[Snorlax94]

I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

[Snorlax94]

I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

[JohnR34231]

I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)

[JohnR34231]

I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)

[82 Card]

I did watch the game. Well, sort of while multi-tasking. The excerpts from the Mercury posted by Snorlax94 are consistent with my impressions from the broadcast. The tarp on the top deck and the less than full seats on the open deck were visible in the broadcast. The ragged play, particularly by Utah, was commented on repeatedly by the commentators. Utah opened the game by fumbling on the kickoff return. Utah had plenty of great plays but multiple turn-overs made the game a squeaker.

[82 Card]

I did watch the game. Well, sort of while multi-tasking. The excerpts from the Mercury posted by Snorlax94 are consistent with my impressions from the broadcast. The tarp on the top deck and the less than full seats on the open deck were visible in the broadcast. The ragged play, particularly by Utah, was commented on repeatedly by the commentators. Utah opened the game by fumbling on the kickoff return. Utah had plenty of great plays but multiple turn-overs made the game a squeaker.

[winflop]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

[winflop]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

[JohnR34231]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.

[JohnR34231]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.

[ChicagoCard]

My impressions from the game... Rhetorically speaking, can you imagine McCaffrey getting clobbered by the first guy so often in returning punts?, the Indiana coach's sideline antics got under my skin, and I got the impression that Utah wasn't sure who their starting QB was, and that Tyler Huntley is going to be Utah's starting qb next year.

[ChicagoCard]

My impressions from the game... Rhetorically speaking, can you imagine McCaffrey getting clobbered by the first guy so often in returning punts?, the Indiana coach's sideline antics got under my skin, and I got the impression that Utah wasn't sure who their starting QB was, and that Tyler Huntley is going to be Utah's starting qb next year.

[Farm93]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16336.msg183858#msg183858 date=1483015654]
They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.
[/quote]
I think an evening football game at Levi's in December is probably better than an evening game at AT&T in December.  Levi's is a football stadium and that's important. At AT&T the two teams were on the same sideline.  The TV types consistently claimed the teams enjoyed that novelty, but that was BS.

For fans the connectivity at Levi's might be great on a Saturday or a Sunday as they want to track other games and sporting events, but in a late December Wednesday evening those connectivity benefits are not quite as meaningful.

In the end, Utah's bad attendance is bad for the Pac-12's ability to get better bowls.  Thankfully a lot of bowl games have been played in very empty stadiums this season.  The St. Pete bowl featured two teams that were not that far from home, but the place was empty.  The Holiday bowl seemed to have a completely empty top tier.

Stanford might do a better job packing the Sun Bowl.  I guess we will see.  Historically Stanford has been quick to donate tickets to local groups.  That might work for TV and the stadium, but rarely excites the hotel and restaurant members of the bowl selection committees.

A lot of schools are struggling to fill their stadiums as they compete with the TV coverage now.  And that is despite all of the traditions and conveniences of the local venues.  To me it is not shocking at all that the bowl games are no longer able to get these fans to spends thousands to watch these games.  The BigTen still can get it done, but that is because they have fans really want to holiday away from home in a warmer location, and then just plan a vacation around their teams bowl venue.

[Farm93]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16336.msg183858#msg183858 date=1483015654]
They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.
[/quote]
I think an evening football game at Levi's in December is probably better than an evening game at AT&T in December.  Levi's is a football stadium and that's important. At AT&T the two teams were on the same sideline.  The TV types consistently claimed the teams enjoyed that novelty, but that was BS.

For fans the connectivity at Levi's might be great on a Saturday or a Sunday as they want to track other games and sporting events, but in a late December Wednesday evening those connectivity benefits are not quite as meaningful.

In the end, Utah's bad attendance is bad for the Pac-12's ability to get better bowls.  Thankfully a lot of bowl games have been played in very empty stadiums this season.  The St. Pete bowl featured two teams that were not that far from home, but the place was empty.  The Holiday bowl seemed to have a completely empty top tier.

Stanford might do a better job packing the Sun Bowl.  I guess we will see.  Historically Stanford has been quick to donate tickets to local groups.  That might work for TV and the stadium, but rarely excites the hotel and restaurant members of the bowl selection committees.

A lot of schools are struggling to fill their stadiums as they compete with the TV coverage now.  And that is despite all of the traditions and conveniences of the local venues.  To me it is not shocking at all that the bowl games are no longer able to get these fans to spends thousands to watch these games.  The BigTen still can get it done, but that is because they have fans really want to holiday away from home in a warmer location, and then just plan a vacation around their teams bowl venue.

