[Hansenjohn]

Here is link to story in San Diego Union-Tribune about low attendance at SDSU games this year.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/...te-succes/

SDSU is quite good this year.  Of course SDSU differs from Stanford in many ways, but there are some interesting similarities.  As noted in the article - and frequently on this board - it takes a while for an improving program to build a devoted following.  

[Hansenjohn]

Here is link to story in San Diego Union-Tribune about low attendance at SDSU games this year.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/...te-succes/

SDSU is quite good this year.  Of course SDSU differs from Stanford in many ways, but there are some interesting similarities.  As noted in the article - and frequently on this board - it takes a while for an improving program to build a devoted following.  

[terry]

Regarding Stanford\'s attendance, I think a significant point has been overlooked -- Stanford\'s attendance is increasing as the team succeeds on the field.

As most of you know, Stanford\'s attendance runs in two-year cycles. The "high" attendance years are the odd-numbered years, when Stanford\'s home schedule includes most of the big gate attractions -- UCBerkeley, Notre Dame, UCLA, and now Oregon. The "low" attendance years are the even-numbered years, when the only big gate attraction is USC. This year is one of the "low" attendance years.

Here’s a comparison between Stanford\'s home attendance this year and Stanford\'s home attendance in 2008, which is the last time Stanford played a comparable home schedule:

.                                  2008       2010       Change

USC                           50,425    51,607      +1,182  (sell-out both years)
Washington St.         26,662    36,679     +10,017
Arizona                     30,689    43,506     +12,817
Oregon State            30,223    38,775      +8,552
SJSU / Wake Forest   33,293    39,061      +5,768

Those are significant increases across the board (except, of course, for the USC game, which was already at capacity).

This year\'s average attendance is the highest average attendance Stanford has had in an even-numbered year since 1994 (with the exception of 2006, when Stanford got an anomalous one-time attendance boost because of the opening of the new stadium).

The bottom line is that there has been strong attendance growth. Of course I wish the stadium were full every week. But the good news is that fans are getting the message, and they are coming out in bigger numbers. History shows that when a program turns around, it takes several consecutive years of winning records before attendance really increases a lot (see UCBerkeley\'s history, for example -- JeffTedford started winning immediately, but attendance didn\'t grow much until his third consecutive winning season). It\'s not a short-term process. I think Stanford\'s attendance is improving.

A few notes –

I compared San Jose State in 2008 to Wake Forest in 2010 because both games were non-conference games against non-elite opponents, both games were night games (Stanford\'s September night games have higher attendance than September day games), and both games were played on Freshman Orientation weekend, when the students are on campus or in the process of returning to campus. Actually, SJSU is probably a better gate attraction than Wake Forest because SJSU is a long-time local rival with its own local following. So the comparison I\'ve made probably understates the attendance growth for that non-conference slot.

In 2008, Stanford didn\'t have a game comparable to this year\'s Sacramento State game -- a non-conference day game, on Labor Day weekend, against an FCS opponent. So I didn’t include that game in the comparison. I suspect that if Stanford had played a comparable game in 2008 and we could compare 2008 attendance to 2010 attendance, we would see significant attendance growth for that game, just as we did for all the other games.

I used reported attendance figures. I realize that there are some no-shows at any game, so the number of bodies in the seats would be less than the reported figures. The no-show issue affects both the 2008 and 2010 figures. I have no reason to think there were more no-shows in 2010 than in 2008 – probably the opposite. So, I think this comparison is valid for purposes of showing growth in attendance.

[terry]

Regarding Stanford\'s attendance, I think a significant point has been overlooked -- Stanford\'s attendance is increasing as the team succeeds on the field.

As most of you know, Stanford\'s attendance runs in two-year cycles. The "high" attendance years are the odd-numbered years, when Stanford\'s home schedule includes most of the big gate attractions -- UCBerkeley, Notre Dame, UCLA, and now Oregon. The "low" attendance years are the even-numbered years, when the only big gate attraction is USC. This year is one of the "low" attendance years.

Here’s a comparison between Stanford\'s home attendance this year and Stanford\'s home attendance in 2008, which is the last time Stanford played a comparable home schedule:

.                                  2008       2010       Change

USC                           50,425    51,607      +1,182  (sell-out both years)
Washington St.         26,662    36,679     +10,017
Arizona                     30,689    43,506     +12,817
Oregon State            30,223    38,775      +8,552
SJSU / Wake Forest   33,293    39,061      +5,768

Those are significant increases across the board (except, of course, for the USC game, which was already at capacity).

This year\'s average attendance is the highest average attendance Stanford has had in an even-numbered year since 1994 (with the exception of 2006, when Stanford got an anomalous one-time attendance boost because of the opening of the new stadium).

The bottom line is that there has been strong attendance growth. Of course I wish the stadium were full every week. But the good news is that fans are getting the message, and they are coming out in bigger numbers. History shows that when a program turns around, it takes several consecutive years of winning records before attendance really increases a lot (see UCBerkeley\'s history, for example -- JeffTedford started winning immediately, but attendance didn\'t grow much until his third consecutive winning season). It\'s not a short-term process. I think Stanford\'s attendance is improving.

