[CTcard]

  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Aw, memories. How fickle.

Average attendance average:
1999: 49,738
2000: 37,980
2001: 51,534
...
2013: 50,726
2014: 47,862
2015: 49,917

Even back at the turn of the century, Stanford had an even/odd year issue.

The main difference to now is that back then the important games (cal, $C, UCLA, und) would turn out substantially larger crowds than can fit in the new stadium. The other games, turned out substantially smaller crowds than we see now.

Perhaps of note, Stanford does have crowds that are larger than the FBS average but smaller than the Power 5 average - close to the ACC average which is bottom of the heap most years.
However, Stanford typically has been #4 among private schools lately, behind $C, und, and BYU; though sometimes Miami hops over us.
I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but private school teams mostly don't get the same fan base - particularly without the "our religion versus the world" aspect.

[CTcard]

  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Aw, memories. How fickle.

Average attendance average:
1999: 49,738
2000: 37,980
2001: 51,534
...
2013: 50,726
2014: 47,862
2015: 49,917

Even back at the turn of the century, Stanford had an even/odd year issue.

The main difference to now is that back then the important games (cal, $C, UCLA, und) would turn out substantially larger crowds than can fit in the new stadium. The other games, turned out substantially smaller crowds than we see now.

Perhaps of note, Stanford does have crowds that are larger than the FBS average but smaller than the Power 5 average - close to the ACC average which is bottom of the heap most years.
However, Stanford typically has been #4 among private schools lately, behind $C, und, and BYU; though sometimes Miami hops over us.
I am not sure whether that is good or bad, but private school teams mostly don't get the same fan base - particularly without the "our religion versus the world" aspect.

[wallendar]

The number #1 reason for relatively low Bay Area college football attendance is that the area is a pro sports haven.  Winning helps the colleges but not too a great extent.  IMO, the style of play has nothing to do with attendance.  And, of course, the inability to make plans because of the ever changing game times is a dilemma that will not be resolved anytime soon. 

The days of full houses for the Big Game being an automatic expectation in Berkeley and Palo Alto are long gone. 

[wallendar]

The number #1 reason for relatively low Bay Area college football attendance is that the area is a pro sports haven.  Winning helps the colleges but not too a great extent.  IMO, the style of play has nothing to do with attendance.  And, of course, the inability to make plans because of the ever changing game times is a dilemma that will not be resolved anytime soon. 

The days of full houses for the Big Game being an automatic expectation in Berkeley and Palo Alto are long gone. 

[teejers1]

Wait, you mean Coach Shaw isn't obligated to cater to my whims on offense?!?  BC, what a crushing revelation . . .

What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season.  Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.

And I witnessed all those Stanford teams of yesteryear, too (well, a lot of them, anyway).  Where I depart from Red State (and Lex and others) is this:  I don't believe that the Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl offense under Willingham/Diedrick is incompatible with/mutually exclusive of a great defense.  Indeed, the Seattle Bowl team was quite accomplished on D, IIRC.  So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball. 

All the other years that Red State (and I) witnessed typically involved a less than stellar D.  See Elway years.  That explained the "losing" part of "losing season."

[teejers1]

Wait, you mean Coach Shaw isn't obligated to cater to my whims on offense?!?  BC, what a crushing revelation . . .

What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season.  Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.

And I witnessed all those Stanford teams of yesteryear, too (well, a lot of them, anyway).  Where I depart from Red State (and Lex and others) is this:  I don't believe that the Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl offense under Willingham/Diedrick is incompatible with/mutually exclusive of a great defense.  Indeed, the Seattle Bowl team was quite accomplished on D, IIRC.  So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball. 

All the other years that Red State (and I) witnessed typically involved a less than stellar D.  See Elway years.  That explained the "losing" part of "losing season."

[CTcard]

And I still have yet to hear from anyone why Stanford shouldn't model its O circa Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl seasons.

I'd say primarily two reasons.

First, to some extent we do so.
Secondly, those offenses weren't as good as the current ones. 

1999 and 2000 were the best two years of Stanford offense under Willingham (by a lot).
In 1999 we threw the ball more, but the run game was alright. It was primarily the Husak-Walters-Pitts show. In 2001 the run game really emerged, complemented by a down-field passing game.

The best two years under Shaw were 2011 and 2015. In 2011 it was the Luck show, though the run game was okay. In 2015 the run game dominated, with McCaffrey starring and Hogan's passing a first down/big play complement.

