[82lsju]

Do they list bonuses separately? I suspect purse strings are part of it, but it could be bonus payouts. I'd be really quite surprised if winning the Rose Bowl doesn't net Shaw a pretty penny, (though I guess that wasn't a particularly good season for Tara so I dunno).

you can look at the details in the linked PDF but yes they do have several types of comp including "bonus and incentive compensation" which for Shaw was $500K

[82lsju]

Do they list bonuses separately? I suspect purse strings are part of it, but it could be bonus payouts. I'd be really quite surprised if winning the Rose Bowl doesn't net Shaw a pretty penny, (though I guess that wasn't a particularly good season for Tara so I dunno).

you can look at the details in the linked PDF but yes they do have several types of comp including "bonus and incentive compensation" which for Shaw was $500K

[lex24]

Has anyone truly said it’s “out of bounds” to criticize Shaw.  I criticize him at times. And I’m obviously a very big supporter. It’s the “tone” of the criticism for lack of a better way of putting it that I sometimes argue against. And mostly I defend what I perceive to be his overall philosophy.

Wonder if this will make any readers here more "open" to the notion that it's not out of bounds to criticize Coach Shaw.  I imagine most here would gladly take "the heat" (and that's an overstatement if there ever was one - do Stanford fans ever really bring heat on a coach?) for a cool $5M per.

Good for Shaw - I'd say he's earned his pay.  But I will never feel sorry for him as a result of any criticism he receives for his coaching decisions.

[lex24]

Has anyone truly said it’s “out of bounds” to criticize Shaw.  I criticize him at times. And I’m obviously a very big supporter. It’s the “tone” of the criticism for lack of a better way of putting it that I sometimes argue against. And mostly I defend what I perceive to be his overall philosophy.

Wonder if this will make any readers here more "open" to the notion that it's not out of bounds to criticize Coach Shaw.  I imagine most here would gladly take "the heat" (and that's an overstatement if there ever was one - do Stanford fans ever really bring heat on a coach?) for a cool $5M per.

Good for Shaw - I'd say he's earned his pay.  But I will never feel sorry for him as a result of any criticism he receives for his coaching decisions.

[teejers1]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

[teejers1]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

[pefloresjr]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

I appreciate those who are willing to tack away from the pack when they do it for reasons other than simple trash talking.  Most of the Shawtagonists here fit into that category.  While some on this site fall into the Shawpologist category, what I love about this site is that any support or criticism is thoroughly vetted based on all available evidence.  Standard criticism of coaching or players without support is called out in a very Stanford way; with evidence and analysis, not counter trash talking.  A lot of tough talk about the right kind of attitude as criticism of coaching is not very helpful because there are a great many failed coaches and players who had the right "tough guy" attitude but never approached the success of Shaw and his staff. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

I appreciate those who are willing to tack away from the pack when they do it for reasons other than simple trash talking.  Most of the Shawtagonists here fit into that category.  While some on this site fall into the Shawpologist category, what I love about this site is that any support or criticism is thoroughly vetted based on all available evidence.  Standard criticism of coaching or players without support is called out in a very Stanford way; with evidence and analysis, not counter trash talking.  A lot of tough talk about the right kind of attitude as criticism of coaching is not very helpful because there are a great many failed coaches and players who had the right "tough guy" attitude but never approached the success of Shaw and his staff. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[JohnR34231]

Also, the criticism of Shaw that is basically asking a leopard to change his spots gets a bit old and tiresome. He's not going to put in an air raid offense and start going for it on 4th and 5 from his own territory.

I will say one thing. I had no idea Shaw was that highly compensated. (I assume those figures are accurate).
For that kind of money, I think we do have a right to some pretty high expectations of him.

[JohnR34231]

Also, the criticism of Shaw that is basically asking a leopard to change his spots gets a bit old and tiresome. He's not going to put in an air raid offense and start going for it on 4th and 5 from his own territory.

