We're #52 (in football attendance) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're #52 (in football attendance) (/thread-13227.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: We're #52 (in football attendance) (/thread-13227.html)
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - TRD - 12-19-2016
(12-17-2016, 09:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - TRD - 12-19-2016
(12-17-2016, 09:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 04:14 AM)TRD link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16297.msg182776#msg182776 date=1481991776]
Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
[/quote]
No doubt that Michigan has a powerful football culture, but the school also has a very large student and alumni base which is the critical factor in driving attendance, as 82Card's spreadsheet supports.
Regarding USC, the only period in which they "packed in 90,000 regularly" was during the latter Pete Carroll years. During the 1980s their average home attendance exceeded 70k only twice and ranged from 53k to 76k. During the 1990s their average home attendance exceeded 70k only once (70,555 in 1990) and ranged from 57k to 70k. Average home attendance in both 2000 and 2001 was 57k before those Pete Carroll teams did indeed the pack the coliseum as USC came within a play of winning three straight AP national championships. In this decade average home attendance has been in the mid-70k range although this year average home attendance was only 68,459. USC indeed has a very strong brand and football culture, but nonetheless attendance has (almost) never been at Big-X or SEC levels due to many of the same factors that affect Stanford (principally being in a large metro area with various alternative entertainment options including numerous pro sports teams).
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - DC 86 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 04:14 AM)TRD link Wrote:[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16297.msg182776#msg182776 date=1481991776]
Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
[/quote]
No doubt that Michigan has a powerful football culture, but the school also has a very large student and alumni base which is the critical factor in driving attendance, as 82Card's spreadsheet supports.
Regarding USC, the only period in which they "packed in 90,000 regularly" was during the latter Pete Carroll years. During the 1980s their average home attendance exceeded 70k only twice and ranged from 53k to 76k. During the 1990s their average home attendance exceeded 70k only once (70,555 in 1990) and ranged from 57k to 70k. Average home attendance in both 2000 and 2001 was 57k before those Pete Carroll teams did indeed the pack the coliseum as USC came within a play of winning three straight AP national championships. In this decade average home attendance has been in the mid-70k range although this year average home attendance was only 68,459. USC indeed has a very strong brand and football culture, but nonetheless attendance has (almost) never been at Big-X or SEC levels due to many of the same factors that affect Stanford (principally being in a large metro area with various alternative entertainment options including numerous pro sports teams).
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Embo - 12-19-2016
(12-17-2016, 09:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.That is indeed a key point. Not only is Stanford's undergraduate student body small, it is definitely not local. The percentage of freshman from California has been dropping slowly but steadily - the most recent data from the freshman class entering Sept 2015 was 36%. And that is from the entire state. To guess that 50% of the freshman from California are from the southern California area would be an underestimate.
I remember looking up the demographics of the C.al freshman class several years ago during one of those our-attendance-vs-yours thread wars. It was striking - a near majority of C.al freshmen come from Alameda/Marin/San Mateo/Santa Clara counties. They should have no problem filling their stadium
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Embo - 12-19-2016
(12-17-2016, 09:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.That is indeed a key point. Not only is Stanford's undergraduate student body small, it is definitely not local. The percentage of freshman from California has been dropping slowly but steadily - the most recent data from the freshman class entering Sept 2015 was 36%. And that is from the entire state. To guess that 50% of the freshman from California are from the southern California area would be an underestimate.
I remember looking up the demographics of the C.al freshman class several years ago during one of those our-attendance-vs-yours thread wars. It was striking - a near majority of C.al freshmen come from Alameda/Marin/San Mateo/Santa Clara counties. They should have no problem filling their stadium
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 08:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=TRD link=topic=16297.msg182954#msg182954 date=1482146072]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16297.msg182776#msg182776 date=1481991776]
Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
[/quote]
No doubt that Michigan has a powerful football culture, but the school also has a very large student and alumni base which is the critical factor in driving attendance, as 82Card's spreadsheet supports.
[/quote]
Also the fact that the Detroit Lions were terrible for half a century. I recall an article comparing Stanford's attendance loosely with the fortunes and attendance of the 49ers. Similar phenomenon, I suspect.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Mick - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 08:22 AM)DC 86 link Wrote:[quote author=TRD link=topic=16297.msg182954#msg182954 date=1482146072]
[quote author=DC 86 link=topic=16297.msg182776#msg182776 date=1481991776]
Another factor which relates to attendance is how many alumni live within reasonable proximity to campus. For example, I'm sure that a significant portion of the Nebraska alumni base live within driving distance of Lincoln, whereas a significant portion of our alumni base is scattered throughout the country (many on the east coast) and overseas.
Seems like football culture and tradition are a much stronger indicator of attendance.
Michigan's ticket holders are scattered all over the country. Season ticket holders will keep their tickets just to fly cross country for 2 games a year. Many use resellers to try to get back some of the cost for games they don't attend (which is handy for someone local who decides to go to the game on a whim 1 hr before kick off ;) ).
In a previous era, as I've learned, Michigan fans traveled from all over the state to attend games. Apparently this is the reason why Bo Schembechler rejected 3:30 or night games for so long. He said something like, "It's not fair to people who drive from Alpena to have them driving all night to get home", or something to that effect. Alpena is about a 5 hour drive from A[sup]2[/sup] - probably a 6 1/2 hr drive in post game traffic. Houghton, MI would be more like 11hrs driving.
