[teejers1]

Let's revisit this next season, when fan attendance will be $hitty.  Fortunately for the gate, UW, ND, and Cal will bring a significant number of fans.

You see program health and good fortune.  I see things differently; however, I agree with you that this isn't imminent, as in next couple years.  But my horizon is definitely not 50 years, either.  And I share you long-term concerns about sport vitality - who knows, perhaps Stanford will use that as partial cover for exiting.

[teejers1]

Let's revisit this next season, when fan attendance will be $hitty.  Fortunately for the gate, UW, ND, and Cal will bring a significant number of fans.

You see program health and good fortune.  I see things differently; however, I agree with you that this isn't imminent, as in next couple years.  But my horizon is definitely not 50 years, either.  And I share you long-term concerns about sport vitality - who knows, perhaps Stanford will use that as partial cover for exiting.

[BostonCard]

Let's revisit this next season, when fan attendance will be $hitty.  Fortunately for the gate, UW, ND, and ןɐɔ will bring a significant number of fans.

You see program health and good fortune.  I see things differently; however, I agree with you that this isn't imminent, as in next couple years.  But my horizon is definitely not 50 years, either.  And I share you long-term concerns about sport vitality - who knows, perhaps Stanford will use that as partial cover for exiting.

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)

I think we could replace our current offensive system with a different one, and I think it would be difficult to pick out any trend that you could ascribe directly to attendance.  I don't know what you consider the biggest drivers of program health and good fortune, but for me they are (in order) stability, administration support, results, and recruiting, and by those measures, the program is as healthy as it has been in my life.  Reading your posts, you might cite trends in attendance as a marker that the program is not in good health.  I don't disagree with you (and I noted that the current trends carried forward in the long term are not good), though we may disagree on what the timing is.  What I still struggle to see is how long term trends can be reconciled with short term problems in performance.  As I said, changing to a Teejers approved offensive system where our new super-coach would never have an "AYFKM™" moment wouldn't reverse the long term trends; at best it could stall them for a few years.

BC 

[BostonCard]

Let's revisit this next season, when fan attendance will be $hitty.  Fortunately for the gate, UW, ND, and ןɐɔ will bring a significant number of fans.

You see program health and good fortune.  I see things differently; however, I agree with you that this isn't imminent, as in next couple years.  But my horizon is definitely not 50 years, either.  And I share you long-term concerns about sport vitality - who knows, perhaps Stanford will use that as partial cover for exiting.

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)

I think we could replace our current offensive system with a different one, and I think it would be difficult to pick out any trend that you could ascribe directly to attendance.  I don't know what you consider the biggest drivers of program health and good fortune, but for me they are (in order) stability, administration support, results, and recruiting, and by those measures, the program is as healthy as it has been in my life.  Reading your posts, you might cite trends in attendance as a marker that the program is not in good health.  I don't disagree with you (and I noted that the current trends carried forward in the long term are not good), though we may disagree on what the timing is.  What I still struggle to see is how long term trends can be reconciled with short term problems in performance.  As I said, changing to a Teejers approved offensive system where our new super-coach would never have an "AYFKM™" moment wouldn't reverse the long term trends; at best it could stall them for a few years.

BC 

[76lsjumb]

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)


BC

Actually, I would argue that the dominant reasons are [or, at the very least, include]:

a MASSIVE increase in the price of tickets [in the form of new "seat license" requirements] for a large number of long-time fans; the continuing uncertainties in game times [like, for example, not knowing when Big Game will be until 6 days before], and the scheduling of ever later night games making it much more difficult for families with young children to attend and fostering an "I'll just watch it on TV, it's not worth the hassle" attitude; and, oh, maybe the scheduling of teams like William & Mary...

NONE of those reasons has anything to do with play-calling...

