Would you pay $275...

...for this seat?

Rock, Chalk, Ripoff!

UPDATE: Some commenters suggest the picture may be Rock, Chalk, Photoshopped.

UPDATE 2: Sports by Brooks, which originally published the image, says the image is Photoshopped, but not in a bad way. SbB says the photo is comprised of of "three images we put together that gives you the lovely panorama from section 330." In other words, it's Photoshopped, but it's also legit!

Comments

[jlr]

Wow. I've sat in seats labeled as "obstructed view" before, but that is absolutely rediculous!

What bugs me more is that there were people IN THOSE SEATS! Gah!

[Angrier and Angrier]

They were saying that the sight lines in the dome were bad, but this is ridiculous. I would have been seriously, seriously angry if I walked into the stadium and those were my seats. It truly is a rip-off. The tournament organizers should not only be ashamed of themselves, they should give refunds back to every person who sat in those pathetic seats.

[KG2V]

Can't be any worse than paying $4444 for a courtside Knick's ticket - (see stubhub) - Might be good seats - but they should be paying US to go see them stink out the Garden

Look closely at the photo. It is definetly photoshopped.

[Marty West]

It is absolutely photoshopped.

[jlr]

I'm not very good at spotting photoshopping. What makes you say that, Marty?

[Ken]

If you go to the source for this picture you would see that it is reported as being three images put together to get a panorama view from that section. SportsbyBrooks

[Scientizzle]

My own ignorance, perhaps: are the 3 imagages, perhaps, the view from the seat + the stubhub shot + the section number shot?

[Scientizzle]

Nah, never mind--it's clear from the image that the right 1/3 of the seat view shot is a separate pic from the left 2/3.

[Angrier and Angrier]

You mean some sports blog would lie to us by running a photo-shopped image? I thought only news outlets like Reuters were allowed to do that.