[BobK]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also used to be like 5-1 for men
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

[BobK]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also used to be like 5-1 for men
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

[JohnR34231]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

I remember being at the games. If you got excited or yelled people would look at you like you were some kind of weirdo. I remember sitting in front of two guys who spent most of the game discussing their 401K plans. You wondered why they even bothered to come.

[JohnR34231]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

I remember being at the games. If you got excited or yelled people would look at you like you were some kind of weirdo. I remember sitting in front of two guys who spent most of the game discussing their 401K plans. You wondered why they even bothered to come.

[Goose]

Over the last 30 years, what has Stanford done to improve the experience? Not even sure the new stadium improved it. . . .

I don't think Stanford can do much to "improve the experience". Watching the game in person is either something you like or something you don't. I think it is more important that Stanford not screw up the experience as opposed to "improving" it. The new stadium has seats instead of bleachers in most areas. That is nicer. It was also nicer when in the "old lady" they replaced the wooden bleachers with aluminum (which Kal still has, mostly) but that was only because the old wooden ones were so old they weren't safe (splinters). Neither one much changes the "experience". The concessions arguably have better food, but I don't come to the stadium for the concessions. Makes no difference to me.

As far as screwing up the experience, the security requirements, the transparent bags, etc. are not optimal but in today's world are unavoidable. I find the requirement of credit card only payments to be annoying. I don't buy the stuff anyway, but those buying things in the stands now take significantly longer to pay than when they just used cash. That often blocks people's views. I also don't like the requirement to use your cell phone for ticketing. It is convenient in many ways, and I probably would adopt it anyway. However, having the option to NOT bring your phone to the game should still be available. Probably they don't lose may patrons that way, but the message is "Do it the way that is easier for us. We don't care what you prefer.". Ditto reducing the number of gates, although that doesn't mater much with the crowds size being what it is.

The removal of the bathrooms in the tailgate area (and replacing them with porta pottys) is a negative. The women's bathrooms were actually pretty new and certainly didn't need replacement. The message there is, again, "We don't care what you want". I also don't like the attempts to fill in the time between plays and the TV timeouts with either music or some attempt by the PA announcer to distract the crowd with a sophomoric advertisement or skit, but I may be in the minority there.

[Goose]

Over the last 30 years, what has Stanford done to improve the experience? Not even sure the new stadium improved it. . . .

I don't think Stanford can do much to "improve the experience". Watching the game in person is either something you like or something you don't. I think it is more important that Stanford not screw up the experience as opposed to "improving" it. The new stadium has seats instead of bleachers in most areas. That is nicer. It was also nicer when in the "old lady" they replaced the wooden bleachers with aluminum (which Kal still has, mostly) but that was only because the old wooden ones were so old they weren't safe (splinters). Neither one much changes the "experience". The concessions arguably have better food, but I don't come to the stadium for the concessions. Makes no difference to me.

As far as screwing up the experience, the security requirements, the transparent bags, etc. are not optimal but in today's world are unavoidable. I find the requirement of credit card only payments to be annoying. I don't buy the stuff anyway, but those buying things in the stands now take significantly longer to pay than when they just used cash. That often blocks people's views. I also don't like the requirement to use your cell phone for ticketing. It is convenient in many ways, and I probably would adopt it anyway. However, having the option to NOT bring your phone to the game should still be available. Probably they don't lose may patrons that way, but the message is "Do it the way that is easier for us. We don't care what you prefer.". Ditto reducing the number of gates, although that doesn't mater much with the crowds size being what it is.

The removal of the bathrooms in the tailgate area (and replacing them with porta pottys) is a negative. The women's bathrooms were actually pretty new and certainly didn't need replacement. The message there is, again, "We don't care what you want". I also don't like the attempts to fill in the time between plays and the TV timeouts with either music or some attempt by the PA announcer to distract the crowd with a sophomoric advertisement or skit, but I may be in the minority there.

[cardcrimson]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

[gailtate]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

I remember being at the games. If you got excited or yelled people would look at you like you were some kind of weirdo. I remember sitting in front of two guys who spent most of the game discussing their 401K plans. You wondered why they even bothered to come.

I sat in front of those same dweebs at hoops games. During the Monty Years! Stanford "fans" are an eclectic crowd. Some of which I would never hang with.

[gailtate]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

I remember being at the games. If you got excited or yelled people would look at you like you were some kind of weirdo. I remember sitting in front of two guys who spent most of the game discussing their 401K plans. You wondered why they even bothered to come.

I sat in front of those same dweebs at hoops games. During the Monty Years! Stanford "fans" are an eclectic crowd. Some of which I would never hang with.

