(08-31-2024, 10:15 AM)Goose Wrote: [rant]
The Stanford football team has its issues. This thread isn't about that. IMO the experience on Friday night in the stadium was almost intolerable. First of all the "music" in section 232 was so loud it literally hurt. It was impossible to talk with the person next to you when it was playing because you can't hear each other. The people controlling the music felt it was absolutely necessary to start blaring it the moment the play was over and play it until the offense lined up. Since both teams played "fast" a fair amount with no huddle (or a very quick one) the music often was on for maybe 10 to 15 seconds. During the game, one would get a play that was run in relative silence. Then you get 10 seconds of blaring noise. I don't care if the "music" they played was something I liked, 10 seconds of anything (especially at that volume) is just noise. Of course they played music during time-outs and other play stoppages. They played it all during halftime as well. In the second half they would occasionally let the band play a bit. What sweet relief.
I get it that the extremely small crowd at the game wasn't going to make much noise. Apparently somebody believes that they can make up for that by blasting music. Guess what? It doesn't work. Nobody is fooled. Nobody is excited by that feeble attempt at hype. The people who did come to the stadium came to watch a football game, not attend a concert. Certainly nobody will enjoy a concert where the band has to stop every say 20 seconds, wait for the play to be run, and then start playing again. Maybe the people running the "show" believe that they have to provide absolutely continuous entertainment with no gaps, ever. If that is the case, their music fails that test. I think that occasionally playing something at a reasonable volume might be appropriate. Letting the band do so is IMO a better way to go. Blasting music over the PA all the way through halftime (because there was no halftime show) is just plain absurd.
Now that rant is out there for public comment, I can switch to rant II :-). The announced "attendance" of 36,000 is obviously a complete lie. Do I believe 36,000 tickets were actually sold. Yes, I do, but I suspect half of them were sold at a deep discount at the last minute just so they could quote a "reasonably large" attendance figure without technically lying. In my row there were a total of six (!) people. The row in front of us had maybe 10 at its peak but several of them left early. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game just before Labor Day weekend. Yes, it is sub-optimal to start that game at 7:30 PM. Yes, it is sub-optimal to schedule a game before the students return to campus. All that said, this was the first game of a new season in a new conference. Yet there was virtually nobody there. This undeniably bodes ill for Stanford Football going forward. Few people cared enough to attend that game. They voted with their feet.
I am sure we will hear "College football is more popular than ever" assertions attempting to minimize the importance of the very poor attendance. However, if the statistics used to make that assertion include things like the 36,000 quoted attendance, I question the validity of the assertion. It may be that streaming, cable, and over-the-air distribution is wildly popular, but there is no question this game was abysmally attended. It may be the future is playing in empty stadiums with blaring music and AI generated crowds :-). However, when the student body and alumni quit attending the games, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe significant ongoing support will be forthcoming. That is IMO certainly where Stanford is going, in so far as we aren't already there.
[/rant]
Goose is absolutely correct. The game experience last night was awful. No one in the stands, maybe 5,000. They should have told the crowd to move together at midfield and it might have been easier to actuallly make create some non electronic noise. Why most of the crowd sat happily in the cheap seats when they could have sat on the 50 is hard to understand, increased the impression of playing in an empty stadium. The long TV time outs have pretty much destroyed any concept of game flow. Game took almost 4 hours, way to long, only adds to the bad experience.
(08-31-2024, 10:47 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: I was at the game and, respectfully, Goose, I have a different opinion.I beg to differ but the statdium wasn't close to 1/4 full. It looked empty, felt empty, and was mostly empty.
I will agree that generally I don’t think they have good music. I like Sweet Caroline, but it is getting really old. I like Dancing Queen but it doesn’t fit getting fired up for the fourth quarter. The Bay Area has been the home of great bands like Journey and Green Day.
The sound was not too loud in my section. Occasionally I couldn’t hear my friend’s comments, but otherwise it was fine. Maybe they play it too loud where you are.
Separate from what happened on-field, which I am concerned about, I think people would enjoy a night like last night at Stanford Stadium (again, SEPARATE FROM WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FIELD). Stanford Stadium is a beautiful building and the weather last night was pretty close to perfect. It was never too hot, it was a gorgeous evening weather-wise, the sky was clear, the stadium looked great.
If the team can win some home games (or **a** home game), it’s a great place to watch football.
And while I am surprised the announced “attendance” was 36,000, I actually thought they’d announce around 28,000 (which is not to say it was half full, but between a quarter and a third full, much more than I expected given the fact that it was late Friday night before the students arrive). And the stadium wasn’t all purple (though sadly and predictably, the TCU fans made more noise). It had way more people than I expected, though, I assumed they gave a lot away or had special promotions, which they have been dependent upon for many years.