The CardBoard
Stadium Environment? - 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: Stadium Environment? (/thread-2039.html)

Pages: 1 2

Stadium Environment? - george - 10-02-2011

Was able to catch the last quarter or the game from Thailand thanks to Ratmandoo's slingbox.  I saw in the espn.com write-up that it was a sellout crowd.  Can anyone who was at the game confirm that it was a sellout?  Was it mostly Stanford folks?  Or did UCLA bring a large contingent?

It would be great if we could finally establish a Maples-in-the-90s-and-00s kind of environment at the wok.

Re: Stadium Environment? - estephan500 - 10-02-2011

I am also eager to hear this.

Re: Stadium Environment? - yvonne - 10-02-2011

Some years, fans from other California schools are sprinkled in throughout the stadium. This year, the UCLA fans were pretty much confined to the visitors' section. In fact, a third to a half of the fans were in the UCLA band.

Our student section was outstanding! Kids sprinted in as soon as the gates opened and jockeyed for the best seats in the Red Zone. They stood throughout the game. They even came up with some sort of arm motion after all first downs. (Something like holding both hands straight out and then in unison moving them from the elbow to the side.)

Re: Stadium Environment? - Farm93 - 10-02-2011

It was a legit 50,000.  I thought with all of our mini-season plan holders buying tickets to get access to Oregon or ND, that UW and Colorado might have some sold, but unoccupied, seats.  That was not the case.  The place was packed.  And I suspect that Colorado will be the last game that will NOT sell out this season.  It MIGHT be the only game with under 45,000 and less than 90% of capacity.  Honestly, it is amazing and the solid crowds will help get better TV slots too.

Now, I can assure you that the Stanford Stadium is one of the most family friendly venues ever built.  The upper north endzone sections are filled families that then play games, run around, and put out picnic blankets in the grass area behind those sections.  My kids adore the whole scene.  HOWEVER, by 9PM those families will likely leave no matter what.  You may have noticed that the upper end zone sections were empty mid way through the 3rd quarter.

No worries though, at kickoff the place was packed.  There do seem to be quite a number of people with minimal experience with Stanford Football that have decided to catch a game with this Luck kid while he is in college.  Hopefully they like the experience enough to return in the future.

Re: Stadium Environment? - FarmBoy - 10-02-2011

The stadium environment was great. The crowd was loud and there were definitely a lot fewer visiting fans than is the norm.

But there were definitely small pockets of seats that were never used around me (section 236, upper deck right across from the students).

It's really a shame that the game started so late. I saw a lot of families with little kids leaving in the 2nd quarter. I would say we were down to 80% of capacity by the middle of the 3rd and the stadium was virtually empty by the end of the game. If this is the future of the Pac12, I am not thrilled with the new regime. 7:30 kick off does virtually nothing for us for non west coast viewership, so why do we make that concession?

Re: Stadium Environment? - yvonne - 10-02-2011

A family with two toddlers sat behind me. They all left at halftime.

Re: Stadium Environment? - OutsiderFan - 10-03-2011

I would argue that getting those families in, even if they leave at halftime, is a big deal.  Yes, it is important to think about the here and now, but attendance is a long-term issue.  You have to get non-alums like myself interested.  This year is a rare opportunity to accelerate the pace of product sampling and get people hooked on going to games in larger numbers than virtually any other year in the school's history has afforded.

The problem so often in the past has been, new fans (some families with little ones) would come to see the team play when they were good and entertaining, but then the school would demonstrate it didn't care about winning, and royally suck for several years, killing off interest in formative fans, and eliminating new potential sampler fans.  Who wants to commit to a product or go sample one that isn't appealing?  This is exactly what happened to me as a Stanford season ticket holder from 2000-2002. 

Me and a friend went to a game in 1999 after getting free tickets to the WSU game.  Stanford won something like 51-24 and it was really entertaining.  So we went to two more games.  Then we got season tickets in 2000.  We renewed in 2001.  After Ty left, we re-upped for 2002.  One year of Buddy Ball was enough to turn us off.  My mentality was if the school is not going to commit to winning and putting a great product on the field - by letting T.W. go and replacing him with a joke of a coach - when I am asked to continue my commitment to pay for the privilege of watching the team play, why should I make my commitment?