[76lsjumb]

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)


BC

Actually, I would argue that the dominant reasons are [or, at the very least, include]:

a MASSIVE increase in the price of tickets [in the form of new "seat license" requirements] for a large number of long-time fans; the continuing uncertainties in game times [like, for example, not knowing when Big Game will be until 6 days before], and the scheduling of ever later night games making it much more difficult for families with young children to attend and fostering an "I'll just watch it on TV, it's not worth the hassle" attitude; and, oh, maybe the scheduling of teams like William & Mary...

NONE of those reasons has anything to do with play-calling...

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17909.msg211294#msg211294 date=1510255075]

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)


BC

Actually, I would argue that the dominant reasons are [or, at the very least, include]:

a MASSIVE increase in the price of tickets [in the form of new "seat license" requirements] for a large number of long-time fans; the continuing uncertainties in game times [like, for example, not knowing when Big Game will be until 6 days before], and the scheduling of ever later night games making it much more difficult for families with young children to attend and fostering an "I'll just watch it on TV, it's not worth the hassle" attitude; and, oh, maybe the scheduling of teams like William & Mary...

NONE of those reasons has anything to do with play-calling...
[/quote]

I think all of those contribute to the long-term secular trends.  I am very grateful to the most recent TV deals that allow me to watch every Stanford football game, home or away, on television, in HD, without having to go to a sports bar.  But there is no question that in order to get the television nirvana of football (not to mention the money that goes with it), we have had to sacrifice a lot in terms of gametime and fan experience.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17909.msg211294#msg211294 date=1510255075]

Yes, of course fan attendance will be worse next year.  But the dominant reasons why are:
1) odd/even season fluctuations (always the case)
2) long term secular decline in football attendance (that is, a trend continuing from at least as long as I have been following the team, and per other posters since at least the early 70's)


BC

Actually, I would argue that the dominant reasons are [or, at the very least, include]:

a MASSIVE increase in the price of tickets [in the form of new "seat license" requirements] for a large number of long-time fans; the continuing uncertainties in game times [like, for example, not knowing when Big Game will be until 6 days before], and the scheduling of ever later night games making it much more difficult for families with young children to attend and fostering an "I'll just watch it on TV, it's not worth the hassle" attitude; and, oh, maybe the scheduling of teams like William & Mary...

NONE of those reasons has anything to do with play-calling...
[/quote]

I think all of those contribute to the long-term secular trends.  I am very grateful to the most recent TV deals that allow me to watch every Stanford football game, home or away, on television, in HD, without having to go to a sports bar.  But there is no question that in order to get the television nirvana of football (not to mention the money that goes with it), we have had to sacrifice a lot in terms of gametime and fan experience.

BC

[ADPATERSON]

Sure, 6 and 6 is more likely, but just to go for a counter-factual future...
... where would we be ranked having beaten #9 WU, then CALBears, and #3 Domers (if they beat MIAM this weekend) ?

Pac12 would be out of Playoffs, but with that run, we could get a shot at Pac12 Champ game in rematch with U$C.
Winner of Pac12 Champ game goes to Fiesta.  Loser probably gets Alamo. 

ANYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL. 

[ADPATERSON]

Sure, 6 and 6 is more likely, but just to go for a counter-factual future...
... where would we be ranked having beaten #9 WU, then CALBears, and #3 Domers (if they beat MIAM this weekend) ?

Pac12 would be out of Playoffs, but with that run, we could get a shot at Pac12 Champ game in rematch with U$C.
Winner of Pac12 Champ game goes to Fiesta.  Loser probably gets Alamo. 

ANYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL. 

[pefloresjr]

I usually try to avoid joining discussions where no clear answer is possible but yesterday I was talking to a friend at my office who is a longtime season ticket holder at Berkeley.  He is keeping his tickets because he is a real fan but his biggest complaint about the 59er Raid offense of Sonny Dykes was that it was boring.  He described it as the same short and crossing patterns over and over and over, resulting in a possession that used very little clock time regardless of whether they scored.  Then their gassed defense would try to hold off the other team but the opponent would usually score, especially in the later stages of the game.  So, all that exciting scoring can also be boring. 

