Stadium Experience - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stadium Experience (/thread-25064.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stadium Experience (/thread-25064.html)
Stadium Experience - Goose - 08-31-2024
[rant]
The Stanford football team has its issues. This thread isn't about that. IMO the experience on Friday night in the stadium was almost intolerable. First of all the "music" in section 232 was so loud it literally hurt. It was impossible to talk with the person next to you when it was playing because you can't hear each other. The people controlling the music felt it was absolutely necessary to start blaring it the moment the play was over and play it until the offense lined up. Since both teams played "fast" a fair amount with no huddle (or a very quick one) the music often was on for maybe 10 to 15 seconds. During the game, one would get a play that was run in relative silence. Then you get 10 seconds of blaring noise. I don't care if the "music" they played was something I liked, 10 seconds of anything (especially at that volume) is just noise. Of course they played music during time-outs and other play stoppages. They played it all during halftime as well. In the second half they would occasionally let the band play a bit. What sweet relief.
I get it that the extremely small crowd at the game wasn't going to make much noise. Apparently somebody believes that they can make up for that by blasting music. Guess what? It doesn't work. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is excited by that feeble attempt at hype. The people who did come to the stadium came to watch a football game, not attend a concert. Certainly nobody will enjoy a concert where the band has to stop every say 20 seconds, wait for the play to be run, and then start playing again. Maybe the people running the "show" believe that they have to provide absolutely continuous entertainment with no gaps, ever. If that is the case, their music fails that test. I think that occasionally playing something at a reasonable volume might be appropriate. Letting the band do so is IMO a better way to go. Blasting music over the PA all the way through halftime (because there was no halftime show) is just plain absurd.
Now that rant is out there for public comment, I can switch to rant II :-). The announced "attendance" of 36,000 is obviously a complete lie. Do I believe 36,000 tickets were actually sold. Yes, I do, but I suspect half of them were sold at a deep discount at the last minute just so they could quote a "reasonably large" attendance figure without technically lying. In my row there were a total of six (!) people. The row in front of us had maybe 10 at its peak but several of them left early. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game just before Labor Day weekend. Yes, it is sub-optimal to start that game at 7:30 PM. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game before the students return to campus. All that said, this was the first game of a new season in a new conference. Yet there was virtually nobody there. This undeniably bodes ill for Stanford Football going forward. Few people cared enough to attend that game. They voted with their feet.
I am sure we will hear "College football is more popular than ever" assertions attempting to minimize the importance of the very poor attendance. However, if the statistics used to make that assertion include things like the 36,000 quoted attendance, I question the validity of the assertion. It may be that streaming, cable, and over-the-air distribution is wildly popular, but there is no question this game was abysmally attended. It may be the future is playing in empty stadiums with blaring music and AI generated crowds :-). However, when the student body and alumni quit attending the games, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe significant ongoing support will be forthcoming. That is IMO certainly where Stanford is going, in so far as we aren't already there.
[/rant]
RE: Stadium Experience - 82lsju - 08-31-2024
we were there in sec 134, the music was less annoying in our section.
The AD offered two free tickets to season ticket holders, not sure how many took them up on the offer but that could inflate the claimed attendance.
Our group actually had better attendance this year for the Labor Day weekend game. Of course this year our group is smaller as we had four tickets out of 11 not be renewed. Those four were picked up by a nice couple with kids (the kids like the idea of TD cookies so we made new friends) who upgraded their location.
Getting in and out of Lot 2 was super easy and the lot was not particularly crowded.
RE: Stadium Experience - Snorlax94 - 08-31-2024
I was at the game and, respectfully, Goose, I have a different opinion.
I will agree that generally I don’t think they have good music. I like Sweet Caroline, but it is getting really old. I like Dancing Queen but it doesn’t fit getting fired up for the fourth quarter. The Bay Area has been the home of great bands like Journey and Green Day.
The sound was not too loud in my section. Occasionally I couldn’t hear my friend’s comments, but otherwise it was fine. Maybe they play it too loud where you are.
Separate from what happened on-field, which I am concerned about, I think people would enjoy a night like last night at Stanford Stadium (again, SEPARATE FROM WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FIELD). Stanford Stadium is a beautiful building and the weather last night was pretty close to perfect. It was never too hot, it was a gorgeous evening weather-wise, the sky was clear, the stadium looked great.
If the team can win some home games (or **a** home game), it’s a great place to watch football.
