AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - 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: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 (/thread-704.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: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 (/thread-704.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - terry - 11-08-2010
Quote:It pains me that the national media is playing the "empty seats" story alongside the "Stanford is really good" story.2006 was an aberration because it was the first year in the new stadium. All of the home games got a one-time boost in attendance because of the interest in the new stadium. The other data points are the relevant ones.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/cory_mccartney/11/08/Newton.Voldemort.Watch/index.html
The attendance of 43,000 is about 10,000 better than an average Stanford-Arizona game from the recent past. Clearly, Stanford\'s success has had a noticeable impact on attendance. Just not enough to fill the stadium for a critical game.
1998 - 30,169
2000 - 31,165
2002 - 33,800
2006 - 39,317
2008 - 30,689 (this was a Homecoming game too)
Bottom line is that last week\'s Arizona game drew far more people than the typical Arizona game. We\'re making progress.
Re: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - deepred - 11-09-2010
Quote:The attendance of 43,000 is about 10,000 better than an average Stanford-Arizona game from the recent past. Clearly, Stanford\'s success has had a noticeable impact on attendance. Just not enough to fill the stadium for a critical game.
1998 - 30,169
2000 - 31,165
2002 - 33,800
2006 - 39,317
2008 - 30,689 (this was a Homecoming game too)
Since I\'ve been forever damaged by consulting-style case interview experiences, I\'ll have to ask this. Can anyone confirm that the attendance counting methodology has been consistent (or at least close enough that it makes sense to compare attendance year-to-year) from 1998 to present? For instance, did we move from counting people in seats to counting tickets issued in different years?
Re: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - needle - 11-09-2010
The 2000 Arizona game was the second home game after the Rose Bowl year, so it\'s not always true that a successful season automatically boosts attendance the next year.
Re: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - terry - 11-09-2010
Quote:The 2000 Arizona game was the second home game after the Rose Bowl year, so it\'s not always true that a successful season automatically boosts attendance the next year.Correct. There is good evidence that it takes more than one successful season to make a difference in attendance. Rather, it takes a consistent winning record, i.e. several successful seasons in a row, plus the expectation of continued success.
Re: AP #7, Coaches\' #9 - JeffInCorvallis - 11-09-2010
Something that Stanford has not enjoyed in the past many years - consistency and several winning seasons in a row....