Regarding Stanford's attendance, I agree that the small student body is a major factor in the crowd size.  However, it goes beyond the size of the student body.  I think that most Stanford students are focused on other things and just aren't sports fans.  I arrived in 1982 and still have a group of about 12 close friends from my freshman dorm who still live in the Bay Area.  I am the only one who has season tickets and only one of the others had tickets for a few years.  It wasn't because of the quality of the team, it was because my friends are just not big sports fans.  They are happy when we win but are not going to commit time to going to games.  Many will attend one of our tailgate parties each year, but not actually go to the game.  As Stanford admissions have become more and more elite, I think this effect has only gotten worse.  To get admitted, Stanford students generally need to demonstrate deep commitment to, and excellence in, some academic, social, political, or athletic area.  Those who are not focused on athletics make for an interesting group of students doing some extraordinary things, but they do not tend to create a group of rabid sports fans.  The students do seem to show pretty good attendance these days but I am always surprised at how early they clear out. 

Being bored at the games will certainly hurt attendance but I don't view the last decade as boring.  There have been some real clunker games but every fan of every team I know of has to live through those. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I usually try to avoid joining discussions where no clear answer is possible but yesterday I was talking to a friend at my office who is a longtime season ticket holder at Berkeley.  He is keeping his tickets because he is a real fan but his biggest complaint about the 59er Raid offense of Sonny Dykes was that it was boring.  He described it as the same short and crossing patterns over and over and over, resulting in a possession that used very little clock time regardless of whether they scored.  Then their gassed defense would try to hold off the other team but the opponent would usually score, especially in the later stages of the game.  So, all that exciting scoring can also be boring. 

Regarding Stanford's attendance, I agree that the small student body is a major factor in the crowd size.  However, it goes beyond the size of the student body.  I think that most Stanford students are focused on other things and just aren't sports fans.  I arrived in 1982 and still have a group of about 12 close friends from my freshman dorm who still live in the Bay Area.  I am the only one who has season tickets and only one of the others had tickets for a few years.  It wasn't because of the quality of the team, it was because my friends are just not big sports fans.  They are happy when we win but are not going to commit time to going to games.  Many will attend one of our tailgate parties each year, but not actually go to the game.  As Stanford admissions have become more and more elite, I think this effect has only gotten worse.  To get admitted, Stanford students generally need to demonstrate deep commitment to, and excellence in, some academic, social, political, or athletic area.  Those who are not focused on athletics make for an interesting group of students doing some extraordinary things, but they do not tend to create a group of rabid sports fans.  The students do seem to show pretty good attendance these days but I am always surprised at how early they clear out. 

Being bored at the games will certainly hurt attendance but I don't view the last decade as boring.  There have been some real clunker games but every fan of every team I know of has to live through those. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

[teejers1]

I've never said it was a good/entertaining offense is a panacea to the program's ails.  [And I put fan interest in product as pretty high up on the list of a program's vital signs].  And it may well be that all the other forces that have been acknowledged as contributing factors cannot be overcome.  The Cardinal fan base will literally die out in the not-so-distant-future, so we're all just talking mice-nuts here.

But I guess where I differ from others is that I firmly believe that an AD should do whatever it can to encourage a positive fan experience (to keep the older and newer fans coming back).  And if you ask me what will drive away the die-hards (perhaps all that is left now, anyway) the fastest, it would be (i) the seat licenses that Bill refers to, and (ii) a product that is no fun. 

P.S.  Stanford has it's "supercoach," so long as he makes a good OC hire. 

P.P.S.  I've never said an Air Raid O is what Stanford should employ.  That O sucks, too, but for entirely different reasons.

[teejers1]

I've never said it was a good/entertaining offense is a panacea to the program's ails.  [And I put fan interest in product as pretty high up on the list of a program's vital signs].  And it may well be that all the other forces that have been acknowledged as contributing factors cannot be overcome.  The Cardinal fan base will literally die out in the not-so-distant-future, so we're all just talking mice-nuts here.

