• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

Attendance Issues

P

Pounder

Active member
If you think this is just about Portland State, think again.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10458047/next-generation-ticket-holder-concern-students-show-college-football-games" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an issue that has had focus since near the beginning of the football season (and I may have posted this here before, I know I did elsewhere)... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579097223907738780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People read the WSJ article and came to the conclusion that students want better Wi-Fi at games and may not be interested in watching, say, Georgia v North Texas (which, BTW, cannot be good news for Portland State). As Darren Rovell dug deeper with the ESPN article, he's finding other things.

- Money. Even if it's not a problem for students to get in, they can smell it when their team is up 40... or down 40.

- The live event has become secondary to the televised event. Think about the team that can barely cross the 50... and you have tickets on the other end. Meanwhile, the picture quality of the television is so good that students are getting better information from their friends in a bar (via cellphone) than they are from the replay screen in the stadium.

- Kind of related... but student sections, over the last few dozen years, have been pushed further and further away from the center of the field, from better seats (in many stadia, not all) because the money is in big donors wanting those seats. Of course, it begs a question when OSU (or Arizona) still have good seats for their students while Oregon students are in a corner and yet have a much better program... yep, the money matters.

- Alcohol (a problem Portland State doesn't have). The older students want it. (BTW, you should hear this subject come up in Boise, where a lot of fans really object to that concept. As someone else put it, "we're too close to SLC."

- Atmosphere got a soft sell in the article, but Rovell tweeted something a couple hours after the article was released: "Hardest battle at college football games: 60-year-old & 18-year-old fan want different atmosphere."

The obvious overarching issue here... if you're not roping in more students now, will they buy season tickets later on? I have serious doubts about that. A bigger problem to me... my Twitter feed has been full all basketball season of pictures from arenas of schools that are generally good draws, but aren't filling seats. I am coming to the conclusion that college athletics are not a good place to "invest" right now, outside a few established programs. What Portland State may be suffering is a "nationalization" of college sports. It's one thing if Portlanders don't really care about Portland State. What about Oregon State? What about, oh, 80% of BCS schools that are trying to keep up (and not generally succeeding) with the 20% that have major money and history and are really the ones ESPN (and the other networks) actually want to put on their broadcasts?
 
Watching a team blow out the other can be really dull. This is a big problem that television needs to learn as well. Though I would certainly welcome two back-to-back seasons of the Viks blowing out big sky teams (in realizing a promotion up to the Bowl ranks), blow-outs generally make for uninteresting football fodder.

For entertainment value, I am much more interested in watching two closely contested teams play against one another, not able to discern who would win, even if they were not among the very best teams (e.g. Fresno State & San Jose State). Those kinds of games are intriguing because the statistics involved challenge the viewers, and the game appears as fresh subject matter, not stale.

The bowl games were structured very well like this, especially about two years ago. Notre Dame, for example, got coddled too much this year, having their bowl game against Rutgers. I thought, "That's not a fair contest." I picked ND at about 90 percent confidence to win that game immediately after seeing what the match-up was. I did not care to view it, but I did check in once in a while to note how the score was trending. It turned out as expected. Boring. They playing against, say, A&M would have been intriguing.

The Las Vegas spread has the potential to make the games more interesting for bettors. The answer to making the games more interesting would never be to make great teams mediocre: They are preparing quality players for the NFL.

The main reason why students are abandoning the game may be that they can get more entertainment value from their electronic devices, or that the live college football games cannot keep them engrossed at the same level. The best thing would be to allow them to bring in their devices (the stadia providing the means to hook up) and to play them with the game as an "ambient background event" to which they can check in at exciting junctures.

The article emphasized that college football games are still attended well by SEC students, so theirs would the model to study. They play with blood, spirit and endurance, believing that the better team will win because their preparation has placed them in the favored position to win. The game's outcome will boil down to small differences in preparation between the two teams. They respect one another, expecting to find that key deciding events will bounce to one team's advantage or the other. They play for their performance's validation based on the wholeness of their preparation. Even then, ironic or poetic losses are still possible.

Within this scenario, the closer the game, the greater the meaning the reward their validation carries.

