Next at USC - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Next at USC (/thread-18646.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Next at USC (/thread-18646.html)
RE: Next at USC - yvonne - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 05:31 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Aren't you the one who laments arguments that are not well thought out, or intellectually lazy? C'mon now . . .
Dude, are you sure you want to talk about reputation, Mr Wrong Side of 69-17? Oh, yeah, the guy who wanted to fire the coach right before the last Rose Bowl season.
RE: Next at USC - Farm93 - 12-02-2019
Sports, across the board, are having attendance challenges now.
People can allocate an entire day to travel to a venue (stadium/arena/track), pay for parking, bring ponchos or sunscreen, sit in rather uncomfortable seats, experience loud PA announcements and get bombarded with commercials at every break in the action.
OR
They can watch any sporting event at home on a 60+ inch television. Allocating far less time, at far lower cost, often for a much better viewing experience even if the weather is perfect at the venue.
Most sports can still hold on to their most loyal fans, but the casual fans are now watching from home or not at all. Some universities, particularly large state schools in the South, have cultivated highly engaged fan bases for football over decades. Stanford has never enjoyed a large, super passionate set of football fans. The latest stretch of unprecedented success overwhelmed the national attendance trends, but in 2019 the prevailing trend was not masked by that atypical winning percentage.
FWIW - the #1 tOSU vs #12 Michigan game had empty seats in the student section at kickoff. They filled in eventually, but that would not have happened in the past. As the game ended it was clear that ~25% of the fans in the stands had been tOSU fans when the 75% wearing blue left the stadium early. 20 years ago there was no way tOSU fans could have acquired that many seats in the Big House and there was no way Michigan fans would have left early no matter the score in the fourth quarter.
RE: Next at USC - BostonCard - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 11:07 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-01-2019, 06:53 PM)BobK Wrote: Last 10 years Stanford with 98 wins
Norte Dame 91
Can you and BC do a retrospective on Stanford vs. ND attendance the last 10 years? Or the last 4 years? Or whatever?
And btw, the numbers you cite are all going to look worse with each successive year under Shaw, especially if he Status Quos it.
Maybe this post will get sucked into the vortex that is the Shaw Criticism Thread.
Unfortunately the data ends in 2017, but here's five years (2013 - 2017) in reverse chronological order:
Notre Dame: 77622, 80795, 80795, 80795, 90795
Net attendance: -13,173; -14.5%
Stanford: 47398, 44142, 49917, 47862, 50726
Net attendance: -3,328; -6.6%
Note, the piece doesn't state what number they are using is (tickets sold versus butts in seats), or the methodology for collecting the numbers.
If the numbers are to be believed, then for the time period quoted, the situation is worse at Notre Dame (both in terms of change and percentage change) than at Stanford.
Lastly, the Shaw's performance doesn't explain the woeful attendance in the visitor's section. I have never seen the corner of the end zone anything other than packed during the Notre Dame game, even the years where they have sucked. My guess is that the weather explains that, but also at least partly explains some proportion of the Stanford attenadance (or lack thereof) at the game.
BC
RE: Next at USC - 76lsjumb - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:22 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-02-2019, 06:11 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I don't know what else you want. I provided five examples of Power five teams with substantively empty stadiums, and linked the accompanying articles, all of which more or less say the same thing, that attendance in college football is dropping across the board. I noted earlier in the thread that for the first time since 1973, Notre Dame failed to sell out its own game, while you assert, without providing evidence that this is uniquely a Shaw problem.
Maybe (even probably) Shaw has contributed to the decline in attendance. I would not be the least bit surprised if attendance has dropped more dramatically at Stanford from 2011 to 2019 than it has at other schools, commensurate with the fact that our record has also gotten worse over that time period. But you made the assertion without the least bit of evidence to support it, and in the context of a longstanding decline in attendance at Stanford football (or did we shrink the stadium just during the Shaw years), the decline of attendance at other Stanford sports (there is an entire thread devoted to the attendance decline in the *checks notes* the number one ranked, Tara Vanderveer coached, Stanford Women's basketball team) and the decline in attendance college football generally, maybe it is possible that the implication that attendance has dropped at Stanford football while Shaw has been coaching means that the attendance drop is due to Shaw's coaching would strike me as the intellectually lazy position. But you know, maybe your well-researched and nuanced position didn't fully come across in your post.
