has nothing to with a ticket subsidy. Good tickets cost more, s#!++y tickets cost less. You are confusing the idea that the students have to subsidize all athletic operations. I agree with you on that, they don't. But ticket sales, whether they come the general public or student fees, is one of many sources of revenue for the department. There's not a single college in the county that can fund all of their athletic expenses through ticket revenue alone. When it comes to ticket revenue however, using prices that are set for the general San Diego public, SDSU students pay their own way and more. The only ticket subsidy here is SDSU students who don't go to the game pay for the SDSU student that does go to the game. The bottom line is that the Athletic department makes more money from the $80 student ticket fee than they ever would if they had to sell them to students at a rate that they charge to the general public. This is a silly argument, but for some reason I find it interesting. If the tickets prices are set at a level that doesn't cover the actual cost of running the department (after all other revenue is accounted for), and the taxpayer is covering the difference, then it's a subsidy. Yes ticket prices are set at what the consumer will pay, but they can be set at a price that is less than the actual cost because the taxpayer makes up the difference. If the tickets weren't subsidized the options would be: raise ticket prices, raise revenue in some other fashion, or cut spending. The school doesn't have to make that choice because they are able to use taxpayer money to cover the operation of the athletic department. Students who don't attend games are subsidizing the cost of the department for those who do attend games, that's true, so they are losing out more than anybody under the current policy which allows some students to scalp tickets. It's not a big deal this year since it's the first time there has been an aftermarket demand for tickets, but if it continues the school would be shortchanging both the students who are entitled to tickets but can't get them, and the taxpayers who are subsidizing the tickets, by not implementing policies that either allow as many students as possible access to "student" tickets, and/or maximizing revenue so the taxpayers don't have to subsidize the department as much.
|
|