On the subject of attendance. . .

[gatorbogey]

Originally Posted by GatorLurker

I actually agree with Tupac on this one.

I have never had any difficulty giving away basketball tickets. I have never needed the UAA to do this service for me.

If I couldn't give them to friends ahead of the game I have been able to find parent/child pairs at Gate 1 that were overjoyed to get good seats for free.

If you can't give your tickets away it means that you ain't trying or they ain't worth having. The later is not correct.

since i'm in south florida, if i make it up to gate 1, i'm going to the game. for those fans not local to g'ville, i think this service is super! shouldn't be an empty seat in the lower bowl area.

[akaGatorhoops]

Originally Posted by tupacbiff

Yes but don't think the Uaa should be the proponent behind it.

I would be curious as to your thoughts on my economic theory. I admit, it likely has huge flaws, as I am hardly an economist... but my thought is this:

Those tickets forwarded to friend would have been provided to the friend regardless. The UAA is simply providing a vehicle to do so. And as stated, we have no idea if the friend is agreeing to buy the ticket or receiving it for free.

So, the only known "free tickets" are those donated to charity. I would argue that this actually would change the supply-demand component in favor of the ticket value. Here is why. . . those donated tickets are now off the market, and thus reducing supply. They were removed from the market without removing any secondary-market buyers, as it is logical to assume those receiving charity tix were likely not purchasers. So, the end result is less secondary market tickets available, for the same number of secondary buyers. Or, in economic terms, reduced supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would increase price/value.

If, instead of donated, those same tickets were to be sold on the secondary market... you would now have an increased number of tickets available for the same number of buyers. Or, in economic terms, increased supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would reduce price/value.

Thoughts?

[tupacbiff]

Originally Posted by akaGatorhoops

I would be curious as to your thoughts on my economic theory. I admit, it likely has huge flaws, as I am hardly an economist... but my thought is this:

Those tickets forwarded to friend would have been provided to the friend regardless. The UAA is simply providing a vehicle to do so. And as stated, we have no idea if the friend is agreeing to buy the ticket or receiving it for free.

So, the only known "free tickets" are those donated to charity. I would argue that this actually would change the supply-demand component in favor of the ticket value. Here is why. . . those donated tickets are now off the market, and thus reducing supply. They were removed from the market without removing any secondary-market buyers, as it is logical to assume those receiving charity tix were likely not purchasers. So, the end result is less secondary market tickets available, for the same number of secondary buyers. Or, in economic terms, reduced supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would increase price/value.

If, instead of donated, those same tickets were to be sold on the secondary market... you would now have an increased number of tickets available for the same number of buyers. Or, in economic terms, increased supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would reduce price/value.

Thoughts?

Interesting take. I think you make a few leaps in your thought process.

I guess I just don't think the Uaa should be spending time on this when they have so much better things to do. I also wonder how many worthwhile charities and the vetting process. What if thy gave them all to homeless people who didn't shower?

[RayUF07]

Originally Posted by akaGatorhoops

I would be curious as to your thoughts on my economic theory. I admit, it likely has huge flaws, as I am hardly an economist... but my thought is this:

Those tickets forwarded to friend would have been provided to the friend regardless. The UAA is simply providing a vehicle to do so. And as stated, we have no idea if the friend is agreeing to buy the ticket or receiving it for free.

So, the only known "free tickets" are those donated to charity. I would argue that this actually would change the supply-demand component in favor of the ticket value. Here is why. . . those donated tickets are now off the market, and thus reducing supply. They were removed from the market without removing any secondary-market buyers, as it is logical to assume those receiving charity tix were likely not purchasers. So, the end result is less secondary market tickets available, for the same number of secondary buyers. Or, in economic terms, reduced supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would increase price/value.

If, instead of donated, those same tickets were to be sold on the secondary market... you would now have an increased number of tickets available for the same number of buyers. Or, in economic terms, increased supply and static demand. That, by economic principles, would reduce price/value.

Thoughts?

