I am writing in response to your two-part series on online ticket distribution. The authors of the piece make a good point that there are insufficient student tickets available to meet demand. This problem is undeniable, unfortunate and, as the writers point out, unlikely to change.  More dubiously, the writers imply that the online ticket distribution system is also somehow to blame for the woes of students seeking football tickets. As an alumnus (B.S. 2004) and a current grad student (Ph.D. 2012) of the University, I would like to add some perspective to the issue and defend the current system.
The authors of the piece say, as if it were a given, that the old system was a “rich experience for students.” Few current students remember the reality of the first-come, first-serve/standing in line system, so it is easy to think that the grass was greener back then. True, there were good times. I camped out in the pouring rain overnight for tickets to the 2001 Civil War Game. I ended up sleeping in a camp chair, soaked to the bone, shivering. I missed all my classes the next day. The game was one for the history books, and I won’t deny that it was worth it or that the experience was fun and extremely memorable. But to every one of those memories I can match a more miserable story of line-cutting, littering and waiting for hours only to have them run out of tickets just as you finally approach the box office.
Getting a student ticket under the old system required at least three to four hours (and possibly an overnight stay if it was a really big game) of a commitment to missing whatever morning classes/job you had. Thus, the system was skewed in favor of freshmen, who are more commonly unemployed and whose grades in 101-level classes are not likely to be affected by an absence or two. Anyone with a morning job or a highly demanding academic schedule was out of luck (i.e. many upperclassmen). The current system, despite its bugs, is much more fair, as each class has a separate allotment of tickets. It is also easier for everyone involved, and, as your paper points out, it’s cheaper. Now, if we could only find a way to translate those savings into more tickets for students. The Emerald’s piece on ticket distribution raised some good points. Implying that a return to a first-come, first-served system would somehow solve a problem, however, is woefully naive.
Tom Peryam
University Ph.D. candidate, geological sciences