EWU AD...no extra seats .....smh

[MsMaroon]

The article states that all 150 tickets available on Tuesday were gone in 3 minutes, yet I got (2) at almost 11:00

Journalistic integrity is really a theme today.

 

[EWURanger29]

I agree that bringing in additional seats would have been been benefical; if for nothing else the local economy. My point, which was largely a response to CDA's "subsidies" nonsense, was that schools don't make a lot of money off of ticket revenue in the playoffs - the majority of it goes to the NCAA. The $$$ guarantee is why certain 8-4 teams are generally able to get home playoff games over others - the NCAA likes the additional revenue. I read the same argument on this site very frequently; and it is a good argument.

The only real thing I take issue with in your post is the "doubling" the price for Griz fan comment. This seems to be another infamous Egriz myth. Tickets were made available at a reduced cost to season ticket holders (as they should be) up until the 1st of December, at which point they they were made available to the general public. There has to be a way to prioritize tickets for a game like this, and I think it makes perfect sense to reward folks who have made an investment in the program throughout the season. There is nothing unethical, illegal, or immoral about it. You paid the same price as anyone else who's not a season ticket holder.

But thanks for confirming my suspicions that these gripes have very little to do with anything other than a little bit of entitlement syndrome amongst some of the Montana faitful.

Here's a rhetorical question for you: Does everyone pay the same price for a playoff game in Missoula?

Bear in mind I already know the answer.

How is saying taxpayers subsidize the majority of EWU's football program "nonsense?"

Well, first off, I think you may be confusing the difference between what "taxpayer dollars", and "institutional support" means. Your implication that 'taxpayer dollars" largely subsidize Eastern's Athletics programs is false, as it is illegal under Washington State legislation for educational dollars to go towards athletics programs. It's the reason why UW's stadium project couldn't be funded with tax dollars, and the same reason why EWU's won't be, either.

Institutional support, which are the subsidies you are referring to, come mostly in the form of students fees, and in the figure you referenced (not sure it's 75%, but for argument's sake, let's say it is) that's where that money comes from. It is not "taxpayer money", as you implied. A large percentage of DI schools rely on student fees, although that percentage is most likely significantly lower in the schools that are in P5 conferences that generate a lot of revenue through lucrative TV contracts. Montana probably has student fees as well, but generates more revenue in ticket sales, so that percentage is probably much lower (I admittedly haven't looked, but it's probably a safe bet that's the case).

Secondly, at least part of the premise of your argument seems to be built on the assumption that ticket revenue generated in the FCS playoffs goes to the school. It doesn't. It goes to the NCAA to help off-set the costs of hosting the tournament. I am sure there are others that can chime in here, but that is generally known and understood to be true by most people that have an understanding of FCS football. I am paraphrasing here, but you go on to question why a program that is so highly subsidized would not bring in extra seats to generate more income from ticket sales. I'm not sure if you need me to elaborate on the flaws in that logic, but I suppose I could if you need me to.

Hopefully this clears up why I thought your comments were nonsense.

With all that said, I'm not arguing that additional seats wouldn't be beneficial to local businesses. I actually agree with that, but also find a little humor in the rationale that Montana fan's #1 concern in all of this is the local economy.

Who pays the money? Does EWU make it on its own? Oh, they don't? What? It's almost a 75% subsidy?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Hope this helps.

So almost 72% of EWU's athletics budget is derived from students fees...which are associated with tuition, not taxpayer money, as you tried to imply. Is there a point here? Are you able to be truthful about anything you post at all?

According to this, 43% of Montana's athletic budget is subsidized. So a little under half of your athletics budget comes from students fees or other institutional support (not sure what the laws are in Montana)...my guess is student fees. I guess you're just barely better than a State Charity, huh?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

How is saying taxpayers subsidize the majority of EWU's football program "nonsense?"

Well, first off, I think you may be confusing the difference between what "taxpayer dollars", and "institutional support" means. Your implication that 'taxpayer dollars" largely subsidize Eastern's Athletics programs is false, as it is illegal under Washington State legislation for educational dollars to go towards athletics programs. It's the reason why UW's stadium project couldn't be funded with tax dollars, and the same reason why EWU's won't be, either.

Institutional support, which are the subsidies you are referring to, come mostly in the form of students fees, and in the figure you referenced (not sure it's 75%, but for argument's sake, let's say it is) that's where that money comes from. It is not "taxpayer money", as you implied. A large percentage of DI schools rely on student fees, although that percentage is most likely significantly lower in the schools that are in P5 conferences that generate a lot of revenue through lucrative TV contracts. Montana probably has student fees as well, but generates more revenue in ticket sales, so that percentage is probably much lower (I admittedly haven't looked, but it's probably a safe bet that's the case).

Secondly, at least part of the premise of your argument seems to be built on the assumption that ticket revenue generated in the FCS playoffs goes to the school. It doesn't. It goes to the NCAA to help off-set the costs of hosting the tournament. I am sure there are others that can chime in here, but that is generally known and understood to be true by most people that have an understanding of FCS football. I am paraphrasing here, but you go on to question why a program that is so highly subsidized would not bring in extra seats to generate more income from ticket sales. I'm not sure if you need me to elaborate on the flaws in that logic, but I suppose I could if you need me to.

Hopefully this clears up why I thought your comments were nonsense.