BC
Looking forward to pictures of empty stadiums when ND plays another P5 opponent. And to be legit, any such pictures should be taken around the same time . . . say end of Q1. I had longtime Domer fans who attended the game say they were embarrassed for Stanford and that they are certain this had to be the least attended ND game in the last 50 years. I have no reason - data, experience, or gut feel - to doubt that assertion. Hence, what we saw on Saturday was "uniquely Stanford." I don't dispute that college football attendance generally is not what it used to be (and I actually think Miami is the best "comparable" to Stanford, though the Cardinal never reached the highs - with accompanying fan expectations - that the U did). But I still believe that the attendance problem at Stanford is worse than at virtually every other school that has been in the Top 10 in the last 5 years. But hey, glad you're willing to consider the possibility that this coach, running this program, is not helping things on that front.
So, teejers, just wondering which of the following, if any, you blame Shaw for:
1) The weather;
2) The scheduling of ND on Thanksgiving weekend, when students [not to mention, many fans] are gone;
3) The design of a stadium which -- with its large, circumferential mezzanine area, greatly accentuates the "empty seat" perception on TV, particularly in games that are either very hot or wet/cold [see #1 above];
4) The elimination of a substantial number of long-time season ticket holders a few years back when those long-time season ticket holders' tickets were made prohibitively expensive by the introduction of "seat licenses" and they were replaced by corporate ticket holders and fair weather, dilletante "fans"; and,
5) The prospects of having to put up with one of the most obnoxious fan bases in college football, which included a guy in Section 134 [obviously NOT a Stanford season ticket holder] who dropped more F-bombs and GD-bombs at the top of his lungs in the space of one afternoon than I've heard all season and then insisted [again at the top of his lungs] that "I haven't said anything inappropriate, you [expletive deleted] !!!!"
I'd venture that all of those factors combined to contribute to thousands of [real and perceived on TV ] empty seats last weekend. I don't think Shaw can be blamed for any of them.
RE: Next at USC - teejers1 - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 07:08 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(12-02-2019, 11:07 AM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-01-2019, 06:53 PM)BobK Wrote: Last 10 years Stanford with 98 wins
Norte Dame 91
Can you and BC do a retrospective on Stanford vs. ND attendance the last 10 years? Or the last 4 years? Or whatever?
And btw, the numbers you cite are all going to look worse with each successive year under Shaw, especially if he Status Quos it.
Maybe this post will get sucked into the vortex that is the Shaw Criticism Thread.
Unfortunately the data ends in 2017, but here's five years (2013 - 2017) in reverse chronological order:
Notre Dame: 77622, 80795, 80795, 80795, 90795
Net attendance: -13,173; -14.5%
Stanford: 47398, 44142, 49917, 47862, 50726
Net attendance: -3,328; -6.6%
Note, the piece doesn't state what number they are using is (tickets sold versus butts in seats), or the methodology for collecting the numbers.
If the numbers are to be believed, then for the time period quoted, the situation is worse at Notre Dame (both in terms of change and percentage change) than at Stanford.
Lastly, the Shaw's performance doesn't explain the woeful attendance in the visitor's section. I have never seen the corner of the end zone anything other than packed during the Notre Dame game, even the years where they have sucked. My guess is that the weather explains that, but also at least partly explains some proportion of the Stanford attenadance (or lack thereof) at the game.
BC
Well, assuming you attended the games in 2017, you know the numbers aren't "butts in seats" for Stanford. Plus, you also know (or should) that the situation has become more acute at Stanford in the last two years (which coincides with ND returning to double-digit wins, no?).
But even accepting your numbers at face value, do you seriously think "the situation is worse at Notre Dame?"
C'mon now . . .
RE: Next at USC - BostonCard - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 07:17 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Well, assuming you attended the games in 2017, you know the numbers aren't "butts in seats" for Stanford. Plus, you also know (or should) that the situation has become more acute at Stanford in the last two years (which coincides with ND returning to double-digit wins, no?).
But even accepting your numbers at face value, do you seriously think "the situation is worse at Notre Dame?"
C'mon now . . .
The limitations were noted in my post, and I agree that Stanford typically reports tickets sold not tickets scanned. Hard to say whether the numbers were butts in seats for Notre Dame or not, but given the fact that it was identical for three straight years (80,795), I'm going to guess it was tickets sold there too*.
Notre Dame started at a higher base, but they seem to have lost a larger share of attendance than Stanford (14.5% versus 6.6%), and a larger absolute number of attendees (13,173 versus 3,328), so yeah, Notre Dame had a more pronounced deterioration than Stanford did. Unless you want to blame Shaw for the low base that Stanford started with...
