10-24-2022, 03:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-24-2022, 03:44 PM by PAsportsfan.)
The worst of times...
10-24-2022, 03:49 PM
(10-24-2022, 03:44 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Can it get worse?
https://twitter.com/bdenny29/status/1583...OOAqp1YF3Q
His says his tweet now has over 1 million views, "which is fine except that it’s meant that my mentions have been 32 straight hours of SEC people dunking on the Pac-12"
(10-24-2022, 03:44 PM)PAsportsfan Wrote: Can it get worse?
https://twitter.com/bdenny29/status/1583...OOAqp1YF3Q
His says his tweet now has over 1 million views, "which is fine except that it’s meant that my mentions have been 32 straight hours of SEC people dunking on the Pac-12"
10-24-2022, 06:29 PM
That is, of course terrible attendance and there is no sugar coating it.
On the other hand, even when the stadium is sold out the stands look only half full just before kickoff. The concourse is a boon to fans but is terrible for public impressions of the crowd. I wonder if they would design it the same way now that its chief defect is known.
On the other hand, even when the stadium is sold out the stands look only half full just before kickoff. The concourse is a boon to fans but is terrible for public impressions of the crowd. I wonder if they would design it the same way now that its chief defect is known.
That is, of course terrible attendance and there is no sugar coating it.
On the other hand, even when the stadium is sold out the stands look only half full just before kickoff. The concourse is a boon to fans but is terrible for public impressions of the crowd. I wonder if they would design it the same way now that its chief defect is known.
On the other hand, even when the stadium is sold out the stands look only half full just before kickoff. The concourse is a boon to fans but is terrible for public impressions of the crowd. I wonder if they would design it the same way now that its chief defect is known.
10-24-2022, 07:34 PM
I was at the game, looking around the shady side and end zones (we sit on the sunny side) and extrapolating to the entire stadium I would guess there were 6k-7k people at kick-off. The total did not appear to get that much higher throughout the game. It was very pleasant on the sunny side, some of our tailgate crowd who sit on the shady side mentioned wearing sweatshirts or light coats during the game. While I did not walk around the concourse during the game I would not expect it to have been that crowded given the in seat temperature on the sunny side.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
I was at the game, looking around the shady side and end zones (we sit on the sunny side) and extrapolating to the entire stadium I would guess there were 6k-7k people at kick-off. The total did not appear to get that much higher throughout the game. It was very pleasant on the sunny side, some of our tailgate crowd who sit on the shady side mentioned wearing sweatshirts or light coats during the game. While I did not walk around the concourse during the game I would not expect it to have been that crowded given the in seat temperature on the sunny side.
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-24-2022, 08:04 PM
I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
10-24-2022, 08:15 PM
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
I don't think it's been this bad, though. Because there are "other things to do" Stanford needs to win, and be a threat, at least, in big games to draw. That's not where we are now. Shaw needs to make big changes or move on to a TV gig and let another coach give it a try.
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
I don't think it's been this bad, though. Because there are "other things to do" Stanford needs to win, and be a threat, at least, in big games to draw. That's not where we are now. Shaw needs to make big changes or move on to a TV gig and let another coach give it a try.
10-24-2022, 09:09 PM
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
It's not just the fans. Stanford didn't bother listing the home football schedule this year on the billboard off El Camino and Embarcadero Rd.
I may be an outlier, but my interest began to wane 20 years ago after the post-9/11 "security" measures, which turned me off some as an overreaction that made attending games more hassle without any benefit - mass killings are still extremely rare. (And I hardly fly anymore because I refuse to do the "pose of shame" in the TSA body scanner machines.) Then came the Covid lockdowns, masking and, worst of all, "show me your papers" vaccine or pcr to enter. That was it for me. I will never attend another Stanford home game ever again.
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
It's not just the fans. Stanford didn't bother listing the home football schedule this year on the billboard off El Camino and Embarcadero Rd.
I may be an outlier, but my interest began to wane 20 years ago after the post-9/11 "security" measures, which turned me off some as an overreaction that made attending games more hassle without any benefit - mass killings are still extremely rare. (And I hardly fly anymore because I refuse to do the "pose of shame" in the TSA body scanner machines.) Then came the Covid lockdowns, masking and, worst of all, "show me your papers" vaccine or pcr to enter. That was it for me. I will never attend another Stanford home game ever again.
10-24-2022, 09:19 PM
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.You're kidding, right? Did you look at the video? There appear to be more people on the field than in the stands. The entire Athletic Department should be embarrassed by this. . . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.You're kidding, right? Did you look at the video? There appear to be more people on the field than in the stands. The entire Athletic Department should be embarrassed by this. . . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-24-2022, 09:20 PM
College football stopped being big news in the Bay Area just after Pappy's three straight Rose Bowls in the early 50's. Niners and in '60 the Raiders took over the Fall and the Giants added mucho in 1958. And now the Warriors own the Chronicle.