I will say one thing. I had no idea Shaw was that highly compensated. (I assume those figures are accurate).
For that kind of money, I think we do have a right to some pretty high expectations of him.

[stupac2]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

This is so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin. Earlier this year (let alone in 2014) there was plenty of Shaw criticism, even from people (like apparently myself) who you seem to think are brobdingnagian Shaw apologists who can't take any kind of criticism. There are tons of things that pretty much every sane fan agrees Shaw has bungled (like not taking a QB in 2012 leaving us with a gaping hole last year), plenty more that find widespread agreement (timeout issues, weird redshirting decision, doing too much internal promotion, although he's been shown willing to go outside in the past few years). It boggles my mind that you think this board is one giant pile of Shawpologists.

The problem is that your criticism of him is, like this complaint, obviously wrong and you're completely unwilling to consider that fact. You spout nonsense about the offense that's contradicted by basic facts, never bother to engage with those facts, and keep going on spouting the same easily disproven nonsense no matter how many times BC or CTCard slap it down. At some point it just becomes tiring.

[stupac2]

This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means.

This is so wrong it's hard to even know where to begin. Earlier this year (let alone in 2014) there was plenty of Shaw criticism, even from people (like apparently myself) who you seem to think are brobdingnagian Shaw apologists who can't take any kind of criticism. There are tons of things that pretty much every sane fan agrees Shaw has bungled (like not taking a QB in 2012 leaving us with a gaping hole last year), plenty more that find widespread agreement (timeout issues, weird redshirting decision, doing too much internal promotion, although he's been shown willing to go outside in the past few years). It boggles my mind that you think this board is one giant pile of Shawpologists.

The problem is that your criticism of him is, like this complaint, obviously wrong and you're completely unwilling to consider that fact. You spout nonsense about the offense that's contradicted by basic facts, never bother to engage with those facts, and keep going on spouting the same easily disproven nonsense no matter how many times BC or CTCard slap it down. At some point it just becomes tiring.

[Redrum]

"This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means."

Well, Teejers,  history and events seem to be favoring this "nice cozy, happy community".  A LOT of that might be just dumb luck. Right place, right time, right product etc. etc. Certainly lots of the right people posting.  I joined the Booty back in the fax days and just in the last couple of weeks my subscription there ran out.  Man, that was a long run, most of it good.  It's tough to see guys you like either screw the pooch or be screwed by bumbling corporate forces beyond their control, but either way, it's been sinking lower in the water and might be taking some good people with it. 

But to make a technical point: failure to savage Willingham back then isn't the same thing as being mindless true believers.  Willingham is long gone and something about this place seems to resonate with some very grounded, analytical, un-Pollyanna-ish Stanford fans.  Who knows?  We're going to be doing one of our very infrequent voluntary fund-raisers soon.  Maybe even you'll kick in a little bit.

[Redrum]

"This site has an institutional Shaw defense mechanism (and general coach defense outlook), particularly when compared to other Stanford fan sites.  Indeed, the origins of this site was as an alternative to the 'leg, which was seen as an unseemly bunch unfairly attacking Ty Willingham.  That's okay, you all like this nice cozy, happy community.  It's fun to see/read commentary on Stanford sports, even if in a Candide world. 

I swim upstream in these parts if for no other reason than "someone has to do it.'  Well, that and the hope that we all don't forget what "archaic" means."

Well, Teejers,  history and events seem to be favoring this "nice cozy, happy community".  A LOT of that might be just dumb luck. Right place, right time, right product etc. etc. Certainly lots of the right people posting.  I joined the Booty back in the fax days and just in the last couple of weeks my subscription there ran out.  Man, that was a long run, most of it good.  It's tough to see guys you like either screw the pooch or be screwed by bumbling corporate forces beyond their control, but either way, it's been sinking lower in the water and might be taking some good people with it. 

