[FarmBoy]

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aab.html

I find it interesting that they feel it's important enough to market the "travel-ability" of the Stanford faithful. Are we laying the groundwork for future years where Stanford is eligible but still needs an invite to a BCS bowl to show those bowls that inviting Stanford is a profitable decision? Are they hoping to convince Bay Area writers to stop writing negative stories about attendance at Stanford games? Are they just patting themselves on the back for doing an amazing job?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Stanford sold out its allotment so quickly and asked for more tickets. But I have no illusions that this somehow is a sign that Stanford is a fan support juggernaut to contend with SEC and Big-12 fanbases. The Rose Bowl is the unique. You can't draw a trend line from the tix sold for the Orange, Fiesta and Rose and conclude that it's due to time. You could plot those same bowls by distance from Palo Alto and see a strong correlation there.

AN interesting factoid from the article is that 3/4 of Stanford alumni live outside of the Bay Area. That's a bit higher than I would have expected, but not surprising.

My favorite lines from the article:

FedEx required two trips to handle the unprecedented mountain of tickets.

This year's epic response to the `Granddaddy of Them All' by the Cardinal community is the latest data point in a rising tide of Stanford's bowl travel.

[FarmBoy]

http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-footb...12aab.html

I find it interesting that they feel it's important enough to market the "travel-ability" of the Stanford faithful. Are we laying the groundwork for future years where Stanford is eligible but still needs an invite to a BCS bowl to show those bowls that inviting Stanford is a profitable decision? Are they hoping to convince Bay Area writers to stop writing negative stories about attendance at Stanford games? Are they just patting themselves on the back for doing an amazing job?

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad Stanford sold out its allotment so quickly and asked for more tickets. But I have no illusions that this somehow is a sign that Stanford is a fan support juggernaut to contend with SEC and Big-12 fanbases. The Rose Bowl is the unique. You can't draw a trend line from the tix sold for the Orange, Fiesta and Rose and conclude that it's due to time. You could plot those same bowls by distance from Palo Alto and see a strong correlation there.

AN interesting factoid from the article is that 3/4 of Stanford alumni live outside of the Bay Area. That's a bit higher than I would have expected, but not surprising.

My favorite lines from the article:

FedEx required two trips to handle the unprecedented mountain of tickets.

This year's epic response to the `Granddaddy of Them All' by the Cardinal community is the latest data point in a rising tide of Stanford's bowl travel.

[yvonne]

If the sports information department needs to send out press releases to correct incorrect perceptions, then by all means, do it. That's part of its job.

[yvonne]

If the sports information department needs to send out press releases to correct incorrect perceptions, then by all means, do it. That's part of its job.

[washingtonismoney]

Yup. Ted Miller basically sent a tweet acknowledging the sales, so it worked.

Maybe it's because of rising enthusiasm, or  maybe it's something else. (Probably the former, though -- trendlines for attendance, if you compare even years to even years and odd to odd, are nicely positive.)

[washingtonismoney]

Yup. Ted Miller basically sent a tweet acknowledging the sales, so it worked.

Maybe it's because of rising enthusiasm, or  maybe it's something else. (Probably the former, though -- trendlines for attendance, if you compare even years to even years and odd to odd, are nicely positive.)

[FarmBoy]

My only reaction is that it seems funny to do it so publicly. The "deciders" for these bowl games are a handful of people that I'm sure the AD and Conference Commissioner have on speed dial. Trying to convince the general public that Stanford draws well seems like an unnecessary and losing battle. The general public is not going to understand the subtle reasons why Stanford, even as a top 10 team for 3 years running, can't fill it's 50K stadium nor will they understand why that doesn't matter for Stanford as a bowl participant.

But who cares about the perceptions of the general public? Put together a nice glossy brochure with all the charts and figures showing how well Stanford fans travel, how much they spend of food and lodging when they show up, and distribute them to the BCS selection committees in November of each year. Heck, by now, we'll have participated in 3 of 4 BCS bowls and they'll have the direct experience themselves on which to base the decision. The only people without direct experience are the overseers of the Sugar Bowl. When the opportunity comes, I'm guessing they'll jump at the chance to invite a top rated Stanford team to play the SEC champ/runner up because they'll either erroneously assume it means (a) an easy win for the SEC and/or (b) more tix for the SEC representative fans who will sell out the game no matter if they're playing an FCS opponent.

[FarmBoy]

My only reaction is that it seems funny to do it so publicly. The "deciders" for these bowl games are a handful of people that I'm sure the AD and Conference Commissioner have on speed dial. Trying to convince the general public that Stanford draws well seems like an unnecessary and losing battle. The general public is not going to understand the subtle reasons why Stanford, even as a top 10 team for 3 years running, can't fill it's 50K stadium nor will they understand why that doesn't matter for Stanford as a bowl participant.