He just doesn't get it, there really is no reason to keep feeding the troll. He's trolling here, hard, and is only taking his stance for the sake of arguing. Don't take the bait.

I'll answer you, since you do seem capable of understanding simple economics...the ONLY way his theory makes sense is, if there were say, 10,000 tickets unsold, and the school said "show up 20 minutes before the game and the first 10,000 get a free ticket." THEN, it would cheapen the product and reduce sales.

Providing a forum where people who have already PURCHASED a ticket can donate or otherwise distribute it however they please, will not cheapen the product. It will, however, provide someone who cannot attend a game, whether last minute or for other unforeseen circumstances an avenue to still have a butt in the seat to enjoy the game. There will still be the same secondary market available; after all, anyone who wants to make a buck is still going to try and sell the ticket, and anyone who wants to go is going to do what they can to purchase one.

[akaGatorhoops]

LOL! As Mike Hill said in an interview with me. . . Tupac never disappoints.
Unwashed homeless. . .this is going downhill fast.

[RayUF07]

Originally Posted by akaGatorhoops

LOL! As Mike Hill said in an interview with me. . . Tupac never disappoints.
Unwashed homeless. . .this is going downhill fast.

Exactly. That's why I wouldn't even give him a rebuttal. He's a joke, it's an act. I wasn't going to help feed that.

[MJGator8104]

My husband and I have bought football tickets for thirty years. When we lived in the state of Florida, we attended every game. When we lived in Tennessee, we did our best to attend at least two home games and the Kentucky or Vandy away games. Now that we're in Vegas, we're lucky to be able to attend one game.

Point is, we always do our best to have (Gator) fannies in our seats and this system makes it much easier and more likely we can make it happen. Same principle for the bball tickets and it's really a great system.

[philnotfil]

Originally Posted by tupacbiff

Interesting take. I think you make a few leaps in your thought process.

I guess I just don't think the Uaa should be spending time on this when they have so much better things to do. I also wonder how many worthwhile charities and the vetting process. What if thy gave them all to homeless people who didn't shower?

They have better things to do than to figure out how to get paid for tickets into the hands of people who will actually attend the games?

[grant1]

Originally Posted by tupacbiff

I did rea the article and understand it. Despite what you say they are giving away the tickets be it in the secondary market.

Giving something away for free cheapens the product. Yes sometimes it makes sense when launching a new product to get the word out.

However in terms of a sporting event it hurts tge secondary market and the perceive value of the event. Why not come up with an idea to rancorous he the ticket buyer to attend rather than provide a system to give the ticket away?

Many game times are controlled by TV schedules and you are not going to get as many out-of-town season ticket holders to a mid-week 8 or 9 PM game. Instead of these empty seats, this program covers that.

The program is not about revenue, but getting butts in the seats; it has absolutely nothing about cheapening the product.

[your_perfect_enemy]

I think the best thing they could do to boost attendance and revenue is sell alchohol. I know it's an SEC rule and I absolutely think it's good for football but I think it would be fine in every other sport. It would probably boost attendance 5-10% in every sport and they could make a killing selling bottles of crappy bud light for 400% the cost.

[Ahab]

No dice at on campus facilities.

[Brewski]

Originally Posted by Ahab

No dice at on campus facilities.

They could make exceptions for the boxes or even the club if they wanted like football. May have to amend some bylaws though.

[GatorLurker]

Originally Posted by Ahab

No dice at on campus facilities.

Orange and Brew is on campus.

Haven't been there in years, so perhaps the "brew" is now tea or coffee.

[Brewski]

Yep, Orange and Brew still has beer.

[Ahab]

I think the NCAA has a rule against alcohol at on campus athletic events.

[Brewski]

Originally Posted by Ahab

I think the NCAA has a rule against alcohol at on campus athletic events.

It's a SEC rule, not NCAA...at least in football. But there are loopholes. You can find booze in the sky boxes during any UF football game.

Go watch a Cinci football game. They sell beer in the main concourses.