If the team continues playing entertaining football, those young families will get hooked.  The parents and the kids.  But it takes probably a good solid 5-10 years to build the fan base.  You can't build one with flash in the pan teams once a decade.  You need to have a program with sustained commitment to winning and putting out a quality product in order to build a loyal fan base.  It's OK to have a down year every so often, but you better be entertaining, even when you lose, and you can't have any 1-11 seasons. 

The game ticket cost is not the issue, it is the time commitment it takes to go to a game that is the bigger price people have to pay.  You can't ask people to take at least four hours out of their Saturday (and probably more) to come watch your team play unless you put an entertaining product on the field and your fans believe the team has a meaningful achievement it can realistically achieve.  Yes, now you will get your bandwagon fans and have some sell-outs with a Top 10 team with a Voldemort hopeful QB/future NFL #1 pick, but the key is not what happens this year so much as what happens next year, and the year after.  It's way easier to turn on the TV and watch literally dozens of other games from the comfort of your own home.  So you better put out a consistently good product on your home field and provide a good game day experience if you want people to fill the stadium.

Speaking of, the stadium is phenomenal.  It blows the doors off where the local NFL outfits play and can really play a role in keeping people coming back.  This year you have a draw to get large numbers of people to try it out, and the opportunity to sell them on the idea of making going to Stanford football games a tradition.  To me, now is the time to start selling season tickets for next year.  I would take this opportunity to offer next year's season tickets for a heavy discount and/or provide an extra benefit experience to people who put down deposits, at games this year.  It is important for Stanford to promote the future, emphasize David Shaw isn't going anywhere, have him sell people on his vision for a consistently winning program, and the standard of performance he is setting for it.  Sell what Stanford football is, what sets it apart and why people should care.







Re: Stadium Environment? - yvonne - 10-03-2011

Yes, it is a good thing for families to attend. As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the game experience is great for kids, and part of that is the play area behind the north end zone. It does, however, explain why there were pockets of empty areas after halftime. I wouldn't say those were large areas, however.

Re: Stadium Environment? - Renaissance Man - 10-03-2011

As a fan who has only missed one game in the last 32 years, I prefer the night games in the early season--it takes the heat out of the equation, which (especially in the new stadium) keeps people at home.  By the middle of October earlier game times are great--4:30 for Colorado means a full day to tailgate and no sunscreen needed in the stadium.  I think that we will have another full stadium (unless it rains).  The people in the stadium Saturday night were having a blast and I think they will be coming back.  I have a dozen season tickets and this is the first year that I have more people asking for tickets than I have tickets to share--I just got off of stubhub where I was purchasing some extras for next Saturday.  We have a great team, a great environment before and during the game (several teenagers came with us Saturday--inclusing one top-level golfer who is very interested in coming to Stanford--and they spent an hour collecting swag at the fanfest and saying "I can't believe they just give us all of this stuff for free."  First-timers were stomping and yeling during every UCLA third down and just generally having a great time.

Re: Stadium Environment? - FarmBoy - 10-03-2011

So this is why the administrators created a "vote down" button... You really think the spawn of USC and ND fans are somehow hardier because their fans don't care as much about attending games with their family?

I recognize your post was tongue in cheek, but the frank reality is that I have season tickets in part as a designated family activity. But a 7:30PM kick off time is not conducive to that, and I will reserve the right to bitch about it. But aside from being a loss from a family fan experience, I think it hurts the team's national exposure as 80% of folks on the eastern seaboard are asleep by kickoff. And if the team weren't the "in" thing to do for students right now, it would also kill student participation as they'd all be at pre-parties at 8pm on a saturday night, rather than the stadium. The late kick off does virtually nothing positive for the game attending fan.

Re: Stadium Environment? - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

Stanford fans are not exactly tough.  My assessment applies to every category of fans in our stadium, and to me too.

Sadly in D-1 football the quantity and quality of the fan base are important proxies for team excellence.  The brutal reality is that the SEC and B1G schools have more fans and a lot more that are dedicated to the cause.  And for their loyalty they are rewarded with 2 BCS invites each year.  FWIW, in the Pac-12 only UW really has ever had fans with the toughness that approaches those found commonly in other conferences, so Stanford is not alone.

