Section 102 Row D seats 5-10

Greene Rice FIG

Heisman
Dec 30, 2005
40,437
23,613
0
I think the supply demand equation for stubhub prices shouldn’t be used in the calculation. Fortunately we have very few 100 owners who sell on stub keeping the supply of tickets low. If prices are jacked up that could change.

Factoring the amount of people on the waitlist to get 100 tickets is important and I think that could justify an increase.
 

JayDogSmooth

All-Conference
Aug 18, 2006
8,096
3,789
0
The move for Rutgers is to create a system where SH’s can sell to 100 level WL people for a certain uptick

Have that price be for the cost of the ticket plus donation (so about $100/seat/game)

It’s an increase from the Tix board where it’s only cost per seat + people are getting lowballed, but admitely not as potentially high as SH. Trade off is it keeps Tix in hands of Rutgers Fans while ensuring STH gets adequate $ back per seat
 

GORU2014

All-Conference
Sep 4, 2013
2,640
4,670
113
actually he didn't say that. He said he sold those 2 games to "recoup some of the costs" He also didn't mention what section he sits in.
His exact words (Myrtleknight) were that he sold 2 tickets to 2 games (4 total) and “after fees (he) just about recouped the cost of one season ticket for the year.” So, before fees (15%) the value of 4 tickets basically made up for 20 tickets (1 seat for full season). So something is off there assuming the team doesn’t totally tank.

You’re right, he didn’t say which level, but if he’s in the 200s or 300s then the above would just lead me to believe pricing for all levels is off, not that the 100 level is fine. (For reference, for the big matchups 300s have started around $60-100 on StubHub, 200s around $80-150, and 100s significantly higher).
 

S_Janowski

Heisman
May 24, 2009
13,978
26,631
113
The stubhub market for tickets has been pretty drastic throughout the year.

6-8 weeks ago you could get tickets for $6 in the 300 level and tickets were going for well below face in the 200s. We went on that 4 game streak and the prices exploded when the chance of an NCAA run resurfaced.

I think overall season ticket pricing is fair for the 200s and 300s when you consider you’re also paying for a lot of out of conference games against some really bad opponents.

The 100 level seems like a pretty good deal though.

In the end I doubt the AD cares that much about some opposing fans here and there in the 100s. We have a deal with StubHub and they couldn’t make it any easier to sell your tickets (if you want to) on that market through your ticket account.
 

S_Janowski

Heisman
May 24, 2009
13,978
26,631
113
On occasion I’ve sold my tickets in the 200 level on Stubhub but I wouldn’t do that against teams I thought there would be a good chance opposing fans would purchase them (i.e. Mich, OSU, Wisconsin). I’ve found the ticket exchange board to be rather annoying over the years - people can be flaky and cheap.

If someone has seats in the 100s and is selling them for every game then that’s pretty lame and they should lose their ticket privileges. I don’t think it’s a widespread problem down there though so the chances of anything happening is probably slim.
 
Last edited:

RutgersRaRa

Heisman
Mar 21, 2011
19,087
31,437
113
I’ve sold tickets on stubhub MANY times and will continue to do so. It’s a great service and Rutgers fans are free to buy when I sell.
The issue isn't a constitutional right to buy or sell, it's whether owners of certain seats/sections have a greater obligation to not enable visitors to disrupt our home court advantage and/or make it a miserable experience for the diehard Rutgers fans in those sections. The thread started with BK saying that every game he has opposing fans in the seats right behind him, and that's not something that should be happening 1) that close to the court, 2) every game, and 3) when there are plenty of Rutgers fans who would relish having those seats so they could attend and root for our team.
 

Loyal_2RU

Heisman
Aug 6, 2001
15,268
11,094
113
TBH, I gave my seats to Wisky fans who were son and friends of my wife's best friend.

