What The Golf Media Isn’t Telling You About The Masters This Year

Last year:

Tiger Woods has committed to the Masters, and now the dominoes begin to fall. Just after Tiger’s announcement, the price of renting a weekly badge on Stubhub was nearly $1,200 higher than it was early Friday morning.

As of noon ET Thursday, the rental price for a weekly badge via Stubhub was $9,365.25, which then dropped a small percentage Friday morning. Then just minutes after Woods committed to playing the 2015 event, the price for a badge was about 12.5 percent higher at $10,535.25.

Week-long access is more than twice as costly than the reported price ($4,512) for a semester of in-state tuition at nearby Augusta State University. For just a Thursday-Sunday badge, the price sits at $6,245.

Other various packages are currently priced as follows:

Saturday & Sunday: $3,350
Sunday: $1,521.57
Saturday: $1,353
Thursday & Friday: $3,995
Friday: $1,590
Thursday: $1,770
Wednesday: $916.54
Tuesday: $522.39
Monday: $389.33

That was last year.  The high prices were all about Tiger Woods, the be-all and end-all of golf.

But let’s compare those prices to this year’s (the weekly badge price is no longer available as it’s too late to buy those):

                    Last Year   This Year

Saturday & Sunday:    $3,350      $3,000
Sunday:               $1,522      $1,543
Saturday:             $1,353      $1,649
Thursday-Sunday:      $6,245      $7,495
Thursday & Friday:    $3,995      $3,950
Friday:               $1,590      $1,850
Thursday:             $1,770      $2,100
Wednesday:            $  917      $  949

Note that six of the eight are higher this year.  Obviously prices fluctuate, but here’s a snapshot of what I found (and used in the above chart) at StubHub when I wrote this article:

mprice

Funny how the golf media doesn’t find this newsworthy, isn’t it…

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What The Golf Media Isn’t Telling You About The Masters This Year

  1. Jaybird77 says:

    Not really. The information you provided from last year showed the already high prices from last year and the increase that came once Tiger announced he was playing. Going into this year, the story lines are more compelling which leads to higher prices. Kind of like The Patriots playing, I don’t know, The Saints in the Superbowl versus The Patriots playing the Packers.

    We all know the same thing would have happened this year had Tiger committed to play. Prices would have gone up and that is the newsworthy aspect.

    • lannyh says:

      Not really what? Clearly these higher prices don’t fit the media narrative, so it’s “Move along, nothing to see here.”

    • lannyh says:

      “We all know the same thing would have happened…”

      Yeah, a half dozen Woods Only types buy tickets, temporarily increasing prices. But, bottom line, this year’s tournament w/o Woods is seen as more valuable.

      It’s funny how when something is positive, it’s all Woods. When it’s negative, there are “other factors.” There’s a term for that: Tiger ‘splaining.

      • Jaybird77 says:

        “Not Really” funny that the media doesn’t find this newsworthy. It’s expected. The story lines this year are more significant (based on the year’s Jordan, Jason, Rory, and Rickie had last year) which leads to the higher initial pricing.

        4 or 5 days ago, or whenever it was, that Tiger made his announcement, had it been he is playing instead of not playing, you’d have seen a jump in ticket prices.

        I’ll use the Match Play as an example of sorts. When it comes down to the “Final Four”. What’s more attractive to the average fan?

        Jordan, Jason, Rory, and Grace

        or

        Jordan, Jason, Rory, and Tiger

        Maybe not to you but to the average golf fan, Option B wins in a landslide.

      • lannyh says:

        You keep repeating the narrative and ignoring that ticket prices are higher this year than when Woods played last year.

        You say B would win in a landslide, and I’m telling you the facts show A won.

        Summary: The narrative is that B wins in a landslide; reality is that A won.

      • Anonymous says:

        That’s fine. You spin it to fit your narrative and I suppose I spin it to fit mine.

        Sure the prices are higher this year, likely a result of The Fresh Four all playing well. But it’s hard to see prices not going even higher had Tiger been able to announce he is playing instead of not.

  2. Jaybird77 says:

    Maybe I’m overstating this, but it seems like I’ve seen more than a couple stats that use the “Since 1997” year. The latest I saw was something like “average standing after round 1/round 2 of eventual winner”….Since 1997.

    • lannyh says:

      I’ve noticed such things, too. It seems like “records” and “history” are awesome things for the awesome sports reblogters to write about these awesome days. And it’s a lot easier to have “records” if you limit the years. Once I saw something about the “modern era”of golf and that meant post 1980. There was no reason to pick that date, but I guess it allowed them to discuss “new records.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s