[Phogge]

Levi has comfortable lounge areas, good sight lines, plenty of food and drink options and polite staff. The downsides include poor parking lot egress and in September and October brutal sun and heat conditions on the East side stands. IMO, the whole package is antiseptic and cold.

[Phogge]

Levi has comfortable lounge areas, good sight lines, plenty of food and drink options and polite staff. The downsides include poor parking lot egress and in September and October brutal sun and heat conditions on the East side stands. IMO, the whole package is antiseptic and cold.

[stupac2]

The big problem with the chicken bowl is that Levi's is constructed like a wind tunnel. Both times I've been there the stadium has been far colder than it needs to be thanks to the open concourses, wind just howls through the place, and given its location at the bottom of the bay it's basically always windy there. During the day the breeze might be nice, but after dark it's brutal.

[stupac2]

The big problem with the chicken bowl is that Levi's is constructed like a wind tunnel. Both times I've been there the stadium has been far colder than it needs to be thanks to the open concourses, wind just howls through the place, and given its location at the bottom of the bay it's basically always windy there. During the day the breeze might be nice, but after dark it's brutal.

[Mick]

[quote author=Snorlax94 link=topic=16336.msg183850#msg183850 date=1482996765]
I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)
[/quote]


I'd be interested in the results of a player vote.  "Would you rather go to San Diego, El Paso or stay in the SFBA for Christmas with the bowl game near campus?"

[Mick]

[quote author=Snorlax94 link=topic=16336.msg183850#msg183850 date=1482996765]
I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)
[/quote]


I'd be interested in the results of a player vote.  "Would you rather go to San Diego, El Paso or stay in the SFBA for Christmas with the bowl game near campus?"

[Mick]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

+100

[Mick]

They need to move the game back to AT&T.  San Francisco is a better draw than Santa Clara, and clearly the game isn't much of a draw by itself.  And Levi's just sucks.

+100

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16336.msg183851#msg183851 date=1483002043]
[quote author=Snorlax94 link=topic=16336.msg183850#msg183850 date=1482996765]
I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)
[/quote]


I'd be interested in the results of a player vote.  "Would you rather go to San Diego, El Paso or stay in the SFBA for Christmas with the bowl game near campus?"
[/quote]

Since the players apparently had to fly back from their homes Christmas Day to make it to the Sun Bowl, you are probably right suggesting they would have voted to stay in the Bay Area over El Paso. Otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=16336.msg183851#msg183851 date=1483002043]
[quote author=Snorlax94 link=topic=16336.msg183850#msg183850 date=1482996765]
I didn't watch it, but took some glee  reading about the abysmal attendance.  The Merc reported  it looked well under the announced 26,000. Two years ago, when Stanford played Maryland, attendance was over 34,000.

Although Utah won in a squeaker, the conference doesn't look like it's off to a great start...


"The mistake-plagued game, featuring a Foster Farms record seven turnovers, eight sacks and more than a half-dozen dropped passes, was watched by a crowd that appeared considerably smaller than the announced total of 27,608 tickets distributed.

The 18,000 upper-deck seats at Levi’s Stadium were covered by a tarp — a first in the three-year history of the facility — in an attempt to create a better ambiance for the Fox TV audience."

Why all the negativism? Because Stanford wasn't selected for it?
I kind of like the idea that we are in a different bowl than the one we were in two years ago. I would also think that the players would like the idea of going somewhere, as opposed to just hanging around the campus area for another week.
As far as the ragged play is concerned, what can you expect from a "meaningless" bowl game. :)
[/quote]


I'd be interested in the results of a player vote.  "Would you rather go to San Diego, El Paso or stay in the SFBA for Christmas with the bowl game near campus?"
[/quote]

Since the players apparently had to fly back from their homes Christmas Day to make it to the Sun Bowl, you are probably right suggesting they would have voted to stay in the Bay Area over El Paso. Otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure.

[terry]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

[terry]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

[Farm93]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

Believable preference.

I continue to suspect that if programs (coaches & players) were given an option to have as many practices as the bowl bound teams between December and February even if they didn't attend a bowl game, many would take the bowl-free option.  Since most schools lose money going to the lower tier bowls, I wouldn't be shocked if most administrations would quickly take the bowl-free path too.

Almost wish the NCAA would give that a try for a year or two.  At a minimum it would thin out the bowl herd a bit as the risk of getting rejected by multiple programs might scare away some of these towns looking for a cheap way to boost tourism.

[Farm93]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

Believable preference.

I continue to suspect that if programs (coaches & players) were given an option to have as many practices as the bowl bound teams between December and February even if they didn't attend a bowl game, many would take the bowl-free option.  Since most schools lose money going to the lower tier bowls, I wouldn't be shocked if most administrations would quickly take the bowl-free path too.

