[Baez87]

We've watched quite a transformation of court-side coaching styles over the years with Pat Summit and Kim Mulkey providing some of the most dramatic. No one has been more colorful and dramatic court-side as Kim Mulkey has been over the years. In the PAC12, Nikki Caldwell and her staff of well-quaffed stiletto-heeled coaches used the sidelines as a style-statement runway just a few years ago. Then came Adia Barnes's casual, more homey, demeanor as she rallied more than 12,000 fans to fill Arizona's McKale Center. 
The question is just how will style translate into attendance, games won, and future recruiting? Caldwell's focus appears to have shifted to family, Mulkey has a whole new challenge in starting a new dynasty at LSU, but Adia has expanded the fan base and made a trip to the national championship. She certainly has inspired a winning spirit, but it remains to be seen how she translates style into future recruits and wins, although she has a good start.
Now, enter a new women’s basketball coaching persona in Kyra Elzy, Kentucky's new head coach. Perhaps she sets the bar exceedingly high for future coaches or maybe she just sets the bizarre!
https://youtu.be/p_-XW3dgckQ

[Baez87]

We've watched quite a transformation of court-side coaching styles over the years with Pat Summit and Kim Mulkey providing some of the most dramatic. No one has been more colorful and dramatic court-side as Kim Mulkey has been over the years. In the PAC12, Nikki Caldwell and her staff of well-quaffed stiletto-heeled coaches used the sidelines as a style-statement runway just a few years ago. Then came Adia Barnes's casual, more homey, demeanor as she rallied more than 12,000 fans to fill Arizona's McKale Center. 
The question is just how will style translate into attendance, games won, and future recruiting? Caldwell's focus appears to have shifted to family, Mulkey has a whole new challenge in starting a new dynasty at LSU, but Adia has expanded the fan base and made a trip to the national championship. She certainly has inspired a winning spirit, but it remains to be seen how she translates style into future recruits and wins, although she has a good start.
Now, enter a new women’s basketball coaching persona in Kyra Elzy, Kentucky's new head coach. Perhaps she sets the bar exceedingly high for future coaches or maybe she just sets the bizarre!
https://youtu.be/p_-XW3dgckQ

[BostonCard]

As Tara Vanderveer has proven, substance over style every time.

BC

[BostonCard]

As Tara Vanderveer has proven, substance over style every time.

BC

[terry]

That's an awful lot of self-aggrandizing hoopla, especially for someone who hasn't accomplished anything.

[terry]

That's an awful lot of self-aggrandizing hoopla, especially for someone who hasn't accomplished anything.

[Baez87]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

[Baez87]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

[WBB fan]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

[WBB fan]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

[crackpot]

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

Wait--you don't like the Fumigation Tunnel?

[crackpot]

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

Wait--you don't like the Fumigation Tunnel?

[chimera]

Fumigation tunnel is a good one.  Stanford is relatively subdued compared to most.  I like the old way, simple, just say who is starting, fans cheer, game starts.  I can live with a little showbiz and glitz if it pleases the players, but it is not to my taste generally, and if a Stanford coach does what the Ky coach did, I would not be thrilled.

[chimera]

Fumigation tunnel is a good one.  Stanford is relatively subdued compared to most.  I like the old way, simple, just say who is starting, fans cheer, game starts.  I can live with a little showbiz and glitz if it pleases the players, but it is not to my taste generally, and if a Stanford coach does what the Ky coach did, I would not be thrilled.

[WBB fan]

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

Wait--you don't like the Fumigation Tunnel?

Right -- definitely don't like it!

[WBB fan]

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

Wait--you don't like the Fumigation Tunnel?

Right -- definitely don't like it!

[81alum]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

[81alum]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

[teejers1]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

On the men's side, Haase has made it a priority to get the 6th Man up and running.  In opener, against Tarleton, the secion was packed and the ushers were directing surplus students to upper end zones.  Haase also expressly thanked student section at beginning of his post-game presser.

I don't know if Tara thinks this is beneath her or that she shouldn't have to plea to the student body, but if I were her I'd have an underling be in charge of bolstering the student section for WBB.  Right now, is some portion of that sideline section reserved seating?  If so, that's a problem.  There is no reason the Stanford student body would not support WBB as it would MBB, even if changing demographics might (partially) explain why football is less attractive to the students.

That's my take, anyway.

[teejers1]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

On the men's side, Haase has made it a priority to get the 6th Man up and running.  In opener, against Tarleton, the secion was packed and the ushers were directing surplus students to upper end zones.  Haase also expressly thanked student section at beginning of his post-game presser.

