In reference to the Duke basketball example I want to propose a scenario where rational choice holds true, but where a proposed buying and selling price of a ticket are actually different for any given individual. The larger point is that the idea that price represents intrinsic value has some holes and that it might be more accurate to say that demand price represents need or desire in a given context and that supply price represents a willingness to expend effort in a given context. Anyways, here goes:

A student values his time at $50 an hour and values a ticket at $1000, so the student is willing to wait 20 hours in line for a ticket (1000/50). This same student can earn only $25 an hour for his work, and is thus only willing to pay $500 (20 x 25) for a ticket. If he waits in line for 20 hours, he will sell the ticket for $1000 or more. If he waits and doesn't get the ticket he will only offer $500 for the ticket (or maybe even $0 if you consider the waiting he already endured part of the price he will pay).

I understand that this example is overly-simplistic, but I think it is an example that how people value things (intrinsic value) might be different than how things are priced. Economics using the assumption that price paid for something is value derived from that is necessary in some sense from an analytical perspective (how could you determine how billions of people value things without assuming that the price that they paid and that an economist has on record is not representative of how they value things?), but isn't completely accurate, and doesn't prove human that human irrationality is as widespread or serious as this type of analysis claims it to be. Price represents scarcity and productive capacity as much or more than it represents how much people intrinsically or even relatively value things. Is there any person that wouldn't spend twice as much on food if food were more scarce? The value changes because food becomes more scarce, not because any person's conception of how much food he needs changes significantly with the availability of food. The concept that competitive valuation leads to a true (in terms of supply and demand equilibrium) price/value is probably less accurate than saying it leads to a more accurate and generally agreed upon negotiated compromise value. Sorry to ramble, but the idea that price and intrinsic value are the same, the idea that so many people accept at face value, isn't quite as straightforward, simple, and plausible as people seem to think. And I'm not trying to use the simplistic "money can't buy you love" adage to show it.