[BostonCard]

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?

[BostonCard]

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?