I am definitely willing to watch Stanford play in 100 degree temps or -10 degree temps for 4 quarters, like those folks in the SEC or B1G.  The reality for me is that I have no one in my Bay Area network that would be so blindly loyal above 85 or below 60.

Stanford fans are absolutely spoiled when it comes to climate.  Almost without exception the weather and game times on game days would be classified as ideal.  The kickoff temperatures are almost always less than 90 degrees, but more than 50 degrees.  There is never snow or thunderstorms, hail or sleet.  Squeezing games in before a hurricane or a blizzard has also not happened here.  It is rarely windy or hot & humid.  Stanford does not have kickoffs at 10AM local time, and also does not have kickoffs at 8:30PM or 9PM local time.  Parking is close and abundant, and tailgating is easy.  The roads are always clear of snow, ice and mud.  The streets around the campus are safe and relatively free of crime.

But it is human nature to complain and want more.

Re: Stadium Environment? - CowboyIndian - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 09:45 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Stanford fans are not exactly tough. 

Some are. This from Rule of Tree....on the days following the '89 Earthquake:

"On October 17, 1989, a 6.9 earthquake rattled the Bay Area, resulting in several deaths and almost a billion dollars in damage to property.  Most people remember the earthquake for delaying the Battle of the Bay World Series by almost two weeks.  When baseball returned, though, it wasn't the first sporting event held in the Bay Area since the earthquake.  Four days after the tremor, Stanford was scheduled to play Utah in a home game at Stanford Stadium.  Nervous about the potential for aftershocks as well as the ability to actually hold the game in a shell-shocked region, university administrators from both Stanford and Utah as well as conference officials met hastily to determine whether or not the game would be canceled, moved to Salt Lake, or postponed until a later date.  After an inspection of Stanford Stadium revealed no structural damage, all parties agreed to keep the game at Stanford Stadium and use it as a sign that life was moving on for Bay Area residents.

When the game kicked off that bright Saturday afternoon, jittery residents were reluctant to attend.  It supposedly took until halftime for the attendance figure to reach five digits.  While much of the university was concerned with damage to other buildings around campus (notably Old Chem and Memorial Church), the football game did serve its purpose, at least on campus, of helping students and staff forget the events of only four days earlier.  Even though the game was a 24-27 loss for the Cardinal, the Utah-Stanford football game was unofficially the first football game and arguably the first major sporting event to take place after the earthquake."

Re: Stadium Environment? - Robbie - 10-03-2011

ah - a story from back in the days when Stanford would lose football games...

Re: Stadium Environment? - terry - 10-03-2011

(10-02-2011, 04:39 AM)george link Wrote:Can anyone who was at the game confirm that it was a sellout?  Was it mostly Stanford folks?  Or did UCLA bring a large contingent?

It looked like a legitimate sell-out. Not very many UCLA fans -- overwhelmingly a Stanford crowd.

Re: Stadium Environment? - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 12:04 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=4568.msg32385#msg32385 date=1317660340]
Stanford fans are not exactly tough. 

Some are. This from Rule of Tree....on the days following the '89 Earthquake:

"On October 17, 1989, a 6.9 earthquake rattled the Bay Area, resulting in several deaths and almost a billion dollars in damage to property.  Most people remember the earthquake for delaying the Battle of the Bay World Series by almost two weeks.  When baseball returned, though, it wasn't the first sporting event held in the Bay Area since the earthquake.  Four days after the tremor, Stanford was scheduled to play Utah in a home game at Stanford Stadium.  Nervous about the potential for aftershocks as well as the ability to actually hold the game in a shell-shocked region, university administrators from both Stanford and Utah as well as conference officials met hastily to determine whether or not the game would be canceled, moved to Salt Lake, or postponed until a later date.  After an inspection of Stanford Stadium revealed no structural damage, all parties agreed to keep the game at Stanford Stadium and use it as a sign that life was moving on for Bay Area residents.

