Attendance in 2013

[josephpoint]

6,300 for the Montana game and could have been much less without the Montana fans coming on a perffect November day with the Hornets 3-1 in BSC before the game started. Wow. Remember the Montana game drew 12,800 two years ago.

Think the average attendance lass season was just a bit over 9,000 and the year before 9,500

This year 9,100 was the top game with another at 7,500,6,00 and 5,000.

Attendance is going down and down with an expectation from the athletic dept. that Hornet football draw 11,000 per game and within a few years hit 15K.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

6,300 for the Montana game and could have been much less without the Montana fans coming on a perffect November day with the Hornets 3-1 in BSC before the game started. Wow. Remember the Montana game drew 12,800 two years ago.

Think the average attendance lass season was just a bit over 9,000 and the year before 9,500

This year 9,100 was the top game with another at 7,500,6,00 and 5,000.

Attendance is going down and down with an expectation from the athletic dept. that Hornet football draw 11,000 per game and within a few years hit 15K.

Won't happen under this administration.

 

[josephpoint]

these figures are similar to the Div II years.

 

[SDHornet]

Agree with GCM. A noticeable marketing plan didn’t materialize until this year and Wanless is going on his 12th year here. There won’t be a point in taking on the marketing effort we saw this year so long as the Hornets struggle to get people out to the games.

This season got off on the wrong foot with the horrid first 2 weeks turning off much of the fan base. Getting outscored 69-0 against a middle of the road MWC team and a contending Pac12 program was not a good start to the season. Fans in the know realize the difference between FCS, FBS, and BCS programs; but I don’t expect casual fans to know any difference so they are just seeing blowout losses. Following that has been the continual meltdowns in key situations against opponents the Hornets should be beating and you get to where we are at with the pathetic numbers at the gate.

Also the issue that can’t be ignored is the awful bathroom and concession situation at Hornet Stadium. People aren’t going to show up when they miss half a quarter standing in line to use the bathroom. Not addressing this issue falls on Wanless.

Awful attendance is and should be a significant component into the decision on whether or not to keep Sperbeck. The fact is Sperback has lost the fan base will cost the department $$$, hard to imagine Wanless ignoring that key factor.

 

[Green Laser]

Agree with GCM. A noticeable marketing plan didn’t materialize until this year and Wanless is going on his 12th year here. There won’t be a point in taking on the marketing effort we saw this year so long as the Hornets struggle to get people out to the games.

This season got off on the wrong foot with the horrid first 2 weeks turning off much of the fan base. Getting outscored 69-0 against a middle of the road MWC team and a contending Pac12 program was not a good start to the season. Fans in the know realize the difference between FCS, FBS, and BCS programs; but I don’t expect casual fans to know any difference so they are just seeing blowout losses. Following that has been the continual meltdowns in key situations against opponents the Hornets should be beating and you get to where we are at with the pathetic numbers at the gate.

Also the issue that can’t be ignored is the awful bathroom and concession situation at Hornet Stadium. People aren’t going to show up when they miss half a quarter standing in line to use the bathroom. Not addressing this issue falls on Wanless.


Awful attendance is and should be a significant component into the decision on whether or not to keep Sperbeck. The fact is Sperback has lost the fan base will cost the department $$$, hard to imagine Wanless ignoring that key factor.

I would like see us play one FBS game a year, next year we open at Cal which looks winnable or at least competitive, I don't know if we have another FBS scheduled. I think they are trying to do some marketing this year but I really don't know how much good that has done. I think the major problem is one of perception, the general public in California doesn't see FCS as big time football worthy of supporting on a regular basis.
We on this board may support the team, have season tickets etc. but we need the unattached including our own alumni to get in the habit of attending on a regular basis, not just for homecoming. Winning doesn't seem to be the driver alone. I think that the name recognition of visiting teams have a lot to do with it.
Montana is a well known and respected program to those of us that follow Big Sky and FCS football. To most other Californians Montana is associated with fly fishing or hunting trips not football.
To many FCS is the new D2.
One positive we commonly outdraw the dungpilers and Poly, last year we were 3rd in attendance in the BSC behind the Montana schools!

 

[SJHornet]

For me its simple. Attendance mirrors fans expectations for the product. If the Big Sky was an FBS league, numbers would still be similar. There are also the obvious hurdles we face such as being a commuter school and competing with professional teams, but if we consistently won, we'd draw 10,000+ on a regular basis.

 

[josephpoint]

being the "commuter school " in the big Sky is what is so great about Sac State bbeing typically the 3rd in attendance, way behind the Montana schools, but still 3rd and best of the rest in terms of attendance. And we are the school that has not done better than 5-3 in the Big Sky in 17 yrs. Can u imagine if we did as good as the Montanas and all the other residential schools in the win column. And we do have 1,600 students living on campus and thousands more living within walking distance right around the boundearies of campus in privately owned dorms and apartments that are not counted as living on campus..

