In the ACC the big winner was Florida State with a 9% increase, followed by Carolina and Syracuse with 6% increases, Dook at +5%, BC at +4%, NC State +2%, and Louisville at +1%.
The ACC's biggest looser was Pitt at -17%, followed by UVa at -15%, Wake Forest and Va. Tech at -4%, Clemson and Miami at -2%, and GT at -1%.
Notre Dame (not a member of the ACC for football) was flat.

(12-16-2014 04:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's biggest looser was Pitt at -17%, followed by UVa at -15%, Wake Forest and Va. Tech at -4%, Clemson and Miami at -2%, and GT at -1%.

I bet the fact that they had Virginia Tech and Oregon at home last year had an affect on the drop.

(12-16-2014 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  when you systemically stack the playing field to make a sports league as blatantly rigged and unfair as FBS, when most of the schools can't even get a chance to play for a championship even if they win every game on their schedule, when a TV network and sports media talking heads get to decide which teams are worthy and which aren't, you end up with a sports league that is purposefully uncompetitive which makes it less exciting to want to watch live.

You're being melodramatic. The disparity in opportunity to compete for a championship is between the P5 and G5, but let's face it, people don't care about that. The typical fan couldn't care less if a 12-0 Marshall doesn't get to face Alabama in a playoff game. They only care that the "big time" teams all have a shot, and basically, under the CFP, they do, because all the big time teams are in the P5.

Attendance - either up or down - usually tends to have local not general reasons, because all indicators are that college football is as popular as ever. E.g., Tulane's attendance was up 25% this year because they got a new on-campus stadium. USF's attendance was down 12% this year because we sucked once again, as was Florida's attendance, while FSU's attendance was up because they are riding high with a championship team. LSU's attendance was up 9% because they expanded their stadium, etc.

so now we're a nation where equality is decided by majority rule? who are these "people" you speak of?

The current setup is fair even if the G5 doesnt like it.

NOBODY is guranteed a spot in the playoff just because they won a particular conference. It gives emphasis to SOS which is important because FBS is not a group of franchises playing under a universal set of rules as part of the same company like the NFL. It's a wide range of incredibly different schools that range in commitment to Athletics from Ohio State to Idaho and that has to be acknowledged.

(12-16-2014 05:08 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The current setup is fair even if the G5 doesnt like it.

NOBODY is guranteed a spot in the playoff just because they won a particular conference. It gives emphasis to SOS which is important because FBS is not a group of franchises playing under a universal set of rules as part of the same company like the NFL. It's a wide range of incredibly different schools that range in commitment to Athletics from Ohio State to Idaho and that has to be acknowledged.

a set up that doesn't allow a single solitary team the ability to control their own destiny is the antithesis of "fair".

why are you opposed to allowing the decision to be made on the field?

Too many 70" TV's.

(12-16-2014 04:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  when you systemically stack the playing field to make a sports league as blatantly rigged and unfair as FBS, when most of the schools can't even get a chance to play for a championship even if they win every game on their schedule, when a TV network and sports media talking heads get to decide which teams are worthy and which aren't, you end up with a sports league that is purposefully uncompetitive which makes it less exciting to want to watch live.

You're being melodramatic. The disparity in opportunity to compete for a championship is between the P5 and G5, but let's face it, people don't care about that. The typical fan couldn't care less if a 12-0 Marshall doesn't get to face Alabama in a playoff game. They only care that the "big time" teams all have a shot, and basically, under the CFP, they do, because all the big time teams are in the P5.

Attendance - either up or down - usually tends to have local not general reasons, because all indicators are that college football is as popular as ever. E.g., Tulane's attendance was up 25% this year because they got a new on-campus stadium. USF's attendance was down 12% this year because we sucked once again, as was Florida's attendance, while FSU's attendance was up because they are riding high with a championship team. LSU's attendance was up 9% because they expanded their stadium, etc.

so now we're a nation where equality is decided by majority rule? who are these "people" you speak of?

The "people' i speak of are the vast mass of college football fans. If these fans cared that Marshall doesn't get to play Alabama in a playoff, there would be an uproar about it, but there isn't. The only uproar was about the behemoths, whether the B1G champ or Big 12 champ should have made the playoffs.

