I assumed the current staff changes were as a means to collect data. However Beacon92 did mention a path of requesting for the full season being available but not being marketed. However seeing as you did ask about the retiree changes, it is mind boggling that these benefits would be taken away. I assume the retiree contingent is going to raise a few hands about this. This being said, I still find it hard to believe that this change was to fund the arena project. Being honest, this sounds like an attempt to pay players not unlike what Tennessee has done with their 10% upcharge on tickets. SO instead of "Building an Arena of the Backs of Retirees" I think a better talking point would be "Paying Athletes off the backs of Retirees"
I assumed the current staff changes were as a means to collect data. However Beacon92 did mention a path of requesting for the full season being available but not being marketed. However seeing as you did ask about the retiree changes, it is mind boggling that these benefits would be taken away. I assume the retiree contingent is going to raise a few hands about this. This being said, I still find it hard to believe that this change was to fund the arena project. Being honest, this sounds like an attempt to pay players not unlike what Tennessee has done with their 10% upcharge on tickets. SO instead of "Building an Arena of the Backs of Retirees" I think a better talking point would be "Paying Athletes off the backs of Retirees"
As I set up this topic, my concern was less about how the money was being used; rather, it was about the "pettiness" of the move. Actually, I see it more as another sign of contempt for people who dedicated their lives to the success of the university. If the athletic department would like its athletes to be loyal to VU, perhaps the university should model loyalty to the elders of the university community.
Took your advice and got word straight from the top. The petty withdrawal of the benefit to retirees was done simply as an attempt to make more money, as was suggested by some here. The change for faculty and staff to an email process with submission at least 48 hours in advance was done through the new ticket platform primarily as a means to harvest data from those folks, though it also has the result of now charging these people a premium of full cost for same day walk-in admission.
This is somehow worse than I thought. Another example of financialization without thinking of the bigger picture. Which consultant floated this idea?
Have they realized that a lot of the crowds at basketball games are…older people? That demographic has been supporting this program through good times and bad, and this is how Valpo repays them? Do we now want less people at our games?
Looking back at this thread, it is seriously stupid to change prices for retirees or make it harder for faculty/staff to attend. Make it easy (or keep it easy)...get people interested and attending. The financial gain from doing otherwise can't be much, but might even be negative (decline in concessions).
I never used or was really aware of the employee discounts, so I'm not personally too outraged about this.
But yeah, for sure, it seems counter-productive if the goal is to increase attendance and campus support/morale through sports.
Unfortunately, data analytics and e-financialization are leading to the en-shittification of many sectors of society.
The only thing wrong I see is making it a bit complicated. If there's a discount, it should apply to at any point and there should be no requirement to obtain tickets passes by a certain point in time. The time issue would turn me off more than almost any price or discount the school would provide.
Students aside, the rest of the complaints have an element of entitlement which I'm not sure should be there.