Some numbers:
1999:  450 yds/gm,  6.48 yds/play (pre-RB), 35 pass att/gm, 37.1 runs/gm, 57% completions, 8.96 yds/pass att, 15.75 yds/pass compl; 4.1 yds/rush.
2001: 443 yds/gm, 5.91 yds/play (pre-SB), 30.2 pass att/gm, 46.2 runs/gm, 53% completions, 8.30 yds/pass att, 15.66 yds/pass compl; 4.4 yds/rush

2011: 489 yds/gm, 6.81 yds/play, 32.1 pass att/gm, 39.8 runs/gm, 71.2% completions, 8.71 yds/pass att, 12.20 yds/pass compl; 5.3 yds/rush.
2015: 436 yds/gm, 6.57 yds/play, 22.7 pass att/gm, 43.6 runs/gm, 67.0% completions, 9.3 yds/pass att, 13.92 yds/pass compl; 5.1 yds/rush

And for kicks, currently:
2017: 457 yds/gm, 7.61 yds/play, 26.6 pass att/gm, 33.43 runs/gm, 59.7% completions, 7.5 yds/pass att, 12.49 yds/pass compl; 7.7 yds/rush


I suspect you will tell me that you aren't talking about anything as mundane as numbers, but rather the beautiful offense you remember from 2000 era versus the completely frustrating version now. But my memory is that particularly in 2001, the offense was quite similar to recent years - power running first, pass game for first downs and big plays. Great QB play sometimes (Husak), okay others (Fasani and Lewis). 

[CTcard]

And I still have yet to hear from anyone why Stanford shouldn't model its O circa Rose Bowl/Seattle Bowl seasons.

I'd say primarily two reasons.

First, to some extent we do so.
Secondly, those offenses weren't as good as the current ones. 

1999 and 2000 were the best two years of Stanford offense under Willingham (by a lot).
In 1999 we threw the ball more, but the run game was alright. It was primarily the Husak-Walters-Pitts show. In 2001 the run game really emerged, complemented by a down-field passing game.

The best two years under Shaw were 2011 and 2015. In 2011 it was the Luck show, though the run game was okay. In 2015 the run game dominated, with McCaffrey starring and Hogan's passing a first down/big play complement.

Some numbers:
1999:  450 yds/gm,  6.48 yds/play (pre-RB), 35 pass att/gm, 37.1 runs/gm, 57% completions, 8.96 yds/pass att, 15.75 yds/pass compl; 4.1 yds/rush.
2001: 443 yds/gm, 5.91 yds/play (pre-SB), 30.2 pass att/gm, 46.2 runs/gm, 53% completions, 8.30 yds/pass att, 15.66 yds/pass compl; 4.4 yds/rush

2011: 489 yds/gm, 6.81 yds/play, 32.1 pass att/gm, 39.8 runs/gm, 71.2% completions, 8.71 yds/pass att, 12.20 yds/pass compl; 5.3 yds/rush.
2015: 436 yds/gm, 6.57 yds/play, 22.7 pass att/gm, 43.6 runs/gm, 67.0% completions, 9.3 yds/pass att, 13.92 yds/pass compl; 5.1 yds/rush

And for kicks, currently:
2017: 457 yds/gm, 7.61 yds/play, 26.6 pass att/gm, 33.43 runs/gm, 59.7% completions, 7.5 yds/pass att, 12.49 yds/pass compl; 7.7 yds/rush


I suspect you will tell me that you aren't talking about anything as mundane as numbers, but rather the beautiful offense you remember from 2000 era versus the completely frustrating version now. But my memory is that particularly in 2001, the offense was quite similar to recent years - power running first, pass game for first downs and big plays. Great QB play sometimes (Husak), okay others (Fasani and Lewis). 

[Goose]

So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball. 

I agree, Stanford doesn't "have to" run "bully ball" to have a good defense. However, as others have pointed out here, Stanford has problems recruiting a good D line. That has been a problem forever it seems. Some years, we have a good one, and in those years it isn't so important to minimize the time the D spends on the field. More often than not, we don't have a great DL. In those years, no matter how good the rest of the D is, it is vitally important we control tempo. To do that, we need to play "bully ball". Since you can't switch offensive personalities at will from year to year, and since often we need "bully ball", then "bully ball" it must be. Certainly Shaw does adapt his play calling to what his defense can give him, but it isn't a switch from crazy pass heavy to crazy run heavy. We have had better defenses in the past 10 years or so partly because we recruited better, but also because we didn't expose them to the full fury of a bunch of 3 and outs. For Stanford, run the damn ball is a proper and necessary exhortation. We came back from the dead by heeding this call, and we certainly have no wish to repeat that journey.
Certainly there is room to vary exactly what we run, and Shaw has done that, adapting to smaller, faster backs after several years of big, punishing guys. We also are capable of taking deep shots, at least most years. It isn't like we are Navy in what we do. But it is methodical and conservative, because that is what works for us.