IOW's, there's no evidence that fans are finding college football "less exciting to watch". Believe me, no LSU fan has ever decided not to go to an LSU game because they were upset that ULL or South Alabama doesn't get a chance to play LSU in a playoff game. They never didn't watch on TV either.

(12-16-2014 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  when you systemically stack the playing field to make a sports league as blatantly rigged and unfair as FBS, when most of the schools can't even get a chance to play for a championship even if they win every game on their schedule, when a TV network and sports media talking heads get to decide which teams are worthy and which aren't, you end up with a sports league that is purposefully uncompetitive which makes it less exciting to want to watch live.

You're being melodramatic. The disparity in opportunity to compete for a championship is between the P5 and G5, but let's face it, people don't care about that. The typical fan couldn't care less if a 12-0 Marshall doesn't get to face Alabama in a playoff game. They only care that the "big time" teams all have a shot, and basically, under the CFP, they do, because all the big time teams are in the P5.

Attendance - either up or down - usually tends to have local not general reasons, because all indicators are that college football is as popular as ever. E.g., Tulane's attendance was up 25% this year because they got a new on-campus stadium. USF's attendance was down 12% this year because we sucked once again, as was Florida's attendance, while FSU's attendance was up because they are riding high with a championship team. LSU's attendance was up 9% because they expanded their stadium, etc.

so now we're a nation where equality is decided by majority rule? who are these "people" you speak of?

The "people' i speak of are the vast mass of college football fans. If these fans cared that Marshall doesn't get to play Alabama in a playoff, there would be an uproar about it, but there isn't. The only uproar was about the behemoths, whether the B1G champ or Big 12 champ should have made the playoffs.

IOW's, there's no evidence that fans are finding college football "less exciting to watch". Believe me, no LSU fan has ever decided not to go to an LSU game because they were upset that ULL or South Alabama doesn't get a chance to play LSU in a playoff game. They never didn't watch on TV either.

IOW, when the media systemically ignores half of the league the average fan doesn't notice they are being ignored.

Brilliant analysis there chief. What's next, poor people are poor because they don't try hard enough?

Fans want fun games and they want excitement and drama.

A G5 can make the playoff and if some G5 ends the final Saturday of the season 12-0 or 13-0 with a couple P5 wins and has won 24 or so of the last 26 they will have a legit playoff argument and if the field of four already looks muddled there will be people who care whether they make it.

SOS matters but we all (hopefully) understand that a school controls only three or four dates on their schedule. Of the top 6 Baylor assembled the worse slate in the games they controlled. I'd argue that Bama and TCU used their free dates in a similar manner. Ohio State used their dates a bit better while Oregon and Florida State had the best non-conference slates.

Baylor took itself out and TCU by not winning their conference.

If Baylor were competing for the last slot next with this year's resume against a 13-0 Boise State that had beaten Washington and won at Baylor and UVA especially if they are coming off a win vs Arizona there would be real sentiment for Boise State and fans might actually care if they were passed over because they will have done pretty much everything under their control.

I'm a G5 fan but I'm not bent because there was no G5 this year that in my mind was among the 10 best in the country much less arguably the four best.

(12-16-2014 11:28 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 09:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:53 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  when you systemically stack the playing field to make a sports league as blatantly rigged and unfair as FBS, when most of the schools can't even get a chance to play for a championship even if they win every game on their schedule, when a TV network and sports media talking heads get to decide which teams are worthy and which aren't, you end up with a sports league that is purposefully uncompetitive which makes it less exciting to want to watch live.

You're being melodramatic. The disparity in opportunity to compete for a championship is between the P5 and G5, but let's face it, people don't care about that. The typical fan couldn't care less if a 12-0 Marshall doesn't get to face Alabama in a playoff game. They only care that the "big time" teams all have a shot, and basically, under the CFP, they do, because all the big time teams are in the P5.

