Because you won't read about it in the local media - 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: Because you won't read about it in the local media (/thread-6757.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: Because you won't read about it in the local media (/thread-6757.html)
Because you won't read about it in the local media - yvonne - 02-18-2014
While the Pac-12's football attendance dipped slightly last year, Stanford's was up 17 percent. Stanford's gain was the 7th biggest nationwide.Â
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/69516/pac-12-2013-attendance
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2013.pdf
As Terry pointed out, ticket sales are a trailing indicator. Win, and the fans will show up.
The Chronicle, which produced a front page spread when the fans weren't showing, is dismissive of the gains, and may mention them in passing in a note. After all, our attendance doesn't come close to Notre Dame's, which has had decades of winning seasons to build up.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - stupac2 - 02-18-2014
And our attendance is maxed out, right? So next year is <=0% growth. Oh no!
Perhaps... - Mick - 02-18-2014
(02-18-2014, 02:29 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:And our attendance is maxed out, right? So next year is <=0% growth. Oh no!
...they could build more stands. I seem to recall that there was a provision for temporary stands when the stadium was first built, perhaps 5,000 to 15,000 temp stands could be installed if need be. Does anyone else recall that as well?
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - yvonne - 02-18-2014
(02-18-2014, 02:29 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:And our attendance is maxed out, right? So next year is <=0% growth. Oh no!
Based on the kind of coverage the local papers give us, I'll be expecting a story with that headline next January, if not sooner.
What benefit does the local press get from being outwardly antagonistic to Stanford?
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - OutsiderFan - 02-18-2014
Yes, I seem to recall Bill Walsh saying the stadium was built to hold up to 65,000 with temporary seating.
But maybe it was theoretical temporary seating. - Redrum - 02-18-2014
Theoretically my Ford Focus could be sent to Europe and come back converted to a full-on rally car, complete with borderline-insane Finnish rally driver. But we, and my bank account, know that's not really going to happen. With the stadium, you could look at the old-style arches in the "open" end and kinda see a place to put temporary seating. But do you believe that those studies and plans have already been drawn and that making that end of the stadium a platform for more seating was included in all technical decisions around the stadium design?
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - Farm93 - 02-18-2014
Last year's schedule ended with Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame. The games were certain sellouts, save the UCB returns, for months. 15,000 extra seats could have easily been sold. If Stanford did not pop for the temporary stands for that string, then I doubt the option is really credible/viable.
FWIW - If temp stands ever appear they will first appear in an odd year season, or odd year game.
FWIW2 - I remember when Stanford picked 50,000 and UCBers were up in arms. Then UCB took seats away in their renovation. Then while at the Pac-12 CG I discovered that ASU has plans to slice away several thousands seats too. I think in the future you will see most schools reduce the capacity of their stadiums and then use dynamic pricing to raise revenue. The exceptions to the shrinking stadium trend will be places with real demand for 90,000+ season tickets (Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, etc.)
The 75,000th best seat in a stadium is just not going to beat the home HDTV experience for most casual fans.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - dpbrewster - 02-18-2014
Farm is correct. With the new TV packages driving everything, including the schedules, fans who actually show up for games mean less and less.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - Extra Point - 02-18-2014
(02-18-2014, 02:58 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Yes, I seem to recall Bill Walsh saying the stadium was built to hold up to 65,000 with temporary seating.
I recall that an additional 5,000 could be accomodated by temporary seating in the north end zone and standing room only on the concourse.
Does anyone know if the stadium was designed so that permanent seating could be added without a major reconstruction of the stadium?
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - jacketree - 02-18-2014
Not to anonymously name-drop, but I know the lead geotechnical engineer on the stadium upgrade project. (She went to Michigan and Berkeley by the way.) Structurally, the stadium foundation and substructure (mechanically stabilized earth) are designed to handle the dead and live loads from essentially wrapping the upper deck around both end zones if they ever chose to do so. Obviously, the structure could handle the loads from temporary bleachers set up in either or both end zones. I seem to recall that 15,000 permanent seats could be added without too much trouble, but I lost my notes.
Seems premature to me. Maybe they can focus on having a ticket sellout equate to a full house when teams other than Southern California or Oregon come to play. I get that Big Game was sort of a dog (mostly for the one win team) going in this year, but there were a lot of empty seats for a perfect-weather rivalry game.