But to make a technical point: failure to savage Willingham back then isn't the same thing as being mindless true believers.  Willingham is long gone and something about this place seems to resonate with some very grounded, analytical, un-Pollyanna-ish Stanford fans.  Who knows?  We're going to be doing one of our very infrequent voluntary fund-raisers soon.  Maybe even you'll kick in a little bit.

[Treebound]

I will say one thing. I had no idea Shaw was that highly compensated. (I assume those figures are accurate).
For that kind of money, I think we do have a right to some pretty high expectations of him.

Look at how far we have come, thanks in large part to Bob Bowlsby, Etch and Hennessy.  We paid bargain basement rates for Jim Harbaugh and discovered he was a turn around artist with EUTM.  Even some of the harshest critics on the boot, didn't think Bob would pull the cord.  He did and we have all celebrated Stanford's rise.  IRS form 990 was a form that was not to be touched by athletics, but Bob thankfully started to break down that way of thinking, once it became obvious that Harbaugh was going to be a target of other programs (remember Ty to ND).  Would we continue to be a stepping stone? No! 

I will point to the Orange Bowl as a key turning point, watching Hennessy soak up the good will on Miami Beach after a fantastic win.  I think he realized the good will that football can deliver to a broad Stanford community and how the University might harness that for the greater good.   

Many here and on the boot thought that Stanford would never touch "the arms race" for coaching salaries.  Times have changed.  Shaw is a great fit and a Stanford man.  If he stays like Tara and Nine and creates the legacy that I think he can, I'm fine with paying him his due.  I'm also fine with looking at him with a critical eye.  He's still learning on the job (Rose Bowl vs Michigan State, Fiesta Bowl, H award misses, etc...), but he's our very, very good coach and I wouldn't want anyone else at the helm.  I just hope that MTL continues what Hennessy started and that at some point we make the CFP.  To be thinking in those terms, it's amazing to me and I am incredibly thankful.

[Treebound]

I will say one thing. I had no idea Shaw was that highly compensated. (I assume those figures are accurate).
For that kind of money, I think we do have a right to some pretty high expectations of him.

Look at how far we have come, thanks in large part to Bob Bowlsby, Etch and Hennessy.  We paid bargain basement rates for Jim Harbaugh and discovered he was a turn around artist with EUTM.  Even some of the harshest critics on the boot, didn't think Bob would pull the cord.  He did and we have all celebrated Stanford's rise.  IRS form 990 was a form that was not to be touched by athletics, but Bob thankfully started to break down that way of thinking, once it became obvious that Harbaugh was going to be a target of other programs (remember Ty to ND).  Would we continue to be a stepping stone? No! 

I will point to the Orange Bowl as a key turning point, watching Hennessy soak up the good will on Miami Beach after a fantastic win.  I think he realized the good will that football can deliver to a broad Stanford community and how the University might harness that for the greater good.   

Many here and on the boot thought that Stanford would never touch "the arms race" for coaching salaries.  Times have changed.  Shaw is a great fit and a Stanford man.  If he stays like Tara and Nine and creates the legacy that I think he can, I'm fine with paying him his due.  I'm also fine with looking at him with a critical eye.  He's still learning on the job (Rose Bowl vs Michigan State, Fiesta Bowl, H award misses, etc...), but he's our very, very good coach and I wouldn't want anyone else at the helm.  I just hope that MTL continues what Hennessy started and that at some point we make the CFP.  To be thinking in those terms, it's amazing to me and I am incredibly thankful.

[donkey687]

I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

[donkey687]

I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

[washingtonismoney]

Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging? It can't be the offense -- it's a strong one. (Contra teejers, if people find the offense unexciting this year, they are bizarre human beings.) It's something the athletic department will have to correct, for instrumental reasons: more attendance means more money to pay Shaw (and his staff) market value, and recruits are influenced by playing in front of capacity crowds.