A few notes –

I compared San Jose State in 2008 to Wake Forest in 2010 because both games were non-conference games against non-elite opponents, both games were night games (Stanford\'s September night games have higher attendance than September day games), and both games were played on Freshman Orientation weekend, when the students are on campus or in the process of returning to campus. Actually, SJSU is probably a better gate attraction than Wake Forest because SJSU is a long-time local rival with its own local following. So the comparison I\'ve made probably understates the attendance growth for that non-conference slot.

In 2008, Stanford didn\'t have a game comparable to this year\'s Sacramento State game -- a non-conference day game, on Labor Day weekend, against an FCS opponent. So I didn’t include that game in the comparison. I suspect that if Stanford had played a comparable game in 2008 and we could compare 2008 attendance to 2010 attendance, we would see significant attendance growth for that game, just as we did for all the other games.

I used reported attendance figures. I realize that there are some no-shows at any game, so the number of bodies in the seats would be less than the reported figures. The no-show issue affects both the 2008 and 2010 figures. I have no reason to think there were more no-shows in 2010 than in 2008 – probably the opposite. So, I think this comparison is valid for purposes of showing growth in attendance.

[Robbie]

Dammit. We just want an argument! We have a perception! We don\'t need no stinkin\' facts!

[Robbie]

Dammit. We just want an argument! We have a perception! We don\'t need no stinkin\' facts!

[Farm93]

The irony is that Sac State actually was a better opponent for Stanford.  According to Sagarin, Sac State comes in at a cool 121 in the Elo_Chess.  Meanwhile, San Jose State sits at 170.

So it was far better to schedule Sac State for those precious computer rankings.

Sac State sits at 94 in the overall Sagarin rankings and is the #10 FCS school.  So they were a quality cupcake, if you will.

[Farm93]

The irony is that Sac State actually was a better opponent for Stanford.  According to Sagarin, Sac State comes in at a cool 121 in the Elo_Chess.  Meanwhile, San Jose State sits at 170.

So it was far better to schedule Sac State for those precious computer rankings.

Sac State sits at 94 in the overall Sagarin rankings and is the #10 FCS school.  So they were a quality cupcake, if you will.

[needle]

Good point, Farm93. I\'ve always thought the Stanford v. San Jose series made too much sense and had a little too much history to not play, but I\'m starting to think maybe I\'m wrong.

[needle]

Good point, Farm93. I\'ve always thought the Stanford v. San Jose series made too much sense and had a little too much history to not play, but I\'m starting to think maybe I\'m wrong.

[Leftcoast]

I\'m with Garvin - let\'s drop SJSU from our every year schedule and put them on some slower rotation.   Once every four years sounds about right to me.   It might even breath some life into the "rivalry".

Those of you outside the area may not realize how bad it\'s gotten at San Jose State.  Their program has more important priorities than worrying about class-warfare with Stanford.  Top of the list?  Staying alive in the incredible shrinking WAC.  Second - getting their GSR score up to a respectable level and staying out of NCAA sanctions.  Third?   Establish some sort of diminished football relevance - most likely as a lower tier mid-major - through reduced scheduling.   Fourth, get their fanbase to accept all these changes and start showing up in their antiquated stadium at some minimal level acceptable to the FBS/Div1 powers-that-be.  Fifth, get funding levels up to the point they don\'t need to prostitute themselves to the Wisconsins and Alabamas to balance the budget.

In my opinion SJSU is on life-support.   If you think we had it bad in the Walt/Teevens days, take a look at that list again.  There\'s a 50/50 chance the Spartans drop football in the next 5 years.   I don\'t think many folks honestly thought that was a possibility at Stanford.

[Leftcoast]

I\'m with Garvin - let\'s drop SJSU from our every year schedule and put them on some slower rotation.   Once every four years sounds about right to me.   It might even breath some life into the "rivalry".

Those of you outside the area may not realize how bad it\'s gotten at San Jose State.  Their program has more important priorities than worrying about class-warfare with Stanford.  Top of the list?  Staying alive in the incredible shrinking WAC.  Second - getting their GSR score up to a respectable level and staying out of NCAA sanctions.  Third?   Establish some sort of diminished football relevance - most likely as a lower tier mid-major - through reduced scheduling.   Fourth, get their fanbase to accept all these changes and start showing up in their antiquated stadium at some minimal level acceptable to the FBS/Div1 powers-that-be.  Fifth, get funding levels up to the point they don\'t need to prostitute themselves to the Wisconsins and Alabamas to balance the budget.

In my opinion SJSU is on life-support.   If you think we had it bad in the Walt/Teevens days, take a look at that list again.  There\'s a 50/50 chance the Spartans drop football in the next 5 years.   I don\'t think many folks honestly thought that was a possibility at Stanford.

[Extra Point]

The reason that ASU scheduled 2 FCS games this year is because they could not find anyone else after SJSU cancelled at the last minute. This effectively took one bowl game away from the PAC 10 this year. I think all PAC 12 teams will be reluctant to schedule them in the future, including Stanford. SJSU\'s days are numbered and I could care less.

[Extra Point]

The reason that ASU scheduled 2 FCS games this year is because they could not find anyone else after SJSU cancelled at the last minute. This effectively took one bowl game away from the PAC 10 this year. I think all PAC 12 teams will be reluctant to schedule them in the future, including Stanford. SJSU\'s days are numbered and I could care less.