http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...n-low-2014

Nicer/bigger home entertainment systems, more entertainment options in general, and people having a shorter attention span and can't focus on one thing for 3.5 hours in the Internet social media age... I'm guessing these are the main drivers.

I also wonder if people are becoming even more "bandwagon-ish" and fair weather fan than in the past. I mean, losing records will always ding interest and attendance. But it feels like people are just more fickle now.

(12-16-2014 09:14 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Nicer/bigger home entertainment systems, more entertainment options in general, and people having a shorter attention span and can't focus on one thing for 3.5 hours in the Internet social media age... I'm guessing these are the main drivers.

I also wonder if people are becoming even more "bandwagon-ish" and fair weather fan than in the past. I mean, losing records will always ding interest and attendance. But it feels like people are just more fickle now.

I agree and I think the television networks ENCOURAGE folks to sit home and watch the games there.

I see it somewhat as a 'zero sum' game.

Fans can either go to the game or watch the game at home. Schools have the preference for butts in seats for many reasons, e.g., ticket sales, concessions, parking, etc. etc.

ESPN, on the other hand, are perfectly happy with folks sitting home and watching their team on any network, including ESPN3. So long as networks produce good enough ratings they will continue to get big rights fees from cable and dish companies.

And, OF COURSE, mid-week MACtion is case in point. Attendance is sacrificed for national television.

For the consumer, he (or she) can sit home and if their favorite game is a blowout, then simply channel flip.

I'm a channel flipper. This is especially true in September when the MAC plays a lot of OOC games and I change channels to find the best one, which might be an 'Upset Alert' game. I attended one game this year where the games on television were much more attractive than the game I was at...

This article is factually wrong.

Average attendance is down, not the actual attendance. And it's down b/c of the addition of several universities w/ lower attendances. Ergo, actual attendance is UP. And average attendance using the same universities from 2000 to 2014 is UP.

This article's headline and lead are simply untrue. It's like something from the NYT.

And quite frankly the $ amounts of attendance to most MAC teams isn't that much.

EMU, e.g., gets more money in television rights from the MAC then we'd get if we sold 10K more tickets per game per season.

Or we can add one 'money game' and that money game produces more income then our entire gate receipts for home games.

There are a NUMBER of revenue streams for MAC teams, e.g., CFP monies, ESPN MAC rights monies, road game guarantees and home games.

MAC home game ticket revenue can easily be less than 25% of the total football revenues (at EMU say 1/2 of that). It is marginally important, but not a primary revenue stream. E.g., at EMU, road guarantees (say 40%), CFP (25%), ESPN monies (25%), home gate receipts (10%).

And have to remember, as attendance increases so do the number of student attendees who get in free. So if ave. attendance rises 6K / game at a school, maybe 2K of that are students so paid attendance increase is 4K / game.

Having 8K students at a game is great to see, but it doesn't do much for the bottom line.

Yep, any apples to apples comparisons on average attendance over the years would have to consider the additions of FCS-to-FBS newbies that tend to have MAC-ish attendance figures. Good call, Torch.

(12-16-2014 09:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  This article is factually wrong.

Average attendance is down, not the actual attendance. And it's down b/c of the addition of several universities w/ lower attendances. Ergo, actual attendance is UP. And average attendance using the same universities from 2000 to 2014 is UP.

This article's headline and lead are simply untrue. It's like something from the NYT.

This is the classic problem in research and data analysis, there is usually no single metric which all might agree upon.

If the criterion is average attendance per FBS home game, I think the article IS ACCURATE.

I'm not sure that any caveats about expansion are appropriate.

Do we report national data for 48 states and decide we don't want to include Alaska and Hawaii? I think not. When they were admitted to the union their income data, crime data, meteorological data, etc. are all added in. Global warming was reversed when we added Alaska's cold.

E.g., when we speak of bowl attendance we speak about the totality (in statistical terms it is the population or universe - all members - or in this case all bowl games. We do not subset that universe such as all New Year's Day games or all CFP games). Matter of fact, RE: bowl games. The following could be a very factual statement: "The average attendance at post season bowl games has declined as more and more bowl games were created and the attendance at such games were lower then the more established bowl games."

Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

The average attendance for FBS games in 2014 was 43,483, down four percent from 2013 and the lowest average since it was 42,631 in 2000."

I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over. And my point is that I agree and that schools are, on the other hand, compensating for loss of ticket revenue with higher media rights fees. (just balancing the balance sheet).

(12-16-2014 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  And quite frankly the $ amounts of attendance to most MAC teams isn't that much.

EMU, e.g., gets more money in television rights from the MAC then we'd get if we sold 10K more tickets per game per season.

Or we can add one 'money game' and that money game produces more income then our entire gate receipts for home games.

There are a NUMBER of revenue streams for MAC teams, e.g., CFP monies, ESPN MAC rights monies, road game guarantees and home games.

MAC home game ticket revenue can easily be less than 25% of the total football revenues (at EMU say 1/2 of that). It is marginally important, but not a primary revenue stream. E.g., at EMU, road guarantees (say 40%), CFP (25%), ESPN monies (25%), home gate receipts (10%).

