SoCal_Pony wrote:IPP, you and I view this a little different. People feeling ripped off tend to get angry.
I agree SoCal it has been a disaster. Hart, Jank, RGV...someone should make a phone call or go pay a personal visit to this great and generous SMU fan in Austin. Hell we can not afford to lose a fan like this!
mtrout wrote:If SMU wanted to repair things they would offer Mr. XXXXX a free year of tickets in his old seats. That would have been the smart move. Whenever you get up in age you lose patience for petty stuff like SMU pulls sometimes.
Perhaps my age is reason IΓÇÖve lost patience with SMU. Someone screws with me, as SMU has done, I move on.
SoCal_Pony wrote:IPP, you and I view this a little different. People feeling ripped off tend to get angry.
I agree SoCal it has been a disaster. Hart, Jank, RGV...someone should make a phone call or go pay a personal visit to this great and generous SMU fan in Austin. Hell we can not afford to lose a fan like this!
To the extent the great and generous donor isn't looking to say kiss my rear end or xxxx you, 78 has my # and is welcome to give it to him.
SoCal_Pony wrote:IPP, you and I view this a little different. People feeling ripped off tend to get angry.
I agree SoCal it has been a disaster. Hart, Jank, RGV...someone should make a phone call or go pay a personal visit to this great and generous SMU fan in Austin. Hell we can not afford to lose a fan like this!
To the extent the great and generous donor isn't looking to say kiss my rear end or xxxx you, 78 has my # and is welcome to give it to him.
RGV - If SMU really wanted to do the right thing , every season ticket holder that said " screw you , SMU I'm not renewing " would be called by someone who had at minimum "AD" in their job title.
I am one of the few that didn't have a problem with the reseat. If someone is giving more than me then they should have access to seats that correspond with the giving requirement. I used to have 5 tickets, 2 in 204 and 3 in 205. With the price increase I chose to purchase 3 instead of 5 and they are in 204. You can argue that the timing of the whole thing was poor, and the current product certainly doesn't justify the price increase, but I think there might be a silver lining. They have put enormous pressure on themselves to justify current pricing which means they can't allow losing teams. If they do allow it, then we will soon be able to purchase season tickets for $125 like the old days and I can't believe David Miller will be very happy.
Again, for me it was not the pricing of the reseat, but the thought of giving my money and not knowing where the seats will be was the reason i said Goodbye.
Insane_Pony_Posse wrote:[quote="SoCal_Pony"]IPP, you and I view this a little different. People feeling ripped off tend to get angry.
RGV - If SMU really wanted to do the right thing , every season ticket holder that said " screw you , SMU I'm not renewing " would be called by someone who had at minimum "AD" in their job title.
They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.
SoCal_Pony wrote:IPP, you and I view this a little different. People feeling ripped off tend to get angry.
I agree SoCal it has been a disaster. Hart, Jank, RGV...someone should make a phone call or go pay a personal visit to this great and generous SMU fan in Austin. Hell we can not afford to lose a fan like this!
To the extent the great and generous donor isn't looking to say kiss my rear end or xxxx you, 78 has my # and is welcome to give it to him.
Thanks RGV. I will pass this along. My initial impression is that he is/was offended. As in personally.
ponypatrick wrote:RGV - If SMU really wanted to do the right thing , every season ticket holder that said " screw you , SMU I'm not renewing " would be called by someone who had at minimum "AD" in their job title.
They were. Multiple times. Talked to in person too, or at least invited to do so.
A lot of what I post on this board is limited to conjecture, but I know for an absolute fact that this is false.
I just passed the temporary Garland gym on way to Christmas party on Saturday night. That was really far out of the way for me. I attended every one of those games. SMU sold my Moody seat to someone else. No loyalty from SMU. It may be a long time if at all before I ever buy season tickets for SMU again.
I gave SMU every chance to fix its error and they chose not to.
The other myth that I feel the need to dispel (again) is that the reseat was financially beneficial to SMU. Outside from an additional 35 individuals who gave over $60,000 to the school, the reseat lost money on the previous year. So to justify the reseat financially means that the school has to take the position that those 35 people are worth more to the program than all the rest.
And chances are those 35 souls were giving money to athletic causes anyway that have now been classified as MC eligible donations (which I understand was a recent change) so its not actually all new money but money that would in previous years have been categorized differently.
Mustangsabu wrote:I gave SMU every chance to fix its error and they chose not to.
The other myth that I feel the need to dispel (again) is that the reseat was financially beneficial to SMU. Outside from an additional 35 individuals who gave over $60,000 to the school, the reseat lost money on the previous year. So to justify the reseat financially means that the school has to take the position that those 35 people are worth more to the program than all the rest.
And chances are those 35 souls were giving money to athletic causes anyway that have now been classified as MC eligible donations (which I understand was a recent change) so its not actually all new money but money that would in previous years have been categorized differently.
Smoke and mirrors.
I have heard several different things. If the program actually hit a home run on this, I would be thrilled if they would just spell it out and let all know what the real situation turned out to be. Who knows, many might just say congrats, job well done. I would, and I was minimally re-seated.
Mustangsabu wrote:I gave SMU every chance to fix its error and they chose not to.
The other myth that I feel the need to dispel (again) is that the reseat was financially beneficial to SMU. Outside from an additional 35 individuals who gave over $60,000 to the school, the reseat lost money on the previous year. So to justify the reseat financially means that the school has to take the position that those 35 people are worth more to the program than all the rest.
And chances are those 35 souls were giving money to athletic causes anyway that have now been classified as MC eligible donations (which I understand was a recent change) so its not actually all new money but money that would in previous years have been categorized differently.
Smoke and mirrors.
I have heard several different things. If the program actually hit a home run on this, I would be thrilled if they would just spell it out and let all know what the real situation turned out to be. Who knows, many might just say congrats, job well done. I would, and I was minimally re-seated.
I should clarify that my position is based on the information given to the donors with respect to numbers on the various donation levels. I have a spreadsheet but I can't attach it.
used to be 2 wrote:Again, for me it was not the pricing of the reseat, but the thought of giving my money and not knowing where the seats will be was the reason i said Goodbye.
Did you meet with your rep when they reached out to you? I did and he told me I should add another 1k to my donation to stay where I was. I did that and actually improved my seats by a couple of rows.