I don't know if Tara thinks this is beneath her or that she shouldn't have to plea to the student body, but if I were her I'd have an underling be in charge of bolstering the student section for WBB.  Right now, is some portion of that sideline section reserved seating?  If so, that's a problem.  There is no reason the Stanford student body would not support WBB as it would MBB, even if changing demographics might (partially) explain why football is less attractive to the students.

That's my take, anyway.

[WBB fan]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

We definitely all need to recruit fans -- we have four season tix for two of us, always try to bring two others with us to fill the extra seats. Our approach has been reaching to a variety of people. Some have become fans, but so far, none have bought their own tix.

Interesting bit of data -- if you look at the tix available from Stanford on the seating chart, all the best seat sections are marked as sold out, and above them, low availability -- yet those seats are often empty. I have to assume that the issue is people with season tix not using their seats. If that's right, what can we do about that?

One thing that has changed since the early 1990s, and I think it's important -- in those early years of success, Tara really invested in connecting with the fans on a personal basis. The Fast Break Club was a real thing, and there was a lot of excitement about it, a feeling for the fans of being part of the team, being close to it. We even had FBC tee shirts. I don't have nearly as strong as sense of that now. I'm not saying Tara should do more, and also ask the players to be more available as they were in the 1990s after each game, but I do think that there is a need to reinvigorate the fan/team connection.

[WBB fan]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

We definitely all need to recruit fans -- we have four season tix for two of us, always try to bring two others with us to fill the extra seats. Our approach has been reaching to a variety of people. Some have become fans, but so far, none have bought their own tix.

Interesting bit of data -- if you look at the tix available from Stanford on the seating chart, all the best seat sections are marked as sold out, and above them, low availability -- yet those seats are often empty. I have to assume that the issue is people with season tix not using their seats. If that's right, what can we do about that?

One thing that has changed since the early 1990s, and I think it's important -- in those early years of success, Tara really invested in connecting with the fans on a personal basis. The Fast Break Club was a real thing, and there was a lot of excitement about it, a feeling for the fans of being part of the team, being close to it. We even had FBC tee shirts. I don't have nearly as strong as sense of that now. I'm not saying Tara should do more, and also ask the players to be more available as they were in the 1990s after each game, but I do think that there is a need to reinvigorate the fan/team connection.

[chimera]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

We definitely all need to recruit fans -- we have four season tix for two of us, always try to bring two others with us to fill the extra seats. Our approach has been reaching to a variety of people. Some have become fans, but so far, none have bought their own tix.

Interesting bit of data -- if you look at the tix available from Stanford on the seating chart, all the best seat sections are marked as sold out, and above them, low availability -- yet those seats are often empty. I have to assume that the issue is people with season tix not using their seats. If that's right, what can we do about that?

One thing that has changed since the early 1990s, and I think it's important -- in those early years of success, Tara really invested in connecting with the fans on a personal basis. The Fast Break Club was a real thing, and there was a lot of excitement about it, a feeling for the fans of being part of the team, being close to it. We even had FBC tee shirts. I don't have nearly as strong as sense of that now. I'm not saying Tara should do more, and also ask the players to be more available as they were in the 1990s after each game, but I do think that there is a need to reinvigorate the fan/team connection.

I think you hit on two key problems.  The fan base in the prime seats have generally had those seats a long time and some do not come to all the games or even many games.  So newer fans can't get the prime seats.  Probably many of the fans who don't go to many games feel they are helping the program by buying season tickets. And maybe those seats would not sell if they gave them up.  Ticket office should have some idea of demand vs the number of season ticket holders who barely attend.  We are also expensive compared to many programs.  Maybe first time season ticket holders or just first time ticket buyers should get discounted rates to lure them in?  I guess we shall see if winning it all causes a big boost in attendance.  Pandemic still being a thing might be an issue for a while still.

I agree the program has dropped the ball somewhat on fan engagement in recent years.  FBC used to be vital, now it is basically just a website (a useful, very good website, but still not something that will get new fans into the building).  They need to amp up the fan outreach efforts for current fans and to draw in new ones who may have interest but need a nudge to get to a game.  Now is the perfect time to really work on getting new fans and energizing the old ones.

[chimera]

The sad truth about Stanford WBB is that the average age of its fans is very high and the fan base is shrinking as we oldsters pass on.  The showbiz and hoopla are probably intended to appeal to a younger crowd, although it fails miserably on me.  But I do think that Stanford fans are very different in general (for all sports) than classic fans at big name sports schools, and so many of the overall trends in college sports go down poorly with us.