But MANY times over the years football and basketball I have had to eat tickets that were valuable on StubHub because the ticket board folks wanted me to give them away. I've never sought a profit on our board (although I think you should be able to advert them above face somewhat) and I don't sell on StubHub.

I do remember buying at Nova from a fan who took pity on someone who had traveled there and got to see a win. And I was at WVU in 2006 football with great seats. That's why I struggle with the never sell to the enemy idea. But it should be damn rare.

L
 
Last edited:

RUPete

Heisman
Feb 5, 2003
26,841
16,113
0
TBH, I gave my seats to Wisky fans who were soon and friends of my wife's best friends.

But MANY times over the years football and basketball I have had to eat tickets that were valuable on StubHub because the ticket board folks wanted me to give them away. I've never sought a profit on our board (although I think you should be able to advert them above face somewhat) and I don't sell on StubHub.

I do remember buying at Nova from a fan who took pity on someone who had traveled there and got to see a win. And I was at WVU in 2006 football with great seats. That's why I struggle with the never sell to the enemy idea. But it should be damn rare.

L
It really comes down to the people buying the tickets. Root for your team, but don't be a dick when you're a visiting fan. It's pretty simple but some folks just don't get it.
 
Last edited:

Myrtleknight

Senior
Mar 25, 2006
661
481
0
I’m in 212. Mine are $550 a seat for the season.

Hey. I'm up the coast in OIB, NC for February.

His exact words (Myrtleknight) were that he sold 2 tickets to 2 games (4 total) and “after fees (he) just about recouped the cost of one season ticket for the year.” So, before fees (15%) the value of 4 tickets basically made up for 20 tickets (1 seat for full season). So something is off there assuming the team doesn’t totally tank.

You’re right, he didn’t say which level, but if he’s in the 200s or 300s then the above would just lead me to believe pricing for all levels is off, not that the 100 level is fine. (For reference, for the big matchups 300s have started around $60-100 on StubHub, 200s around $80-150, and 100s significantly higher).
I sit in 212. Sold the Michigan tickets for $125 each well before the game. The Wisconsin tickets sold day of game for $200 each. My seats are $550 a piece no seat donation.

I fully expect either seat prices to go up or seat donations next year.
 

Plum Street

Heisman
Jun 21, 2009
27,306
23,009
0
If you buy tickets on stub hub, can you just use the stub hub app at the rac ? Or do the opposing fans have to download the rutgers app?
 

rutgersfan1766

All-Conference
Nov 29, 2005
2,647
2,935
113
I sit in 212. Sold the Michigan tickets for $125 each well before the game. The Wisconsin tickets sold day of game for $200 each. My seats are $550 a piece no seat donation.

I fully expect either seat prices to go up or seat donations next year.

For basketball the donation is already factored in. I'm in 206 (comparable to 212). It's a $25 donation per seat. Your season ticket cost is actually $525.
 

red sail

All-Conference
Oct 11, 2007
3,121
2,058
113
For those that sell tickets on Stubhub - you’ll be getting a 1099 this year if your sales were greater than $600.
I’m curious to find out how stubhub would know what a ticket holder’s cost basis is ? And does the cost basis factor in the per seat ticket donation ?
 

DHajekRC84

Heisman
Aug 9, 2001
30,708
19,815
0
For basketball the donation is already factored in. I'm in 206 (comparable to 212). It's a $25 donation per seat. Your season ticket cost is actually $525.
$25 for something like 18 games vs. $25 for 6 football games seems out of whack. If I'm Rutgers I address THAT.
 

RU-ROCS

All-American
Feb 5, 2003
12,463
7,697
113
I have reported this to my connections at Rutgers, and they have promised to investigate. I hadnt considered that an entity like Stub Hub could be involved.

Either way, it sucks to be put in a spot where our game day experience is constantly degraded night in and night out

I agree 100%. I am luckier. I sit in 114 and the seats directly behind me belong to Pike's brother and his family so there is no chance they are going to the enemy!
 