And while I am surprised the announced “attendance” was 36,000, I actually thought they’d announce around 28,000 (which is not to say it was half full, but between a quarter and a third full, much more than I expected given the fact that it was late Friday night before the students arrive). And the stadium wasn’t all purple (though sadly and predictably, the TCU fans made more noise). It had way more people than I expected, though, I assumed they gave a lot away or had special promotions, which they have been dependent upon for many years.
RE: Stadium Experience - fullmetal - 08-31-2024
I spent most of the game in section 205 (end zone corner), and the music was medium tolerable. If we had been seated higher up near the speakers, yeah that would have been bad. Reduced speaker volume would be a plus. Moving down to the lower bowl in the second half, I didn't think the volume was bad. It was, however, a chilly night for me, and I really appreciated one of the concessions windows that was selling hot chocolate, whew.
The crowd size was what it was. If you want a packed stadium, bring a winning product onto the field. Or bring a championship contender opponent. We all know the limitations of the alumni fanbase size, local interest, holiday timing, etc. My friends with small children had to leave early because it was really late (not family-friendly at all). I don't think the AD has the ability to set kick off times, so c'est la vie. I bet the ACC never thought they would get a crack at filling in those late Saturday game slots, but here we are. #ACCafterDark
It was great to be in the stadium again. But the team performance remains the central reason for watching the game. You could put me on the front row of the 50 yd line or in a luxury box suite, but if Stanford keeps playing like this, I'm still going to be very sad.
RE: Stadium Experience - crackpot - 08-31-2024
(08-31-2024, 12:30 PM)fullmetal Wrote: I spent most of the game in section 205 (end zone corner), and the music was medium tolerable. If we had been seated higher up near the speakers, yeah that would have been bad. Reduced speaker volume would be a plus. Moving down to the lower bowl in the second half, I didn't think the volume was bad. It was, however, a chilly night for me, and I really appreciated one of the concessions windows that was selling hot chocolate, whew.
The crowd size was what it was. If you want a packed stadium, bring a winning product onto the field. Or bring a championship contender opponent. We all know the limitations of the alumni fanbase size, local interest, holiday timing, etc. My friends with small children had to leave early because it was really late (not family-friendly at all). I don't think the AD has the ability to set kick off times, so c'est la vie. I bet the ACC never thought they would get a crack at filling in those late Saturday game slots, but here we are. #ACCafterDark
It was great to be in the stadium again. But the team performance remains the central reason for watching the game. You could put me on the front row of the 50 yd line or in a luxury box suite, but if Stanford keeps playing like this, I'm still going to be very sad.
We were in 206. No complaints about volume, but it was just...odd.
I thought the fans that did show up were great and put their voices and heart into every play.
Before we left my son estimated we'd be home about 12:30. I thought he was silly. We pulled into the driveway at 12:28 (which was fun since I usually wake up b/n 5 and 6...). I guess ESPN has to make room for oodles and oodles of commercials? Those were the longest timeouts I ever remember. When the second half didn't start until 9:30...argh.
Looking forward to next week.
RE: Stadium Experience - Farm93 - 08-31-2024
I thought the scene was fine.
I realize some people sit close to a speaker, and for them things might be tough. I recall one year I started to watch from seats right at the top of the first level, and decided that was a mistake because the speaker right above my head was too much for me. So I understand there are locations that are challenging.
However, I don't think the music is louder at Stanford Stadium than any other venue I have visited in the last decade.
USC, UW, ASU, Oregon all have music volume cranked up to much higher levels and at UW and Oregon that's nothing compared to what the crowd can do at key moments. I really don't go to pro sports now, but I used to feel that every pro sporting event had PA levels way above your average college venue.
And that last observation is key because I suspect most colleges want to create an environment similar to what fans experience at pro venues, if possible. So large TV screens, lots of current popular music at crazy volumes, and a number of gimicks to try to entertain people during the TV timeouts. The noise adds some hype for the fans and the players which can be important if the venue is largely empty or the crowd is quiet.
If the venue didn't have PA noise then Stanford Stadium would be called a library by media types.
I did have one observation related to music selection though.
I am all for playing whatever the players and recruits enjoy. Today typical 5-star recruits want hip-hop with a real rough edge. Fine! Whatever. However, the AD also decided to have the kids' fan fest inside the stadium, and I thought some of the musical choices were awful for young kids. The music played for the players before the pre-game countdown clock gets below 45 minutes or so includes loads of explicit lyrics. Again, no problem for me if that is what recruits expect or players request, but perhaps the version for radio play would be more appropriate if the fan fest is hosting young kids inside the stadium.