(I don't necessarily blame the recruits either. If you're an actor, do you want to play off-Broadway or Broadway? Most of them, Broadway. If you're a musician, do you want to play small clubs or the Lincoln Center? Most of them, the Lincoln Center. And so on.)

[washingtonismoney]

Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging? It can't be the offense -- it's a strong one. (Contra teejers, if people find the offense unexciting this year, they are bizarre human beings.) It's something the athletic department will have to correct, for instrumental reasons: more attendance means more money to pay Shaw (and his staff) market value, and recruits are influenced by playing in front of capacity crowds.

(I don't necessarily blame the recruits either. If you're an actor, do you want to play off-Broadway or Broadway? Most of them, Broadway. If you're a musician, do you want to play small clubs or the Lincoln Center? Most of them, the Lincoln Center. And so on.)

[CTcard]

I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

Well, that information came from Stanford's tax returns as a non-profit organization.
So, any income Shaw received from sources that were not officially Stanford would not be included.

As for "deserves to be", I mostly have no idea what "deserves" really means in terms of salaries. Given the head football coach market and his level of success, he qualifies. In any broader sense, and compared to most anyone else at Stanford, that's an unanswerable question.

[CTcard]

I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

Well, that information came from Stanford's tax returns as a non-profit organization.
So, any income Shaw received from sources that were not officially Stanford would not be included.

As for "deserves to be", I mostly have no idea what "deserves" really means in terms of salaries. Given the head football coach market and his level of success, he qualifies. In any broader sense, and compared to most anyone else at Stanford, that's an unanswerable question.

[CTcard]

Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging?

I guess that raises the questions (but no begging) of, lagging versus what?, and by what measure?

Official attendance isn't lagging, at least much. After three games it's 47,008 per game, and likely to tick upwards with home games left versus UW, cal, and und; all historically good draws. That will end up at least close to as good as it has ever be (or can be) in the new stadium.

Of course the complaint has been actual people in the stadium. The problem with that is it's pretty hard to know what it is now, and essentially impossible to compare to what it was in the past or what it is at any other place.
I guess even if the no show problem is no worse than ever before, it is still a problem of sorts. And marketing folks ought to be trying to address it.

Some things seem pretty clear.
There was a long, fairly large general down trend from about late 1970s through a low point in the Buddy/Wlat years.
Things got better after Wlat.
Stanford fans are on average quieter than most FBS crowds.
Our attendance is below average versus all Power 5 conference teams.
Our attendance is above average (well above median at least) for private schools. In fact, we're typically #4 behind und, $C, and BYU. Sometimes we swap places with Miami.
The more people in the stadium, generally the better the experience.

[CTcard]

Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging?

I guess that raises the questions (but no begging) of, lagging versus what?, and by what measure?

Official attendance isn't lagging, at least much. After three games it's 47,008 per game, and likely to tick upwards with home games left versus UW, cal, and und; all historically good draws. That will end up at least close to as good as it has ever be (or can be) in the new stadium.

Of course the complaint has been actual people in the stadium. The problem with that is it's pretty hard to know what it is now, and essentially impossible to compare to what it was in the past or what it is at any other place.
I guess even if the no show problem is no worse than ever before, it is still a problem of sorts. And marketing folks ought to be trying to address it.

Some things seem pretty clear.
There was a long, fairly large general down trend from about late 1970s through a low point in the Buddy/Wlat years.
Things got better after Wlat.
Stanford fans are on average quieter than most FBS crowds.
Our attendance is below average versus all Power 5 conference teams.
Our attendance is above average (well above median at least) for private schools. In fact, we're typically #4 behind und, $C, and BYU. Sometimes we swap places with Miami.
The more people in the stadium, generally the better the experience.

[82lsju]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=17781.msg207900#msg207900 date=1509037461]
I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

Well, that information came from Stanford's tax returns as a non-profit organization.
So, any income Shaw received from sources that were not officially Stanford would not be included.

