4 replies to this topic

[geoffm33]

I split my season tickets with 4 other people and some have more ticket shares than others. Here is how it looks:

1 Share = 1 Game of 4 Tickets


Person A - 2 Shares
Person B - 2 Shares
Person C - 2 Shares
Person D - 1 Share
Person E - 1 Share

The draft we did last year was straight up, all 5 peoples names went into a hat (one name per person, not per share) and a draft order was created. We did a snake draft and just omitted the one share people for the second round. ie: C, D, B, E, A, A, B, C. This gave all persons regardless of shares an equal shot at the best 5 games with the side effect of potentially giving the two single share people a crack at the best two games.

What we are considering this year is that all 5 names go into the hat one name per share and draft the complete order from the hat. The benefit here is letting randomness dictate the full draft order therefore giving the two share people a better shot at the best games.

Which method do you all prefer? Is there a better way?

Thanks!!

EDIT: I suppose a third way would be to have persons D and E form an alliance and just flip to see who gets first or second pick between them.

Edited by geoffm33, 06 July 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[maufman]

Hold a 3-way lottery among A, B, and C. Have D and E flip a coin.

The first three picks go to A, B, and C in the order of the lottery.
The next two go to D and E, with order decided by the coin flip.
The last three picks to A, B, and C in the reverse order of the lottery.

This seems like the most equitable way to ensure that everyone gets roughly their money's worth -- whoever gets the best game will also end up with the worst, and the two single-game people should each end up with a middle-of-the-pack game.

You didn't specifically say these tix are for the Patriots, but if they are, you're probably going to have tix for one home playoff game. Who gets those? The answer could have a drastic effect on what is a fair allocation of regular-season tickets -- for instance, perhaps one of the two-share people would be willing to pick 3rd and 8th in exchange for first crack at playoff tix.

[geoffm33]

Hold a 3-way lottery among A, B, and C. Have D and E flip a coin.

The first three picks go to A, B, and C in the order of the lottery.
The next two go to D and E, with order decided by the coin flip.
The last three picks to A, B, and C in the reverse order of the lottery.

This seems like the most equitable way to ensure that everyone gets roughly their money's worth -- whoever gets the best game will also end up with the worst, and the two single-game people should each end up with a middle-of-the-pack game.

You didn't specifically say these tix are for the Patriots, but if they are, you're probably going to have tix for one home playoff game. Who gets those? The answer could have a drastic effect on what is a fair allocation of regular-season tickets -- for instance, perhaps one of the two-share people would be willing to pick 3rd and 8th in exchange for first crack at playoff tix.

Thanks for the reply. These are for Pats tix. For the playoffs we break them up one share per ticket and set the draft order again. There are 8 shares when there are two home games. If there's only one home game, so be it.

[MentalDisabldLst]

The method you're planning - one name into a hat per share - is what I would personally consider most fair. In proportion to what each person is paying in, they get a crack at the best games, and the 2-share peoples' odds are twice as good as the one-share peoples' odds.

If the 1-share people object that this may lock them out of any good games, you have a couple of options: (1) point out that if someone gets a raw deal one year, they may get a great one the next, and over time that will even out, or (2) offer to level the playing field somehow, by doing things such as saying if a 2-share person gets #1, they can't have #2 or #3 as well; or, whoever had slot #1 last year can't get picked 1st this year (you would just put their name back in the hat and do it again). Or, if all this is too complicated, just do: (3) the 1-share people act as a single, combined 2-share person, you work out a game draft among those 4 "people", and then afterwards, the two 1-share guys flip a coin to pick amongst the two games they've chosen.

Maufman's suggestion would mean that the 1-share people would never get a marquee game, ever, which doesn't strike me as getting full value for their contributions.

[geoffm33]

If the 1-share people object that this may lock them out of any good games, you have a couple of options: (1) point out that if someone gets a raw deal one year, they may get a great one the next, and over time that will even out, or (2) offer to level the playing field somehow, by doing things such as saying if a 2-share person gets #1, they can't have #2 or #3 as well; or, whoever had slot #1 last year can't get picked 1st this year (you would just put their name back in the hat and do it again). Or, if all this is too complicated, just do: (3) the 1-share people act as a single, combined 2-share person, you work out a game draft among those 4 "people", and then afterwards, the two 1-share guys flip a coin to pick amongst the two games they've chosen.

I emailed the group with a few options, the name-per-share into the hat, maufman's suggestion and having the two one-share people form a team and work out who gets which game. The two one-share members decided on the name-per-share into the hat option. I thought there would have been a bit of resistance but in the end I think it may end up being the most fair option especially considering the limits we could impose like you mentioned.