There have been spurts of interest... 1970, some Tedford years and 2010-15 but still small potatoes compared to other areas.
There have been spurts of interest... 1970, some Tedford years and 2010-15 but still small potatoes compared to other areas.
College football stopped being big news in the Bay Area just after Pappy's three straight Rose Bowls in the early 50's. Niners and in '60 the Raiders took over the Fall and the Giants added mucho in 1958. And now the Warriors own the Chronicle.
There have been spurts of interest... 1970, some Tedford years and 2010-15 but still small potatoes compared to other areas.
There have been spurts of interest... 1970, some Tedford years and 2010-15 but still small potatoes compared to other areas.
10-24-2022, 09:47 PM
Gotta disagree with you there TC, I remember many days in the 70's lying on the dining room floor reading the Sporting Green (when it was actually green) and scouring the several pages devoted to Big Game and local college football in general. Even in the early 80's college football was a pretty big deal.
Unfortunately, the traditions that surrounded the game then, and added to the hype and experience, are no longer allowed to exist. Elsewhere in the country, similar traditions are wholeheartedly embraced.
Unfortunately, the traditions that surrounded the game then, and added to the hype and experience, are no longer allowed to exist. Elsewhere in the country, similar traditions are wholeheartedly embraced.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
Gotta disagree with you there TC, I remember many days in the 70's lying on the dining room floor reading the Sporting Green (when it was actually green) and scouring the several pages devoted to Big Game and local college football in general. Even in the early 80's college football was a pretty big deal.
Unfortunately, the traditions that surrounded the game then, and added to the hype and experience, are no longer allowed to exist. Elsewhere in the country, similar traditions are wholeheartedly embraced.
Unfortunately, the traditions that surrounded the game then, and added to the hype and experience, are no longer allowed to exist. Elsewhere in the country, similar traditions are wholeheartedly embraced.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-24-2022, 09:58 PM
College football attendance has been declining for years across all of the Power 5 conferences. Younger fans are not nearly as engaged.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ince-1981/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ince-1981/
Quote:The national attendance dip remains both real and ongoing. Administrators have long been concerned about retaining students. If students don't go to games, they have less of an emotional attachment when it comes to giving back to their alma mater in their peak earning years.
"Look at the 25-40 age range,"[Bob] Bowlsby added. "They're more inclined to give their donation dollars to someplace other than athletics. They aren't quite inclined to commit to six Saturdays in the fall."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
College football attendance has been declining for years across all of the Power 5 conferences. Younger fans are not nearly as engaged.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ince-1981/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ince-1981/
Quote:The national attendance dip remains both real and ongoing. Administrators have long been concerned about retaining students. If students don't go to games, they have less of an emotional attachment when it comes to giving back to their alma mater in their peak earning years.
"Look at the 25-40 age range,"[Bob] Bowlsby added. "They're more inclined to give their donation dollars to someplace other than athletics. They aren't quite inclined to commit to six Saturdays in the fall."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
10-24-2022, 10:36 PM
Just sent the link to Muir with a simple question - "What are you doing to fix this?"
10-24-2022, 11:02 PM
(10-24-2022, 10:36 PM)winflop Wrote: Just sent the link to Muir with a simple question - "What are you doing to fix this?"This was posted in another thread but this is their plan it seems. https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1584...jvdSnrSDqA
If you get a response can you pass it along? Curious to hear if Muir actually recognizes the issues many fans have with the program.
(10-24-2022, 10:36 PM)winflop Wrote: Just sent the link to Muir with a simple question - "What are you doing to fix this?"This was posted in another thread but this is their plan it seems. https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/1584...jvdSnrSDqA
If you get a response can you pass it along? Curious to hear if Muir actually recognizes the issues many fans have with the program.
10-25-2022, 06:16 AM
Crimson, you magnificent bastard (sorry George S Patton Jr.) in the early 50’s the Sporting Green’s Big Game day usually ran eight pages of Cal-Stanford before the other sports news. C football was bigger than the 49ers until 1957 and the Niners Alley Oop team. Never recovered and pro sports took over.
Crimson, you magnificent bastard (sorry George S Patton Jr.) in the early 50’s the Sporting Green’s Big Game day usually ran eight pages of Cal-Stanford before the other sports news. C football was bigger than the 49ers until 1957 and the Niners Alley Oop team. Never recovered and pro sports took over.
10-25-2022, 08:43 AM
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
As a game-going fan since the Ralston Era, I have NEVER seen it like this. What we're looking at is apocalyptic. I'm talking about the entirety of the program, not just butt-free seats.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-24-2022, 08:04 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I've been reading about how embarassing Stanford attendance is for the 20+ years I've been a Stanford fan. Doubt that will ever change, so hard to get too worked up about it.