Attendance - either up or down - usually tends to have local not general reasons, because all indicators are that college football is as popular as ever. E.g., Tulane's attendance was up 25% this year because they got a new on-campus stadium. USF's attendance was down 12% this year because we sucked once again, as was Florida's attendance, while FSU's attendance was up because they are riding high with a championship team. LSU's attendance was up 9% because they expanded their stadium, etc.

so now we're a nation where equality is decided by majority rule? who are these "people" you speak of?

The "people' i speak of are the vast mass of college football fans. If these fans cared that Marshall doesn't get to play Alabama in a playoff, there would be an uproar about it, but there isn't. The only uproar was about the behemoths, whether the B1G champ or Big 12 champ should have made the playoffs.

IOW's, there's no evidence that fans are finding college football "less exciting to watch". Believe me, no LSU fan has ever decided not to go to an LSU game because they were upset that ULL or South Alabama doesn't get a chance to play LSU in a playoff game. They never didn't watch on TV either.

IOW, when the media systemically ignores half of the league the average fan doesn't notice they are being ignored.

Brilliant analysis there chief. What's next, poor people are poor because they don't try hard enough?

You're missing an important element of the process: The media ignores Marshall and South Alabama football for the same reason it ignores you and I on a daily basis - far too few people care about us/them to merit the attention. The media is out to make money, so it makes no sense to ignore something that fans care about.

From your injections of political-economic commentary, I get the sense that you are some kind of social-welfare socialist who likes to see productive people taxed and the money redistributed to the poor. That mentality explains your feelings about college football.

(12-16-2014 04:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 04:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC's biggest looser was Pitt at -17%, followed by UVa at -15%, Wake Forest and Va. Tech at -4%, Clemson and Miami at -2%, and GT at -1%.

I bet the fact that they had Virginia Tech and Oregon at home last year had an affect on the drop.

UVa had UCLA and UNC at home this year. Not having VT or Oregon is not the reason for the drop. They are running at 63.9% of capacity as the program has slid over the past number of years.

Here's the ACC's capacity attendance with home game drivers - games that would tend to fill any excess capacity at home.

1. ND had 100% capacity (Michigan, Stanford, UNC, Louisville, NW)
2. FSU had 99.9% capacity (Clemson, Notre Dame)
3. Clemson had 98.4% (South Carolina, Louisville)
4. Louisville had 96.2% (Miami, FSU)
5. NC State had 94.6% (FSU)
6. VT had 92.4% (ECU, Miami, UVa)
7. GT had 88.2% (Miami, Clemson)
8. UNC had 86.8% (VT, NC State)
9. WF had 86.4% (Clemson, VT)
10. Syr had 81.3% (FSU)
11. Duke had 80.5% (UNC)
12. BC had 76.4% (Southern Cal, Clemson)
13. Miami had 68% (UNC, FSU)
14. UVa had 63.9% (UCLA, UNC, Miami)
15. Pitt had 63.1% (Iowa, VT)

Proximity of the other team's fan base, the profile of the other team, all those intangibles matter when it comes to selling that last several thousand tickets.

ND for instance had two nearby traditional rivals, two new ACC schools wanting to make the trip, and far away but traditional rival Stanford. FSU had a really good set of home games highlighted by ND, and Clemson.

NC State had the worst home package in the league no doubt, but Pitt, and Syracuse was not much better.

This points to the problems in attendance at UVa in particular - UVa had three really good games with a top 10 UCLA, a close by UNC, and a traditional name in Miami. Pitt and Miami play in pro-stadiums so the have a good 15K seats that they can not begin to sell, nor would they be selling if they had their own stadiums that would otherwise be sized at 50K and 57.5K respectively.

Anything over 85% is healthy given the economy. Anything over 95% is great. However, once you get below 80% in your home stadium, there are issues. Sometimes it could be the schedule sucks, or perhaps the home team has sucked too long.

UVa has real issues.

They bring in a high-liner nearly every year (UCLA, Oregon, Penn State, etc) for the last several years and they alternate big fan base UNC and VT at home every year. These are games that should push 60K at Scott Stadium. Of course is they had Clemson, FSU, and NC State more regularly it would help as those will make the trip.

But let's not forget where UVa's students hail from, and the fact that football attendance in person for these new students is not the big deal it once was in the 80's and early 90's.