RE: Stadium Experience - martyup - 08-31-2024
Goose, I don't know your age but I see this as a generational issue. I hated it when rodeos started doing this thing with loud pop music between contestant performances. It's especially irritating at indoor venues. I also know that people under the influence of alcohol tolerate much more noise than when sober. With this team, it might be a better experience to get drunk and watch the games at home on TV.
RE: Stadium Experience - CardinalSagehen - 08-31-2024
All of this is noise, so to speak. A winning product on the field is the only thing that could materially improve my stadium experience and winning will breed a better experience in all kinds of other ways.
That said, my ears are still ringing right now. Our seats are in 116 row R, which is right in the line of fire of the speakers just behind us. My suggestion for Goose is to move to one of the other 35,000 available seats and not feel guilty about it - many rows are further from the speakers, which makes a big difference. In the very unlikely event that you are sitting in another attendee's seat, nobody will be particularly uptight about it these days because they can easily see how little it matters in such an empty stadium.
RE: Stadium Experience - GK3 - 08-31-2024
(08-31-2024, 10:15 AM)Goose Wrote: [rant]
The Stanford football team has its issues. This thread isn't about that. IMO the experience on Friday night in the stadium was almost intolerable. First of all the "music" in section 232 was so loud it literally hurt. It was impossible to talk with the person next to you when it was playing because you can't hear each other. The people controlling the music felt it was absolutely necessary to start blaring it the moment the play was over and play it until the offense lined up. Since both teams played "fast" a fair amount with no huddle (or a very quick one) the music often was on for maybe 10 to 15 seconds. During the game, one would get a play that was run in relative silence. Then you get 10 seconds of blaring noise. I don't care if the "music" they played was something I liked, 10 seconds of anything (especially at that volume) is just noise. Of course they played music during time-outs and other play stoppages. They played it all during halftime as well. In the second half they would occasionally let the band play a bit. What sweet relief.
I get it that the extremely small crowd at the game wasn't going to make much noise. Apparently somebody believes that they can make up for that by blasting music. Guess what? It doesn't work. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is excited by that feeble attempt at hype. The people who did come to the stadium came to watch a football game, not attend a concert. Certainly nobody will enjoy a concert where the band has to stop every say 20 seconds, wait for the play to be run, and then start playing again. Maybe the people running the "show" believe that they have to provide absolutely continuous entertainment with no gaps, ever. If that is the case, their music fails that test. I think that occasionally playing something at a reasonable volume might be appropriate. Letting the band do so is IMO a better way to go. Blasting music over the PA all the way through halftime (because there was no halftime show) is just plain absurd.
Now that rant is out there for public comment, I can switch to rant II :-). The announced "attendance" of 36,000 is obviously a complete lie. Do I believe 36,000 tickets were actually sold. Yes, I do, but I suspect half of them were sold at a deep discount at the last minute just so they could quote a "reasonably large" attendance figure without technically lying. In my row there were a total of six (!) people. The row in front of us had maybe 10 at its peak but several of them left early. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game just before Labor Day weekend. Yes, it is sub-optimal to start that game at 7:30 PM. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game before the students return to campus. All that said, this was the first game of a new season in a new conference. Yet there was virtually nobody there. This undeniably bodes ill for Stanford Football going forward. Few people cared enough to attend that game. They voted with their feet.
I am sure we will hear "College football is more popular than ever" assertions attempting to minimize the importance of the very poor attendance. However, if the statistics used to make that assertion include things like the 36,000 quoted attendance, I question the validity of the assertion. It may be that streaming, cable, and over-the-air distribution is wildly popular, but there is no question this game was abysmally attended. It may be the future is playing in empty stadiums with blaring music and AI generated crowds :-). However, when the student body and alumni quit attending the games, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe significant ongoing support will be forthcoming. That is IMO certainly where Stanford is going, in so far as we aren't already there.
[/rant]
Goose is absolutely correct. The game experience last night was awful. No one in the stands, maybe 5,000. They should have told the crowd to move together at midfield and it might have been easier to actuallly make create some non electronic noise. Why most of the crowd sat happily in the cheap seats when they could have sat on the 50 is hard to understand, increased the impression of playing in an empty stadium. The long TV time outs have pretty much destroyed any concept of game flow. Game took almost 4 hours, way to long, only adds to the bad experience.