As for "deserves to be", I mostly have no idea what "deserves" really means in terms of salaries. Given the head football coach market and his level of success, he qualifies. In any broader sense, and compared to most anyone else at Stanford, that's an unanswerable question.
[/quote]

from the file

base pay - $2.9m
bonus and incentives - $0.5m
other reportable comp (which appears to be a housing subsidy based on a note in the return) - $1.8m
retirement and other deferred comp - $0.5m
non-taxable benefits - $0.04m

total - $5.7m

they show $1.35m of the base pay was from deferred comp in previous years

[82lsju]

[quote author=donkey687 link=topic=17781.msg207900#msg207900 date=1509037461]
I think Stanford is paying Shaw in creative ways beyond base salary more than just incentive compensation for performance. I think he has gotten access to some investments in things that have paid off so he may not be at the $5 million+ level every year as there could have been some one time events that drove him into the top 10 that year.  He deserves to be there every year, but it wouldn't surprise me if we don't seem him at that level next year.

Well, that information came from Stanford's tax returns as a non-profit organization.
So, any income Shaw received from sources that were not officially Stanford would not be included.

As for "deserves to be", I mostly have no idea what "deserves" really means in terms of salaries. Given the head football coach market and his level of success, he qualifies. In any broader sense, and compared to most anyone else at Stanford, that's an unanswerable question.
[/quote]

from the file

base pay - $2.9m
bonus and incentives - $0.5m
other reportable comp (which appears to be a housing subsidy based on a note in the return) - $1.8m
retirement and other deferred comp - $0.5m
non-taxable benefits - $0.04m

total - $5.7m

they show $1.35m of the base pay was from deferred comp in previous years

[Mick]

from the file

base pay - $2.9m
bonus and incentives - $0.5m
other reportable comp (which appears to be a housing subsidy based on a note in the return) - $1.8m
retirement and other deferred comp - $0.5m
non-taxable benefits - $0.04m

total - $5.7m

they show $1.35m of the base pay was from deferred comp in previous years

$150k per month in housing subsidy?  Must be quite a house...

[Mick]

from the file

base pay - $2.9m
bonus and incentives - $0.5m
other reportable comp (which appears to be a housing subsidy based on a note in the return) - $1.8m
retirement and other deferred comp - $0.5m
non-taxable benefits - $0.04m

total - $5.7m

they show $1.35m of the base pay was from deferred comp in previous years

$150k per month in housing subsidy?  Must be quite a house...

[Mick]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17781.msg207901#msg207901 date=1509037901]
Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging?

I guess that raises the questions (but no begging) of, lagging versus what?, and by what measure?

Official attendance isn't lagging, at least much. After three games it's 47,008 per game, and likely to tick upwards with home games left versus UW, ןɐɔ, and und; all historically good draws. That will end up at least close to as good as it has ever be (or can be) in the new stadium.

Of course the complaint has been actual people in the stadium. The problem with that is it's pretty hard to know what it is now, and essentially impossible to compare to what it was in the past or what it is at any other place.
I guess even if the no show problem is no worse than ever before, it is still a problem of sorts. And marketing folks ought to be trying to address it.

Some things seem pretty clear.
There was a long, fairly large general down trend from about late 1970s through a low point in the Buddy/Wlat years.
Things got better after Wlat.
Stanford fans are on average quieter than most FBS crowds.
Our attendance is below average versus all Power 5 conference teams.
Our attendance is above average (well above median at least) for private schools. In fact, we're typically #4 behind und, $C, and BYU. Sometimes we swap places with Miami.
The more people in the stadium, generally the better the experience.
[/quote]

As far as butts in the seats goes, Stanford Stadium has built in their own problem, it seems to me.  Back in the bad, old days, it was actually quite miserable to be in the tunnels under the stands.  They were rickety, ancient, close quarters -- I remember seeing people get injured because something was broken or outdated.  No one wanted to be under the stands or anywhere but in the stadium...or tailgating outside the stadium.  Generally speaking though, inside was the place to be.  And there was a very long period when Stanford didn't have losing seasons, but the 49ers stunk and Stanford built quite a fan base from the 1950s through Bill Walsh and John Elway.  Then, as noted elsewhere, the long decline.

