cfm567b27 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Thanks for your post supertrex....I agree with you. Nice to see a fresh take on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I made three trips to REA this season. Maybe wiser heads prevailed in this decision for this past season, but on my trips last year, I was charged $5 for a "lap ticket" for my 1-year old to watch the game. Either I slipped thru the cracks this year or else that policy was scrapped because I didn't pay it this time around, but trust me, I was FUMING about this last season. Paying $25 to see my 2-second picture on the jumbo-tron is one thing, paying an extra $5 so my 1 year old can sit on my lap for a sporting event that he'll have no recollection of when he gets older is a joke. I realize economics drive what happens as Sicatoka has pointed out on more than one occasion. But I think it's getting taken to the point where it is beyond absurd. No one demaned leather seats that could be ripped open by the shoes of people who jump all over them while scurrying around between periods and no one asked for marble floors. All of these extras could have been used to keep costs down for future generations. Instead, what's going to happen is an over-priced game in a gawdy in-your-face building. I can hear the crickets now when they're giving away tickets because the Sioux are in a down season like Mankato or Michigan Tech and you know what? REA won't be a money-maker then. I'm still confused as to why there is a mile-long waiting list for season tickets when every trip I've made to Grand Forks, I get to see 500-1500 empty seats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertrex Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 You're welcome. My take on the increase is that they have raised them because they can. Let's face it: Fighting Sioux Hockey is one of the greatest aspects of the quality of life in Grand Forks and the surrounding area (we sell it to potential recruits in Fargo). It has brought more fun and good times to the area than almost anything else I can name. Hell, I left deer hunting early on opening day so I could make the Sioux/Gopher game. Now that's a powerful draw....and that's why they charge what they charge... I personally don't think students should pay more than a dollar or two for their tickets...They bring the life to the party. The school should simply charge the general public more. In fact, anyone caught sitting on their hands has to pay double....hopefully, after the great education that we received, we can afford to subsidize a future alumni's seat and create the same positive memories of UND that you and I have...Isn't that how big time athletics (and UND Hockey is BIG TIME) are justified in the first place? $28.75 a game is not too much to pay for the best seats in the house...but then, show me a bad seat at the Ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawkota Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 No one demaned leather seats that could be ripped open by the shoes of people who jump all over them while scurrying around between periods and no one asked for marble floors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted April 9, 2004 Author Share Posted April 9, 2004 In no way am I complaining about Ralph's generous gift, it is an awesome building. I just think that the purpose of the arena, to keep the Sioux hockey team in the forefront of college hockey, has become a secondary purpose. If I ever see the Sioux men's hockey team forced to practice on a rink that is not the size they will be playing on that week, it will very much upset me, as I'm sure it would have for Ralph as well. Maybe my frustration lies the most with being in seats that are not as good as they could have been had I known this was coming down the pike. I would have been in the front row in the upperdeck one section over instead. If there is no season ticket increase in the next few years on top of this, I won't have a problem with it. In short, like I said, there are ways to budget around this. After all, people only have so much disposable income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I'm still confused as to why there is a mile-long waiting list for season tickets when every trip I've made to Grand Forks, I get to see 500-1500 empty seats. Those emtpy seats are general admission seats that they don't sell prior to the game. Or in some cases they may be season ticket holders who don't show for the game and don't give away their seats. There are only a limited amount of season ticket seats. I think what you are getting at is that the REA should open up more of those seats to season ticket holders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yea, the atmosphere at the new place is twice as good as old REA. I've climbed up this tree before. Hockey is not about the hockey anymore...it's about the Fighting Sioux Club, drinking all-game long, fighting about what cheers can/can't be said, etc. REA is style over substance. Check out BU's new arena...there are comments about making sure the arena is intimate to accomodate the "noise" factor. This should have been a primary consideration of new REA instead of making sure the old-timers weren't rudely interrupted from their naps during game-time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airmail Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Check out BU's new arena...there are comments about making sure the arena is intimate to accomodate the "noise" factor. This should have been a primary consideration of new REA instead of making sure the old-timers weren't rudely interrupted from their naps during game-time. So you'd rather REA was 6200 seats like BU's new rink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 So you'd rather REA was 6200 seats like BU's new rink? You could imagine how small the student section would be if it was shrunk to that few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yea, that's it. I wanted new REA to be exactly like the old REA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airmail Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yea, that's it. I wanted new REA to be exactly like the old REA. Well then what exactly could have they done better to be more "intimate?