[cardcrimson]

Stanford putting the old adage "You can't give 'em away" to the test. We shall see. . . .

https://www.outkick.com/stanford-cardina...ets-offer/

[cardcrimson]

Stanford putting the old adage "You can't give 'em away" to the test. We shall see. . . .

https://www.outkick.com/stanford-cardina...ets-offer/

[BobK]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

Ah no splinters in the butt. The good ole days lol

[BobK]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

Ah no splinters in the butt. The good ole days lol

[Maple Leaf]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

Ah no splinters  in the butt.  The good ole days lol

maybe some splinters in the butts of the top brass will provide the troops with what they need for future victories.

[Maple Leaf]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also usurp to be like 5-1 for me.
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

Fair points, guess I'm a nostalgic guy. Though most of those could have been accomplished without losing the feel of the old stadium. . . .

Ah no splinters  in the butt.  The good ole days lol

maybe some splinters in the butts of the top brass will provide the troops with what they need for future victories.

[gailtate]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

[gailtate]

IMHO the linkage between live attendance and success on the field is over-rated. It is quite possible to be a rabid Stanford fan and follow the team solely through electronic media. Given that many people today both work and socialize electronically, that is (unfortunately) becoming the norm. Those of us that attend the games do not do so because we get "better coverage" of the play by play. It is obviously true that you see more on TV even if you have real good seats in the stadium. You don't get the reverse angle or the real close ups. In some cases you really can't see at all what happened.
You attend the game in person if and only if there is something about the experience that attracts you and overcomes the disadvantages. It is going to cost you more time and considerably more money. You may end up being hotter or colder than you would prefer. You also can't do "something else" while paying some attention to the game (unless the stadium WIFI is enough for you). Most people I know attend the game for social and historical reasons. You have your group in the same section/rows in the stadium. You talk about the game. You can yell supporting Stanford (or at the refs just because). You are outdoors (hopefully in the sun but these days not so much). You also have a tailgate group that you eat with before the game. In fact, many people in the tailgate group will not attend the game and don't even have tickets. They will stay outside, eat, drink, and watch on the big screen TV. You do all this at least partly because you have always done it. It is "the norm". Many of the people in the Stadium didn't go to Stanford. Their connection is something else, like a spouse or a colleague or a friend.
When I was a student, I was often frustrated that it seemed a large percentage of the crowd actually didn't watch the game. They talked to their friends and the like. In point of fact, that is why most of them were there. That is not to say the student body didn't care about Stanford football. The USC games during the Ralston era were compelling drama. You could have head a pin drop while people listened to the radio broadcast of Stanford vs USC and the explosion when Horowitz kicked the FG with 1 minute remaining. And then, much like the previous year ...
I do indeed agree that the general public pays more attention to winning teams than teams that aren't good. The general public doesn't attend college football games. They watch on TV, and that is why the media companies pay so much money for the rights. The people that physically attend the games do so mostly for other reasons. Winning helps a bit. Having an "interesting" team helps a bit more. But in this day and age, neither are the main attendance drivers.

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

[Mick]

I started out as a Cardinal fan when Plunkett was the quarterback, but I was just a little kid. Really enjoyed Boryla, Benjamin and Dils and the country-leading passing program.  Also took interest in statistics, including attendance and win-loss record. By the time I was a teenager, Stanford hadn't had a losing season from 1964 through 1980 (though there were some .500 seasons).  Between Ralston's first (and only) losing season at 3-7 in 1963 and Paul Wiggin's 4-7 season in 1980, Stanford had no losing seasons (but had five .500 seasons). I watched Stanford games all through college because watching John Elway was a lot more fun than watching D2 football, even when Stanford had a losing record. 

More to the point, San Jose State usually drew above 40,000, USC usually drew 70k+ and Big Games were always packed. Tons of excitement, great tailgating, brobdingnagian family get-togethers. My great grandfather had a block of 25 season tickets when the original stadium was built.

[Mick]

I started out as a Cardinal fan when Plunkett was the quarterback, but I was just a little kid. Really enjoyed Boryla, Benjamin and Dils and the country-leading passing program.  Also took interest in statistics, including attendance and win-loss record. By the time I was a teenager, Stanford hadn't had a losing season from 1964 through 1980 (though there were some .500 seasons).  Between Ralston's first (and only) losing season at 3-7 in 1963 and Paul Wiggin's 4-7 season in 1980, Stanford had no losing seasons (but had five .500 seasons). I watched Stanford games all through college because watching John Elway was a lot more fun than watching D2 football, even when Stanford had a losing record. 

More to the point, San Jose State usually drew above 40,000, USC usually drew 70k+ and Big Games were always packed. Tons of excitement, great tailgating, brobdingnagian family get-togethers. My great grandfather had a block of 25 season tickets when the original stadium was built.