But it is a good question, what SHOULD Stanford be doing to increase its WBB fan base?  They can't keep relying on the once-young crowd who jumped on the bandwagon in 1990 and 1992.  Will we get a surge of younger fans now that we have won another national championship?  Why can't we draw as well as Arizona, as Oregon State, as Oregon, or even as well as Washington during the Plum years?  We used to lead the Pac 12 in attendance, and we have sagged far behind several other schools.  I never see students at the WBB games outside of the band and the Dollies.  I rarely see anyone under 60 unless they were brought by someone over 60--except for the hoards of school kids who get bused in to a few games.

I am proud of our fans, but we as fans may need to help spread the word and do some recruiting of our own--not of players but of fans.  Loud videos and fumigation tunnels are not apt to do the job we could do.

We definitely all need to recruit fans -- we have four season tix for two of us, always try to bring two others with us to fill the extra seats. Our approach has been reaching to a variety of people. Some have become fans, but so far, none have bought their own tix.

Interesting bit of data -- if you look at the tix available from Stanford on the seating chart, all the best seat sections are marked as sold out, and above them, low availability -- yet those seats are often empty. I have to assume that the issue is people with season tix not using their seats. If that's right, what can we do about that?

One thing that has changed since the early 1990s, and I think it's important -- in those early years of success, Tara really invested in connecting with the fans on a personal basis. The Fast Break Club was a real thing, and there was a lot of excitement about it, a feeling for the fans of being part of the team, being close to it. We even had FBC tee shirts. I don't have nearly as strong as sense of that now. I'm not saying Tara should do more, and also ask the players to be more available as they were in the 1990s after each game, but I do think that there is a need to reinvigorate the fan/team connection.

I think you hit on two key problems.  The fan base in the prime seats have generally had those seats a long time and some do not come to all the games or even many games.  So newer fans can't get the prime seats.  Probably many of the fans who don't go to many games feel they are helping the program by buying season tickets. And maybe those seats would not sell if they gave them up.  Ticket office should have some idea of demand vs the number of season ticket holders who barely attend.  We are also expensive compared to many programs.  Maybe first time season ticket holders or just first time ticket buyers should get discounted rates to lure them in?  I guess we shall see if winning it all causes a big boost in attendance.  Pandemic still being a thing might be an issue for a while still.

I agree the program has dropped the ball somewhat on fan engagement in recent years.  FBC used to be vital, now it is basically just a website (a useful, very good website, but still not something that will get new fans into the building).  They need to amp up the fan outreach efforts for current fans and to draw in new ones who may have interest but need a nudge to get to a game.  Now is the perfect time to really work on getting new fans and energizing the old ones.

[Brickcity]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

I'm with you 100%. I detest the hoopla. Just play the damn game.

[Brickcity]

As fans, I think most of us are relatively powerless in influencing the direction of our favorite sports, except by the power we have in buying tickets. In women's basketball, as with most collegiate sports, the direction seems to come from the NCAA or the lure of big money from the media. Changes can come in the way the game is played or coached — creating rules for moving back the three point line, returning to four quarters of play, dealing with rough play by limiting contact, etc. Over the decades the rules have favored dunking the ball, which has changed the nature of play in the men's game dramatically. 
It’s too early to evaluate the influence that recent changes at other levels of the game will have, but from my vantage point, they will make even bigger changes in the game we have come to love. I'm speaking of such recent changes as establishing the transfer portal, commercializing the game through name-and-likeness incentives, and emphasis on the dunk as an added value to the game. These changes seem to favor colleges in big money markets or teams that are seen as darlings of the media.
The fundamentals of the game are still dribbling, shooting, and passing, but, in all sports wins are influenced more by recruiting, ie, competing for the highest ranked ball players. PR antics, such as rappelling from the rafters to announce yourself as the new coach, are as much a signal to aspiring players as they are to the fans (careful though: coming in like a lion, if you don’t win, insures your departure will be like a lamb). Let’s hope that this kind of fanfare doesn’t challenge future new coaches to create even more bizarre stunts to get attention. The big splash with glitz and glamour seems to resonate more with the emerging culture. 
Maybe it just me, but I still long for the glamour of the well-executed play — the drive to the basket, the legendary swish of the made shot, or the timely steal followed by the roar of the crowd after the successful fast break. I guess that’s why I remain such a devoted Stanford Women’s Basketball fan.