[Goose]

So I don't buy the notion that Stanford has to run "bully ball" to be successful - Stanford can have a very good D w/o playing Bully Ball. 

I agree, Stanford doesn't "have to" run "bully ball" to have a good defense. However, as others have pointed out here, Stanford has problems recruiting a good D line. That has been a problem forever it seems. Some years, we have a good one, and in those years it isn't so important to minimize the time the D spends on the field. More often than not, we don't have a great DL. In those years, no matter how good the rest of the D is, it is vitally important we control tempo. To do that, we need to play "bully ball". Since you can't switch offensive personalities at will from year to year, and since often we need "bully ball", then "bully ball" it must be. Certainly Shaw does adapt his play calling to what his defense can give him, but it isn't a switch from crazy pass heavy to crazy run heavy. We have had better defenses in the past 10 years or so partly because we recruited better, but also because we didn't expose them to the full fury of a bunch of 3 and outs. For Stanford, run the damn ball is a proper and necessary exhortation. We came back from the dead by heeding this call, and we certainly have no wish to repeat that journey.
Certainly there is room to vary exactly what we run, and Shaw has done that, adapting to smaller, faster backs after several years of big, punishing guys. We also are capable of taking deep shots, at least most years. It isn't like we are Navy in what we do. But it is methodical and conservative, because that is what works for us.

[needle]

A comparison worth making imo is with TCU, which has had some great success but never consistently filled its stadium in Fort Worth:

The most damning evidence of the struggles GP and TCU has had with its fan base remains Oct. 6, 2012 — at home vs. Iowa State. TCU was undefeated and ranked 15th in the nation for its first-ever home Big 12 game. And to greet the team were thousands and thousands and thousands of empty seats on a cool, but not miserable, overcast Saturday afternoon.

The atmosphere and party scene around Amon G. Carter Stadium remains first-rate, but inside the venue it’s hit or miss. Too often it’s a miss.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-...89263.html

Someone should doublecheck, but Wikipedia has TCU's attendance for home games this year as very strong but not quite selling out their 45k-seat stadium: 43,257 in a top-25 match-up against West Virginia, for example.

[needle]

A comparison worth making imo is with TCU, which has had some great success but never consistently filled its stadium in Fort Worth:

The most damning evidence of the struggles GP and TCU has had with its fan base remains Oct. 6, 2012 — at home vs. Iowa State. TCU was undefeated and ranked 15th in the nation for its first-ever home Big 12 game. And to greet the team were thousands and thousands and thousands of empty seats on a cool, but not miserable, overcast Saturday afternoon.

The atmosphere and party scene around Amon G. Carter Stadium remains first-rate, but inside the venue it’s hit or miss. Too often it’s a miss.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/spt-...89263.html

Someone should doublecheck, but Wikipedia has TCU's attendance for home games this year as very strong but not quite selling out their 45k-seat stadium: 43,257 in a top-25 match-up against West Virginia, for example.

[BostonCard]

What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season.  Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.

Stanford is third in the conference and 19th in the country in scoring offense at 38.1 ppg; it is fourth in total offense in 456 yards per game, but we run fewer snaps than other teams, so we are first in yards per play (7.61 yards per play).  In fact, in terms of yards per play, the 2017 Stanford team is the best offense in the Pac-12 in the last 10 years that cfbstats has data for.  The next best offense is 2013 Oregon (7.55 yards per play) that featured Marcus Mariota.  We are fourth in the country, behind only Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and UCF in yards per play.  How exactly would you maximize the talent and productivity on the roster beyond what Shaw has done?

You also seem to imply that our offense relies too much on Bryce Love.  But if your goal is to "maximize the talent and productivity" on the roster, that would almost by definition mean maximizing Love's touches.  The one time we didn't was when Love only had 13 carries against SDSU, and you know how that turned out.

BC

[BostonCard]

What I am saying is that I don't think Shaw's O maximizes the talent and productivity on the roster. But there is no doubt that Love has made this offense explosive this season.  Let's all hope he is healthy and can keep it up.