(08-31-2024, 10:47 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: I was at the game and, respectfully, Goose, I have a different opinion.I beg to differ but the statdium wasn't close to 1/4 full. It looked empty, felt empty, and was mostly empty.
I will agree that generally I don’t think they have good music. I like Sweet Caroline, but it is getting really old. I like Dancing Queen but it doesn’t fit getting fired up for the fourth quarter. The Bay Area has been the home of great bands like Journey and Green Day.
The sound was not too loud in my section. Occasionally I couldn’t hear my friend’s comments, but otherwise it was fine. Maybe they play it too loud where you are.
Separate from what happened on-field, which I am concerned about, I think people would enjoy a night like last night at Stanford Stadium (again, SEPARATE FROM WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FIELD). Stanford Stadium is a beautiful building and the weather last night was pretty close to perfect. It was never too hot, it was a gorgeous evening weather-wise, the sky was clear, the stadium looked great.
If the team can win some home games (or **a** home game), it’s a great place to watch football.
And while I am surprised the announced “attendance” was 36,000, I actually thought they’d announce around 28,000 (which is not to say it was half full, but between a quarter and a third full, much more than I expected given the fact that it was late Friday night before the students arrive). And the stadium wasn’t all purple (though sadly and predictably, the TCU fans made more noise). It had way more people than I expected, though, I assumed they gave a lot away or had special promotions, which they have been dependent upon for many years.
RE: Stadium Experience - chrisk - 08-31-2024
(08-31-2024, 02:52 PM)GK3 Wrote:(08-31-2024, 10:15 AM)Goose Wrote: [rant]
The Stanford football team has its issues. This thread isn't about that. IMO the experience on Friday night in the stadium was almost intolerable. First of all the "music" in section 232 was so loud it literally hurt. It was impossible to talk with the person next to you when it was playing because you can't hear each other. The people controlling the music felt it was absolutely necessary to start blaring it the moment the play was over and play it until the offense lined up. Since both teams played "fast" a fair amount with no huddle (or a very quick one) the music often was on for maybe 10 to 15 seconds. During the game, one would get a play that was run in relative silence. Then you get 10 seconds of blaring noise. I don't care if the "music" they played was something I liked, 10 seconds of anything (especially at that volume) is just noise. Of course they played music during time-outs and other play stoppages. They played it all during halftime as well. In the second half they would occasionally let the band play a bit. What sweet relief.
I get it that the extremely small crowd at the game wasn't going to make much noise. Apparently somebody believes that they can make up for that by blasting music. Guess what? It doesn't work. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is excited by that feeble attempt at hype. The people who did come to the stadium came to watch a football game, not attend a concert. Certainly nobody will enjoy a concert where the band has to stop every say 20 seconds, wait for the play to be run, and then start playing again. Maybe the people running the "show" believe that they have to provide absolutely continuous entertainment with no gaps, ever. If that is the case, their music fails that test. I think that occasionally playing something at a reasonable volume might be appropriate. Letting the band do so is IMO a better way to go. Blasting music over the PA all the way through halftime (because there was no halftime show) is just plain absurd.
Now that rant is out there for public comment, I can switch to rant II :-). The announced "attendance" of 36,000 is obviously a complete lie. Do I believe 36,000 tickets were actually sold. Yes, I do, but I suspect half of them were sold at a deep discount at the last minute just so they could quote a "reasonably large" attendance figure without technically lying. In my row there were a total of six (!) people. The row in front of us had maybe 10 at its peak but several of them left early. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game just before Labor Day weekend. Yes, it is sub-optimal to start that game at 7:30 PM. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game before the students return to campus. All that said, this was the first game of a new season in a new conference. Yet there was virtually nobody there. This undeniably bodes ill for Stanford Football going forward. Few people cared enough to attend that game. They voted with their feet.
I am sure we will hear "College football is more popular than ever" assertions attempting to minimize the importance of the very poor attendance. However, if the statistics used to make that assertion include things like the 36,000 quoted attendance, I question the validity of the assertion. It may be that streaming, cable, and over-the-air distribution is wildly popular, but there is no question this game was abysmally attended. It may be the future is playing in empty stadiums with blaring music and AI generated crowds :-). However, when the student body and alumni quit attending the games, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe significant ongoing support will be forthcoming. That is IMO certainly where Stanford is going, in so far as we aren't already there.