As for me, I long for a dignified start to the game, introduction of the players. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, but I really dislike the way the Stanford players are now introduced at the beginning of the game. It's hoopla drama as far as I'm concerned, not my taste at all.

I'm with you 100%. I detest the hoopla. Just play the damn game.

[crackpot]

I would think it would be a pretty easy run a query to find sold-but-unused seats then send out an email like, "Hey, crackpot, we see your tickets went unused for the UConn game. We missed you! Here are some options if you can't make future games...."

In the past, the FBC was the primary way for the team to get additional funds. Under the new(ish) scheme, that money comes from the Buck/Cardinal Club, so the incentive isn't really there. It also takes a lot of dedicated volunteers to do it well (those auctions! What a treat!).

[crackpot]

I would think it would be a pretty easy run a query to find sold-but-unused seats then send out an email like, "Hey, crackpot, we see your tickets went unused for the UConn game. We missed you! Here are some options if you can't make future games...."

In the past, the FBC was the primary way for the team to get additional funds. Under the new(ish) scheme, that money comes from the Buck/Cardinal Club, so the incentive isn't really there. It also takes a lot of dedicated volunteers to do it well (those auctions! What a treat!).

[M T]

I'm not a fan of canned laughter, pro-wrestling, in-your-face antics, or post-goal choreography.  That might attract 4 year-olds.  Respect your opponent and your fans, and earn their respect.

The fans not in their seats at Maples may be watching a recording of the game later.  Compared to the 90s, the availability of watching the game (with custom replay and slow-motion) trumps the allure of a still-uncertain health situation in a crowd.   Plus, I don't have to block out the sometimes over-loud noise (I'm not talking about the fans).  If I go, I will take noise-cancelling earphones.

Personally, I wouldn't pay the premium for getting one of the empty lower-level season-ticket seats.  I'm not sure that making those for sale would increase attendance much at all.

One thing that has driven me away from going to Maples is the price of tickets.  Upper center reserved are effectively $24/game at season price (Texas: $30/game at per-game price, no Sr or Youth discount,  ASU, Cal: $25; Sr $18)  Seems like there's little/no financial benefit to having season tickets, even if you never miss a game.  Maybe if the games were a social event to me, the balance might change, but they aren't.  (I've gone to WVB with colleagues for a couple of seasons, but that still isn't a social event.)  I'm generally happy with GA seating as I can see the game pretty well from the rafters (and I surely think I see it better than certain refs!).  And, if someone in a nearby seat is bothering me, I just move.

But, Sunday's game is against Texas so I'll probably go.  With a friend, I got into WBB watching Jody Conradt do well in the AIAW.   Taking a job in the Bay Area put an end to that.  As a consolation, I'd drop in to see a not-as-good Stanford team in a pretty empty gym.  But soon a new coach helped change things.

[M T]

I'm not a fan of canned laughter, pro-wrestling, in-your-face antics, or post-goal choreography.  That might attract 4 year-olds.  Respect your opponent and your fans, and earn their respect.

The fans not in their seats at Maples may be watching a recording of the game later.  Compared to the 90s, the availability of watching the game (with custom replay and slow-motion) trumps the allure of a still-uncertain health situation in a crowd.   Plus, I don't have to block out the sometimes over-loud noise (I'm not talking about the fans).  If I go, I will take noise-cancelling earphones.

Personally, I wouldn't pay the premium for getting one of the empty lower-level season-ticket seats.  I'm not sure that making those for sale would increase attendance much at all.

One thing that has driven me away from going to Maples is the price of tickets.  Upper center reserved are effectively $24/game at season price (Texas: $30/game at per-game price, no Sr or Youth discount,  ASU, Cal: $25; Sr $18)  Seems like there's little/no financial benefit to having season tickets, even if you never miss a game.  Maybe if the games were a social event to me, the balance might change, but they aren't.  (I've gone to WVB with colleagues for a couple of seasons, but that still isn't a social event.)  I'm generally happy with GA seating as I can see the game pretty well from the rafters (and I surely think I see it better than certain refs!).  And, if someone in a nearby seat is bothering me, I just move.

But, Sunday's game is against Texas so I'll probably go.  With a friend, I got into WBB watching Jody Conradt do well in the AIAW.   Taking a job in the Bay Area put an end to that.  As a consolation, I'd drop in to see a not-as-good Stanford team in a pretty empty gym.  But soon a new coach helped change things.