But who cares about the perceptions of the general public? Put together a nice glossy brochure with all the charts and figures showing how well Stanford fans travel, how much they spend of food and lodging when they show up, and distribute them to the BCS selection committees in November of each year. Heck, by now, we'll have participated in 3 of 4 BCS bowls and they'll have the direct experience themselves on which to base the decision. The only people without direct experience are the overseers of the Sugar Bowl. When the opportunity comes, I'm guessing they'll jump at the chance to invite a top rated Stanford team to play the SEC champ/runner up because they'll either erroneously assume it means (a) an easy win for the SEC and/or (b) more tix for the SEC representative fans who will sell out the game no matter if they're playing an FCS opponent.

[fullmetal]

I'm happy to see the SID at work, especially after their early inaction probably cost Gerhart the Voldemort.

[fullmetal]

I'm happy to see the SID at work, especially after their early inaction probably cost Gerhart the Voldemort.

[Bruce Wang]

Playoffs or bust.

[Bruce Wang]

Playoffs or bust.

[jayasena]

But who cares about the perceptions of the general public? Put together a nice glossy brochure with all the charts and figures showing how well Stanford fans travel, how much they spend of food and lodging when they show up, and distribute them to the BCS selection committees in November of each year.

We know there's a perception that Stanford doesn't travel well. Why not do everything possible to dispel that myth?

And it's not just the BCS selection committee, right -- it's the media types who do bowl projections, local business owners in bowl-hosting cities, and any number of other constituents who, taken together, do have indirect influence on the decisions. And this is for non-BCS bowls as well.

[jayasena]

But who cares about the perceptions of the general public? Put together a nice glossy brochure with all the charts and figures showing how well Stanford fans travel, how much they spend of food and lodging when they show up, and distribute them to the BCS selection committees in November of each year.

We know there's a perception that Stanford doesn't travel well. Why not do everything possible to dispel that myth?

And it's not just the BCS selection committee, right -- it's the media types who do bowl projections, local business owners in bowl-hosting cities, and any number of other constituents who, taken together, do have indirect influence on the decisions. And this is for non-BCS bowls as well.

[76lsjumb]

It also doesn't hurt to get this information out there to the media hot on the heels of the snide comments from ESPN and elsewhere regarding the size of the turnout for the Pac-12 championship game.  GoodGrief should be sure to take some copies of the press release along with him to give to the folks at ESPN after he punches them in the nose for that whole Mackey Award thing...

[76lsjumb]

It also doesn't hurt to get this information out there to the media hot on the heels of the snide comments from ESPN and elsewhere regarding the size of the turnout for the Pac-12 championship game.  GoodGrief should be sure to take some copies of the press release along with him to give to the folks at ESPN after he punches them in the nose for that whole Mackey Award thing...

[Spiny_Norman]

The national media should recognize that The People like to watch Stanford too!  I don't think there are enough Stanford alums to have effected the bump in ratings from Stanford's three recent bowl appearances all by themselves. 

The national interest in the broadcasts of Stanford's bowl games has also been remarkable. The Nielsen ratings for the 2009 Brut Sun Bowl represented a 50 percent increase over the previous year. The 2011 Discover Orange Bowl recorded the third-highest ratings at that time for a college football broadcast on ESPN, also a 20 percent increase from the 2010 game.

The 2012 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl was anticipated as the most compelling matchup of the entire bowl season, and the Jan. 2 performance delivered. Nielsen ratings jumped 34 percent from the year prior, and the game was the most watched telecast in the United States that evening - broadcast or cable.

[Spiny_Norman]

The national media should recognize that The People like to watch Stanford too!  I don't think there are enough Stanford alums to have effected the bump in ratings from Stanford's three recent bowl appearances all by themselves. 

The national interest in the broadcasts of Stanford's bowl games has also been remarkable. The Nielsen ratings for the 2009 Brut Sun Bowl represented a 50 percent increase over the previous year. The 2011 Discover Orange Bowl recorded the third-highest ratings at that time for a college football broadcast on ESPN, also a 20 percent increase from the 2010 game.

The 2012 Tostitos Fiesta Bowl was anticipated as the most compelling matchup of the entire bowl season, and the Jan. 2 performance delivered. Nielsen ratings jumped 34 percent from the year prior, and the game was the most watched telecast in the United States that evening - broadcast or cable.

[dabigv13]

All of our bowl games have had a great mix of star power and storylines. I would not be surprised if this year's Rose Bowl is not quite the ratings powerhouse our last few games were given the so-so opponent and lack of star power on our end- no Harbaugh, no Gerhart, no Luck.

[dabigv13]

All of our bowl games have had a great mix of star power and storylines. I would not be surprised if this year's Rose Bowl is not quite the ratings powerhouse our last few games were given the so-so opponent and lack of star power on our end- no Harbaugh, no Gerhart, no Luck.

[FarmBoy]

I'm happy to see the SID at work, especially after their early inaction probably cost Gerhart the Voldemort.

