[gailtate]

Local college football interest is at its lowest point that I can remember and I've been going to Big Games since 1953.

It's now Big Yawn.

Demographics and the trends in those demographics are not favorable for Big Game.
   
In other places in the USA Stanford's last decade of excellence would create packed stadiums for several years, especially for games against its closest conference rival.    Stanford went to 4 Pac-12 CGs in the last decade.  There are very few programs with that rate of excellence, and even some of them have had bad years with far fewer trophy worthy wins than this 2021 Stanford team.

Big Game will be big to me, but I know current Stanford students are not that passionate about football, UCB or the game.  

The slide in interest is not about Shaw, Muir, the AD or the current Stanford administrators.  The change has to do with college students nationally, but especially in the Pac-12 footprint.   USC has had dreadful attendance, there are empty seats visible in most ESPN games not played in the SEC.

2021 has been awful for Stanford football, but the empty seats are not going away even if Shaw and the team win 8 or 9 games next season.   If Stanford attendance over a season can only be at capacity with 10+ wins per year, then that's not a healthy program.   The endowment and donation dollars can sustain the operation for many years, so I am not too worried about fielding a competitive team at or above Stanford's historic 55-60% win rate over time.

However, if "Big" includes some notion of a packed stadium, ESPN gameday, and intense local, regional and national coverage then "Big Game" is not a "Big" game and is unlikely to become big on a sustained basis any time in the near future.

That's OK BTW.   Stanford University's success in driving the area into a major hub for global innovations is a large part of the demographic problem, and I am 100% OK with the idea that the success of Stanford University and Silicon Valley will continue to erode the ability for "Big Game" to be seen as "Big" by...outsiders.  ;)

During the Shawbaugh heyday (09, 11, 13 and 17) home attendance for "big games" not played against Cal but against the likes of Oregon, ND and until recently the L.A. schools put a lot of butts in the seats. In other words, win and they will come. But only as long as you keep winning. in this neck of woods especially, college football is a fragile enterprise and a "performance" business : When you don't perform, you lose business. Immediately. And it's slow to come back. I've seen a lot Stanford home football across six decades. The overall trend is decidedly down, but if you give the people something to get excited about, they'll show up. The buzz has a very short half-life, that's all. Winning = buzz = butts-in-the-seats.

[gailtate]

Local college football interest is at its lowest point that I can remember and I've been going to Big Games since 1953.

It's now Big Yawn.

Demographics and the trends in those demographics are not favorable for Big Game.
   
In other places in the USA Stanford's last decade of excellence would create packed stadiums for several years, especially for games against its closest conference rival.    Stanford went to 4 Pac-12 CGs in the last decade.  There are very few programs with that rate of excellence, and even some of them have had bad years with far fewer trophy worthy wins than this 2021 Stanford team.

Big Game will be big to me, but I know current Stanford students are not that passionate about football, UCB or the game.  

The slide in interest is not about Shaw, Muir, the AD or the current Stanford administrators.  The change has to do with college students nationally, but especially in the Pac-12 footprint.   USC has had dreadful attendance, there are empty seats visible in most ESPN games not played in the SEC.

2021 has been awful for Stanford football, but the empty seats are not going away even if Shaw and the team win 8 or 9 games next season.   If Stanford attendance over a season can only be at capacity with 10+ wins per year, then that's not a healthy program.   The endowment and donation dollars can sustain the operation for many years, so I am not too worried about fielding a competitive team at or above Stanford's historic 55-60% win rate over time.

However, if "Big" includes some notion of a packed stadium, ESPN gameday, and intense local, regional and national coverage then "Big Game" is not a "Big" game and is unlikely to become big on a sustained basis any time in the near future.

That's OK BTW.   Stanford University's success in driving the area into a major hub for global innovations is a large part of the demographic problem, and I am 100% OK with the idea that the success of Stanford University and Silicon Valley will continue to erode the ability for "Big Game" to be seen as "Big" by...outsiders.  ;)

During the Shawbaugh heyday (09, 11, 13 and 17) home attendance for "big games" not played against Cal but against the likes of Oregon, ND and until recently the L.A. schools put a lot of butts in the seats. In other words, win and they will come. But only as long as you keep winning. in this neck of woods especially, college football is a fragile enterprise and a "performance" business : When you don't perform, you lose business. Immediately. And it's slow to come back. I've seen a lot Stanford home football across six decades. The overall trend is decidedly down, but if you give the people something to get excited about, they'll show up. The buzz has a very short half-life, that's all. Winning = buzz = butts-in-the-seats.