But I guess where I differ from others is that I firmly believe that an AD should do whatever it can to encourage a positive fan experience (to keep the older and newer fans coming back).  And if you ask me what will drive away the die-hards (perhaps all that is left now, anyway) the fastest, it would be (i) the seat licenses that Bill refers to, and (ii) a product that is no fun. 

P.S.  Stanford has it's "supercoach," so long as he makes a good OC hire. 

P.P.S.  I've never said an Air Raid O is what Stanford should employ.  That O sucks, too, but for entirely different reasons.

[washingtonismoney]

I agree the seat licenses stink and that the AD could do a bunch to improve the fan experience inside the stadium aside from the actual team performance. That said, there's not really that big a gap in performance between offense and defense over the past few years.

Let's take average ranking since 2014 (when Anderson took over as DC) of offense versus defense, as measured by the various statistical rating systems

Unit	FPI	S&P+	FEI
Offense	28	38.5	39.75
Defense	30	30.5	26.25

One system says Stanford's offense has been a teench better than the defense since 2014; one says the defense a bit better; one says the defense a nice bit better. I think the most reasonable way to read this is that there hasn't been a brobdingnagian dichotomy in cumulative performance. Other people might vary. To me, the most striking thing about the underlying numbers is the inconsistency: basically the offense and defense hand off which unit will be good in a given year and fall into some very average depths when not good.

That's no way to function if you have pretensions of playoff contention, which is Shaw's stated goal and fans' fondest wish. Given that, it seems to me that inconsistency *generally* is the main threat to Stanford's continued excellence (or very goodness) rather than the failings of one side of the ball or the other.

[washingtonismoney]

I agree the seat licenses stink and that the AD could do a bunch to improve the fan experience inside the stadium aside from the actual team performance. That said, there's not really that big a gap in performance between offense and defense over the past few years.

Let's take average ranking since 2014 (when Anderson took over as DC) of offense versus defense, as measured by the various statistical rating systems

Unit	FPI	S&P+	FEI
Offense	28	38.5	39.75
Defense	30	30.5	26.25

One system says Stanford's offense has been a teench better than the defense since 2014; one says the defense a bit better; one says the defense a nice bit better. I think the most reasonable way to read this is that there hasn't been a brobdingnagian dichotomy in cumulative performance. Other people might vary. To me, the most striking thing about the underlying numbers is the inconsistency: basically the offense and defense hand off which unit will be good in a given year and fall into some very average depths when not good.

That's no way to function if you have pretensions of playoff contention, which is Shaw's stated goal and fans' fondest wish. Given that, it seems to me that inconsistency *generally* is the main threat to Stanford's continued excellence (or very goodness) rather than the failings of one side of the ball or the other.

[winflop]

P.S.  Stanford has it's "supercoach," so long as he makes a good OC hire. 

What good is a new OC if Shaw is still calling the plays?

[winflop]

P.S.  Stanford has it's "supercoach," so long as he makes a good OC hire. 

What good is a new OC if Shaw is still calling the plays?

[thunder_chik]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

[thunder_chik]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

[CowboyIndian]

I've never said it was a good/entertaining offense is a panacea to the program's ails.
If not, which I think you have, you've certainly intimated it.

But I guess where I differ from others is that I firmly believe that an AD should do whatever it can to encourage a positive fan experience (to keep the older and newer fans coming back).

I truly think much of it is out of his hands since the University presidents have decided to sell their souls (and those of the in-stadium attendees) to television. Watching a game live....even a closely-fought, exciting one...one has to overcome the interminable TV ad timeouts. There is absolutely ZERO rhythm to a game anymore. How the players can function in that environment is a tribute to them. And the frigging night games! One or two a season is acceptable.... but every week!?! I do agree with you that the relentless quest for  bucks today will prove to be very, very shortsighted.

[CowboyIndian]

I've never said it was a good/entertaining offense is a panacea to the program's ails.
If not, which I think you have, you've certainly intimated it.

