Big News on the Joey Knight front

[puc86]

1 minute ago, DELdaBull said:

Except that now the times went to a paywall model so they no longer get real clicks

That’s an article I would like to read how many people do Jk’s articles get circulated to vs who actually reads them. I’m guessing our attendance numbers will look quite favorable by comparison. No one pays attention to Joey, Knights fans have him attention for posting “actual attendance”, having any attention makes Joey feel good for once so Joey has a compulsion to provide this “news”.

[79 Bull]

Guys, the whole reason attendance figures are public information at RayJay is because any event organizer has to pay Hillsborough County and the TSA $2.50 per ticket actually used, not just distributed.  The Bucs, USF and others complied with this fee so they wouldn't have to pay the $2.50 on unused tickets if they would have said we don't want to know the actual counts, we'll just pay on every ticket distributed.  That would have cost the Bucs and USF at least $10,000 per game over our complete history at RayJay if not knowing the no show count.  Maybe the Bucs have just agreed to pay on all tickets distributed or maybe the regulation/agreement for the fee has expired? We'll find out.

GO BULLS!

[puc86]

5 minutes ago, 79 Bull said:

Guys, the whole reason attendance figures are public information at RayJay is because any event organizer has to pay Hillsborough County and the TSA $2.50 per ticket actually used, not just distributed.  The Bucs, USF and others complied with this fee so they wouldn't have to pay the $2.50 on unused tickets if they would have said we don't want to know the actual counts, we'll just pay on every ticket distributed.  That would have cost the Bucs and USF at least $10,000 per game over our complete history at RayJay if not knowing the no show count.  Maybe the Bucs have just agreed to pay on all tickets distributed or maybe the regulation/agreement for the fee has expired? We'll find out.

GO BULLS!

No one is arguing that it wasn’t public information they simply wonder why the Times had a hard on for this particular attendance information and had no interest in the same information from other Universities they cover. The Wall Street Journal showed the information could be available for attendance and the majority of universities but for some odd reason no one ever cares or does it regularly except in one instance.

[Mission9]

4 hours ago, Ryan said:

Oh ok, thanks.  Sorry, I was so confused.

No need to be sorry.  The point of this whole thread is what I hope you understand.  For the entire history of the program, most of the local media has been indifferent at best about the program when not dismissing or disparaging it.  When we call them out on it, they get defensive and say that we want homers covering the program.  This of course totally ignores the fact that most of us are very critical of the program  ourselves, do not care for homers,  and just want fair coverage . 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Mission9

[79 Bull]

12 minutes ago, puc86 said:

No one is arguing that it wasn’t public information they simply wonder why the Times had a hard on for this particular attendance information and had no interest in the same information from other Universities they cover. The Wall Street Journal showed the information could be available for attendance and the majority of universities but for some odd reason no one ever cares or does it regularly except in one instance.

Got it.  I guess any public information that is at all controversial is going to be reported and milked for all it's worth.  It is pretty sad it had to become such a big issue on it's own rather than in the context of other universities per the WSJ article.

[Ryan]

59 minutes ago, Mission9 said:

No need to be sorry.  The point of this whole thread is what I hope you understand.  For the entire history of the program, most of the local media has been indifferent at best about the program when not dismissing or disparaging it.  When we call them out on it, they get defensive and say that we want homers covering the program.  This of course totally ignores the fact that most of us are very critical of the program  ourselves, do not care for homers,  and just want fair coverage . 

Oh ok, I'm sorry to hear about that issue that sounds awful

[puc86]

1 minute ago, Ryan said:

Oh ok, I'm sorry to hear about that issue that sounds awful

It really isn't that big of a deal except that it feels intentionally antagonistic and the reason given for it does not seem to mesh well with the realities of other programs and how they are covered by the paper. The reason it is not that big of a deal is he does do us the courtesy of  hiding the information by putting it in the Times and in his Twitter feed so not a lot of people get to see it. There are some on here that have decided if someone reports on something it must be a big deal so they like to bring our attention to the subject but if it were not for posts on the Bullspen I would be completely unaware of the "issue". 

[Mission9]

16 minutes ago, Ryan said:

Oh ok, I'm sorry to hear about that issue that sounds awful

The absolute worst perpetrator was a guy on the radio who railed against anyone wearing an opposing team's jersey to any of the local professional team's games  yet always took dumps on the local university.  

[NewEnglandBull]

He might just sit in the press box and count. It’s probably feasible to do if we drop our first two games....

[Ryan]

11 minutes ago, Mission9 said:

The absolute worst perpetrator was a guy on the radio who railed against anyone wearing an opposing team's jersey to any of the local professional team's games  yet always took dumps on the local university.  

That guy sounds like a ****** hoser to me