Stanford is third in the conference and 19th in the country in scoring offense at 38.1 ppg; it is fourth in total offense in 456 yards per game, but we run fewer snaps than other teams, so we are first in yards per play (7.61 yards per play).  In fact, in terms of yards per play, the 2017 Stanford team is the best offense in the Pac-12 in the last 10 years that cfbstats has data for.  The next best offense is 2013 Oregon (7.55 yards per play) that featured Marcus Mariota.  We are fourth in the country, behind only Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and UCF in yards per play.  How exactly would you maximize the talent and productivity on the roster beyond what Shaw has done?

You also seem to imply that our offense relies too much on Bryce Love.  But if your goal is to "maximize the talent and productivity" on the roster, that would almost by definition mean maximizing Love's touches.  The one time we didn't was when Love only had 13 carries against SDSU, and you know how that turned out.

BC

[teejers1]

1.  CT, let's see where the season numbers end up (we have some good defenses awaiting the Cardinal) - and nice job cherry picking the 2 best other seasons;

2.  There is some irony in that The Defenders believe bully ball is important because Stanford's O needs to stay on the field as much as possible to give the Cardinal's typically undermanned D as much rest as possible.  And yet this year Stanford must have the least time-consuming O we've seen in recent years, given Love's unique ability to bust out long runs.  Again, where would this O be without Bryce Love?

3.  And our QB still needs to demonstrate that he can perform at a good/high level consistently. 

[teejers1]

1.  CT, let's see where the season numbers end up (we have some good defenses awaiting the Cardinal) - and nice job cherry picking the 2 best other seasons;

2.  There is some irony in that The Defenders believe bully ball is important because Stanford's O needs to stay on the field as much as possible to give the Cardinal's typically undermanned D as much rest as possible.  And yet this year Stanford must have the least time-consuming O we've seen in recent years, given Love's unique ability to bust out long runs.  Again, where would this O be without Bryce Love?

3.  And our QB still needs to demonstrate that he can perform at a good/high level consistently. 

[stupac2]

2.  There is some irony in that The Defenders believe bully ball is important because Stanford's O needs to stay on the field as much as possible to give the Cardinal's typically undermanned D as much rest as possible.  And yet this year Stanford must have the least time-consuming O we've seen in recent years, given Love's unique ability to bust out long runs.  Again, where would this O be without Bryce Love?

The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

[stupac2]

2.  There is some irony in that The Defenders believe bully ball is important because Stanford's O needs to stay on the field as much as possible to give the Cardinal's typically undermanned D as much rest as possible.  And yet this year Stanford must have the least time-consuming O we've seen in recent years, given Love's unique ability to bust out long runs.  Again, where would this O be without Bryce Love?

The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

[terry]

My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB. 

Gary Beban's UCLA team played at Stanford twice, in 1965 and 1967.

According to Wikipedia, the attendance at those games was 20,500 in 1965 and 47,000 in 1967.

Stanford Stadium's capacity at that time was 90,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_UCLA_...tball_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_UCLA_...tball_team

[terry]

My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB. 

Gary Beban's UCLA team played at Stanford twice, in 1965 and 1967.

According to Wikipedia, the attendance at those games was 20,500 in 1965 and 47,000 in 1967.

Stanford Stadium's capacity at that time was 90,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_UCLA_...tball_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_UCLA_...tball_team

[BostonCard]

We are sixth in the conference in time of possession, which, almost by definition is pretty average.  Still, it is a far cry form the days when we were routinely at the top (often by over a minute over the next highest team), and rarely were outside the top-3.  On the plus side, our scoring offense doesn't seem to have suffered from it; we have scored more points per game this year than any year since 2011.

Where it maybe has hurt us a little bit is in scoring defense.  However, 22 ppg is about on par with what we have done in the last couple years (20.4 in 2016, 22.6 in 2015), but significantly worse than when we have had dominant defenses (16.4 ppg in 2014, 19 ppg in 2013, 17.2 ppg in 2012, and 17.4 ppg in 2010).

Bottom line, the quick scoring drives has not seemed to hurt our offense; it has maybe affected our defense (but hard to separate it from other factors, like our weak run defense).

BC

[BostonCard]

We are sixth in the conference in time of possession, which, almost by definition is pretty average.  Still, it is a far cry form the days when we were routinely at the top (often by over a minute over the next highest team), and rarely were outside the top-3.  On the plus side, our scoring offense doesn't seem to have suffered from it; we have scored more points per game this year than any year since 2011.