I suggest we study the very best SEC teams and see what can be seen for Portland State's benefit.
 
I think most people agree that this upcoming football season is a huge one, PSU needs people to turn out to the games in order to remain self-sufficient.

I know Hersh keeps describing the promotions at this year's basketball games as "successful" and "drawing accolades", but even with a huge increase in wins, the reality is attendance numbers were actually down - only Sac State had worse attendance. Now they are raising football prices next year and hinting at a similar in game experience. (I can renew at the same price, so this is not just me complaining about $) The football program can't afford this type of "success" and hope to be around 5 years down the road.
 
I'm really pessimistic at this point, but it would be foolish for PSU to make any real decisions until the whole NCAA restructuring process gets sorted out.
 
I was at a meeting recently where Wim Wewel spoke about PSU. I thought he was a charming man, with a good sense of humor and is probably a really good college president. However, I don't believe he is overly committed to Football. He even made a joke that in the world of college presidents the perfect schools to work at are ones that don't have a law school, a medical school or a football team. He said he had two out of the three covered.

This is definitely a make or break year for PSU football. Our future is riding on Coach Burton.

I understand that they are going to close the end zone sections of the stadium this coming season. I have been an advocate of that for a while, it would be much better to create atmosphere to push the crowd into a smaller area.
 
Pounder said:
If you think this is just about Portland State, think again.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10458047/next-generation-ticket-holder-concern-students-show-college-football-games" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an issue that has had focus since near the beginning of the football season (and I may have posted this here before, I know I did elsewhere)... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579097223907738780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People read the WSJ article and came to the conclusion that students want better Wi-Fi at games and may not be interested in watching, say, Georgia v North Texas (which, BTW, cannot be good news for Portland State). As Darren Rovell dug deeper with the ESPN article, he's finding other things.

- Money. Even if it's not a problem for students to get in, they can smell it when their team is up 40... or down 40.

- The live event has become secondary to the televised event. Think about the team that can barely cross the 50... and you have tickets on the other end. Meanwhile, the picture quality of the television is so good that students are getting better information from their friends in a bar (via cellphone) than they are from the replay screen in the stadium.

- Kind of related... but student sections, over the last few dozen years, have been pushed further and further away from the center of the field, from better seats (in many stadia, not all) because the money is in big donors wanting those seats. Of course, it begs a question when OSU (or Arizona) still have good seats for their students while Oregon students are in a corner and yet have a much better program... yep, the money matters.

- Alcohol (a problem Portland State doesn't have). The older students want it. (BTW, you should hear this subject come up in Boise, where a lot of fans really object to that concept. As someone else put it, "we're too close to SLC."

- Atmosphere got a soft sell in the article, but Rovell tweeted something a couple hours after the article was released: "Hardest battle at college football games: 60-year-old & 18-year-old fan want different atmosphere."

The obvious overarching issue here... if you're not roping in more students now, will they buy season tickets later on? I have serious doubts about that. A bigger problem to me... my Twitter feed has been full all basketball season of pictures from arenas of schools that are generally good draws, but aren't filling seats. I am coming to the conclusion that college athletics are not a good place to "invest" right now, outside a few established programs. What Portland State may be suffering is a "nationalization" of college sports. It's one thing if Portlanders don't really care about Portland State. What about Oregon State? What about, oh, 80% of BCS schools that are trying to keep up (and not generally succeeding) with the 20% that have major money and history and are really the ones ESPN (and the other networks) actually want to put on their broadcasts?
Click to expand...

As an EWU fan, I can relate to these problems. Our attendance has always been challenged. It isn't quite as bad as your situation right now, but it still isn't a pretty picture.

HOWEVER, I want to knock a couple of holes in your thinking...

I'm old enough to remember being in Civic Stadium when it was a total dump with an asphalt parking lot for a field and the same crappy parking situation--- yet it was packed to the rafters. This was some 25 years ago. What was different then? I'd say one big thing, Portland State was winning.