When the game kicked off that bright Saturday afternoon, jittery residents were reluctant to attend.  It supposedly took until halftime for the attendance figure to reach five digits.  While much of the university was concerned with damage to other buildings around campus (notably Old Chem and Memorial Church), the football game did serve its purpose, at least on campus, of helping students and staff forget the events of only four days earlier.  Even though the game was a 24-27 loss for the Cardinal, the Utah-Stanford football game was unofficially the first football game and arguably the first major sporting event to take place after the earthquake."
[/quote]

My point EXACTLY.  I was there as a Frosh, the small crowd had nothing to do with the earthquake.  The 49ers played in the stadium during that same month in front of a crowd of 70,000+.  Why then were there only ~13,000 people in the stadium for a planned home game?  It was raining!!  :'(

I was literally one of a handful of students in the student section.  I would guestimate there might have been 200 students, certainly less than 1,000, at the game.  Of course, the attendance figure tells you all you need to know.  ~13,000 meant students were not in the venue.  In the old stadium you sat just above dirt until row 65.  Even if you were scared to death of aftershocks, the stadium was super safe as no one needed to sit above row 65 that day.  So that quake stuff was not the real deal.  And the game was played not because of tough fans, but because of a stadium structurally safe due to its simplicity.

A lot of people that were enjoying their time on the old wooden planks (most of the aluminum was installed for the 1992 World Cup) left a long time before the Utes pulled it out.  Were they afraid of a mythical weather related after shock?  No, the rain really picked up after halftime and with no one there many realized it was just a bad time to be watching a game, for many reasons.  I remember that game well, and it was on that weekend as a Frosh that I learned that Stanford fans were not exactly your hardy bad weather bunch.  And that Stanford students would rather miss a game than risk stressing their immune system.

Re: Stadium Environment? - terry - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 12:35 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:I was there as a Frosh, the small crowd had nothing to do with the earthquake. 

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement. You can say that your decision about whether to attend that game had nothing to do with the earthquake. But for some people, the decision had a lot to do with the earthquake. Sure, rain contributed to holding the attendance down. But we've played other games in the rain, and we've never had attendance as low as we did for that Utah game. The rainiest games I can remember all drew at least 10K or 15K more than that Utah game. That Utah game had the lowest attendance of any Stanford home game in the last 39 years, by a substantial margin (that's as far back as the attendance figures go). You can't explain the attendance at the Utah game solely by the rain. The earthquake had to be the deciding factor for a lot of people.

Re: Stadium Environment? - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

Terry,

Sure I can.  I realize there may have been a handful of people too afraid to drive around the area, and that many lost their lives.  So I respect that some would not have gone anywhere to see a "game".  But I made the sweeping statement because the 49ers played literally the next day in the same stadium!!!  And for that game the place was packed.  Did 24 hours soothe the entire Bay Area's fear of aftershocks that much?  I doubt it.  Alternatively one can declare that 49er fans are much less afraid of aftershocks, I guess.  But that would only imply that Stanford fans are less rugged which was the premise to begin with.  Not that earthquake respect is a a bad thing given the danger of earthquakes, it is just not consistent with being the ultimate fans for the team.  Fans that will sit in a stadium hours before a hurricane is scheduled to sweep into town, or fans that will sit as rain water cascades down the stands.  Crazies to be sure, but that is loyalty to the cause that Stanford fans do not display.

The logical reason for the major drop in attendance, that rebounded quite nicely two weeks later, was the weather.  Were you there?  It was an absolutely miserable game and many that were there at kickoff left before halftime.  Did they have some scientific insight into the aftershock timelines?  Or could it be they left once the wind started to knock people around!!

Remember, the 49ers fans had their own home stadium.  If any game was to be impacted solely by the quake that was the one.  Need to drive, unfamiliar traffic routes, unfamiliar venue, outdated old seats, bad sight lines, etc.  Yet Bay Area people showed up for that game.  As I recall, I was rather annoyed that students from my dorm were excited about seeing the 49ers even though just a day earlier they were not going to support their own team in the rain.  >:(

As someone that was on campus experiencing my first quake I can recall that it was a tough time, but those that choose to sit in 1st floor rooms in Wilbur or Branner with "bulging walls" certainly could not think that sitting outside on a hill was less safe.  ???