Where it maybe has hurt us a little bit is in scoring defense.  However, 22 ppg is about on par with what we have done in the last couple years (20.4 in 2016, 22.6 in 2015), but significantly worse than when we have had dominant defenses (16.4 ppg in 2014, 19 ppg in 2013, 17.2 ppg in 2012, and 17.4 ppg in 2010).

Bottom line, the quick scoring drives has not seemed to hurt our offense; it has maybe affected our defense (but hard to separate it from other factors, like our weak run defense).

BC

[DC 86]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17760.msg207524#msg207524 date=1508780923]
My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB. 

Gary Beban's UCLA team played at Stanford twice, in 1965 and 1967.

According to Wikipedia, the attendance at those games was 20,500 in 1965 and 47,000 in 1967.

Stanford Stadium's capacity at that time was 90,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_UCLA_...tball_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_UCLA_...tball_team
[/quote]

OF was saying that Sequoia High School was the one playing at a near sold-out Stanford Stadium; seems improbable but would be hard to easily find attendance figures for high school games played over fifty years ago.

[DC 86]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17760.msg207524#msg207524 date=1508780923]
My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB. 

Gary Beban's UCLA team played at Stanford twice, in 1965 and 1967.

According to Wikipedia, the attendance at those games was 20,500 in 1965 and 47,000 in 1967.

Stanford Stadium's capacity at that time was 90,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_UCLA_...tball_team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_UCLA_...tball_team
[/quote]

OF was saying that Sequoia High School was the one playing at a near sold-out Stanford Stadium; seems improbable but would be hard to easily find attendance figures for high school games played over fifty years ago.

[teejers1]

Shtup, either you or I have reading comprehension issues (could be me); alternatively, maybe one of us is not reading the entirety of this thread. 

[teejers1]

Shtup, either you or I have reading comprehension issues (could be me); alternatively, maybe one of us is not reading the entirety of this thread. 

[Red State]

Where would this O be without its OL? I've noticed a big improvement in their play over the past 4 games, which includes zero QB sacks allowed. Love's great, but even Nigel Burton on P12N has noted and laughed about the gigantic holes that this OL has blown open for him that past few weeks. Scarlett and Speights may not be busting 50+ yard runs, but the running game would be effective with those two running behind this jelling OL.

[Red State]

Where would this O be without its OL? I've noticed a big improvement in their play over the past 4 games, which includes zero QB sacks allowed. Love's great, but even Nigel Burton on P12N has noted and laughed about the gigantic holes that this OL has blown open for him that past few weeks. Scarlett and Speights may not be busting 50+ yard runs, but the running game would be effective with those two running behind this jelling OL.

[Goose]

The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

I made and stand behind that argument. And yes, I do think the Love "quick strike" scores are a potential problem. Naturally, they are very exciting, and I am not saying he should fall down and not score. BUT, tell me that against SDSU that 6 more minutes TOP wouldn't have been quite useful. We have had the discussion about the fact that this year we seem to have a somewhat wider variance in YPP than usual. On average, we are at least good, maybe better than that. However, 3 and outs have hurt us this year because our ability to stop the run isn't what we would like. Now, if we are scoring 42 points, that may not matter. However, I am sure you have seen the comments on this board about how ND is going to run all over us. While I think our defense has some stops in them, I don't think they have lots of stops in them. Each 3 and out is a risk. I really liked how Love moved the chains against ASU, as well as the long runs. We need to win the TOP battle against UW, WSU, and ND. If we don't, I don't expect us to win.

[Goose]

The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

I made and stand behind that argument. And yes, I do think the Love "quick strike" scores are a potential problem. Naturally, they are very exciting, and I am not saying he should fall down and not score. BUT, tell me that against SDSU that 6 more minutes TOP wouldn't have been quite useful. We have had the discussion about the fact that this year we seem to have a somewhat wider variance in YPP than usual. On average, we are at least good, maybe better than that. However, 3 and outs have hurt us this year because our ability to stop the run isn't what we would like. Now, if we are scoring 42 points, that may not matter. However, I am sure you have seen the comments on this board about how ND is going to run all over us. While I think our defense has some stops in them, I don't think they have lots of stops in them. Each 3 and out is a risk. I really liked how Love moved the chains against ASU, as well as the long runs. We need to win the TOP battle against UW, WSU, and ND. If we don't, I don't expect us to win.

[Mick]

I don't think it's TV in a vacuum, but TV is most of the reason. 