 

[SJHornet]

being the "commuter school " in the big Sky is what is so great about Sac State bbeing typically the 3rd in attendance, way behind the Montana schools, but still 3rd and best of the rest in terms of attendance. And we are the school that has not done better than 5-3 in the Big Sky in 17 yrs. Can u imagine if we did as good as the Montanas and all the other residential schools in the win column. And we do have 1,600 students living on campus and thousands more living within walking distance right around the boundearies of campus in privately owned dorms and apartments that are not counted as living on campus..

I love the idea of Sac State adding more dorms, and it can only be beneficial for Hornet Athletics, but I think college sports are a hard sell throughout the whole state. I think its cool that Sac has one of the better attendances, and it speaks volumes for our potential, but I think we've seen the ceiling for this particular regime. Unless you are competing for titles, the fan bases in California are fickle. Even the power house that is USC leaves the Coliseum empty when they are on a skid. And who can forget the Pac 12 Championship Game last year, played in a half empty Stanford Stadium. Stanford and the Bay Area can't fill the place when they're winning.

There are simply too many distractions to keep the casual California sports fan (and student/alumni population) interested, for the most part anyway. Wins will fill Hornet, and get the masses interested. The new marketing approach and steps by the department to make the program more appealing and accessible to the general public and student body have been refreshing, however, its not enough to get the fans in the seats, and needs to be complimented with a team that can challenge for a title (Sky and FCS). I know there has been a bit of groaning over the AD and administration, but I believe we actually have a good AD. I've seen bad, and Wanless is not in that category. Hornet athletics' investment in our facilities is much needed and overdue, but they need to be accompanied by an investment in the coaching staff. Sperbeck has shown moderate success since taking over, but has shown he has hit the wall (and not being able to beat Davis has been a frustration beyond repair). The administration may feel uneasy letting go of a coach who has shown he can win certain big games, and provide a wining record, but if the staff continues to prove they cannot make the playoffs, and continues to loose close games they should have won - causing the team to finish with a .500 +/- record instead of a playoff record, its time to go in a new direction. The fans and students have come to expect the let downs and mediocrity, which I believe, keeps many away. When you couple a mediocre club with competing NFL/NBA/MLB, Sierras and Tahoe a few hours away, the beach and Bay Area an hour and a half the other way, vibrant mid-town/downtown life, concerts and shows and all the other entertainment available to the general fan, apathy sets in and you get a large background of aluminum on Saturdays when the Hornets play at home.

I hate to say it, but without success on the field, Hornet football will continue to be an afterthought for the community of Sacramento. Maybe some improved name/brand identity can help on the surface, but we need to catch the fans with a culture of winning.

 

[josephpoint]

well said SJ Hornet. Spot on.

 

[superhornet]

I gotta question the idea of adding dorms. They've already decommissioned dorms and redesignated them as office buildings (the one I know for sure was turned into the base cops' HQ). Perhaps they can reverse that. But as far as adding new ones? Where would they build them? Space in the current area is pretty much tapped out unless they plan to build UP on top of the galley. They might build dorms in another area of campus, but again, I can't think of where. With all of the new academic buildings, parking structures, and the like they've put in during the last 15 years or so, there's not a lot of space left....

 

[josephpoint]

Old dorms like Foley Hall where I lived will be replaced. The plan wil be to tear down other two 1960 dorms still standing and replace them with high rise dorms.

 

[SDHornet]

Old dorms like Foley Hall where I lived will be replaced. The plan wil be to tear down other two 1960 dorms still standing and replace them with high rise dorms.

Foley was torn down years ago and the new dorm was built there. The old dorms will stay and will be on-campus housing for the poor students (the old master plan had them slated for demo). There is plenty of room for new dorms and other facilities; just go to the master plan website and download the 2nd forum presentation for more specifics. It’s linked in the locker room thread.

 

[superhornet]

Old dorms like Foley Hall where I lived will be replaced. The plan wil be to tear down other two 1960 dorms still standing and replace them with high rise dorms.

Foley was torn down years ago and the new dorm was built there. The old dorms will stay and will be on-campus housing for the poor students (the old master plan had them slated for demo). There is plenty of room for new dorms and other facilities; just go to the master plan website and download the 2nd forum presentation for more specifics. It’s linked in the locker room thread.

VERY good. The space issue was really the only major issue for me. A minor issue might be demand. Those old dorms, at least initially, were shuttered because housing applications plummeted. If it looks like they're on the upswing again, some upgrades would be a good idea. Another idea, if they haven't already implemented it (they might have) would be to set up a regular shuttle service (even if it's just a few golf carts) from the dorms to the athletic complex. That's a LONG walk, so that combined with some good ads in the dorm foyers and in the galley might help student attendance at games, especially football for now, and hoops/VB/gymnastics if the long-delayed arena ever gets built.

Thanks for the update, SD.

 

[josephpoint]

Yep SD. very aware that Foley was torn down years ago and now is the American River complex or whatever it is called. A great facility. So glad they took Foley down. Hopefully Draper and Jenkins will go soon as well. And thanks for the info. on the campus wide plan to increase on campus housing. I get my Alumni magazine and calls for donations regularly. Nice to stay informed from all sources.