Re: Stadium Environment? - terry - 10-03-2011

(10-03-2011, 01:31 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:The logical reason for the major drop in attendance, that rebounded quite nicely two weeks later, was the weather.  Were you there?

No, I wasn't there. I stayed home because of the earthquake.

Stanford has played a number of games in the rain. The rain affects attendance, but not enough to explain the attendance at that Utah game. I've been to a lot of rainy games, but in none of them -- none -- did attendance drop to the level of that Utah game.

The official attendance for the Utah game was 15,000. The rainiest games I can remember, roughly in order of raininess, were the following:

Washington State, 2008 -- attendance 26,662. A Noah's Ark-type deluge. I was there.

Washington, 2000 -- attendance 31,300. The Curtis Williams / Randy Fasani / Marques Tuiasosopo game. Just poured rain. I was there.

Big Game, 1983 -- attendance 84,804. I was there. My wife held our baby under her poncho for the whole game.

NotreDame, 2001 -- attendance 51,780. I was there.

Arizona State, 2003 -- attendance 26,950. I was there, on the sideline. So was Hennessey, by the way.

San Jose State, 1977 -- attendance 39,000. Darrin Nelson broke the school rushing record. I was there.

Washington, 1994 -- attendance 44,200. I had to miss that one.

The conclusion I draw is that even the worst downpour hasn't been enough to drive attendance all the way down to 15,000. So there must have been some other reason that attendance went all the way down to 15,000 against Utah in 1989. The obvious conclusion is that it was due to the earthquake.

Re: Stadium Environment? - Farm93 - 10-03-2011

Terry,

Either way, it shows Stanford fans are not crazed SEC types.  SEC types literally show up for games just hours after a hurricane has blown through.  Big 12 types will sit in the stands as tornado sirens are blasting away.  B1G ten types will actually shovel inches of snow in the stands so that they can then sit and watch their teams in 20 degree weather.  In all cases, bad events actually cause the fans to rally even harder to show that they are OK and that they, and by association their team, are tough.

FWIW - All of your examples are conference or established non-conference opponents.  That UW game had quite a number of UW fans, as you may recall.  By the end the crowd supporting UW was definitely bigger, which was too bad because Stanford could have won if we had any home crowd advantage.

The earthquake was tragic, but if you stayed home because of it you are not proof of the "Toughness" noted by CI.  In fact, you are proof of the lack of Stanford fan toughness.  And honestly that's OK IMHO.  I went because I was on campus and it was easy, but I am sure others elected to take a pass either for the rain or the life assessment type stuff that quakes often produce.

I tend to think the SEC and Big12 types that sit in the stands during 2 hour weather delays are crazy, but when it comes to the BCS Bowls they want crazed loyalty.

BTW - Those 49er fans were certainly tougher (in terms of never say die, stay to the bitter end loyalty) than you because they came to our Stadium the next day despite the recent earthquake and far more challenging logistics.  And you know, back in the 80s and 90s it was clear that the 49ers fan base was the envy of every other sports team in the area.

Re: Stadium Environment? - yvonne - 10-03-2011

Quote:Either way, it shows Stanford fans are not crazed SEC types.  SEC types literally show up for games just hours after a hurricane has blown through.  Big 12 types will sit in the stands as tornado sirens are blasting away.  B1G ten types will actually shovel inches of snow in the stands so that they can then sit and watch their teams in 20 degree weather.  In all cases, bad events actually cause the fans to rally even harder to show that they are OK and that they, and by association their team, are tough.

The last time I checked, hurricanes didn't kill hundreds of people in the matter of seconds. In fact, when I checked, whole metropolitan areas were not left without communication networks for several days. I've been through several hurricanes and I've been through earthquakes, and the 1989 earthquake reaped lots more damage to human life than any hurricane. Roble, Columbae, and probably other dorms were uninhabitable. Sections of the quad were reinforced with wooden supports for the better part of a year.

Sure, we all know that in Indiana, football support staff are placed in scissor lifts in gale force winds, but I would argue that that says a lot more about that region — or at least that school's — lack of intelligence and sensitivity to human life than it does to fans' toughness, and if that's your definition of toughness, you're welcome to it.