SleepingGiantIsAwake

All-Conference
Jul 24, 2001
4,658
1,597
113
It still astounds me that there are people who almost certainly got every childhood vaccine as a kid and got their kids every childhood vaccine and yet are against extraordinarily safe and effective (especially from the perspective of preventing severe disease) vaccines for a disease that is much deadlier and virulent than the vast majority of childhood diseases we have vaccines for. Not very bright and not much of a fan I guess, either.
#s stop your nonsense. You are quickly becoming the King of Misinformation. The policy makes zero sense. But keep masking up if it makes you feel safer…
 

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
65,234
44,313
113
#s stop your nonsense. You are quickly becoming the King of Misinformation. The policy makes zero sense. But keep masking up if it makes you feel safer…
Show me one thing I've posted about COVID that was misinformation. I'll wait. But you are clearly the king of inability to comprehend the English language. Where did I say anything about masks? I never was in favor of masks at the RAC, as long as we required vaccinations, but that's not the way RU went, so I wore a mask and it bothered me not. I also said at this point, with cases/hospitalizations so low, as I predicted they would be in several weeks when the omicron peak started, I'd be ok with dropping all restrictions, but figured RU would continue with them for another week or two and they have. We'll live.
 

RU848789

Heisman
Jul 27, 2001
65,234
44,313
113
And since there are people out there who still erroneously believe that the pandemic started from a lab leak, maybe the latest investigation and paper on this will convince you otherwise. There was an excellent blog entry by Derek Lowe today in Science Translational Medicine, discussing the exhaustively thorough investigation of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak by a multidisciplinary, international team of top scientists; the blog and the actual paper are linked below. Spoiler alert: the investigation concludes with what most scientists (including yours truly) have always thought would be the conclusion, i.e., that zoonotic transmission from wild animals in the Huanan wet market in Wuhan to humans is, by far, the most plausible origin of the pandemic - not any lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as some seem to think might be the case. An excerpt from the study is in italics, below.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic
https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.Yh8SQ-jMJ3j

The investigation painstakingly outlined locations of all of the earliest known infections and these were highly clustered around the wet market (not the lab, 9 miles away), plus the Chinese CDC had previously published environmental monitoring results from that time showing positive virus results from wet market animal stalls. Lowe acknowledges that the Chinese government has not been helpful on this and generally can't be trusted, but that the data this team assembled is fairly overwhelming in establishing the wet market as the source - and noted that while the Chinese government has said that wildlife was generally not in that wet market, several of the team's researchers had actually seen all of these illegal animals in that exact wet market in the months before the pandemic.

In this study, we use epidemiological, genomic, commercial, photographic, location, social mobility and survey data – from a range of sources – to investigate the hypothesis that the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan began at the Huanan market. We conclude that the Huanan market was indeed the epicenter of COVID-19 emergence. We demonstrate that December 2019 COVID-19 cases were geographically distributed unexpectedly near to, and centered on, the Huanan market, irrespective of whether or not they worked at, had visited, or were knowingly linked to someone who had visited this market in late 2019. Furthermore, of those cases epidemiologically linked to the market, the overwhelming majority were specifically linked to the western section of the Huanan market, where most of the live-mammal vendors were located. Validating this spatial link between live animals and human COVID-19 cases, we show that positive environmental samples distinctly associated with animals clustered within a small area of the Huanan market where live mammal sales were most concentrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rutgers56_rivals

RUBlackout

All-American
Mar 11, 2008
10,945
7,061
113
And since there are people out there who still erroneously believe that the pandemic started from a lab leak, maybe the latest investigation and paper on this will convince you otherwise. There was an excellent blog entry by Derek Lowe today in Science Translational Medicine, discussing the exhaustively thorough investigation of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak by a multidisciplinary, international team of top scientists; the blog and the actual paper are linked below. Spoiler alert: the investigation concludes with what most scientists (including yours truly) have always thought would be the conclusion, i.e., that zoonotic transmission from wild animals in the Huanan wet market in Wuhan to humans is, by far, the most plausible origin of the pandemic - not any lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as some seem to think might be the case. An excerpt from the study is in italics, below.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic
https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.Yh8SQ-jMJ3j

