[Goose]

Total costs were probably tallied in a way to make that statement true.

And that would be cool if is a halfway sane tally. I would like to see it though. I am not as confident as you that they actually did it.

At UCB they used to have a system for Haas with seat reallocation every few years based on ticket purchases and donations.  To actually buy a ticket at certain levels you needed to be donating at a good clip.  If you did not donate enough you would not actually be able to buy tickets in that zone even if ticket prices looked compelling.  I can imagine similar schemes exist for football tickets at different venues.  An AD could make that call and learn the actual total costs to really get access to certain seats that might not make the published ticket price.

Cool. And if they did that, and show it to us, maybe there will be less hatred and discontent. If not, it makes one doubt.

UCLA - High is definitely better than low given the sight lines.  Their stadium roasts during day games, so I am confident to actually get tickets under that press box would cost big money even if the stadium is largely empty.  A quick look reveals that their required donations are higher than Stanford's required donations.  Not a shock to me, but I realize many here had no idea how the rest of CFP has been using this type of pricing model for years.
http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/uc...ix_Map.pdf

Looks like their prices are higher than ours for seats in the described regions. However, as the stadium is largely empty, it may be that the prices they charge are too high. No point in matching a bad idea.

Arizona - Their stadium is bigger and their team..umm...well...sucks. 
Despite that they do have a rather pricey extra known as "priority".  Tickets are cheap, but to buy them requires this "priority" (a.k.a. donation).  However even with that the price in 2016 appears to be below Stanford in 2016.  Again though, team sucked.  Not sure if other things entered the total cost equation, but UofA seems close to Stanford rates.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf9/4462007.pdf?..._ID=30700&

Might actually be lower. There are lots of seats between the 20 and 40 in the brown "nosebleed" section. And, while the team sucked this year, there is little else to do in Tuscon, so that should in large measure compensate. BTW, Arizona visited Stanford this year to consider reducing the size of their stadium. Stanford actually outdraws them, at least on paper. So here is another example of a school charging more than the traffic will bear.

[Goose]

Total costs were probably tallied in a way to make that statement true.

And that would be cool if is a halfway sane tally. I would like to see it though. I am not as confident as you that they actually did it.

At UCB they used to have a system for Haas with seat reallocation every few years based on ticket purchases and donations.  To actually buy a ticket at certain levels you needed to be donating at a good clip.  If you did not donate enough you would not actually be able to buy tickets in that zone even if ticket prices looked compelling.  I can imagine similar schemes exist for football tickets at different venues.  An AD could make that call and learn the actual total costs to really get access to certain seats that might not make the published ticket price.

Cool. And if they did that, and show it to us, maybe there will be less hatred and discontent. If not, it makes one doubt.

UCLA - High is definitely better than low given the sight lines.  Their stadium roasts during day games, so I am confident to actually get tickets under that press box would cost big money even if the stadium is largely empty.  A quick look reveals that their required donations are higher than Stanford's required donations.  Not a shock to me, but I realize many here had no idea how the rest of CFP has been using this type of pricing model for years.
http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/uc...ix_Map.pdf

Looks like their prices are higher than ours for seats in the described regions. However, as the stadium is largely empty, it may be that the prices they charge are too high. No point in matching a bad idea.

Arizona - Their stadium is bigger and their team..umm...well...sucks. 
Despite that they do have a rather pricey extra known as "priority".  Tickets are cheap, but to buy them requires this "priority" (a.k.a. donation).  However even with that the price in 2016 appears to be below Stanford in 2016.  Again though, team sucked.  Not sure if other things entered the total cost equation, but UofA seems close to Stanford rates.
https://admin.xosn.com/pdf9/4462007.pdf?..._ID=30700&

Might actually be lower. There are lots of seats between the 20 and 40 in the brown "nosebleed" section. And, while the team sucked this year, there is little else to do in Tuscon, so that should in large measure compensate. BTW, Arizona visited Stanford this year to consider reducing the size of their stadium. Stanford actually outdraws them, at least on paper. So here is another example of a school charging more than the traffic will bear.