2018 Season Tickets

[Vet70]

At this point, I am totally confused. How many posters and/or team makers have been complaining about the 100 points? I seem to have missed the great outcry.

[MAKBison]

Lmao. The better question is “why not”? And, no, your completely indefensible and unproven theory is not the answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you need to go bone up on the power of competition which surprises me a bit being an athlete.

Why do you deny that competition won't increase donations.... Are you saying it's just not needed which could be a possible argument. Or are you saying you're ok with the current system and that we are bringing in enough money and it's worth it to give the athletes this perk. Or are you saying all together this will won't work..... what are you saying?

This does not need to be personalized.

[CAS4127]

I think you need to go bone up on the power of competition which surprises me a bit being an athlete.

Why do you deny that competition won't increase donations.... Are you saying it's just not needed which could be a possible argument.

I would disagree with it based on the discussions that first appeared on here once the section opening became relevant but.....

You assume that less or no points to former athletes would create “competition”. There is no basis for that assumption. Again, who is donating less than they otherwise would but for the FA points? I think I read a post of yours that had some anecdotal reference to that, but don’t blame me if I question the source there,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MAKBison]

At this point, I am totally confused. How many posters and/or team makers have been complaining about the 100 points? I seem to have missed the great outcry.

It's not a complaint. It's a theory that you can maximize donations based upon creating more competition.

People with low reading comprehension keep personalizing it and thinking it's a complaint more so they keep thinking it's my complaint because I want to increase my position...I don't!

[CAS4127]

It's not a complaint. It's a theory that you can maximize donations based upon creating more competition.

People with low reading comprehension keep personalizing it and thinking it's a complaint more so they keep thinking it's my complaint because I want to increase my position...I don't!

You also don’t accept that your theory is wrong..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MAKBison]

You assume that less or no points to former athletes would create “competition”. There is no basis for that assumption. Again, who is donating less than they otherwise would but for the FA points? I think I read a post of yours that had some anecdotal reference to that, but don’t blame me if I question the source there,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The basis is a basic business principle Cass
,, if you have a product that creates competition between your customers you can increase your sales.

The principles hss been proven over and over and over again.

All I want to do is create a competitive environment that inspires the maximum amount of people to give the maximum amount

For givers like you and I this isn't going to really matter.... which is why I was using you and I as an example.... because I know we're both secure enough in our giving.

But for those that don't give just out of the goodness of their heart and are trying to get something out of it competition is the only way to go.

So when I look around the easiest lifts to increase competition is a decrease the entitlement points... No I'm not using that in a negative way here.

Where I would really like to get to his resetting priority Points each season, , but based on this converdation that's going to be a real heavy lift

[CAS4127]

The basis is a basic business principle Cass
,, if you have a product that creates competition between your customers you can increase your sales.

The principles hss been proven over and over and over again.

Then it’s equally true that giving FAs 100 points would create a competitive incentive for non-FAs to donate more to catch their competition.

And your theory is also comparable to the UND theory of “if you can’t catch your competition, water the playing field down so the competition comes back to you.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MAKBison]

You also don’t accept that your theory is wrong..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The theory of sound and it's not my theory but I do admit that there could be environmental factors that might impact its accuracy for team makers

The only Theory that's been given to suggest that so far is that people give because they want to help team makers......, to that I say they're going to give anyways this system or current system or any system is not going to impact them in anyway.

The implication suggesting competition might not work for team makers is that the numbers are way out of control and you can never really create competition anyways.... I think that's very very very true and the most reasonable argument against this.

Which is why I said at some pointb I would eliminate the accumulation of priority points altogether. I'm not sure if we are there yet. I don't think we need to incentivize the athlete anymore because I think they're going to join regardless. I do think we need to incentivize alum for a bit longer to get them more involved, but at some point we will reach saturation i that demographic as well. at that point I think you go to the yearly giving and priority points are based on that Year's giving alone

[Vet70]

It's not a complaint. It's a theory that you can maximize donations based upon creating more competition.

People with low reading comprehension keep personalizing it and thinking it's a complaint more so they keep thinking it's my complaint because I want to increase my position...I don't!

For the points to be an impediment to increased giving people would have to care about the issue.

[MAKBison]

Then it’s equally true that giving FAs 100 points would create a competitive incentive for non-FAs to donate more to catch their competition.

And your theory is also comparable to the UND theory of “if you can’t catch your competition, water the playing field down so the competition comes back to you.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No... because people won't get into the game if they have no chance to win.

I'm not watering down the competition....if you take my idea to completion about eliminating the year after year accumulation of priority points altogether and basing bonuses like Frisco tickets etcetera based on that years giving and only that years giving. I am just resetting the game each year.

,