[/rant]
Goose is absolutely correct. The game experience last night was awful. No one in the stands, maybe 5,000. They should have told the crowd to move together at midfield and it might have been easier to actuallly make create some non electronic noise. Why most of the crowd sat happily in the cheap seats when they could have sat on the 50 is hard to understand, increased the impression of playing in an empty stadium. The long TV time outs have pretty much destroyed any concept of game flow. Game took almost 4 hours, way to long, only adds to the bad experience.
(08-31-2024, 10:47 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: I was at the game and, respectfully, Goose, I have a different opinion.I beg to differ but the statdium wasn't close to 1/4 full. It looked empty, felt empty, and was mostly empty.
I will agree that generally I don’t think they have good music. I like Sweet Caroline, but it is getting really old. I like Dancing Queen but it doesn’t fit getting fired up for the fourth quarter. The Bay Area has been the home of great bands like Journey and Green Day.
The sound was not too loud in my section. Occasionally I couldn’t hear my friend’s comments, but otherwise it was fine. Maybe they play it too loud where you are.
Separate from what happened on-field, which I am concerned about, I think people would enjoy a night like last night at Stanford Stadium (again, SEPARATE FROM WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FIELD). Stanford Stadium is a beautiful building and the weather last night was pretty close to perfect. It was never too hot, it was a gorgeous evening weather-wise, the sky was clear, the stadium looked great.
If the team can win some home games (or **a** home game), it’s a great place to watch football.
And while I am surprised the announced “attendance” was 36,000, I actually thought they’d announce around 28,000 (which is not to say it was half full, but between a quarter and a third full, much more than I expected given the fact that it was late Friday night before the students arrive). And the stadium wasn’t all purple (though sadly and predictably, the TCU fans made more noise). It had way more people than I expected, though, I assumed they gave a lot away or had special promotions, which they have been dependent upon for many years.
The sections on the sunny side were more full than the sections on the shady side.
(08-31-2024, 12:57 PM)crackpot Wrote:(08-31-2024, 12:30 PM)fullmetal Wrote: I spent most of the game in section 205 (end zone corner), and the music was medium tolerable. If we had been seated higher up near the speakers, yeah that would have been bad. Reduced speaker volume would be a plus. Moving down to the lower bowl in the second half, I didn't think the volume was bad. It was, however, a chilly night for me, and I really appreciated one of the concessions windows that was selling hot chocolate, whew.
The crowd size was what it was. If you want a packed stadium, bring a winning product onto the field. Or bring a championship contender opponent. We all know the limitations of the alumni fanbase size, local interest, holiday timing, etc. My friends with small children had to leave early because it was really late (not family-friendly at all). I don't think the AD has the ability to set kick off times, so c'est la vie. I bet the ACC never thought they would get a crack at filling in those late Saturday game slots, but here we are. #ACCafterDark
It was great to be in the stadium again. But the team performance remains the central reason for watching the game. You could put me on the front row of the 50 yd line or in a luxury box suite, but if Stanford keeps playing like this, I'm still going to be very sad.
We were in 206. No complaints about volume, but it was just...odd.
I thought the fans that did show up were great and put their voices and heart into every play.
Before we left my son estimated we'd be home about 12:30. I thought he was silly. We pulled into the driveway at 12:28 (which was fun since I usually wake up b/n 5 and 6...). I guess ESPN has to make room for oodles and oodles of commercials? Those were the longest timeouts I ever remember. When the second half didn't start until 9:30...argh.
Looking forward to next week.
The commercial timer on the field which was pointed at us usually was set at 3:05 or 3:20 and didn't start right away.
My recollection is that in the Pac-12 it was usually 2:30.
RE: Stadium Experience - SkiBum80 - 08-31-2024
(08-31-2024, 02:17 PM)martyup Wrote: …. With this team, it might be a better experience to get drunk and watch the games at home on TVYou’re assuming one can drink enough to be able to watch this team
RE: Stadium Experience - martyup - 08-31-2024
(08-31-2024, 06:34 PM)SkiBum80 Wrote:(08-31-2024, 02:17 PM)martyup Wrote: …. With this team, it might be a better experience to get drunk and watch the games at home on TVYou’re assuming one can drink enough to be able to watch this team
Well, if you drink enough you won't be able to watch.