If you wonder why the casual PSU fan poo-poos the FCS ranks, it's because the team has been mostly a failure at this level. it isn't because the level is a problem unto itself. Yes, people will always view an FCS team as "lesser" than an FBS team, but unless Portland State jumps straight into the Pac-12 (which is completely impossible for a host of reasons), they will always be viewed as "lesser" than something else.

Plus, I've been to see Eastern play Portland State every other year for more than a decade. I've also seen PSU play Montana and Montana State at home. In every one of those instances, the road team brought a LOT more fans than the home team. Do you think Idaho and New Mexico State will be more road fans than some of the Big Sky schools? I doubt it. I also doubt the casual observer would be any more turned on by a game against Old Dominion or UTEP than they would be to Weber State or Cal Poly. You'd likely struggle even more to recruit talent to Portland and therefore lose as much or more without addressing the underlying key issues that plague your attendance (not to mention horrifically driving up the costs of running a program at that level). As fans, I'd get that FBS mentality out of your heads immediately.
 
LDopaPDX said:
Pounder said:
If you think this is just about Portland State, think again.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10458047/next-generation-ticket-holder-concern-students-show-college-football-games" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is an issue that has had focus since near the beginning of the football season (and I may have posted this here before, I know I did elsewhere)... http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304795804579097223907738780" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People read the WSJ article and came to the conclusion that students want better Wi-Fi at games and may not be interested in watching, say, Georgia v North Texas (which, BTW, cannot be good news for Portland State). As Darren Rovell dug deeper with the ESPN article, he's finding other things.

- Money. Even if it's not a problem for students to get in, they can smell it when their team is up 40... or down 40.

- The live event has become secondary to the televised event. Think about the team that can barely cross the 50... and you have tickets on the other end. Meanwhile, the picture quality of the television is so good that students are getting better information from their friends in a bar (via cellphone) than they are from the replay screen in the stadium.

- Kind of related... but student sections, over the last few dozen years, have been pushed further and further away from the center of the field, from better seats (in many stadia, not all) because the money is in big donors wanting those seats. Of course, it begs a question when OSU (or Arizona) still have good seats for their students while Oregon students are in a corner and yet have a much better program... yep, the money matters.

- Alcohol (a problem Portland State doesn't have). The older students want it. (BTW, you should hear this subject come up in Boise, where a lot of fans really object to that concept. As someone else put it, "we're too close to SLC."

- Atmosphere got a soft sell in the article, but Rovell tweeted something a couple hours after the article was released: "Hardest battle at college football games: 60-year-old & 18-year-old fan want different atmosphere."

The obvious overarching issue here... if you're not roping in more students now, will they buy season tickets later on? I have serious doubts about that. A bigger problem to me... my Twitter feed has been full all basketball season of pictures from arenas of schools that are generally good draws, but aren't filling seats. I am coming to the conclusion that college athletics are not a good place to "invest" right now, outside a few established programs. What Portland State may be suffering is a "nationalization" of college sports. It's one thing if Portlanders don't really care about Portland State. What about Oregon State? What about, oh, 80% of BCS schools that are trying to keep up (and not generally succeeding) with the 20% that have major money and history and are really the ones ESPN (and the other networks) actually want to put on their broadcasts?
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to remember being in Civic Stadium when it was a total dump with an asphalt parking lot for a field and the same crappy parking situation--- yet it was packed to the rafters. This was some 25 years ago. What was different then? I'd say one big thing, Portland State was winning.
Click to expand...

25 years ago Portland State was winning. However, Oregon was mediocre at best, and Oregon State was knee deep in a 26 year streak of losing seasons. In addition, the televised options for football on Saturdays was a fraction of what it is now. I think 25 years ago, people were less apt to drive down I5 to go sit in the rain watching the Ducks (oh wait, it never rains at Autzen Stadium) or see the Beavers play some of the worst college football in history.

They say winning cures all, which I think is true for the most part, but the local landscape of college football is very much different than it was 25 years ago. I often wonder if we were to actually put ourselves in a position to host a playoff game (or games), what would the local sentiment be.
 
Likely it is also that we choose to live consciously in pursuit of our true identity.

Branden wrote that living consciously is a state of being mentally active rather than passive. It is the ability to look at the world through fresh eyes. It is intelligence taking joy in its own function.

Living consciously is seeking to be aware of everything that bears on our interests, actions, values, purposes, and goals. It is the willingness to confront facts, pleasant or unpleasant. It is the desire to discover our mistakes and correct them.



Walsh wrote that the question is not why begin becoming our true self as we have already started off down that path. The question is: Do we wish to continue this path consciously or unconsciously? With awareness or lack of it? As the cause of our experience or the effect of it?

For most of Portland State's history, we've been subjected to living at the effect of our experiences. Now, we're invited to be the cause of them. That is what is known as conscious living. That is what is called walking in awareness.
 
You probably couldn't quantify the "Pokey Allen Factor" from back in the day either. The guy understood what it takes to sell tickets... doing some pretty extraordinary things to that end.
 


Pokey Allen was someone who made a successful connection with the Portland target market. His was one way to reach them, and there certainly must be other ways. David Hersh and his crew probably know some other angles and approaches that also work.

The Portland market has always been an enigma to me. What would work well in most parts of the country could fall flat here for some idiosyncratic reason that doesn't even show up on the radar as to why it failed. I tended to think that prizes like outfitting gear, ocean fishing trips, specific kinds of hunting trips or the like would be the right kind of bait and lure to attract large numbers to the stadium.

But how are you going to keep them down on in the big sky when they've been to the intoxicating prestige of the Pac-12 football experience? The atmosphere in Eugene or Corvallis on game day is transcending. Just being there is a rarified feeling. The conference's prestige is a huge benefit to Oregon and Oregon State. That is what the market here expects now and will not likely settle for considereably much less unless

(1) the people can plainly see that getting to a substitute intoxicating game day experience (of at least a similar quality and magnitude) is the clear goal

and

(2) there is clear incremental progress season after season, perhaps with an occasional bout here and there to really spike up consumer confidence.
 
I think drawing large numbers of fans is more difficult in a big city than it is in a college town. Even down South, big market universities like Georgia Tech and Miami draw poorly given how football crazy those markets are... while teams like Clemson, Auburn, and even Florida in comparably small towns can't build stadiums that are big enough. USC and UCLA have always struggled to fill their stadiums; USC has righted that ship to some degree, but still don't get to capacity unless it is a game of high importance.
 
Guychamp said:
Please don't compare us to the SEC. We have MUCH different challenges. It's apples and ...
Watermelons.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that the main examples given were ACC-based. The argument is also right on target.

BTW, Florida attendance is dropping off, too. Yes, it's the record...

...but this is where I have to go back at Marty. Some of the articles I present mentioned WINNING programs losing fans, in the SEC. You expect PSU to buck this trend? There is a bigger problem- or more likely 500 different little problems with the whole system and the perception of the sport at this moment- that could very well drag PSU into the undertow.
 
Pounder said:
Guychamp said:
Please don't compare us to the SEC. We have MUCH different challenges. It's apples and ...
Watermelons.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that the main examples given were ACC-based. The argument is also right on target.

BTW, Florida attendance is dropping off, too. Yes, it's the record...

...but this is where I have to go back at Marty. Some of the articles I present mentioned WINNING programs losing fans, in the SEC. You expect PSU to buck this trend? There is a bigger problem- or more likely 500 different little problems with the whole system and the perception of the sport at this moment- that could very well drag PSU into the undertow.
Click to expand...

I said winning cures all for the most part, but I also said that the college landscape has changed. Would a perennial ten win PSU program raise attendance? Most likely. Would it sell the stadium out? Probably not.

Not sure of the comparison to an ACC, SEC, or any FBS conference for that matter, comparison on attendance based on winning. Georgia gives 18k seats to students, but has less than 15k show up even when they're winning? Their gap in student attendance is well over half of our average seasonal attendance.
 
UAB is likely going to announce that they're shutting down football this week.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/11/30/alabama-birmingham-shuts-down-football-program-fires-athletic-director" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, this program has only been around since 1991.

On the way to digging through this, I also found...

http://www.voodoofive.com/2014/1/14/5306018/2013-was-the-worst-attended-season-in-the-bcs-era-for-usf-football" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top