I'm a genius..finds deflation.

I renewed my four OHIO FOOTBALL season tix today, adding in three 'Tickets for Kids.' Genius. I hope you'll all far exceed me given the rather unanimous (and anonymous!) agreement that I am an idiot.

I know that season ticket sales have been pretty good lately. And, regarding what follows, I suspect that I'm preaching to the choir (that the problem is folks who are NOT reading/posting here)--but I know of no better forum to note the following.

In The Ohio Bobcat Club membership guide that accompanied my hard copy ticket renewal package, it is noted that OHIO is 6th among 10 listed schools in unrestricted giving to athletics and 8th among active donors.

Toledo tops unrestircted giving with $1.5 million, kents next at 1.25, WMU 1, redhawk 969k, 'kron 800k, OHIO 750k, beefs 520k, Ball 470k, BG 100k, EMU 52k. Those numbers for BG and EMU are weird--maybe it's the category chosen (unrestricted giving).

Active donors: FATMAN 3600, 'kron 3205, WMU 2375, redhawk 2200, BG 2100, Ball 2000, beefs 1950, OHIO 1900, kents 1700, EMU 940.

How can BG have 2100 active and only 100k given?

How does kents have relatively few active donors yet rank high on unrestricted giving?



The unrestricted giving totals are low enough that one large donor could put a school at #1....but I'm guessing that such a large donor would want her name on something which would make the gift restricted?



[NIU and CMU noted as not disclosing the info.]

Also makes you wonder about pledged vs. collected. My guess is that we may be $190,000 short of what we thought we were getting.

Ironically North Texas is the #6 game in Peden history, at 24,511, and 4 FCS games are in the top 20:
#12. 2012 Norfolk State 23,673
#15. 2011 Gardner-Webb 23,155
#18. 2014 E. Illinois 23,027
#19. 2010 Wofford 22,955

And the #1 game? Is it Pitt? U.Conn? Nope. It's lowly New Mexico State at 25,893, though U.Conn and Pitt are #4 and #5 respectively. Another big draw was Idaho State, which packed in 25,211, the third highest ever, and outdrew both Pitt and U.Conn.

In my opinion, if you have a fanbase that picks and chooses games based on the "attractiveness of the foe", you just as well give it up. Fans should be coming because they want to see the home team, and because they enjoy the game day experience, not because they want to see the visitor. Fortunately Ohio seems to have a lot of fans that do come to see the home team, and that do enjoy the game day experience. That's why Ohio has the best fans in the MAC.

As for occasionally having a "Home Game" in Cleveland, that might work. NIU has done it very successfully, but some other schools that have tried it have had less success.

I think, L.C., you mean the might Iowa State Cyclones of the Big 12 (now the Big12-10) not Idaho State Bengals. I well remember that three point loss to Iowa State. It was the first home game of the Knorr era and it set the tone for what was to come. I was a three point loss (31-28) and OHIO started the season 0-3. The first two games were a two point loss to the Zippers (31-29) and a 17-point loss to WVU (20-3). In all three games OHIO played well and with a break here of there could have won, but Knorr teams were very good at not winning the close games. As I recall, even the WVU was winnable, and it was something like 3-0 at halftime, but a late collapse and bad play calling doomed the effort. By the end of that season, though, the team was reeling and losing games by lopsided scores.

OCF he is talking bout the Idaho Vandals game the past fall. The problem goes beyond FBS and FCS. Ohio keeps scheduling very weak FCS schools. If the school would bring in a tough FCS like Montana that is a different interest level because the game could potentially be in doubt. I think New Mexico St or Idaho is weak enough for us at this point.

Correct, Wes. I meant Idaho. The Iowa State game from 2001 was well attended, and at the time was a record, but today it is way down the list, about #10 all time.

As for Ohio "scheduling very weak FCS schools", I disagree. E. Illinois, which Ohio played last fall, is traditionally one of the better FCS schools in the country, and SE Louisiana, which Ohio plays this fall, is also one of the better ones. The year Ohio played UT Martin, they made the FCS playoffs. Wofford. Gardner-Webb and Norfolk State are perhaps not the best FCS teams, but they aren't terrible. By contrast, Akron plays Savannah State this fall. Now that's a weak FCS team.