With all that said, I'm not arguing that additional seats wouldn't be beneficial to local businesses. I actually agree with that, but also find a little humor in the rationale that Montana fan's #1 concern in all of this is the local economy.

Who pays the money? Does EWU make it on its own? Oh, they don't? What? It's almost a 75% subsidy?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Hope this helps.

So almost 72% of EWU's athletics budget is derived from students fees...which are associated with tuition, not taxpayer money, as you tried to imply. Is there a point here? Are you able to be truthful about anything you post at all?

According to this, 43% of Montana's athletic budget is subsidized. So a little under half of your athletics budget comes from students fees or other institutional support (not sure what the laws are in Montana)...my guess is student fees. I guess you're just barely better than a State Charity, huh?

Yep. Still better. Look up who pays taxes. Hope this helps.

 

[EWURanger29]

Well, first off, I think you may be confusing the difference between what "taxpayer dollars", and "institutional support" means. Your implication that 'taxpayer dollars" largely subsidize Eastern's Athletics programs is false, as it is illegal under Washington State legislation for educational dollars to go towards athletics programs. It's the reason why UW's stadium project couldn't be funded with tax dollars, and the same reason why EWU's won't be, either.

Institutional support, which are the subsidies you are referring to, come mostly in the form of students fees, and in the figure you referenced (not sure it's 75%, but for argument's sake, let's say it is) that's where that money comes from. It is not "taxpayer money", as you implied. A large percentage of DI schools rely on student fees, although that percentage is most likely significantly lower in the schools that are in P5 conferences that generate a lot of revenue through lucrative TV contracts. Montana probably has student fees as well, but generates more revenue in ticket sales, so that percentage is probably much lower (I admittedly haven't looked, but it's probably a safe bet that's the case).

Secondly, at least part of the premise of your argument seems to be built on the assumption that ticket revenue generated in the FCS playoffs goes to the school. It doesn't. It goes to the NCAA to help off-set the costs of hosting the tournament. I am sure there are others that can chime in here, but that is generally known and understood to be true by most people that have an understanding of FCS football. I am paraphrasing here, but you go on to question why a program that is so highly subsidized would not bring in extra seats to generate more income from ticket sales. I'm not sure if you need me to elaborate on the flaws in that logic, but I suppose I could if you need me to.

Hopefully this clears up why I thought your comments were nonsense.

With all that said, I'm not arguing that additional seats wouldn't be beneficial to local businesses. I actually agree with that, but also find a little humor in the rationale that Montana fan's #1 concern in all of this is the local economy.

Who pays the money? Does EWU make it on its own? Oh, they don't? What? It's almost a 75% subsidy?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Hope this helps.

So almost 72% of EWU's athletics budget is derived from students fees...which are associated with tuition, not taxpayer money, as you tried to imply. Is there a point here? Are you able to be truthful about anything you post at all?

According to this, 43% of Montana's athletic budget is subsidized. So a little under half of your athletics budget comes from students fees or other institutional support (not sure what the laws are in Montana)...my guess is student fees. I guess you're just barely better than a State Charity, huh?

Yep. Still better. Look up who pays taxes. Hope this helps.

Good grief, fella. That's your response? I'm truly amazed that you attended law school and presumably passed a state bar somewhere. Arguments aren't really your strong suit. SMH.

 

[Fahque]

News story:
Season ticket holders snatch up 99% of EWU-Griz tickets
http://www.krem.com/story/news/loca...playoff-tickets-are-a-hot-commodity/19824911/

Many Eagles fans are pissed off too.

I'll be there. I got lucky. Go Griz!

Bush league. No other way to put it.

"This year, the school said no additional bleachers will be added to Roos field. EWU workers say it usually takes two weeks for additional seating to be added and since less than two weeks have passed since the Eags found out they were in the playoffs, no new bleachers will be included."

Seriously? :shock:

Exactly…they've known for way more than two weeks…hell it's been that long since their last game and they knew before then.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

To summarize- every agrees that this game should draw, conservatively, 15k people (roughly half being montana fans). Said montana crowd would bring tens of thousands of dollars to the Cheney area this weekend. Seats available for Montana fans are limited to hundreds, not thousands. Start the move-up thread in 3...2....1.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Who pays the money? Does EWU make it on its own? Oh, they don't? What? It's almost a 75% subsidy?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
Hope this helps.

So almost 72% of EWU's athletics budget is derived from students fees...which are associated with tuition, not taxpayer money, as you tried to imply. Is there a point here? Are you able to be truthful about anything you post at all?

According to this, 43% of Montana's athletic budget is subsidized. So a little under half of your athletics budget comes from students fees or other institutional support (not sure what the laws are in Montana)...my guess is student fees. I guess you're just barely better than a State Charity, huh?

Yep. Still better. Look up who pays taxes. Hope this helps.

Good grief, fella. That's your response? I'm truly amazed that you attended law school and presumably passed a state bar somewhere. Arguments aren't really your strong suit. SMH.

Ha! That's actually very funny. I'm not sure what you were hoping for in terms of a response, but I apologize for letting you down. The facts here are very simple. 43% and 72% are not the same number. 72% is a majority, and almost three quarters. 43% is a minority, and far less than 72%. There is nothing else to cover.

 

[Umista]

I don't give a hoot if they gave me a free ride and tickets to roos I will never go back to that toilet of a field and listen to obnoxious fans.

That field is a low and the seats or lack of them is another show of a class less outfit. Naw they can have the entire red field. Eaglets deserve it!