And have to remember, as attendance increases so do the number of student attendees who get in free. So if ave. attendance rises 6K / game at a school, maybe 2K of that are students so paid attendance increase is 4K / game.

Having 8K students at a game is great to see, but it doesn't do much for the bottom line.

So you are basically saying the MAC should continue to sell out the fans for $$. Want to talk about something other than EMU's attendance? How about the fact that EMU football is 29 - 98 over the last decade with zero winning seasons. The best season was .500 and that required you to beat two FCS teams. How is all that money advancing EMU football? In the early 2000s, pre-MACtion, NIU vs Toledo drew 36K fans and NIU vs WMU had 28K. This season there were 8K people at the NIU Toledo game with the MAC West on the line. What message does that send to the fan bases of these programs? It's a cash grab.

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 09:54 AM)emu steve Wrote:  And quite frankly the $ amounts of attendance to most MAC teams isn't that much.

EMU, e.g., gets more money in television rights from the MAC then we'd get if we sold 10K more tickets per game per season.

Or we can add one 'money game' and that money game produces more income then our entire gate receipts for home games.

There are a NUMBER of revenue streams for MAC teams, e.g., CFP monies, ESPN MAC rights monies, road game guarantees and home games.

MAC home game ticket revenue can easily be less than 25% of the total football revenues (at EMU say 1/2 of that). It is marginally important, but not a primary revenue stream. E.g., at EMU, road guarantees (say 40%), CFP (25%), ESPN monies (25%), home gate receipts (10%).

And have to remember, as attendance increases so do the number of student attendees who get in free. So if ave. attendance rises 6K / game at a school, maybe 2K of that are students so paid attendance increase is 4K / game.

Having 8K students at a game is great to see, but it doesn't do much for the bottom line.

So you are basically saying the MAC should continue to sell out the fans for $$. Want to talk about something other than EMU's attendance? How about the fact that EMU football is 29 - 98 over the last decade with zero winning seasons. The best season was .500 and that required you to beat two FCS teams. How is all that money advancing EMU football? In the early 2000s, pre-MACtion, NIU vs Toledo drew 36K fans and NIU vs WMU had 28K. This season there were 8K people at the NIU Toledo game with the MAC West on the line. What message does that send to the fan bases of these programs? It's a cash grab.

Do you see armor trucks carrying away hundreds and hundreds of thousand dollars from Kent games, BG games, Akron games? Miami, etc.

Sure EMU has the biggest attendance problems, BUT much of the MAC isn't getting rich on their home game ticket sales. EDIT: Toledo and NIU probably have the best home game ticket revenues.

I watch a lot of games and MOST MAC games have attendance issues.

No one seems to dispute the attendance numbers, which look pretty specious, from other MAC schools...

I remember the Toledo @ WMU game in a September driving rain. Doubt there was more than a thousand or two thousand there. Wonder what the attendance was?

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.

Quote:I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over.

Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Why do we keep getting into this attendance issue?

Didn't we get rid of it when Marshall left for C-USA and they became obsessed with the size of their crowds. It was always 'bigger is better' superiority.

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.

Quote:I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over.

Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Sir, I disagree with you.

The author is speaking of FBS football. He is NOT speaking of any subset such as P5, G5, 'winning programs', 'losing programs', etc.

If the Census Bureau reports that America is 'graying' they are saying that the national (all 320M people) population has a rising median age.

(12-16-2014 10:37 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.

Quote:I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over.

Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Sir, I disagree with you.

The author is speaking of FBS football. He is NOT speaking of any subset such as P5, G5, 'winning programs', 'losing programs', etc.

If the Census Bureau reports that America is 'graying' they are saying that the national (all 320M people) population has a rising median age.

Still, the angle should then talk more about the changing makeup of FBS to put things in perspective. The more South Alabamas and Georgia States that are added to the FBS pool, the more the overall FBS attendance average will slip. Even if the article is statistically accurate, it begs that caveat.

(12-16-2014 10:46 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:37 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.

Quote:I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over.

Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Sir, I disagree with you.

The author is speaking of FBS football. He is NOT speaking of any subset such as P5, G5, 'winning programs', 'losing programs', etc.

If the Census Bureau reports that America is 'graying' they are saying that the national (all 320M people) population has a rising median age.

Still, the angle should then talk more about the changing makeup of FBS to put things in perspective. The more South Alabamas and Georgia States that are added to the FBS pool, the more the overall FBS attendance average will slip. Even if the article is statistically accurate, it begs that caveat.

The author chose to talk about schools with increased attendance and schools with decreased attendance.

The author essentially said, "some are up. Some are down. On balance there is a net decrease in average attendance."

Your caveat is interesting, and true. Since I have been following college football I don't remember us adding a new FBS school which averages say 75K / game. Most have smallish attendance.

The easiest way to get around this problem:

Take the ave. home game attendance for each FBS school for each year going back to say 2000.

Rank the schools, for each year, in ascending ave attendance rank, and pick the median school for each year.