The 47k average is very strong for an academic school of Stanford's size.  I think it's excellent, and it's more than 3x the minimum requirement of the NCAA.

I think one reason that you see so few butts in the seats sometimes is that the surroundng experience is really quite nice.  It can get very hot on the sunny side...I remember the UCLA game the first year of the new stadium.  Ugh.  NO ONE was in the stands, we were in the nicely appointed areas underneath the second deck...and there were a lot of people under there.  Same for rain or other inclement weather.  It's just too nice to be in the areas away from the stands.  I think it masks some of the attendance.

[Mick]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17781.msg207901#msg207901 date=1509037901]
Anyway, I do think teejers has hit on a reasonable issue: why is it that attendance is still lagging?

I guess that raises the questions (but no begging) of, lagging versus what?, and by what measure?

Official attendance isn't lagging, at least much. After three games it's 47,008 per game, and likely to tick upwards with home games left versus UW, ןɐɔ, and und; all historically good draws. That will end up at least close to as good as it has ever be (or can be) in the new stadium.

Of course the complaint has been actual people in the stadium. The problem with that is it's pretty hard to know what it is now, and essentially impossible to compare to what it was in the past or what it is at any other place.
I guess even if the no show problem is no worse than ever before, it is still a problem of sorts. And marketing folks ought to be trying to address it.

Some things seem pretty clear.
There was a long, fairly large general down trend from about late 1970s through a low point in the Buddy/Wlat years.
Things got better after Wlat.
Stanford fans are on average quieter than most FBS crowds.
Our attendance is below average versus all Power 5 conference teams.
Our attendance is above average (well above median at least) for private schools. In fact, we're typically #4 behind und, $C, and BYU. Sometimes we swap places with Miami.
The more people in the stadium, generally the better the experience.
[/quote]

As far as butts in the seats goes, Stanford Stadium has built in their own problem, it seems to me.  Back in the bad, old days, it was actually quite miserable to be in the tunnels under the stands.  They were rickety, ancient, close quarters -- I remember seeing people get injured because something was broken or outdated.  No one wanted to be under the stands or anywhere but in the stadium...or tailgating outside the stadium.  Generally speaking though, inside was the place to be.  And there was a very long period when Stanford didn't have losing seasons, but the 49ers stunk and Stanford built quite a fan base from the 1950s through Bill Walsh and John Elway.  Then, as noted elsewhere, the long decline.

The 47k average is very strong for an academic school of Stanford's size.  I think it's excellent, and it's more than 3x the minimum requirement of the NCAA.

I think one reason that you see so few butts in the seats sometimes is that the surroundng experience is really quite nice.  It can get very hot on the sunny side...I remember the UCLA game the first year of the new stadium.  Ugh.  NO ONE was in the stands, we were in the nicely appointed areas underneath the second deck...and there were a lot of people under there.  Same for rain or other inclement weather.  It's just too nice to be in the areas away from the stands.  I think it masks some of the attendance.

[teejers1]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, Cal).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though USC was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

[teejers1]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, Cal).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though USC was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

[RedShift]

As a free market advocate (and one who believes student-athletes in revenue-earning sports should be paid), I applaud Shaw getting teh compensation he deserves, as long as the total pay package continues to be based on performance. I feel better that if Shaw leaves Stanford for greener pastures, it won't be for the money.
Still, the numbers are eye-pooping for me considering that when I was a student and Denny Green was the coach, the Stanford President made about $180K per annum and I'd guess that Green made less than that amount. It seemed to me that in those days the unsaid guideline was that the football HC would not make more than the University President who would not make more than the chairman of the Surgery Department in Med School (who IIRC made about 450K)