Re: But maybe it was theoretical temporary seating. - Nan3cy - 02-18-2014
(02-18-2014, 03:41 PM)Redrum link Wrote:Theoretically my Ford Focus could be sent to Europe and come back converted to a full-on rally car, complete with borderline-insane Finnish rally driver. But we, and my bank account, know that's not really going to happen. With the stadium, you could look at the old-style arches in the "open" end and kinda see a place to put temporary seating. But do you believe that those studies and plans have already been drawn and that making that end of the stadium a platform for more seating was included in all technical decisions around the stadium design?
Reminds me of the old joke about the father explaining to his teenage son the difference between "hypothetically" and "realistically."
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - FarmBoy - 02-18-2014
I did the maths based on the attendance figures on wikipedia, and compared 2013 to 2011 to get more of an apples to apples. In the end, our attendance was only up 1.4% comparing odd number years (50.7K vs. 50.0K).
It would be nice to have actual attendance figures to compare though. I don't trust the ticket office numbers.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - Farm93 - 02-19-2014
(02-18-2014, 10:07 PM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I did the maths based on the attendance figures on wikipedia, and compared 2013 to 2011 to get more of an apples to apples. In the end, our attendance was only up 1.4% comparing odd number years (50.7K vs. 50.0K).My guess is the 2011 totals would beat the 2013 totals. In 2011 most of the seats were occupied. The 2011 SJSU game had empty seats, but the others were packed. The Luck draw was just too good to miss. In 2013 there were a lot of games with empty seats.
It would be nice to have actual attendance figures to compare though. I don't trust the ticket office numbers.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - yvonne - 02-19-2014
No, the 2013 was bigger even with the low draw SJS. The original Chronicle and Merc stories were written because people weren't showing up with Luck as QB. Now that people are showing up, they are dismissing it because teams with three BCS should have good attendance. #cantwin.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - Treebound - 02-19-2014
When Ted Leland was taken to task about reducing the size of the stadium, he showed options of temporary stands put up around the end zones up on the upper level. I believe the estimate was 6-12K seats if needed. Bowlsby also mentioned this option as we started become a strong program and attendance grew. I too, thought that we might put the seats in for the final three games of last season...and ideally the Pac 12 championship, but I now think it would only happen in an odd year where we are undefeated and there is strong community demand.  The ticket office and AD are already using dynamic pricing where they can and that will become the norm as more data is gathered on our fan base.  As for building more permanent spots, I would see more suites being installed as a more likely option.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - StanFan88 - 02-19-2014
(02-18-2014, 01:59 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:As Terry pointed out, ticket sales are a trailing indicator. Win, and the fans will show up.
I think the biggest factor was the home schedule. Having ASU, Oregon, UCLA, Washington, Notre Dame, and Cal instead of Duke, USC, Arizona, Washington St, and Oregon St is a big deal. SJSU was home both years so no difference there
And this year's schedule is similar to 2012's in terms of low quality. And USC is before the Red Zone is on campus in volume. Students get 3 home games: Washington St, Oregon St, and Utah. Seriously lame.
Re: Because you won't read about it in the local media - BostonCard - 02-24-2014
(02-19-2014, 09:28 AM)Treebound link Wrote:When Ted Leland was taken to task about reducing the size of the stadium, he showed options of temporary stands put up around the end zones up on the upper level. I believe the estimate was 6-12K seats if needed. Bowlsby also mentioned this option as we started become a strong program and attendance grew. I too, thought that we might put the seats in for the final three games of last season...and ideally the Pac 12 championship, but I now think it would only happen in an odd year where we are undefeated and there is strong community demand.  The ticket office and AD are already using dynamic pricing where they can and that will become the norm as more data is gathered on our fan base.  As for building more permanent spots, I would see more suites being installed as a more likely option.
Speaking of ticket prices... Shortly after I moved back to Northern California Stanford started offering a family-pass; 4 tickets (two adults, two children) general admission end zone seats (for all games excluding Cal in odd years) for a shade over $110. It was perfect for me, since with kids soccer and other obligations, the kids could come when they could and I wouldn't feel bad if they missed a game. The renewal is now for $396 + $25 processing fees. I really want to renew, but the economics are no longer clear cut, especially now with the new Pac-12 contract and more weekday/evening games. I think last year, my kids were able to go to two of the six games.
Oh well, this is the college football version of a first world problem.
BC