At that point the median school essentially cancels out the outliers (e.g., the new FBS schools) and we can compare apples to apples over say 15 years.

Using medians is very well established for this type of statistical problem.

(12-16-2014 11:09 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:46 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:37 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:16 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Dr. Torch:

The article is perfectly clear. It is not pulling any punches. It picked the metric, average attendance, to best represent it.

"College football home attendance dropped to the lowest it's been in 14 years this season, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.

I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.

Quote:I think the author is making a VERY IMPORTANT POINT: The days of higher attendance per game are over.

Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Sir, I disagree with you.

The author is speaking of FBS football. He is NOT speaking of any subset such as P5, G5, 'winning programs', 'losing programs', etc.

If the Census Bureau reports that America is 'graying' they are saying that the national (all 320M people) population has a rising median age.

Still, the angle should then talk more about the changing makeup of FBS to put things in perspective. The more South Alabamas and Georgia States that are added to the FBS pool, the more the overall FBS attendance average will slip. Even if the article is statistically accurate, it begs that caveat.

The author chose to talk about schools with increased attendance and schools with decreased attendance.

The author essentially said, "some are up. Some are down. On balance there is a net decrease in average attendance."

Your caveat is interesting, and true. Since I have been following college football I don't remember us adding a new FBS school which averages say 75K / game. Most have smallish attendance.

The easiest way to get around this problem:

Take the ave. home game attendance for each FBS school for each year going back to say 2000.

Rank the schools, for each year, in ascending ave attendance rank, and pick the median school for each year.

At that point the median school essentially cancels out the outliers (e.g., the new FBS schools) and we can compare apples to apples over say 15 years.

Using medians is very well established for this type of statistical problem.

No, the median will still go down. Basically what was added to the mix was not a statistically random group, it was a group completely restricted to, essentially selected at, the lower end of the distribution. So using averages or medians is not the right approach.

(12-16-2014 11:28 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:09 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:46 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:37 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I think their metric is flawed, but more importantly, even w/ their chosen metric, that statement is false.



Which is unfortunate, b/c he even concedes that successful programs are seeing higher attendance per game.

Sir, I disagree with you.

The author is speaking of FBS football. He is NOT speaking of any subset such as P5, G5, 'winning programs', 'losing programs', etc.

If the Census Bureau reports that America is 'graying' they are saying that the national (all 320M people) population has a rising median age.

Still, the angle should then talk more about the changing makeup of FBS to put things in perspective. The more South Alabamas and Georgia States that are added to the FBS pool, the more the overall FBS attendance average will slip. Even if the article is statistically accurate, it begs that caveat.

The author chose to talk about schools with increased attendance and schools with decreased attendance.

The author essentially said, "some are up. Some are down. On balance there is a net decrease in average attendance."

Your caveat is interesting, and true. Since I have been following college football I don't remember us adding a new FBS school which averages say 75K / game. Most have smallish attendance.

The easiest way to get around this problem:

Take the ave. home game attendance for each FBS school for each year going back to say 2000.

Rank the schools, for each year, in ascending ave attendance rank, and pick the median school for each year.

At that point the median school essentially cancels out the outliers (e.g., the new FBS schools) and we can compare apples to apples over say 15 years.

Using medians is very well established for this type of statistical problem.

No, the median will still go down. Basically what was added to the mix was not a statistically random group, it was a group completely restricted to, essentially selected at, the lower end of the distribution. So using averages or medians is not the right approach.

You are correct that if the new schools are in the lower half but what is the fix?

One can NOT exclude any new FBS program added since say 2000. To do so would summarily exclude programs such as ODU, Ga State, etc.

Their attendance ought to be reflected in numbers.

OSU needs to be counted. GSU (Georgia State) needs to be counted.

(12-16-2014 11:38 AM)emu steve Wrote:  You are correct that if the new schools are in the lower half but what is the fix?

One can NOT exclude any new FBS program added since say 2000. To do so would summarily exclude programs such as ODU, Ga State, etc.

Their attendance ought to be reflected in numbers.

OSU needs to be counted. GSU (Georgia State) needs to be counted.

Simplest thing would be to use their FCS numbers when available.

Other than that, I'm not sure there is a "simple" answer. Overall attendance went up. That's a good thing for college football. Interest is there, and addition of new teams doesn't deny that (perhaps it supports that)

Average went down b/c of new teams. Is that good or bad? I suppose that's subject to interpretation.

Schools like U of M and MSU are concerned about attendance and especially student attendance.

There are many entertainment options. I could pay $70-$75 or $150 for a couple to attend a MSU game plus parking or for the same amount of money (actually much less) I could take a entire family of four to a EMU game and have something for concessions. Going back to my MSU example I could attend a concert for about the same I pay to go to a MSU game or a lot of first run movies. Yes TV and apps make it easier to stay at home or hit the local sports bar. Also participation rates in football (and other sports) is dropping. Kids aren't interested as much in playing sports, being outside being active. If you played a sport you're more likely to be involved in watching the sport.

The headline would make me think that your name brand college football teams have seen a loss in attendance, and I have a feeling that it was meant that way to make you read the article.