BC
* Note the fact that there was a drop of exactly 10,000 fans from 2013 to 2014 does make me wonder if that was a typo and that the 2013 number should have been 80795 (which is the capacity of Notre Dame stadium). If it was indeed a typo, then the drop is less significant (3,173, or 3.9%). In that case the absolute number would be comparable to Stanford, while the percentage drop would be a bit lower (3.9% versus 6.6%). The flip side of that is that with Notre Dame being at capacity, it is impossible to know how high the number would have been had seats been available. Would the 2013 team have been able to fill a 100,000 person stadium if they could?
RE: Next at USC - cardcrimson - 12-02-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:30 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-02-2019, 05:31 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Aren't you the one who laments arguments that are not well thought out, or intellectually lazy? C'mon now . . .
Dude, are you sure you want to talk about reputation, Mr Wrong Side of 69-17? Oh, yeah, the guy who wanted to fire the coach right before the last Rose Bowl season.
Methinks this thread has gotten a tad personal. . . .
RE: Next at USC - GK3 - 12-03-2019
(12-02-2019, 07:48 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-02-2019, 06:30 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-02-2019, 05:31 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Aren't you the one who laments arguments that are not well thought out, or intellectually lazy? C'mon now . . .
Dude, are you sure you want to talk about reputation, Mr Wrong Side of 69-17? Oh, yeah, the guy who wanted to fire the coach right before the last Rose Bowl season.
Methinks this thread has gotten a tad personal. . . .
Here is an interesting article on the decline of college football attendance. https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/08/as-college-football-attendance-slumps-new-ways-to-ticket-may-hold-an-answer/
Also, does anyone know how many more late afternoon or early evening games we have had? Cost and difficulty of getting to a game has to be factored in to the equation. At one time I drove up and back the same day from SoCal. Early afternoon games and less traffic made getting home by midnight possible. The more difficult it is to get to a game and get home the same day has to cut down on the number of people willing to make the trip. A losing team reduces the number even more, and then ticket and travel costs have to be factored in.
How many unsold seats do we have? If you are selling roughly the same number of tickets and then they remain unused the impact on revenues is not as great as if you only sell 10,000 tickets to a game.
RE: Next at USC - gailtate - 12-03-2019
(12-02-2019, 07:48 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(12-02-2019, 06:30 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-02-2019, 05:31 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Aren't you the one who laments arguments that are not well thought out, or intellectually lazy? C'mon now . . .
Dude, are you sure you want to talk about reputation, Mr Wrong Side of 69-17? Oh, yeah, the guy who wanted to fire the coach right before the last Rose Bowl season.
Methinks this thread has gotten a tad personal. . . .
I'm lurkin' and lovin' it! Let 'em slug it out!
RE: Next at USC - teejers1 - 12-03-2019
(12-02-2019, 06:30 PM)yvonne Wrote:(12-02-2019, 05:31 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Aren't you the one who laments arguments that are not well thought out, or intellectually lazy? C'mon now . . .
Dude, are you sure you want to talk about reputation, Mr Wrong Side of 69-17? Oh, yeah, the guy who wanted to fire the coach right before the last Rose Bowl season.
Yvonne, I don't mind taking heat here (or anywhere else). But I do mind lies. Please verify the post where I said I "wanted to fire the coach before the last Rose Bowl season." i don't know if you're alluding to Willingham or Shaw, but in either case, your accusation is false. I never advocated for the termination of Willingham (even after the Texas fiasco); nor have I advocated for Shaw's dismissal. Indeed, my position with Shaw has been consistent for the last 7 years: he should hire a competent OC, watch the team play closer to its potential, and take all the credit. Only in the last year or two - after 5 years of stubborn inaction on Shaw's part - have I added this wrinkle: Muir should step in and give Shaw a choice: hire an OC and get the hell out of his way, or you're terminated. Perhaps you are mistaking me with another one of your favorites: Longwinded.
P.S. As for UT, I said the game was huuuuge - and it was. As in: Stanford lost by a huuuuge margin!
RE: Next at USC - Embo - 12-03-2019
(12-03-2019, 11:04 AM)teejers1 Wrote: P.S. As for UT, I said the game was huuuuge - and it was. As in: Stanford lost by a huuuuge margin!
And that's only because the refs f---ed us!
(In case you don't get this, it's an inside joke. Based upon the details provided by the inimitable Glenn Garvin.)
RE: Next at USC - BostonCard - 12-03-2019
Boy, I wonder how the LA Times feels about it?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-02/usc-trojans-football-coach-clay-helton-urban-meyer-mike-bohn
Quote:It’s clear that USC’s new president and new athletic director need to hire a new football coach. The question is whether it’s as clear to them as it is to a disgruntled fan base they’re still getting to know.
