spacemonkey wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:42 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:17 pm

Personally, I don’t have a problem with bumping. If someone can give more than I do, they deserve the spot. I can donate more or give it up,

Personally, I do. Those "Johnny come lately" fans will be the first to disappear if we start losing. The fans that have those spots have been buying tickets for a long time and should not get bumped. I moved and don't plan to move back. They made their decision and I made mine. No hard feelings but don't come ask for help when it blows up. They better hope we keep winning.

joshjj23 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:59 pm

Just found out I didn't get parking. Been season ticket holder for 7 years. Always parked in rivers. Shitty part is I just found out they actually called my friend and asked him for more money to park there. Why did some people get that option and some didn't?

ArmantiWaterSafety wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:28 pm

spacemonkey wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:42 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:17 pm

Personally, I don’t have a problem with bumping. If someone can give more than I do, they deserve the spot. I can donate more or give it up,

Personally, I do. Those "Johnny come lately" fans will be the first to disappear if we start losing. The fans that have those spots have been buying tickets for a long time and should not get bumped. I moved and don't plan to move back. They made their decision and I made mine. No hard feelings but don't come ask for help when it blows up. They better hope we keep winning.

That's a broad generalization of who these recent Yosef Club members are. I joined in 2020. I prioritized paying off my student loans over donating and got season tickets as soon as I could afford them. I certainly won't be disappearing if we start losing as I've been a rabid fan long before I could afford tickets. And by that train-of-thought, those that have been buying tickets for a long time that got bumped will get bumped right back up when they leave.

All the time on here we talk about why we have low donor numbers and how we don't have many programs on campus that produce high earning alumni, but then create a program that discourages people to donate more because we essentially give parking immunity to longevity.

This really only affects a very small amount of people. Presumably if someone has been donating for a long time, they have a lot of priority points. It would take a younger donor a lot of money to catch up with that person in priority points, which IMO should give the younger donor the opportunity to bump them.

I like to test the logic of policies by taking them to the extremes. Taking emotions out of it, what makes better sense economically to the university: Person A who is 70 years old who has given 100 dollars a year for 40 years or Person B who is 40 years old who went and got a mega high-income job and starts donating 5000/year? It would literally take person B 1 year to give more than Person A (cost of season tickets excluded), but Person B can't ever bump Person A from their spot. They are both valuable contributors because every dollar matters, but the economics of next years season ticket/donation changes point to the fact that the University needs money to take it to the next level. It's not like we're bumping Person A from attending the games or even parking, they just may have to park slightly farther away to make room for someone who is likely to continue giving at a high level.

If I donated 2000 a year and got a spot in Peacock for the next 5 years, and then some person at the end of that 5 years wanted a spot in Peacock and donated 3000 and ended up with more priority points than me through a combination of circumstances, I would fully expect and understand getting demoted to the next lot to make room.

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pm

ArmantiWaterSafety wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:28 pm

spacemonkey wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:42 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:17 pm

Personally, I don’t have a problem with bumping. If someone can give more than I do, they deserve the spot. I can donate more or give it up,

Personally, I do. Those "Johnny come lately" fans will be the first to disappear if we start losing. The fans that have those spots have been buying tickets for a long time and should not get bumped. I moved and don't plan to move back. They made their decision and I made mine. No hard feelings but don't come ask for help when it blows up. They better hope we keep winning.

That's a broad generalization of who these recent Yosef Club members are. I joined in 2020. I prioritized paying off my student loans over donating and got season tickets as soon as I could afford them. I certainly won't be disappearing if we start losing as I've been a rabid fan long before I could afford tickets. And by that train-of-thought, those that have been buying tickets for a long time that got bumped will get bumped right back up when they leave.

All the time on here we talk about why we have low donor numbers and how we don't have many programs on campus that produce high earning alumni, but then create a program that discourages people to donate more because we essentially give parking immunity to longevity.

This really only affects a very small amount of people. Presumably if someone has been donating for a long time, they have a lot of priority points. It would take a younger donor a lot of money to catch up with that person in priority points, which IMO should give the younger donor the opportunity to bump them.

I like to test the logic of policies by taking them to the extremes. Taking emotions out of it, what makes better sense economically to the university: Person A who is 70 years old who has given 100 dollars a year for 40 years or Person B who is 40 years old who went and got a mega high-income job and starts donating 5000/year? It would literally take person B 1 year to give more than Person A (cost of season tickets excluded), but Person B can't ever bump Person A from their spot. They are both valuable contributors because every dollar matters, but the economics of next years season ticket/donation changes point to the fact that the University needs money to take it to the next level. It's not like we're bumping Person A from attending the games or even parking, they just may have to park slightly farther away to make room for someone who is likely to continue giving at a high level.

