[Goose]

here are the details

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/STM/FB/17PSE.pdf

First of all, I am not affected by this new policy, as my seats in 232 are outside the lines. However, I am concerned that some of the statements in the letter are not literally true. I don't have the data to back up my point fully, but some anecdotal evidence suggests that the following statement in the letter is false.

"During a recent evaluation of our football ticket offerings, we found that the total cost of season  tickets between the 25 and 40 yard lines on the west sideline is the  lowest within the Pac-12 Conference."

It may be true that season tickets at or near field level are cheaper at Stanford than elsewhere. But I am almost positive at Arizona, for example, with there very tall stadium, if you sit up high their prices are lower than ours. My brother, who is an Arizona alum, also believes this. I suspect that this is also true at UCLA with their very high seats. I don't know about USC or ASU, but I would suspect the same. Does anyone know more on this subject? Anyway, if this statement is literally false, which I think it is, it shows the typical flawed thinking of the Athletic Department. As I say, I would believe that some definition of "premium" seats may make Stanford's season ticked prices the lowest. But not the one in this statement. This statement is an overly-broad, invalid justification for the action taken by the AD. If it is true, show us how you got there. Now, if he had just said "we think we can make more money for our worthy endeavors, I could buy that. But this kind of pseudo justification makes me ill.
Even if this statement  were literally true, it doesn't mean that what the rest of the conference is doing is appropriate for Stanford. I would challenge the AD to share the analysis that shows this change will be revenue positive.

[Goose]

here are the details

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/STM/FB/17PSE.pdf

First of all, I am not affected by this new policy, as my seats in 232 are outside the lines. However, I am concerned that some of the statements in the letter are not literally true. I don't have the data to back up my point fully, but some anecdotal evidence suggests that the following statement in the letter is false.

"During a recent evaluation of our football ticket offerings, we found that the total cost of season  tickets between the 25 and 40 yard lines on the west sideline is the  lowest within the Pac-12 Conference."

It may be true that season tickets at or near field level are cheaper at Stanford than elsewhere. But I am almost positive at Arizona, for example, with there very tall stadium, if you sit up high their prices are lower than ours. My brother, who is an Arizona alum, also believes this. I suspect that this is also true at UCLA with their very high seats. I don't know about USC or ASU, but I would suspect the same. Does anyone know more on this subject? Anyway, if this statement is literally false, which I think it is, it shows the typical flawed thinking of the Athletic Department. As I say, I would believe that some definition of "premium" seats may make Stanford's season ticked prices the lowest. But not the one in this statement. This statement is an overly-broad, invalid justification for the action taken by the AD. If it is true, show us how you got there. Now, if he had just said "we think we can make more money for our worthy endeavors, I could buy that. But this kind of pseudo justification makes me ill.
Even if this statement  were literally true, it doesn't mean that what the rest of the conference is doing is appropriate for Stanford. I would challenge the AD to share the analysis that shows this change will be revenue positive.