Not only do you get to see more games by not attending them, but you also don't have to pay upwards of $30/ticket and at least 5 hrs. of your day to attend.  Attendance is down all over college football, and probably the NFL too, particularly for teams that aren't doing a lot of winning lately.

This trend has been going on for a long time.  My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB.  Apparently high school football was very big in the Bay Area back then.  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Look at the attendance in the media guide from when Elway was QB...and weep.  I remember long lines at the Page Mill exit when I was a kid just to get to the stadium.  Very, very exciting.

1982, last Elway game at Stanford against USC...73,859.  That year, Stanford drew 57k+ for SJSU, just 39k for  OSU, 55k for #2 Washington and 45k for Arizona.  Finished 5-6, even after beating #13 Ohio State in Ohio, 23-20 in front of 89k fans.

Walsh attendance; 59k for Oklahoma, 42k for SJSU, 40k for Tulane, 58k for Washington, 39k for oregon, 84k for USC.

[Mick]

I don't think it's TV in a vacuum, but TV is most of the reason. 

Not only do you get to see more games by not attending them, but you also don't have to pay upwards of $30/ticket and at least 5 hrs. of your day to attend.  Attendance is down all over college football, and probably the NFL too, particularly for teams that aren't doing a lot of winning lately.

This trend has been going on for a long time.  My uncle told me how his Sequoia High School team played at a near sold-out  Stanford stadium in the early 1960's when Gary Beban was the QB.  Apparently high school football was very big in the Bay Area back then.  Stanford used to draw 60K+ when I was a season ticket holder from 1999-2001, and Big Games would routinely put 80K in seats for years.

Look at the attendance in the media guide from when Elway was QB...and weep.  I remember long lines at the Page Mill exit when I was a kid just to get to the stadium.  Very, very exciting.

1982, last Elway game at Stanford against USC...73,859.  That year, Stanford drew 57k+ for SJSU, just 39k for  OSU, 55k for #2 Washington and 45k for Arizona.  Finished 5-6, even after beating #13 Ohio State in Ohio, 23-20 in front of 89k fans.

Walsh attendance; 59k for Oklahoma, 42k for SJSU, 40k for Tulane, 58k for Washington, 39k for oregon, 84k for USC.

[jacketree]

Interesting thread.

I think Lex has it right (TV plus Bay Area is just not a college FB hotbed); and furthermore, this "problem" is not limited to Stanford:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ight-year/

I don't, however, buy the fact that there is "nothing else to do in Tuscaloosa."  There is plenty to do anywhere if you want to do it.  People in certain places (Ann Arbor, Columbus, Clemson, Columbia even when they suck for years, etc. etc.) just want to go to football games.  Doesn't make them better; doesn't make them worse.

When I started grad school in '85 I rushed to buy student season tickets out of fear of them being sold out.  That fear was misplaced and in some respects the vibe was more like an afternoon at the beach than a football game.  (Nothing wrong with that; kegs in the stands!!!)  Decent, but nowhere near a sold-out crowd for Texas on CBS national broadcast; really sparse for every other game, and then full for Big Game.  Finally, a big-time atmosphere; although to be honest, most of the noise was supplied by the Cal side if I remember correctly.  I sure don't remember routinely large crowds at the old place, and looking at pictures of 1970s games there sure look to be plenty of empty bench space in the stands, although maybe the first several rows never really filled?  I also think a half-full stadium in the old place would look more full because people would just spread out a little in the benches rather than individual empty red seats all over the place.

Is it this particular offense?  Maybe, but that seems a little shaky to me.  Although I do remember reading an editorial in the Daily when I first arrived wherein the author said he would rather lose by two in a wild game than win by two in a defensive slug-fest, so losing was OK by him as long as it was "exciting."  Never got that sentiment.

Bay Area people want to see an "event" or something new.  Witness the drop off in attendance at AT&T after the novelty of the Coke bottle and garlic fries wore off, despite some really solid teams and 3 WS titles. That huge sellout streak was in name only - tickets have been very easy to come by for at least a decade.  The Warriors may be the one exception.  They stunk to high heaven for years and still sold the place out night after night.

[jacketree]

Interesting thread.

I think Lex has it right (TV plus Bay Area is just not a college FB hotbed); and furthermore, this "problem" is not limited to Stanford:

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ight-year/

I don't, however, buy the fact that there is "nothing else to do in Tuscaloosa."  There is plenty to do anywhere if you want to do it.  People in certain places (Ann Arbor, Columbus, Clemson, Columbia even when they suck for years, etc. etc.) just want to go to football games.  Doesn't make them better; doesn't make them worse.