Does playing a stronger FCS team bring bigger crowds? It's an interesting argument, but when you look at the actual data, I don't see any evidence of that. Three of the four FCS games in the top 20 were against three of the lesser FCS foes. If the SE Louisiana game is particularly well attended, that might support your theory, but I tend to think that other things like weather, start time, and other activities, such as Parent's Weekend, are bigger factors.

I wasn't at the Pitt game unfortunately, but I don't know how it could be much more than some of the other games. I've been to a lot of the games in the top 10 from the last several years and the only tickets available were on the hill, which was basically full. I don't see how the Pitt game or any game attendance could have been much more.

I would, however, easily believe that the crowd at the Pitt game was much more into the game and stayed longer and created a better atmosphere.

I agree that it is a puzzling pattern. There are some things that do seem to correlate to attendance:
1. Winning - The record game, New Mexico State, was the week following the win over Penn State, and I'm sure that was a factor. The declining attendance in recent years at NIU, though, makes me wonder if there isn't a cap on this effect.
2. Weather and start time - There is no doubt that September/October games outdraw November games, and there is no doubt that mid-week games have the worst attendance.
3. Regional foes - Certain regional foes definitely are strong draws. Marshall and Miami both draw well. Probably UC would, too.
4. Games of significance - Games like Temple, or like BG last year, that affect the end winner of the MAC East, definitely seem to draw more fans.

What about the quality of foes? I don't see any evidence that this directly affects attendance. Certainly the attendance was high for Pitt and U.Conn, but was it high because they were good foes? I think that the attendance for Pitt was high because it was Frank's first home game, and because it was "an event", and on ESPN. For U.Conn it was high because it was heavily promoted and they were practically giving away tickets to make sure it was a sellout.

A related question is, what correlates to the ticket prices they can charge? They can, and do, charge more for games like Marshall. Can they charge more for a team like U.Conn than they can for Idaho? I used to think so, but anymore, I'm not convinced. Billy used to argue that there was only so high that ticket prices could go, and more and more I am coming around to his point of view.

So, where does that leave us? Well, the focus should be on winning first, then on improving the game day experience, and season ticket sales, and then on supplementing those with promotions. I think the Ohio ticket sales team does a great job>

Here's a question for you. I recall that for the Pitt game, there were people who wanted to go, but who couldn't get into the stadium. Have there been any changes to seating, or to the hill, such that it was physically possible to put 1300 more people into Peden for New Mexico State?

The athletic department is in an experimental phase when it comes to pricing. This year might be some $40 dollar tickets for a few games. I have said before on here as a rubric the price of an upper deck Bengals ticket is about as much as can be charged before fans start to look at alternatives. Bengals tickets start at $35 dollars per game for 10 games (8 season, 2 preseason). Regular Ohio season tickets average out to $16 dollars per game. We should have pricing and options that match the contemporary consumer. Pro sports are not expecting fans to attend every game. They are selling mini-packs. With MLS mini-packs I can get an international game in an NFL stadium included plus 2 home games. Family packs at Ohio were developed in response to the pricing but mini-packs could target a higher end consumer with that game in Cleveland as I suggested.

Thanks, Wes. That answers the question, and so, yes, it's possible that the recent peaks really are higher than the Pitt game.

It's also possible that when they construct the Academic center, "seating" will increase. I don't expect seats in there, but certainly some people could watch the game from in there, and they could also do something like putting some seats on the roof of it at relatively low expense. I'm thinking more in terms of hundreds than thousands, though.

Billy: you are correct that the number is mostly randomly selected. However, it's not like the ACTUAL number isn't close to that. I've heard conversations on radios between marketing, ticketing and other personnel regarding the number.

Example:

Ticket Head: Hey marketing guy, the number for attendance is 9,932.

Marketing Guy: Good, let's say it's 100 more than that. That puts it over 10,000.

Ticket Head: That sounds better, lets go with that.

Marketing Guy: Got it.

It sounds really stupid, but that's how it works. Not sure if this is how every department works, but I've heard this conversation more than once. And they always, always, always, round up. No matter what.

Two things not mentioned on the Pitt game - people were three and four deep standing in the closed endzone and the hill endzone. Combine that with the band being in the endzone and all of those seats that they currently occupy being filled with students, and I believe you had the largest crowd ever in Peden.