Almost wish the NCAA would give that a try for a year or two.  At a minimum it would thin out the bowl herd a bit as the risk of getting rejected by multiple programs might scare away some of these towns looking for a cheap way to boost tourism.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=terry link=topic=16336.msg183904#msg183904 date=1483039530]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

Believable preference.

I continue to suspect that if programs (coaches & players) were given an option to have as many practices as the bowl bound teams between December and February even if they didn't attend a bowl game, many would take the bowl-free option.  Since most schools lose money going to the lower tier bowls, I wouldn't be shocked if most administrations would quickly take the bowl-free path too.

Almost wish the NCAA would give that a try for a year or two.  At a minimum it would thin out the bowl herd a bit as the risk of getting rejected by multiple programs might scare away some of these towns looking for a cheap way to boost tourism.
[/quote]

Actually I had two sons who played in bowl games and were quite happy to do it (at least they never complained). So maybe that's why I'm perhaps a little less skeptical about the player willingness to participate in the games than some here.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=terry link=topic=16336.msg183904#msg183904 date=1483039530]

Before the bowl schedule was announced, I asked a Stanford player which bowl he wanted. He said that he and his buddies were hoping for the Las Vegas Bowl, largely because it was played a week before Christmas.

Believable preference.

I continue to suspect that if programs (coaches & players) were given an option to have as many practices as the bowl bound teams between December and February even if they didn't attend a bowl game, many would take the bowl-free option.  Since most schools lose money going to the lower tier bowls, I wouldn't be shocked if most administrations would quickly take the bowl-free path too.

Almost wish the NCAA would give that a try for a year or two.  At a minimum it would thin out the bowl herd a bit as the risk of getting rejected by multiple programs might scare away some of these towns looking for a cheap way to boost tourism.
[/quote]

Actually I had two sons who played in bowl games and were quite happy to do it (at least they never complained). So maybe that's why I'm perhaps a little less skeptical about the player willingness to participate in the games than some here.

[winflop]

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.

1.  They built it in as bing a wind tunnel as Candlestick, and should have made it a fully enclosed stadium to shelter it from those winds.
2.  The place is antiseptic.  It lacks character
3.  The grand "more people will use mass transit" has been an absolute disaster.  There isn't enough parking, and the mass transit that is there lacks adequate capacity to move the number of people who were supposed to use it.  Not an issue for the Amazing Chicken Bowl - or most other football games this year, pro and college - but when you get a crowd in there of more than 50,000 the transit systems completely break down

[winflop]

Just curious why you think Levi's sucks. Never been there, but I always perceived it to be a new, state of the art stadium, jam packed with the best technology Silicon Valley has to offer.

1.  They built it in as bing a wind tunnel as Candlestick, and should have made it a fully enclosed stadium to shelter it from those winds.
2.  The place is antiseptic.  It lacks character
3.  The grand "more people will use mass transit" has been an absolute disaster.  There isn't enough parking, and the mass transit that is there lacks adequate capacity to move the number of people who were supposed to use it.  Not an issue for the Amazing Chicken Bowl - or most other football games this year, pro and college - but when you get a crowd in there of more than 50,000 the transit systems completely break down

[fullmetal]

Actually I had two sons who played in bowl games and were quite happy to do it (at least they never complained). So maybe that's why I'm perhaps a little less skeptical about the player willingness to participate in the games than some here.

Players
1. A chance to be on TV and prove yourself against an opponent of roughly equal success from elsewhere in the country
2. Bowl gifts/gift suite
3. Travel with the team, friends/family traveling to see you during a traditional vacation period.  If you're lucky, the bowl is in a nice destination.

Coaches
1. Extra practice
2. Recruiting exposure--TV, possibly a strategic geographic locale where recruits can come see the team
3. There's probably a salary incentive associated with making it to and winning a bowl game
4. Travel with family (post-game; see #3 above).  My guess is that the coaches' families never really see the coaches during the season, so family time is important.

[fullmetal]

Actually I had two sons who played in bowl games and were quite happy to do it (at least they never complained). So maybe that's why I'm perhaps a little less skeptical about the player willingness to participate in the games than some here.

Players
1. A chance to be on TV and prove yourself against an opponent of roughly equal success from elsewhere in the country
2. Bowl gifts/gift suite
3. Travel with the team, friends/family traveling to see you during a traditional vacation period.  If you're lucky, the bowl is in a nice destination.

Coaches
1. Extra practice
2. Recruiting exposure--TV, possibly a strategic geographic locale where recruits can come see the team
3. There's probably a salary incentive associated with making it to and winning a bowl game
4. Travel with family (post-game; see #3 above).  My guess is that the coaches' families never really see the coaches during the season, so family time is important.