That's the type of work the SID should be focused on: promoting the players, teams and coaches to make sure they receive the recognition they deserve. I'd much rather have seen a few "Ertz for Mackey" videos and articles or more great human interest pieces such as the one of Debniak the other day.

Trying to change national perceptions about the fanbase seems outside the charter (and ability to influence), IMO. But apparently I'm in the minority.

[FarmBoy]

I'm happy to see the SID at work, especially after their early inaction probably cost Gerhart the Voldemort.

That's the type of work the SID should be focused on: promoting the players, teams and coaches to make sure they receive the recognition they deserve. I'd much rather have seen a few "Ertz for Mackey" videos and articles or more great human interest pieces such as the one of Debniak the other day.

Trying to change national perceptions about the fanbase seems outside the charter (and ability to influence), IMO. But apparently I'm in the minority.

[washingtonismoney]

They did put up Ertz for Mackey videos. There's really no reason they can't do both. The question is whether it gets reported or noted. As any reporter's email inbox will tell you, a brobdingnagian percentage of PR entreaties to this effect get ignored and unread.

Speaking of which, I need to clean my inbox.

[washingtonismoney]

They did put up Ertz for Mackey videos. There's really no reason they can't do both. The question is whether it gets reported or noted. As any reporter's email inbox will tell you, a brobdingnagian percentage of PR entreaties to this effect get ignored and unread.

Speaking of which, I need to clean my inbox.

[Oasis]

PR people inside and outside Stanford should be able to hype and sell it as the best antidote to the sleaze, scandal and occasional criminality of college football.  Stanford is what the rest of college football aspires to be -- but with a few exceptions can't.  Just compare our guys to the opposition.  Imagine what would happen if the players on the other side who couldn't get into Stanford had to walk off the field.  My guess is it would pretty much depopulate most of our opponents' benches.  Look at our school.  Who else in big-time football has this year's Nobel laureates to bring onto the field at halftime?  Bowls considering us should see the opportunity to sell Stanford.

[Oasis]

PR people inside and outside Stanford should be able to hype and sell it as the best antidote to the sleaze, scandal and occasional criminality of college football.  Stanford is what the rest of college football aspires to be -- but with a few exceptions can't.  Just compare our guys to the opposition.  Imagine what would happen if the players on the other side who couldn't get into Stanford had to walk off the field.  My guess is it would pretty much depopulate most of our opponents' benches.  Look at our school.  Who else in big-time football has this year's Nobel laureates to bring onto the field at halftime?  Bowls considering us should see the opportunity to sell Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

What's to complain about that story put out by Stanford AD media relations?  I thought it was exceptionally well done.  This is college football.  Part of the competition (unfortunately) is played out in the off-field battle of perception.  One of those arenas is the level of support a team can generate, because like it or not, the issues this story addresses, namely bowl game attendance and TV ratings, are of extremely large proportions factors minus a college football playoff system.

Heck, David Shaw has talked about the battle of perception Stanford must fight in terms of being given its due while having the 3rd best winning percentage over the last three seasons.  He says it will take a few more years of consistent dominance to ultimately get people to put Stanford in the same breath as LSU, Ohio State, and Michigan, or even Notre Dame and USC despite the fact Stanford has recently outperformed all these programs.  I'm counting the Stanford victory over Notre Dame this year in my analysis.  ;)

[OutsiderFan]

What's to complain about that story put out by Stanford AD media relations?  I thought it was exceptionally well done.  This is college football.  Part of the competition (unfortunately) is played out in the off-field battle of perception.  One of those arenas is the level of support a team can generate, because like it or not, the issues this story addresses, namely bowl game attendance and TV ratings, are of extremely large proportions factors minus a college football playoff system.

Heck, David Shaw has talked about the battle of perception Stanford must fight in terms of being given its due while having the 3rd best winning percentage over the last three seasons.  He says it will take a few more years of consistent dominance to ultimately get people to put Stanford in the same breath as LSU, Ohio State, and Michigan, or even Notre Dame and USC despite the fact Stanford has recently outperformed all these programs.  I'm counting the Stanford victory over Notre Dame this year in my analysis.  ;)

[yvonne]

My experience with PR comes from sitting on the opposite side of them in technology news. In that sphere, the PR people were responsible for news regarding financials, personnel moves, new products, legal issues, and reaction to products, including bug reports. The PR department would be remiss if it neglected any of these area. The attendance might fall under bug reports today, but in a way, it's also something that might generally fit in "product"? The product on the field is what draws fans, but the fans are what draws partners.

Wouldn't you want people to know your product is a hot ticket?

[yvonne]

My experience with PR comes from sitting on the opposite side of them in technology news. In that sphere, the PR people were responsible for news regarding financials, personnel moves, new products, legal issues, and reaction to products, including bug reports. The PR department would be remiss if it neglected any of these area. The attendance might fall under bug reports today, but in a way, it's also something that might generally fit in "product"? The product on the field is what draws fans, but the fans are what draws partners.

Wouldn't you want people to know your product is a hot ticket?