If I donated 2000 a year and got a spot in Peacock for the next 5 years, and then some person at the end of that 5 years wanted a spot in Peacock and donated 3000 and ended up with more priority points than me through a combination of circumstances, I would fully expect and understand getting demoted to the next lot to make room.

Pay him no mind. He isn’t interested in the school or athletic program getting better if it adversely affects his needs. He seems quite content to root for failure if he isn’t going to benefit from the success.

There was a reason that I blocked this guy and I apologize to all of you that inconvenienced through my attempt to engage with a wall. Carry on.

spacemonkey wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:55 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:38 pm

ArmantiWaterSafety wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 2:28 pm

spacemonkey wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:42 pm

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 1:17 pm

Personally, I don’t have a problem with bumping. If someone can give more than I do, they deserve the spot. I can donate more or give it up,

Personally, I do. Those "Johnny come lately" fans will be the first to disappear if we start losing. The fans that have those spots have been buying tickets for a long time and should not get bumped. I moved and don't plan to move back. They made their decision and I made mine. No hard feelings but don't come ask for help when it blows up. They better hope we keep winning.

That's a broad generalization of who these recent Yosef Club members are. I joined in 2020. I prioritized paying off my student loans over donating and got season tickets as soon as I could afford them. I certainly won't be disappearing if we start losing as I've been a rabid fan long before I could afford tickets. And by that train-of-thought, those that have been buying tickets for a long time that got bumped will get bumped right back up when they leave.

All the time on here we talk about why we have low donor numbers and how we don't have many programs on campus that produce high earning alumni, but then create a program that discourages people to donate more because we essentially give parking immunity to longevity.

This really only affects a very small amount of people. Presumably if someone has been donating for a long time, they have a lot of priority points. It would take a younger donor a lot of money to catch up with that person in priority points, which IMO should give the younger donor the opportunity to bump them.

I like to test the logic of policies by taking them to the extremes. Taking emotions out of it, what makes better sense economically to the university: Person A who is 70 years old who has given 100 dollars a year for 40 years or Person B who is 40 years old who went and got a mega high-income job and starts donating 5000/year? It would literally take person B 1 year to give more than Person A (cost of season tickets excluded), but Person B can't ever bump Person A from their spot. They are both valuable contributors because every dollar matters, but the economics of next years season ticket/donation changes point to the fact that the University needs money to take it to the next level. It's not like we're bumping Person A from attending the games or even parking, they just may have to park slightly farther away to make room for someone who is likely to continue giving at a high level.

If I donated 2000 a year and got a spot in Peacock for the next 5 years, and then some person at the end of that 5 years wanted a spot in Peacock and donated 3000 and ended up with more priority points than me through a combination of circumstances, I would fully expect and understand getting demoted to the next lot to make room.

Pay him no mind. He isn’t interested in the school or athletic program getting better if it adversely affects his needs. He seems quite content to root for failure if he isn’t going to benefit from the success.

There was a reason that I blocked this guy and I apologize to all of you that inconvenienced through my attempt to engage with a wall. Carry on.

It is not that broad of a generalization...by definition it means recent. It will take you a while to prove your words. I hope you do. Congrats on paying off the debt and making good choices. I am pretty sure Appstate94 is recent as well. I hope he sticks around for many many years to block me.

Rekdiver wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:33 pm

It galls me that it took UNC coming here to get people to pony up. I have no problem with it costing more.

Rekdiver wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:33 pm

It galls me that it took UNC coming here to get people to pony up. I have no problem with it costing more.

Rekdiver wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:33 pm

It galls me that it took UNC coming here to get people to pony up. I have no problem with it costing more.

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:29 pm

When or lose, how do you actually think that this affects recruiting? We didn’t gain any advantages to recruiting when we won in 2019. Inquiring minds want to know.

BambooRdApp wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:38 pm

I think the game does help with recruiting. It showcases a packed house and great environment to play in. If I were a recruit, I want to play in a great atmosphere with packed houses. Is it at the top of my list, no. My comfortability with coaching staff, winning culture, and comfort level on campus, etc. are higher. However, if it is a close decision between two schools, knowing I will play in a packed house does factor in my decision

AppSt94 wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:49 pm

BambooRdApp wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:38 pm

I think the game does help with recruiting. It showcases a packed house and great environment to play in. If I were a recruit, I want to play in a great atmosphere with packed houses. Is it at the top of my list, no. My comfortability with coaching staff, winning culture, and comfort level on campus, etc. are higher. However, if it is a close decision between two schools, knowing I will play in a packed house does factor in my decision

I think the atmosphere does influence some kids in our favor. And all of what you said is also true. But there is a ceiling to that influence and while it the atmosphere will could help sway kids on the fence with other G5s, I don’t think that it makes a difference when a kid is picking between us and a P5.