[RedShift]

As a free market advocate (and one who believes student-athletes in revenue-earning sports should be paid), I applaud Shaw getting teh compensation he deserves, as long as the total pay package continues to be based on performance. I feel better that if Shaw leaves Stanford for greener pastures, it won't be for the money.
Still, the numbers are eye-pooping for me considering that when I was a student and Denny Green was the coach, the Stanford President made about $180K per annum and I'd guess that Green made less than that amount. It seemed to me that in those days the unsaid guideline was that the football HC would not make more than the University President who would not make more than the chairman of the Surgery Department in Med School (who IIRC made about 450K)

[Mick]

Look at how far we have come, thanks in large part to Bob Bowlsby, Etch and Hennessy.  We paid bargain basement rates for Jim Harbaugh and discovered he was a turn around artist with EUTM.  Even some of the harshest critics on the boot, didn't think Bob would pull the cord.  He did and we have all celebrated Stanford's rise.  IRS form 990 was a form that was not to be touched by athletics, but Bob thankfully started to break down that way of thinking, once it became obvious that Harbaugh was going to be a target of other programs (remember Ty to ND).  Would we continue to be a stepping stone? No! 

I've been thinking about Ty lately.  I recall thinking when he left that he had seriously underestimated his own abilities.  I'd met him a few times, and I thought that Stanford would be the one place that would forgive TW his somewhat significant --
sometimes bordering on spectacular -- shortcomings.

I liked the man personally, and i thought he was good for Stanford football at the time.  I was also 100% convinced that he would crash and burn at Noter Dame (despite their advantages) and that he would do even worse at Washington.  He was 44-36-1 at Stanford, and went 8-0 to start his ND career.  That season, they went 10-2 in the regular season, and continued Willingham's futility in bowls (career 1-4 record).  Worse than TW's gameday management, however, was his recruiting.  His last recruiting class at ND in 2004 was considered to be the worst ND recruiting class in decades.  Still, he received a "coach of the year" award in 2002.  And he even got to stampede his team through Stanford's ceremonies at the beginning of a game, a truly classless act.

Outside of Stanford and his first ND season, TW's collegiate football coaching record was 22-50.  He had never even been a coordinator until he came to Stanford, just a skill-positions coach (RB/WR/DB).

it seemed to me that when TW left Stanford, he acted like a jilted lover.  I don't think he actually wanted to leave Stanford, I think he just wanted to be paid more money...which he got at Noter Dame.  But I think, in his heart of hearts, he realized he wasn't a great recruiter and wasn't a great gameday head coach.  And those are two very important roles.  I suspect he may have known that himself.  But he missed it.  He coached his final game at age 54, but didn't formally retire from gameday coaching until two years later.  And he's enjoying retirement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/sports...peace.html

Old joke.  Prepare three envelopes, from Ty Willingham to Charlie Weis:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/28778...arlie-weis

Interesting interview, TW gives props to Walsh and Denny Green, and addresses his later shortcomings:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tee-090514

Interesting LA Times article on TW at the end with UW:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/30/...dufresne30

[Mick]

Look at how far we have come, thanks in large part to Bob Bowlsby, Etch and Hennessy.  We paid bargain basement rates for Jim Harbaugh and discovered he was a turn around artist with EUTM.  Even some of the harshest critics on the boot, didn't think Bob would pull the cord.  He did and we have all celebrated Stanford's rise.  IRS form 990 was a form that was not to be touched by athletics, but Bob thankfully started to break down that way of thinking, once it became obvious that Harbaugh was going to be a target of other programs (remember Ty to ND).  Would we continue to be a stepping stone? No! 

I've been thinking about Ty lately.  I recall thinking when he left that he had seriously underestimated his own abilities.  I'd met him a few times, and I thought that Stanford would be the one place that would forgive TW his somewhat significant --
sometimes bordering on spectacular -- shortcomings.