When I started grad school in '85 I rushed to buy student season tickets out of fear of them being sold out.  That fear was misplaced and in some respects the vibe was more like an afternoon at the beach than a football game.  (Nothing wrong with that; kegs in the stands!!!)  Decent, but nowhere near a sold-out crowd for Texas on CBS national broadcast; really sparse for every other game, and then full for Big Game.  Finally, a big-time atmosphere; although to be honest, most of the noise was supplied by the Cal side if I remember correctly.  I sure don't remember routinely large crowds at the old place, and looking at pictures of 1970s games there sure look to be plenty of empty bench space in the stands, although maybe the first several rows never really filled?  I also think a half-full stadium in the old place would look more full because people would just spread out a little in the benches rather than individual empty red seats all over the place.

Is it this particular offense?  Maybe, but that seems a little shaky to me.  Although I do remember reading an editorial in the Daily when I first arrived wherein the author said he would rather lose by two in a wild game than win by two in a defensive slug-fest, so losing was OK by him as long as it was "exciting."  Never got that sentiment.

Bay Area people want to see an "event" or something new.  Witness the drop off in attendance at AT&T after the novelty of the Coke bottle and garlic fries wore off, despite some really solid teams and 3 WS titles. That huge sellout streak was in name only - tickets have been very easy to come by for at least a decade.  The Warriors may be the one exception.  They stunk to high heaven for years and still sold the place out night after night.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17760.msg207589#msg207589 date=1508797729]
The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

I made and stand behind that argument. And yes, I do think the Love "quick strike" scores are a potential problem. Naturally, they are very exciting, and I am not saying he should fall down and not score. BUT, tell me that against SDSU that 6 more minutes TOP wouldn't have been quite useful. We have had the discussion about the fact that this year we seem to have a somewhat wider variance in YPP than usual. On average, we are at least good, maybe better than that. However, 3 and outs have hurt us this year because our ability to stop the run isn't what we would like. Now, if we are scoring 42 points, that may not matter. However, I am sure you have seen the comments on this board about how ND is going to run all over us. While I think our defense has some stops in them, I don't think they have lots of stops in them. Each 3 and out is a risk. I really liked how Love moved the chains against ASU, as well as the long runs. We need to win the TOP battle against UW, WSU, and ND. If we don't, I don't expect us to win.
[/quote]

I wasn't counting you since I thought you were just engaging in his hypothetical.

Sure, having more TOP in some situations would sure be nice, but so would having, I dunno, more points. The point of the game is to get more points than the other guy. There are close to infinite ways to try to arrange that, and explosive plays are one. Ball control is another. There are explosive offenses with suffocating defenses, and ball control offenses with wet-paper-bag defenses. But the real problem here is that you're assuming it's either-or and it's not. You can be efficient and explosive. Our problem at SDSU was that, outside of one Love run, we were really neither.

In general, for this season, given our thin personnel on the DL, maybe in a vacuum you'd want more TOP, but I don't think it really matters all that much in this day and age of 4-hour games and constant timeouts. Going 3-and-out vs one-play-TD constantly? Sure, that's bad, you want to move the chains at least a little. But that's not what our offense is doing.

The game against SDSU was a result of a whole bunch of problems, ball control is really far down the list I'd draw up.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17760.msg207589#msg207589 date=1508797729]
The only person I've seen making this argument is you, in order to knock it down. Seems like a straw man.

I made and stand behind that argument. And yes, I do think the Love "quick strike" scores are a potential problem. Naturally, they are very exciting, and I am not saying he should fall down and not score. BUT, tell me that against SDSU that 6 more minutes TOP wouldn't have been quite useful. We have had the discussion about the fact that this year we seem to have a somewhat wider variance in YPP than usual. On average, we are at least good, maybe better than that. However, 3 and outs have hurt us this year because our ability to stop the run isn't what we would like. Now, if we are scoring 42 points, that may not matter. However, I am sure you have seen the comments on this board about how ND is going to run all over us. While I think our defense has some stops in them, I don't think they have lots of stops in them. Each 3 and out is a risk. I really liked how Love moved the chains against ASU, as well as the long runs. We need to win the TOP battle against UW, WSU, and ND. If we don't, I don't expect us to win.
[/quote]

I wasn't counting you since I thought you were just engaging in his hypothetical.