[Phogge]

Mobile wallets was one of the reasons I decided to quit. I still have scores of paper tix, the best being the old colorful ones from the 50’s. I have a flip phone. I use it to MAKE PHONE CAllS.

Crimson, the Chronicle pages I was referring to were on the Saturday paper HYPING the Big Game. On Sunday there might be 12 pages. Now on Sunday NONE.

When I think of an It’s It it is not the one in the box at Costco. It is the one at the counter at Playland that was made fresh in front of you. A metaphor for the 21st Century.

[Phogge]

Mobile wallets was one of the reasons I decided to quit. I still have scores of paper tix, the best being the old colorful ones from the 50’s. I have a flip phone. I use it to MAKE PHONE CAllS.

Crimson, the Chronicle pages I was referring to were on the Saturday paper HYPING the Big Game. On Sunday there might be 12 pages. Now on Sunday NONE.

When I think of an It’s It it is not the one in the box at Costco. It is the one at the counter at Playland that was made fresh in front of you. A metaphor for the 21st Century.

[Goose]

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

GMAFB. The idea that money can buy whatever Stanford wants it absurd. If people don't want to come to the game, do you recommend Stanford pay them to attend? If you do that, it devalues their presence. They are "shills". You can get them in the seats that way, but they are not "fans". Money is useful in many ways, but I really have a hard time believing you actually said "Stanford can BUY anything." Or is there a missing [sarcasm]? Where does the idea Stanford is "absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for" come from? Just because Stanford isn't willing to do follow a program that you approve of doesn't mean they "loathe" something. It means they don't like that program.Why do you (it seems) think there are exactly two possible choices, be "all in (as you personally define all in)" or "loathe it"?

[Goose]

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

GMAFB. The idea that money can buy whatever Stanford wants it absurd. If people don't want to come to the game, do you recommend Stanford pay them to attend? If you do that, it devalues their presence. They are "shills". You can get them in the seats that way, but they are not "fans". Money is useful in many ways, but I really have a hard time believing you actually said "Stanford can BUY anything." Or is there a missing [sarcasm]? Where does the idea Stanford is "absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for" come from? Just because Stanford isn't willing to do follow a program that you approve of doesn't mean they "loathe" something. It means they don't like that program.Why do you (it seems) think there are exactly two possible choices, be "all in (as you personally define all in)" or "loathe it"?

[TonyLima]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also used to be like 5-1 for men
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

I have fond memories of sitting on the bleachers.  Of course, I was 4+ decades younger.

[TonyLima]

Concession far more far better
Bathrooms and for women Also used to be like 5-1 for men
Backrests for all
Much closer to the action.

So much better

I have fond memories of sitting on the bleachers.  Of course, I was 4+ decades younger.

[cardcrimson]

Mobile wallets was one of the reasons I decided to quit. I still have scores of paper tix, the best being the old colorful ones from the 50’s. I have a flip phone. I use it to MAKE PHONE CAllS.

Crimson, the Chronicle pages I was referring to were on the Saturday paper HYPING the Big Game. On Sunday there might be 12 pages. Now on Sunday NONE.

When I think of an It’s It it is not the one in the box at Costco. It is the one at the counter at Playland that was made fresh in front of you. A metaphor for the 21st Century.

It's a different world, indeed. Miss the free entrance, too--somewhere I have several booklets filled with A and B tickets. . ..

[cardcrimson]

Mobile wallets was one of the reasons I decided to quit. I still have scores of paper tix, the best being the old colorful ones from the 50’s. I have a flip phone. I use it to MAKE PHONE CAllS.

Crimson, the Chronicle pages I was referring to were on the Saturday paper HYPING the Big Game. On Sunday there might be 12 pages. Now on Sunday NONE.

When I think of an It’s It it is not the one in the box at Costco. It is the one at the counter at Playland that was made fresh in front of you. A metaphor for the 21st Century.

It's a different world, indeed. Miss the free entrance, too--somewhere I have several booklets filled with A and B tickets. . ..

[gailtate]

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

GMAFB. The idea that money can buy whatever Stanford wants it absurd. If people don't want to come to the game, do you recommend Stanford pay them to attend? If you do that, it devalues their presence. They are "shills". You can get them in the seats that way, but they are not "fans". Money is useful in many ways, but I really have a hard time believing you actually said "Stanford can BUY anything." Or is there a missing [sarcasm]? Where does the idea Stanford is "absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for" come from? Just because Stanford isn't willing to do follow a program that you approve of doesn't mean they "loathe" something. It means they don't like that program.Why do you (it seems) think there are exactly two possible choices, be "all in (as you personally define all in)" or "loathe it"?

We disagree.