I liked the man personally, and i thought he was good for Stanford football at the time.  I was also 100% convinced that he would crash and burn at Noter Dame (despite their advantages) and that he would do even worse at Washington.  He was 44-36-1 at Stanford, and went 8-0 to start his ND career.  That season, they went 10-2 in the regular season, and continued Willingham's futility in bowls (career 1-4 record).  Worse than TW's gameday management, however, was his recruiting.  His last recruiting class at ND in 2004 was considered to be the worst ND recruiting class in decades.  Still, he received a "coach of the year" award in 2002.  And he even got to stampede his team through Stanford's ceremonies at the beginning of a game, a truly classless act.

Outside of Stanford and his first ND season, TW's collegiate football coaching record was 22-50.  He had never even been a coordinator until he came to Stanford, just a skill-positions coach (RB/WR/DB).

it seemed to me that when TW left Stanford, he acted like a jilted lover.  I don't think he actually wanted to leave Stanford, I think he just wanted to be paid more money...which he got at Noter Dame.  But I think, in his heart of hearts, he realized he wasn't a great recruiter and wasn't a great gameday head coach.  And those are two very important roles.  I suspect he may have known that himself.  But he missed it.  He coached his final game at age 54, but didn't formally retire from gameday coaching until two years later.  And he's enjoying retirement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/sports...peace.html

Old joke.  Prepare three envelopes, from Ty Willingham to Charlie Weis:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/28778...arlie-weis

Interesting interview, TW gives props to Walsh and Denny Green, and addresses his later shortcomings:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...tee-090514

Interesting LA Times article on TW at the end with UW:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/30/...dufresne30

[Red State]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, ןɐɔ).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though U$C was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

How much talent do you think this offense has, and why? Star Ratings? LOL! On that front, I saw an offense in '12 and '13 that, with the exception of a couple of players, had very average talent. Of course, those two teams both won P12 Championships. Yeah, I know, just imagine how good they'd have been with better coaching.

P.S. All offenses have games where they suck, or did you not see Leach's offense against cal a couple of weeks ago?

[Red State]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, ןɐɔ).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though U$C was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

How much talent do you think this offense has, and why? Star Ratings? LOL! On that front, I saw an offense in '12 and '13 that, with the exception of a couple of players, had very average talent. Of course, those two teams both won P12 Championships. Yeah, I know, just imagine how good they'd have been with better coaching.

P.S. All offenses have games where they suck, or did you not see Leach's offense against cal a couple of weeks ago?

[stupac2]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, Cal).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though U$C was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

It would be fantastic if you could make a single argument without resorting to a straw man.

[stupac2]

The 'Niners stadium (dubbed Stanford Stadium on steroids) has the same sunny-side heat/empty seat/terrible-for-TV-viewing-and-in-game experience.  There were rumblings they were considering some kind of cover to provide some comfort for paying customers.

Stanford should consider doing the same thing.  Or, somehow insist that all home game kickoffs are in window of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (I know this is "a TV thing"), but I bet a LOT of P12 schools feel the same way (Arizona schools, LA schools, Cal).  And there is strength/bargaining power in numbers . . . isn't there?

P.S.  Stup, you go on embracing offenses under Shaw as the best thing since sliced bread, and I'll keep highlighting the underperformance to talent.  But I'll try not to beat that carcass too much, as the fatigue is wearing on you.  [What I'd give for Sea Hang from the 'leg to visit here and post his running tally of very bad offensive performances under this regime.  The number of games with Wlat/Buddy-esque output was pretty alarming, especially if you consider the roster talent.  But so far this year, only the SDSU game was hideous (though U$C was comfortably within mediocre range).  So I guess that's good.  Thank you, Bryce Love.

It would be fantastic if you could make a single argument without resorting to a straw man.