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.giphy.com%2Fmedi...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fl0HlJIFyubSImtzXO%2F200.gif%3Fcid%3D790b7611t4b421r0jfury4akc0s8uhsl6brr32jhbo8zofd4%26rid%3D200.gif%26ct%3Dg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c7de98b6ee62f5b902e68bd93dfea2e1ff1f35ec854ae7d7dba28660258a7364&ipo=images)
RE: Stadium Experience - Farm93 - 08-31-2024
Last night the sunny side had a decent crowd, that stayed right until the very end. Apparently those wearing purple were very passionate about football, might have something to do with studying in a football loving state.
The game was on ESPN, just as many Pac-12 games.
So either the ACC negotiated for more revenue with longer add breaks or this is new for this year.
Doesn't really matter now as we will see those 3:00+ going forward apparently.
I did like that they had referee replay monitors at both ends of the field so that the referees don't need to run all the way down the field to conduct a review.
Yesterday's longer game is likely a function of a few things.
* Both teams had a lot of incomplete pass plays.
Given that Stanford doesn't have a great run game I suspect Stanford will be playing late a lot.
* The 2 minute pause in the game in each half.
That's 6+ minutes of ads...err time that we didn't have in the past.
* The radio helmets
That allows bad teams to throw incomplete passes faster as there is less time wasted with play signals or running in the play.
Back in the Shaw era I noted that Stanford games were fast because Stanford ran the ball a lot and took most of the play clock every down. While some were complaining about Pac-12 after dark hitting 10:30 for Stanford, it was not uncommon for bad Cal or bad WSU teams to not wrap up until 11:00 or later.
Given the Stanford team's inability to run, coupled with the longer and more frequent commercial breaks, and the ability to start plays earlier in the play clock, I suspect we could get to enjoy an ACC game ending after midnight (Pacific) soon.
RE: Stadium Experience - cctop - 08-31-2024
Funny, I felt the experience last night was better than I expected.
To me it looked like the stadium was 1/3 full, maybe 15-18k actual attendance. More fans than in recent games.
Where I was sitting towards the front of section 204, the speaker volume was fine.
Despite the small crowd it got reasonably loud on 3rd downs. On 1st and 2nd downs it was quiet enough that we could hear the TCU team half the stadium away, which was odd.
The weather was gorgeous, a little cool towards the end of the game but I was still fine in shorts.
Regarding the game itself, we wouldn't be fans if we didn't complain about the playcalling, but if I have to choose between too conservative and too aggressive then I'll pick aggressive, and I'm happy the team is playing with some energy and life now.
RE: Stadium Experience - Mick - 09-01-2024
(08-31-2024, 10:58 PM)cctop Wrote: Funny, I felt the experience last night was better than I expected.
To me it looked like the stadium was 1/3 full, maybe 15-18k actual attendance. More fans than in recent games.
Where I was sitting towards the front of section 204, the speaker volume was fine.
Despite the small crowd it got reasonably loud on 3rd downs. On 1st and 2nd downs it was quiet enough that we could hear the TCU team half the stadium away, which was odd.
The weather was gorgeous, a little cool towards the end of the game but I was still fine in shorts.
Regarding the game itself, we wouldn't be fans if we didn't complain about the playcalling, but if I have to choose between too conservative and too aggressive then I'll pick aggressive, and I'm happy the team is playing with some energy and life now.
+1. I like aggressive playcalling. Means the coach believes in the team.
Taylor's been a successful coach. I believe he will learn from his mistakes and improve over time.
RE: Stadium Experience - fullmetal - 09-01-2024
A. Is there a Cardboard tailgate/meetup I need to look for next time I'm at the game?
B. Even in the more densely seated areas, there were empty seats scattered throughout (for personal space, I'd guess).
C. Regarding the 4th down playcall at the end, the data probably said that if Stanford punted with 2:30 to go, they wouldn't ever get the ball back with a chance to take the lead in this game (either TCU would run down the clock or score again from their 35 or so). I'm not mad about it. I'm mad about the execution, which was as it was the entire game.
D. So those did feel like long commercial breaks, and it wasn't just me! Ugh.
RE: Stadium Experience - 82lsju - 09-01-2024
(08-31-2024, 05:10 PM)chrisk Wrote: The commercial timer on the field which was pointed at us usually was set at 3:05 or 3:20 and didn't start right away.
My recollection is that in the Pac-12 it was usually 2:30.
I noticed this also and wondered it they got behind on commercials given the first two drives of the game took up almost the entire first quarter.