I'll point to U$C as an example football culture. Who wants to deal with LA traffic, a decrepit 1920s stadium with 1 entrance (or is it 2?) !!!!! In addition, pre-mid 90s that central LA area was dangerous as all hell :'(. Yet they still packed in 90,000 regularly.
[/quote]
No doubt that Michigan has a powerful football culture, but the school also has a very large student and alumni base which is the critical factor in driving attendance, as 82Card's spreadsheet supports.
[/quote]
Also the fact that the Detroit Lions were terrible for half a century. I recall an article comparing Stanford's attendance loosely with the fortunes and attendance of the 49ers. Similar phenomenon, I suspect.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - jacketree - 12-19-2016
Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games; they might stick around.
If Stanford obsesses on the size of the local alumni base, it is doomed. They need to market to the wider audience. There are more than 5 million people living in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties. I'm a bit surprised it has proven so hard to convince one percent of the locals to try it out. Having said that, however, it is far easier to watch college football from in front of a TV now that every game is available if you want it.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - jacketree - 12-19-2016
Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games; they might stick around.
If Stanford obsesses on the size of the local alumni base, it is doomed. They need to market to the wider audience. There are more than 5 million people living in Santa Clara, San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties. I'm a bit surprised it has proven so hard to convince one percent of the locals to try it out. Having said that, however, it is far easier to watch college football from in front of a TV now that every game is available if you want it.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - TRD - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:04 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games;
Or even post docs ::)
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - TRD - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 02:04 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games;
Or even post docs ::)
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - fullmetal - 12-19-2016
Among students, Texas gives grad students second priority in seating, right behind seniors.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - fullmetal - 12-19-2016
Among students, Texas gives grad students second priority in seating, right behind seniors.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Farm93 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 07:31 PM)TRD link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=16297.msg183055#msg183055 date=1482181466]
Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games;
Or even post docs ::)
[/quote]
The players on the field are undergrads, save a few 5th year types. The players' friends on campus are also undergrads.
Graduate students attended some other school as undergrads. Grad students that were undergrads at a school with big time sports are often loyal to their undergrad.
At this last Rose Bowl, a "Stanford Student" (Med Program) next to me got about a dozen tickets for his friends from Iowa. He went to Iowa undergrad and had no problem cheering for Iowa and had no problem bringing in a dozen fellow Iowa alums. That's why it is usually best to massively discount grads and doc students. FWIW - I would have done a similar thing if given that type of chance. Getting tickets in Iowa was CRAZY.
That's why it is best to just discount the whole graduate student crew. Certainly some will follow Stanford sports, but fewer will be passionate while on campus. Very few will be loyal after they leave school, and many will turn on Stanford in an instant if their undergrad ever squares off against a team from Stanford.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - Farm93 - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 07:31 PM)TRD link Wrote:[quote author=jacketree link=topic=16297.msg183055#msg183055 date=1482181466]
Why does everyone discount grad students? They go to games;
Or even post docs ::)
[/quote]
The players on the field are undergrads, save a few 5th year types. The players' friends on campus are also undergrads.
Graduate students attended some other school as undergrads. Grad students that were undergrads at a school with big time sports are often loyal to their undergrad.
At this last Rose Bowl, a "Stanford Student" (Med Program) next to me got about a dozen tickets for his friends from Iowa. He went to Iowa undergrad and had no problem cheering for Iowa and had no problem bringing in a dozen fellow Iowa alums. That's why it is usually best to massively discount grads and doc students. FWIW - I would have done a similar thing if given that type of chance. Getting tickets in Iowa was CRAZY.
That's why it is best to just discount the whole graduate student crew. Certainly some will follow Stanford sports, but fewer will be passionate while on campus. Very few will be loyal after they leave school, and many will turn on Stanford in an instant if their undergrad ever squares off against a team from Stanford.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - jacketree - 12-19-2016
Not that hard to root for 2 or 3 teams. When Tech played at Maples I was in my usual seat. Wearing gold ;)
Stanford shouldn't discount any potential fan whether or not they once went to school there.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - jacketree - 12-19-2016
Not that hard to root for 2 or 3 teams. When Tech played at Maples I was in my usual seat. Wearing gold ;)
Stanford shouldn't discount any potential fan whether or not they once went to school there.
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - fullmetal - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 08:20 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Certainly some will follow Stanford sports, but fewer will be passionate while on campus. Very few will be loyal after they leave school, and many will turn on Stanford in an instant if their undergrad ever squares off against a team from Stanford.
That might be true, but there are a number of grad-only Stanford alumni in the local club who show up to events and follow sports. There are also many who do not...
Re: We're #52 (in football attendance) - fullmetal - 12-19-2016
(12-19-2016, 08:20 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:Certainly some will follow Stanford sports, but fewer will be passionate while on campus. Very few will be loyal after they leave school, and many will turn on Stanford in an instant if their undergrad ever squares off against a team from Stanford.
That might be true, but there are a number of grad-only Stanford alumni in the local club who show up to events and follow sports. There are also many who do not...