Sure, having more TOP in some situations would sure be nice, but so would having, I dunno, more points. The point of the game is to get more points than the other guy. There are close to infinite ways to try to arrange that, and explosive plays are one. Ball control is another. There are explosive offenses with suffocating defenses, and ball control offenses with wet-paper-bag defenses. But the real problem here is that you're assuming it's either-or and it's not. You can be efficient and explosive. Our problem at SDSU was that, outside of one Love run, we were really neither.

In general, for this season, given our thin personnel on the DL, maybe in a vacuum you'd want more TOP, but I don't think it really matters all that much in this day and age of 4-hour games and constant timeouts. Going 3-and-out vs one-play-TD constantly? Sure, that's bad, you want to move the chains at least a little. But that's not what our offense is doing.

The game against SDSU was a result of a whole bunch of problems, ball control is really far down the list I'd draw up.

[lex24]

First, if I overstated your position, I apologize. Second College Football attendance is down nationally this year. For the sixth straight year.

Way to start your post with a duplicitous mischaracterization.  I did NOT say that a boring offense is the cause of Stanford's poor attendance, as you well know.

What I did say is that it is a contributing factor to low attendance.  Let's agree that this isn't the 1980s anymore, when Stanford drew very well for crap opponents in the Old Lady (and in the '70s it was ridiculously good).  And let's accept all the explanation/rationalizations for poor attendance on The Farm (which don't seem to be plaguing many other college fan bases).  Given that, do you think an offense that isn't fun to watch will hurt or help dwindling attendance?  When the young, first-time family or attendees come to a game, don't you think everything matters when it comes to making them return attendees?

Winning is great and obviously the most important job for a football coach, but the Woody Hayes approach is a risky one.  For the umpteenth time:  The Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl offenses (both pro-style) should be the model.

[lex24]

First, if I overstated your position, I apologize. Second College Football attendance is down nationally this year. For the sixth straight year.

Way to start your post with a duplicitous mischaracterization.  I did NOT say that a boring offense is the cause of Stanford's poor attendance, as you well know.

What I did say is that it is a contributing factor to low attendance.  Let's agree that this isn't the 1980s anymore, when Stanford drew very well for crap opponents in the Old Lady (and in the '70s it was ridiculously good).  And let's accept all the explanation/rationalizations for poor attendance on The Farm (which don't seem to be plaguing many other college fan bases).  Given that, do you think an offense that isn't fun to watch will hurt or help dwindling attendance?  When the young, first-time family or attendees come to a game, don't you think everything matters when it comes to making them return attendees?

Winning is great and obviously the most important job for a football coach, but the Woody Hayes approach is a risky one.  For the umpteenth time:  The Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl offenses (both pro-style) should be the model.

[lex24]

If I’m head coach at Stanford my job is to win and to do so within the ethics of the University. Getting people in the stands is for the marketing dept.

Way to start your post with a duplicitous mischaracterization.  I did NOT say that a boring offense is the cause of Stanford's poor attendance, as you well know.

What I did say is that it is a contributing factor to low attendance.  Let's agree that this isn't the 1980s anymore, when Stanford drew very well for crap opponents in the Old Lady (and in the '70s it was ridiculously good).  And let's accept all the explanation/rationalizations for poor attendance on The Farm (which don't seem to be plaguing many other college fan bases).  Given that, do you think an offense that isn't fun to watch will hurt or help dwindling attendance?  When the young, first-time family or attendees come to a game, don't you think everything matters when it comes to making them return attendees?

Winning is great and obviously the most important job for a football coach, but the Woody Hayes approach is a risky one.  For the umpteenth time:  The Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl offenses (both pro-style) should be the model.

[lex24]

If I’m head coach at Stanford my job is to win and to do so within the ethics of the University. Getting people in the stands is for the marketing dept.

Way to start your post with a duplicitous mischaracterization.  I did NOT say that a boring offense is the cause of Stanford's poor attendance, as you well know.

What I did say is that it is a contributing factor to low attendance.  Let's agree that this isn't the 1980s anymore, when Stanford drew very well for crap opponents in the Old Lady (and in the '70s it was ridiculously good).  And let's accept all the explanation/rationalizations for poor attendance on The Farm (which don't seem to be plaguing many other college fan bases).  Given that, do you think an offense that isn't fun to watch will hurt or help dwindling attendance?  When the young, first-time family or attendees come to a game, don't you think everything matters when it comes to making them return attendees?

Winning is great and obviously the most important job for a football coach, but the Woody Hayes approach is a risky one.  For the umpteenth time:  The Rose Bowl and Seattle Bowl offenses (both pro-style) should be the model.