[gailtate]

Never forget that there is and has always been a lag between quality product and butts in seats. The latter comes AFTER the former. And its bigger today. Here's the thing: Stanford is awash in cash (and cash equivalents) as never before. Its resources enable it to be anything it wants to be. No other institution in America is comparable. One of these things is being an elite "football school". (Think Duke basketball.) The issue here is not about consistency with the "educational mission" or any other sham shibboleth thrown around today. Stanford can BUY anything. The issue is what it WANTS to be. And frankly I think it's past time that we own up to the fact Stanford is, for all its brand BS about Home of Champions, absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for. This is a conscious choice. Deal with it.

GMAFB. The idea that money can buy whatever Stanford wants it absurd. If people don't want to come to the game, do you recommend Stanford pay them to attend? If you do that, it devalues their presence. They are "shills". You can get them in the seats that way, but they are not "fans". Money is useful in many ways, but I really have a hard time believing you actually said "Stanford can BUY anything." Or is there a missing [sarcasm]? Where does the idea Stanford is "absolutely loathe to be associated with the FBS championship and all that it stands for" come from? Just because Stanford isn't willing to do follow a program that you approve of doesn't mean they "loathe" something. It means they don't like that program.Why do you (it seems) think there are exactly two possible choices, be "all in (as you personally define all in)" or "loathe it"?

We disagree.

[BostonCard]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

[BostonCard]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

[Phogge]

There is some satisfaction in being in an environment without a lot of people. Especially when you don’t really like people.

Nowadays at Santa Anita, except big Saturdays, you can take in the early morning workouts for free, have the world’s greatest egg sandwich at Clocker’s Corner and if you do want conversation you can sidle up to Doug O’Neill or Baffert and have a chance to chat. After that it’s easy to find an open section in the grandstand to study the form without battling elbows with the guy seated next to you.

I liked not being crowded when I attended games at Stanford from ‘53-2019. I didn’t come to talk and have to listen to people yak about their investments. For me it was all about football probably because it’s been part of my professional life for over 50 years. It’s too bad that 90% of Stanford attendees don’t give a crap about the sport. I bet that the 80 or 90 thousand fans at a Clemson game in Death Valley aren’t talking about 401K’s and gene therapy experiments.

[Phogge]

There is some satisfaction in being in an environment without a lot of people. Especially when you don’t really like people.

Nowadays at Santa Anita, except big Saturdays, you can take in the early morning workouts for free, have the world’s greatest egg sandwich at Clocker’s Corner and if you do want conversation you can sidle up to Doug O’Neill or Baffert and have a chance to chat. After that it’s easy to find an open section in the grandstand to study the form without battling elbows with the guy seated next to you.

I liked not being crowded when I attended games at Stanford from ‘53-2019. I didn’t come to talk and have to listen to people yak about their investments. For me it was all about football probably because it’s been part of my professional life for over 50 years. It’s too bad that 90% of Stanford attendees don’t give a crap about the sport. I bet that the 80 or 90 thousand fans at a Clemson game in Death Valley aren’t talking about 401K’s and gene therapy experiments.

[cardcrimson]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

The problem is not us. The problem is that Stanford as a whole is not putting a compelling offering out there for consumers to enjoy. The school, the athletic department, and the team are all complicit in diminishing what was once a worthwhile experience.

[cardcrimson]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

The problem is not us. The problem is that Stanford as a whole is not putting a compelling offering out there for consumers to enjoy. The school, the athletic department, and the team are all complicit in diminishing what was once a worthwhile experience.

[gailtate]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

"Us"? NFW! What happens to products nobody buys? Their makers don't blame the market. The customer is always right.

[gailtate]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

"Us"? NFW! What happens to products nobody buys? Their makers don't blame the market. The customer is always right.

[old spanish trail]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

The problem is not us. The problem is that Stanford as a whole is not putting a compelling offering out there for consumers to enjoy. The school, the athletic department, and the team are all complicit in diminishing what was once a worthwhile experience.

I'll never forget the ND game Toby's senior year Thanksgiving weekend. We had a house full of east coast relatives. All of them over 7 yrs old wanted one of our five tickets. The game itself was electric. Toby, Toby, Toby they shouted, and ran off to by Stanford gear.

[old spanish trail]

The problem is us.  I mean, I was one of the empty seats at the Stadium on Saturday, and I would venture that many of the people on this thread aghast at the lack of attendance were too.

BC

The problem is not us. The problem is that Stanford as a whole is not putting a compelling offering out there for consumers to enjoy. The school, the athletic department, and the team are all complicit in diminishing what was once a worthwhile experience.

I'll never forget the ND game Toby's senior year Thanksgiving weekend. We had a house full of east coast relatives. All of them over 7 yrs old wanted one of our five tickets. The game itself was electric. Toby, Toby, Toby they shouted, and ran off to by Stanford gear.