The investigation painstakingly outlined locations of all of the earliest known infections and these were highly clustered around the wet market (not the lab, 9 miles away), plus the Chinese CDC had previously published environmental monitoring results from that time showing positive virus results from wet market animal stalls. Lowe acknowledges that the Chinese government has not been helpful on this and generally can't be trusted, but that the data this team assembled is fairly overwhelming in establishing the wet market as the source - and noted that while the Chinese government has said that wildlife was generally not in that wet market, several of the team's researchers had actually seen all of these illegal animals in that exact wet market in the months before the pandemic.

In this study, we use epidemiological, genomic, commercial, photographic, location, social mobility and survey data – from a range of sources – to investigate the hypothesis that the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan began at the Huanan market. We conclude that the Huanan market was indeed the epicenter of COVID-19 emergence. We demonstrate that December 2019 COVID-19 cases were geographically distributed unexpectedly near to, and centered on, the Huanan market, irrespective of whether or not they worked at, had visited, or were knowingly linked to someone who had visited this market in late 2019. Furthermore, of those cases epidemiologically linked to the market, the overwhelming majority were specifically linked to the western section of the Huanan market, where most of the live-mammal vendors were located. Validating this spatial link between live animals and human COVID-19 cases, we show that positive environmental samples distinctly associated with animals clustered within a small area of the Huanan market where live mammal sales were most concentrated.
Way to stay on topic…..

this thread is over now
 

Knight Shift

Heisman
May 19, 2011
89,211
87,168
113
And since there are people out there who still erroneously believe that the pandemic started from a lab leak, maybe the latest investigation and paper on this will convince you otherwise. There was an excellent blog entry by Derek Lowe today in Science Translational Medicine, discussing the exhaustively thorough investigation of the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak by a multidisciplinary, international team of top scientists; the blog and the actual paper are linked below. Spoiler alert: the investigation concludes with what most scientists (including yours truly) have always thought would be the conclusion, i.e., that zoonotic transmission from wild animals in the Huanan wet market in Wuhan to humans is, by far, the most plausible origin of the pandemic - not any lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, as some seem to think might be the case. An excerpt from the study is in italics, below.

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/origins-pandemic
https://zenodo.org/record/6299600#.Yh8SQ-jMJ3j

The investigation painstakingly outlined locations of all of the earliest known infections and these were highly clustered around the wet market (not the lab, 9 miles away), plus the Chinese CDC had previously published environmental monitoring results from that time showing positive virus results from wet market animal stalls. Lowe acknowledges that the Chinese government has not been helpful on this and generally can't be trusted, but that the data this team assembled is fairly overwhelming in establishing the wet market as the source - and noted that while the Chinese government has said that wildlife was generally not in that wet market, several of the team's researchers had actually seen all of these illegal animals in that exact wet market in the months before the pandemic.

In this study, we use epidemiological, genomic, commercial, photographic, location, social mobility and survey data – from a range of sources – to investigate the hypothesis that the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan began at the Huanan market. We conclude that the Huanan market was indeed the epicenter of COVID-19 emergence. We demonstrate that December 2019 COVID-19 cases were geographically distributed unexpectedly near to, and centered on, the Huanan market, irrespective of whether or not they worked at, had visited, or were knowingly linked to someone who had visited this market in late 2019. Furthermore, of those cases epidemiologically linked to the market, the overwhelming majority were specifically linked to the western section of the Huanan market, where most of the live-mammal vendors were located. Validating this spatial link between live animals and human COVID-19 cases, we show that positive environmental samples distinctly associated with animals clustered within a small area of the Huanan market where live mammal sales were most concentrated.
People believe what they want to believe......