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tboneund Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 The tuition is given at no additional cost to the school. It's like an employee taking a ride on a company jet when it has an open seat. The plane's gonna fly and one more person on board doesn't increase operating expenses significantly. Now, I realize that the student with an athletic scholarship does not contribute funds to the organization, but that money is not lost because the student would not contribute the money in any case (he or she would not attend the school). Room and board are another issue, but the tuition waiver does not cost the institution more money...state subsidies may not be granted for the out of state player, but I don't think that changes the fact that the costs are fixed on an institutional basis, especially when considering the total number of students enrolled. UND is not a tech school. It is, in fact, a very large institution. When the debate was on about NDSU's leap to Division 1, I heard reports that athletics do not benefit most institutions, but in fact, actually result in a net cash outlay. Most, if not all, of these "studies" included tuition costs and I do not believe that calculation is correct when it involves 200 scholarships out of 11,000 students. Of course, there are travel and other out of pocket expenses associated with athletics, but I'll bet ticket revenue far exceeds those actual, out of pocket expenses including room and board. Therefore, anytime someone tells you that the tuition waivers "cost" the department money, they are talking about an accounting entry only. For all practical purposes, the institution is whole...that is one of the reasons why athletic scholarships are limited - they are virtually free and very easy to give away...There may be other, justifiable reasons, but tuition cost is not the reason for the increase in ticket prices - those costs do not exist for the institution as a whole. First Rule of Economics: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Student athletes with scholarships do cost the University in the form of lost income. Is this lost income a big percent of the University Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertrex Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 First Rule of Economics: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Student athletes with scholarships do cost the University in the form of lost income. Is this lost income a big percent of the University Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tboneund Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 touch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 What could have made REA more intimate? Maybe lower the roof and eliminate the gigantic lounge areas to keep the noise sealed in? I don't even know why I get into these arguments. The students and players will tell you...old REA was better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 What could have made REA more intimate? Maybe lower the roof and eliminate the gigantic lounge areas to keep the noise sealed in? I don't even know why I get into these arguments. The students and players will tell you...old REA was better. I used to say the same thing about the old Boston Garden....It just takes time is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 My biggest beef isn't anything related to the arena...it's that the focus is taken off of the team and has been placed on socializing, drinking beer, and "being seen." The arena is just not as intimidating as old REA. CFM...you and I need to log off the computers and get a life! What the hell am I doing here on a Saturday night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 11, 2004 Share Posted April 11, 2004 My biggest beef isn't anything related to the arena...it's that the focus is taken off of the team and has been placed on socializing, drinking beer, and "being seen." The arena is just not as intimidating as old REA. CFM...you and I need to log off the computers and get a life! What the hell am I doing here on a Saturday night? Good point...just wanted to read the post NC game messages is about it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 The tuition is given at no additional cost to the school. It's like an employee taking a ride on a company jet when it has an open seat. The plane's gonna fly and one more person on board doesn't increase operating expenses significantly. That assertion is in direct contrast to what Roger Thomas has said more than once at Sioux Boosters. He has said unwaiveringly that every tuition increase must be covered by UND Athletics for their athletes. He has used the analogy that UND Athletics is "mom and dad" for UND athletes because they pay the tuition bills. He has also said that they (UND Athletics) pay the scholarship cost of tuition based on the "home state" of their athletes. (It costs UND Athletics more to have a student-athlete from Wisconsin than one from say North Dakota or a reciprocity state/province.) Somebody's story doesn't align here. Who's right? You or UND Athletic Director Roger Thomas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 That assertion is in direct contrast to what Roger Thomas has said more than once at Sioux Boosters. He has said unwaiveringly that every tuition increase must be covered by UND Athletics for their athletes. He has used the analogy that UND Athletics is "mom and dad" for UND athletes because they pay the tuition bills. He has also said that they (UND Athletics) pay the scholarship cost of tuition based on the "home state" of their athletes. (It costs UND Athletics more to have a student-athlete from Wisconsin than one from say North Dakota or a reciprocity state/province.) Somebody's story doesn't align here. Who's right? You or UND Athletic Director Roger Thomas? I will vote for Supertrex....His response was not politically motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Are you implying mine was? That'd be no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted April 12, 2004 Share Posted April 12, 2004 Are you implying mine was? That'd be no. No I'm implying Roger's might have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.