[BillBradley]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

Maybe. Totally agree that consistent success can't help but increase attendance. But I question how far we would need to rise. In the late 90's our basketball team was in the Final Four and was #1 in the country for a few years. In the Luck/McAffery years we were crazy good. Just not sure we'll ever get to that point again.

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.

[BillBradley]

It's embarrassing when the TV broadcast pans the empty stands or a small group of students are shown dancing around after we score a touchdown. When discussing whether or not Stanford should go all in on NIL in order to compete in football...I would also ask the question of "for who"?

I understand your POV.  I would say that without football simply being part of the culture like it used to be at Stanford (and still is in the SEC), attendance follows consistent winning.

A long time ago Terry2 posted data showing that teams needed to have two consecutive years of success before attendance started to rise.

We saw that in mid to late 1990s with men's basketball.  Maples was a morgue when I was an undergrad in the late 1980's. A decade later we had students camping outside of Maples before the major games. Then the crowds dissipated after we started losing.

We saw it again with Harbaugh and Shaw. We reached the point that we could sell out the stadium once or twice a year.  Probably we'd never be able to sell out the minor games, but with consistent success we'd see much better student attendance and better tailgating scene.

Maybe. Totally agree that consistent success can't help but increase attendance. But I question how far we would need to rise. In the late 90's our basketball team was in the Final Four and was #1 in the country for a few years. In the Luck/McAffery years we were crazy good. Just not sure we'll ever get to that point again.

In the 80's, we weren't very good at all, yet the students attended the games. That was because of the student culture, not because of the football team. There was football interest without the success, because it was fun. I could see a scenario where Stanford spends millions on NIL, goes 7-5 or 8-4 for a few years in a row, and it might still be a yawner for the current student body and campus vibe.