But I guess where I differ from others is that I firmly believe that an AD should do whatever it can to encourage a positive fan experience (to keep the older and newer fans coming back).

I truly think much of it is out of his hands since the University presidents have decided to sell their souls (and those of the in-stadium attendees) to television. Watching a game live....even a closely-fought, exciting one...one has to overcome the interminable TV ad timeouts. There is absolutely ZERO rhythm to a game anymore. How the players can function in that environment is a tribute to them. And the frigging night games! One or two a season is acceptable.... but every week!?! I do agree with you that the relentless quest for  bucks today will prove to be very, very shortsighted.

[winflop]

NYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL.

Please refer to this game by it's proper name - The Amazing Chicken Bowl in the Billion-Dollar S***hole

[winflop]

NYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL.

Please refer to this game by it's proper name - The Amazing Chicken Bowl in the Billion-Dollar S***hole

[winflop]

NYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL.

Please refer to this game by it's proper name - The Amazing Chicken Bowl in the Billion-Dollar S***hole

[winflop]

NYTHING TO AVOID FF FROZEN GIBLETS BOWL.

Please refer to this game by it's proper name - The Amazing Chicken Bowl in the Billion-Dollar S***hole

[PalmTree]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

Ah yes.... sprawled out in the sun....paper airplanes and water balloons flying through the air...the bota bags, kegs, battery powered blenders and "other stuff" - what priceless, if somewhat hazy, memories.....  8)

[PalmTree]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

Ah yes.... sprawled out in the sun....paper airplanes and water balloons flying through the air...the bota bags, kegs, battery powered blenders and "other stuff" - what priceless, if somewhat hazy, memories.....  8)

[PalmTree]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

Ah yes.... sprawled out in the sun....paper airplanes and water balloons flying through the air...the bota bags, kegs, battery powered blenders and "other stuff" - what priceless, if somewhat hazy, memories.....  8)

[PalmTree]

Regarding attendance:  My first Stanford game was the 1972 Rose Bowl, and one of the factors in my choosing Stanford was the football team.  As a student in the early to mid 70s, I attended just about every home game and remember the stadium being pretty full.  I also recall that a big draw to go to the game was the partying in the stands.  There were keggers and bota bags, food (salami and cheese were popular), and other stuff.  The Band was a draw, as were the grad students launching water balloons at the opposing band.  So even if the game got to be a little boring, we didn't care.  8)
I believe all the restrictions/different fan experience (advertising, announcements, constant loud music, lackluster food) now put a bit of a damper on attendance.

Ah yes.... sprawled out in the sun....paper airplanes and water balloons flying through the air...the bota bags, kegs, battery powered blenders and "other stuff" - what priceless, if somewhat hazy, memories.....  8)

[martyup]

TONIGHT!

[martyup]

TONIGHT!

[martyup]

TONIGHT!

[martyup]

TONIGHT!

[BostonCard]

I'm thinking our next win comes against a 5-7 opponent in the St Petersburg Bowl. 

Don't see us beating UW.  ןɐɔ is a stretch. Votre Dame will dance with our dates.

This post did not age well.

I love college football!

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm thinking our next win comes against a 5-7 opponent in the St Petersburg Bowl. 

Don't see us beating UW.  ןɐɔ is a stretch. Votre Dame will dance with our dates.

This post did not age well.

I love college football!

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm thinking our next win comes against a 5-7 opponent in the St Petersburg Bowl. 

Don't see us beating UW.  ןɐɔ is a stretch. Votre Dame will dance with our dates.

This post did not age well.

I love college football!

BC

[BostonCard]

I'm thinking our next win comes against a 5-7 opponent in the St Petersburg Bowl. 

Don't see us beating UW.  ןɐɔ is a stretch. Votre Dame will dance with our dates.

This post did not age well.

I love college football!

BC

[North Woods]

BTW, wasn't the obvious answer to this question "in Palo Alto?"

[North Woods]

BTW, wasn't the obvious answer to this question "in Palo Alto?"