BC
RE: Next at USC - Spiny_Norman - 12-03-2019
(12-03-2019, 12:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Boy, I wonder how the LA Times feels about it?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-02/usc-trojans-football-coach-clay-helton-urban-meyer-mike-bohn
Quote:It’s clear that USC’s new president and new athletic director need to hire a new football coach. The question is whether it’s as clear to them as it is to a disgruntled fan base they’re still getting to know.
BC
The columnist who wrote that piece Arash Markazi is a USC alum. I am sure that he includes himself in the "disgruntled fan base." By the way, is it ever possible to just be gruntled?
RE: Next at USC - Austroturf - 12-03-2019
(12-03-2019, 03:30 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(12-03-2019, 12:55 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Boy, I wonder how the LA Times feels about it?
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-02/usc-trojans-football-coach-clay-helton-urban-meyer-mike-bohn
Quote:It’s clear that USC’s new president and new athletic director need to hire a new football coach. The question is whether it’s as clear to them as it is to a disgruntled fan base they’re still getting to know.
BC
The columnist who wrote that piece Arash Markazi is a USC alum. I am sure that he includes himself in the "disgruntled fan base." By the way, is it ever possible to just be gruntled?
That's an age-old question, Spiny. If you can be disgruntled, you should also be able to change and simply be gruntled. I am sure that, after our Rose Bowl victory on January 1, 2016, most Stanford fans were severely gruntled.
RE: Next at USC - cardcrimson - 12-04-2019
Looks like Helton is staying, and the masses aren't happy. . . .
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-04/column-usc-is-keeping-clay-helton-what-is-mike-bohn-thinking
RE: Next at USC - qwerty49 - 12-04-2019
(12-04-2019, 08:01 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Looks like Helton is staying, and the masses aren't happy. . . .
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-04/column-usc-is-keeping-clay-helton-what-is-mike-bohn-thinking
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he stays or if he goes. Sure, there are high expectations from the fanbase and alumni, and 8-4 is considered disappointing. But OTOH it's a pretty good gig IMHO, great brand to recruit for, no big barriers as far as admissions (except for maybe women's crew, LOL), national visibility as a stepping-stone to a next level.
At the end of the day, if the $C fans aren't happy, I'm happy.
RE: Next at USC - BostonCard - 12-04-2019
(12-04-2019, 08:01 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Looks like Helton is staying, and the masses aren't happy. . . .
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/story/2019-12-04/column-usc-is-keeping-clay-helton-what-is-mike-bohn-thinking
Plaschke is a good read. On the one hand, it's fun to root for chaos in the southland. On the other, you worry that if USC hires a new coach they will luck into a new Pete Carroll. Devil you know...
BC
RE: Next at USC - Goose - 12-04-2019
The AD did the only reasonable thing he could do. USC was not ready to search for a new head coach. They would end up as FSU take 2. The probability of them hiring somebody that the pundits/alumni/boosters would embrace from the standing start of today is about zero. It is probable that Urban was vetoed by the President, if not by lots of others, as unsuitable. Probably he didn't want the job anyway this year. Maybe next year he will, and maybe next year he will be considered less toxic. What SC has done is going from one bad hire to another to (possibly) another (Helton). They absolutely do not want to do it again. Taking a year to get his ducks in a row makes sense for the new AD. If Helton wins the PAC-12 next year, nothing need be done. If he doesn't, the buyout is lower and the AD will have had the time to choose the guy he wants. Absolutely the right choice by SC.
RE: Next at USC - cardcoug - 12-05-2019
(12-03-2019, 03:44 PM)Austroturf Wrote: That's an age-old question, Spiny. If you can be disgruntled, you should also be able to change and simply be gruntled. I am sure that, after our Rose Bowl victory on January 1, 2016, most Stanford fans were severely gruntled.
Personally, i felt both turbed and gruntled.
RE: Next at USC - Beeg_Dawg - 12-07-2019
(12-04-2019, 10:42 PM)Goose Wrote: The AD did the only reasonable thing he could do. USC was not ready to search for a new head coach. They would end up as FSU take 2. The probability of them hiring somebody that the pundits/alumni/boosters would embrace from the standing start of today is about zero. It is probable that Urban was vetoed by the President, if not by lots of others, as unsuitable. Probably he didn't want the job anyway this year. Maybe next year he will, and maybe next year he will be considered less toxic. What SC has done is going from one bad hire to another to (possibly) another (Helton). They absolutely do not want to do it again. Taking a year to get his ducks in a row makes sense for the new AD. If Helton wins the PAC-12 next year, nothing need be done. If he doesn't, the buyout is lower and the AD will have had the time to choose the guy he wants. Absolutely the right choice by SC.
Wonder what USC thinks of Ed Orgeron now? ;)