Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

The writer didnt note that maybe some people moved from the fan plan to the regular season tickets---which is exactly what the university wants.

(10-15-2015 05:53 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

(10-15-2015 09:25 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  The writer didnt note that maybe some people moved from the fan plan to the regular season tickets---which is exactly what the university wants.

(10-15-2015 05:53 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

Problem is while the headline may be factually accurate, why create an immediate negative connotation? How about " Attendance dramatically up despite decline in season tickets".

Here's the link to this story:

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/564..._id=986280

How many season tickets did BGSU sell this year?

(10-15-2015 10:32 AM)UTLAW Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:25 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  The writer didnt note that maybe some people moved from the fan plan to the regular season tickets---which is exactly what the university wants.

(10-15-2015 05:53 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

Problem is while the headline may be factually accurate, why create an immediate negative connotation? How about " Attendance dramatically up despite decline in season tickets".

Blade "headlines" are often misleading, imo...whether intentional or just ineffective editing, I'm not sure. I doubt they're alone in that trend, however. Have to find some way (any way) to get people to read your story, right?

(10-15-2015 10:32 AM)UTLAW Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:25 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  The writer didnt note that maybe some people moved from the fan plan to the regular season tickets---which is exactly what the university wants.

(10-15-2015 05:53 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

Problem is while the headline may be factually accurate, why create an immediate negative connotation? How about " Attendance dramatically up despite decline in season tickets".

I agree, but you have to remember the blade is never very kind to the Rockets. Maybe most of them live in BG?

Yeah, where is the record request for BG? I would get this kind of a story if the slant was that in general college football attendance is down and they compared MAC attendance numbers. Overall we are probably leading the MAC in sales and attendance, but the story stops short of doing any real reporting and only skews the numbers how the blah wants them percieved.

The following quote taken from the Blade article is INCORRECT:

"According to UT ticket data obtained by a Blade records request, the Rockets had 10,797 season-ticket holders during the 2013 season, a number that held fairly steady at 10,578 for the 2014 football campaign.

This season, despite a team that is ranked No. 22 and off to its best start in 18 years, the Rockets have 9,694 season-ticket holders, a decrease of 954 in one year's time."

If anyone bothers to do the math, the number of ticket holders is down 10,578-9,694 = 884 not 954 ---not a great difference to be sure but I would hope that one of "one of America's great newspapers" (albeit, self-proclaimed) would have a bit higher editorial standards that prevent mental lapses such as this from being published.

Using other numbers cited in the article indicate that the 954 decrease refers to the decrease in the number of fan plan tickets sold, not total season tickets. These data can also be used to show that "regular season tickets" (i.e., non-fan plan) sales actually increased by 70 (954-884=70), not a great number to be sure but a definite step in the right direction as pointed out in a previous post.

I suspect the cost increase accompanying the additional 7th home game this season probably helped drive away a number of casual fans among the fan plan folks based solely on price. Of course after the Arkansas upset it became apparent that this is a very good Rocket team with the potential to be really special so overall attendance has been at higher levels than in the past several years----and as long as they remain undefeated, I suspect that attendance will continue to surpass that of recent years ---and this, not the season tickets, should have been the focus of the article.

Excellent point, T-Town. Total season attendance should be the driving force, not season tickets sold.

Maybe their point was to drive sales? Not to give them too much credit but why put in a record request when there are pressing problems in the world? What in the world would have initiated that thought process, KNOWING that home crowds are up?

Its also incentive for the University to sell "packages" for the remaining games, min-plans, whatever. Though the Blade, when it's to their agenda, wants to say they're not here to "sell" for anyone, they do when it is to their agenda or programs they are involved with or support. They write any article about the Rocket football team, it's probably to the good but if they were to add a word or two about how fun it's been to sit in a crowded stadium, they might help find buyers for those 0-20 section seats.

(10-15-2015 10:32 AM)UTLAW Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:25 AM)rocketinchitown Wrote:  The writer didnt note that maybe some people moved from the fan plan to the regular season tickets---which is exactly what the university wants.

(10-15-2015 05:53 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  Blade's misleading negative headline as usual. 1)There is actually a shift to more expensive packages. 2) I looked at attendance figures so far(didn't include New Hampshire-Stony Brook because of the cancellation), attendance is actually up by 8,095 through the first three home games from 2014.

This bush league, biased "reporting" is exactly why I cancelled my subscription to the blade over 10 years ago. Most so called "articles" are really editorials that are slanted towards the block's agenda on the topic at hand. I must not be alone... they drop a free paper at my house every Sunday which goes directly from the driveway into the trash.

Problem is while the headline may be factually accurate, why create an immediate negative connotation? How about " Attendance dramatically up despite decline in season tickets".

Fan plan is down close to 1000, other season tickets up about 100, plus an increase in walk up sales, both of which UT likely makes more money off of, I call that a push.

What I get from it is the numbers in the first few paragraphs are for total season ticket sales, including Fan Plan.

So, you take the last years number, 10,578, less this year's count-to-date of 9,694 which gives a drop of 884.

T-Town, you have to keep in mind that the Blah's writers are artists, not scientists. ( )

Anyway, so there is a little drop. Don't know why. A drop is not unprecedented, though. In the era between 2006 and 2009 season ticket sales were between 9,110 and 7,476 (if my notes are correct). I'll bet if they kept the Fan Plan cost at $55 they would have sold a lot more. But, maybe they would have made less money, who knows. I'm sure they will address the issue. If we win out this year maybe next year's sales will set a record!