As a game-going fan since the Ralston Era, I have NEVER seen it like this. What we're looking at is apocalyptic. I'm talking about the entirety of the program, not just butt-free seats.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
10-25-2022, 09:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2022, 09:37 AM by cardcrimson.)
(10-25-2022, 06:16 AM)Phogge Wrote: Crimson, you magnificent bastard (sorry George S Patton Jr.) in the early 50’s the Sporting Green’s Big Game day usually ran eight pages of Cal-Stanford before the other sports news. C football was bigger than the 49ers until 1957 and the Niners Alley Oop team. Never recovered and pro sports took over.By the 70's it was down to a mere 4-6 pages of coverage for Big Game., with some other college rivalry games mixed in, both in the days leading up to and the day after the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
I have to admit that in my youth growing up in the East Bay, it was first the Raiders and A's, then college football, then the San Francisco teams. Lamonica, Wells, Davidson, Otto, Chester, Stabler, Biletnikoff, Villapiano, Sistrunk, Hendricks, Casper, Davis, the Colgate guys, Atkinson, Tatum, Blanda, Banazak, Connors, Thoms, Shell, Upshaw, Branch, Brown, Fingers, Catfish, Jackson, Campaneris, Bando, Monday, Rudi, Blue, Blue Moon, Madden, Finley, Davis, Williams and some I'm sure I missed. Now those were fun days to be a fan in Oakland.
That's how you put people in the seats. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(This post was last modified: 10-25-2022, 09:37 AM by cardcrimson.)
(10-25-2022, 06:16 AM)Phogge Wrote: Crimson, you magnificent bastard (sorry George S Patton Jr.) in the early 50’s the Sporting Green’s Big Game day usually ran eight pages of Cal-Stanford before the other sports news. C football was bigger than the 49ers until 1957 and the Niners Alley Oop team. Never recovered and pro sports took over.By the 70's it was down to a mere 4-6 pages of coverage for Big Game., with some other college rivalry games mixed in, both in the days leading up to and the day after the Saturday before Thanksgiving.
I have to admit that in my youth growing up in the East Bay, it was first the Raiders and A's, then college football, then the San Francisco teams. Lamonica, Wells, Davidson, Otto, Chester, Stabler, Biletnikoff, Villapiano, Sistrunk, Hendricks, Casper, Davis, the Colgate guys, Atkinson, Tatum, Blanda, Banazak, Connors, Thoms, Shell, Upshaw, Branch, Brown, Fingers, Catfish, Jackson, Campaneris, Bando, Monday, Rudi, Blue, Blue Moon, Madden, Finley, Davis, Williams and some I'm sure I missed. Now those were fun days to be a fan in Oakland.
That's how you put people in the seats. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-25-2022, 09:39 AM
Not back as far as Ralston but to Green, and agree that the problem has worsened.
I think the Covid break compounded with dismal seasons didn’t do attendance any favors. People got used to not going to games and the product on the field hasn’t merited an effort since.
Test will be whether we can recover the fan base with more success on the field, but anticipate a lot of embarrassing crowds until that happens.
Maybe a meaningful big big game with a middling bowl on the line will create some interest?
I think the Covid break compounded with dismal seasons didn’t do attendance any favors. People got used to not going to games and the product on the field hasn’t merited an effort since.
Test will be whether we can recover the fan base with more success on the field, but anticipate a lot of embarrassing crowds until that happens.
Maybe a meaningful big big game with a middling bowl on the line will create some interest?
Not back as far as Ralston but to Green, and agree that the problem has worsened.
I think the Covid break compounded with dismal seasons didn’t do attendance any favors. People got used to not going to games and the product on the field hasn’t merited an effort since.
Test will be whether we can recover the fan base with more success on the field, but anticipate a lot of embarrassing crowds until that happens.
Maybe a meaningful big big game with a middling bowl on the line will create some interest?
I think the Covid break compounded with dismal seasons didn’t do attendance any favors. People got used to not going to games and the product on the field hasn’t merited an effort since.
Test will be whether we can recover the fan base with more success on the field, but anticipate a lot of embarrassing crowds until that happens.
Maybe a meaningful big big game with a middling bowl on the line will create some interest?
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.
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.
10-25-2022, 11:12 AM
(10-25-2022, 10:57 AM)Goose Wrote: 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.
Exactly correct. It is about the experience. Almost completely. Ever seen the play Bleacher Bums? Over the last 30 years, what has Stanford done to improve the experience? Not even sure the new stadium improved it. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-25-2022, 10:57 AM)Goose Wrote: 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.
Exactly correct. It is about the experience. Almost completely. Ever seen the play Bleacher Bums? Over the last 30 years, what has Stanford done to improve the experience? Not even sure the new stadium improved it. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »