(09-07-2017 11:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Compared to what they used to be, the NIT and MSG are relics of the past. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant. But MSG is not the center of college basketball and a grand arena that has no similar companion.

But those kinds of things change a lot faster than school support, because people do not develop loyalty to the NIT and pass it on to the next generation the way they develop loyalty to a school and pass it on.

The question is more how many of a school's fans are die-hard fans, and how many are bandwagon fans. It's the die hard fans that work to pass it on. When it becomes part of the identity of an extended family, that makes the affinity very "sticky" (in the technical term from economics).

On this generational thing of not winning titles, it didn't seem to hurt Alabama any....

Alabama had a 30-year stretch (1979-2009) during which it won exactly one national championship and exactly four Southeastern Conference titles.

It didn't seem to cost them many fans.

(09-07-2017 12:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 11:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Compared to what they used to be, the NIT and MSG are relics of the past. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant. But MSG is not the center of college basketball and a grand arena that has no similar companion.

But those kinds of things change a lot faster than school support, because people do not develop loyalty to the NIT and pass it on to the next generation the way they develop loyalty to a school and pass it on.

The question is more how many of a school's fans are die-hard fans, and how many are bandwagon fans. It's the die hard fans that work to pass it on. When it becomes part of the identity of an extended family, that makes the affinity very "sticky" (in the technical term from economics).

Ehh, it ebbs and flows via bandwagons. There are plenty of schools that had numerous fans a generation or more ago that have few today, such as Tulane, Rice and even a few Big State U's like Wyoming and UNLV.

As for Alabama...they are a major flagship university in a football mad state. They had been good more consistently than Notre Dame. And even they had a slump with fan interest until Saban got there.

Notre Dame's whole identity was based on Catholicism and how dominant they were. They are no longer dominant and I'd figure their mystique would have worn off some. Look at their football mystique versus their basketball mystique. In basketball, they're just another Catholic school. I'm not saying they shouldn't still be very popular, just that I'd figure some of that would have worn off by now. It's amazing they're still as popular as they are.

Being a fan of ND has a lot more involved that just wins, losses and Catholicism (although a big part of it).

Some of those factors are traditions, academic standards, sports history/lore and family history, among other things.

But, regarding winning, ND has gone 60-31 under Brian Kelly (including 12 and 10 win seasons) in seven seasons plus this year's opener.

That record includes last year's 4-8 disaster (which sucked and I hope was an anomaly). It is not that great but maybe not quite the complete decline some people make it out to be.

In any event, I think that you agree that there is a lot more going on here than you originally thought.

Your thesis that not winning championships should mean less fans may apply to some state schools without ND's unique background. But, even you admit that your thesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny in ND's case.

Come on, Notre Dame has had a lot of bad seasons since Holtz left. The Davie era was a disaster even with that gift Fiesta Bowl appearance (they really didn't beat too much of anyone), the Willingham era started great but ultimately sucked and so did the Weis era. This is the first time they seemed to be back under Kelly. It's hardly about just winning it all. Maybe it's just me since Notre Dame hadn't been a title contender since I'd been following college football until 2012.

(09-07-2017 05:43 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Come on, Notre Dame has had a lot of bad seasons since Holtz left. The Davie era was a disaster even with that gift Fiesta Bowl appearance (they really didn't beat too much of anyone), the Willingham era started great but ultimately sucked and so did the Weis era. This is the first time they seemed to be back under Kelly. It's hardly about just winning it all. Maybe it's just me since Notre Dame hadn't been a title contender since I'd been following college football until 2012.

idk why this is hard for you to understand. ND has things built in which transcend bad seasons.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

My point was that them becoming less relevant, hypothetically, was because their teams weren't as good, not just because they didn't win a national title once in 25 years.

ND is a post product program where its about love for the brand not the product on the field.

That is the way it is with most T-shirt programs.

Notes Dame, both as an institution and as a fan base, seems to have retreated inside itself and themselves.

Most of what you hear is about something other than what's on the field and that's all why it's acceptable and why something is more impressive than it actually is.

I don't think there is a great program out there that looks less capable of a return to glory than ND.

@Kittonhead

Yep...

Not that they're not good but their popularity is a product of hype and the Catch-22: People want to watch them and read about them because they're on TV and in the media and they're in the media and on TV because people want to watch them. There's more to it than that of course but the hype doesn't hurt.

You can pull the same photo up for the Nebraska game in 2000. Effect? Zero.

Georgia had not played North of the Mason Dixon line since 1965 and were willing to pay up to $1,200 per ticket to make the once in a lifetime trip to ND.

Next....

(09-11-2017 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can pull the same photo up for the Nebraska game in 2000. Effect? Zero.

Georgia had not played North of the Mason Dixon line since 1965 and were willing to pay up to $1,200 per ticket to make the once in a lifetime trip to ND.

Next....

http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/notre-da...gafan.html



Epic meltdown full of lulz

We never felt like it was much of a road game," Smart said, according to Tyler James of the South Bend Tribune. "There were times, our quarterback was able to go on his own cadence, which you don't usually get to do on the road. You definitely don't get to do it on the road in the SEC. The fan base doesn't let you do that."


https://www.thescore.com/news/1369737

(09-11-2017 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can pull the same photo up for the Nebraska game in 2000. Effect? Zero.

Georgia had not played North of the Mason Dixon line since 1965 and were willing to pay up to $1,200 per ticket to make the once in a lifetime trip to ND.

Next....

It was that kind of sentiment oozing from the NBC crew that made me change the channel.

Georgia would have filled the stadium just about anywhere. That wasn't much to do with ND.

ND needs more than platitudes if it is ever going to reclaim a seat at the table. All of that is limiting ND greatly.

(09-07-2017 07:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm saying how are they as popular as they are? Why do they still get so much love and support from Catholics?

The questions are rhetorical anyways, I totally get it.

For the same reason people in Texas root for Texas. It's now generational. People in Chicago all root for Notre Dame and it goes beyond being Catholic.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(09-12-2017 05:45 AM)panama Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 07:19 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  I'm saying how are they as popular as they are? Why do they still get so much love and support from Catholics?

The questions are rhetorical anyways, I totally get it.

For the same reason people in Texas root for Texas. It's now generational. People in Chicago all root for Notre Dame and it goes beyond being Catholic.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I guess what he is saying with all of the rhetorical questions is that he doesn't like it, at all, that ND is still popular and has lots of fans coast to coast.

It seems like he fervently wishes that it were not so. He says he "totally gets it". He just doesn't seem to like it.

It's not that I don't like it, it's that I'm shocked they're still so popular. I would have figured that popularity would have waned, Notre Dame hasn't even been that good since Holtz. Not everything gets passed down from generation-to-generation and many cultural fads die out over time.

I will note that I started watching college football at the tail end of the Holtz era, his very last season as a matter of fact. Basically speaking, my first impression of Notre Dame came from Bob Davie's teams, so I suppose that clouds my view. Notre Dame hasn't been dominant since then.

(09-11-2017 08:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-11-2017 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can pull the same photo up for the Nebraska game in 2000. Effect? Zero.

Georgia had not played North of the Mason Dixon line since 1965 and were willing to pay up to $1,200 per ticket to make the once in a lifetime trip to ND.

Next....

It was that kind of sentiment oozing from the NBC crew that made me change the channel.

Georgia would have filled the stadium just about anywhere. That wasn't much to do with ND.

That is just plain silly. Georgia fan willingness to pay amazing sums for these tickets had everything to do with it being Notre Dame. Everything.

As SB Nation said:

"And this is where credit goes to Notre Dame. It was not random that Georgia fans decided to pay four-figure sums for tickets and demand-inflated prices for airfare and accommodations. They REALLY wanted to see their team in South Bend because it is a bucket list experience."

Anyone who listened to the comments of Georgia fans before the game knows this.

(07-29-2017 12:17 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I was looking at this post I copied from the AAC board

(07-19-2017 07:31 AM)Moody Magic Wrote:  The WSU thread about being great for the board got me thinking about what they add numbers wise. I'm sure this has been discussed before but I quickly ranked the metro areas by population for each AAC school. I'm not saying each school delivers their market but it is their base. Interesting to note the two schools with loudest/most annoying/vocal fans come from the two smallest markets.....

AAC rank - metro area (metro pop, US metro rank)

1. SMU - DFW (7,200,000 4th)
2. UH - Houston (6,800,000 5th)
3. Temple - Philly (6,100,000 7th)
4. USF - Tampa (3,000,000 18th)
5. Navy - Baltimore/Annapolis (2,700,000 21st)
6. UCF - Orlando (2,500,000 23rd)
7. Cincy - Cincinnati (2,200,000 28th)
8. Memphis - Memphis (1,300,000 42nd)
9. Tulane - New Orleans (1,300,000 46th)
10. UConn - Hartford (1,200,000 47th)
11. Tulsa - Tulsa (1,000,000 55th)
12. WSU - Wichita (600,000 87th)
13. ECU - Greenville, NC (200,000 236th)

Also, I included Annapolis in the Baltimore metro.

, and it got me thinking, "how does one accurately determine a college team's market?" With some teams, it's kinda obvious like UCLA's market is LA and Miami, Fl's market is Miami, etc. But how do you determine USC's market? It stands for the University of Southern California, so just how many markets can it claim? And Auburn has fans both in the states of Alabama and Georgia. What markets can they claim? See what I mean? So, how does one determine the market for each team??

See Nebraska and Miami. Who would you rather be? The school in a tiny state with 80k in their OCS every game or the school in a huge state with no stadium and terrible attendance? Me: Nebraska every day of the week and twice on Saturday.