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.
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.