Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NCAA release 2014 attendance data
Author Message
Kruciff Offline
Old Man from scene 24
*

Posts: 12,118
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 724
I Root For: The Bridge of Death
Location: Serious Poster
Post: #81
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 01:27 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 04:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 12:50 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  1. Southeastern **77,694
2. Big Ten# 66,869
3. Big 12 58,102
4. Pac-12 52,702
5. Atlantic Coast# 50,291
6. American# 29,193
7. Mountain West 25,254
8. Conference USA# 20,455
9. Sun Belt# 18,294
10. Mid-American 15,431
Independents# 52,882

To me the most interesting story is right here.

Let's go back to the numbers in 2003 to compare (2014 numbers)

1. Southeastern 74,059 (up 3,635)
2. Big Ten 70,198 (down 3,329)
3. Big XII 56,352 (up 1,750)
4. Atlantic Coast 51,938 (down 1,647)
5. Pacific-10 51,608 (up 1,094)
6. Big East 46,870 (N/A)
7. Mountain West 32,809 (down 7,555)
8. Conference USA 32,246 (down 11,791)
9. Western Athletic 24,675 (N/A)
10. Mid American 17,820 (down 2,389)
11. Sun Belt 14,325 (up 3,969)

-Out of all conferences the Sun Belt is up the most in attendance from 2003.

-CUSA fans like to talk up their conference but they are the ones who have taken the biggest hit in attendance of all conferences. 11,791 is a 33% cut.

-In 2003 gap between the lowest attended BCS conference (Big East 46,870) and highest attended non-BCS (MWC 32,809) was 14,061

In 2014 the gap between the lowest attended P5 (ACC 50,291) and highest attended G5 (American 29,193) was 21,098 an increase of about 50% in attendance gap between the haves and have nots from 2003.


MWC lost 3 schools in TCU, Utah and BYU. They gain with Boise State, but lost ground with San Jose State and Utah State last year.
If you count the Big East and AAC as the same? They lost the most. Tulane, Tulsa and Temple with U. Conn. did not help the football attendance.
Combined the MWC with the WAC, and subtract TCU, Utah, BYU, Texas State, Idaho, New Mexico State, UTSA, and recalculate for the final attendance between the two conferences.

UConn was less than 2000 lower than the AAC average. If they get their act together they will be back close to 40,000 like they were before Edsal left.

UConn and Memphis are the two likely largest attendance increases candidates when putting a quality product on the field.

UCF saw a drop of 3,000+ from 2013 because of the atrocious home schedule in 2014 compared to having South Carolina, Houston, and USF at home in 2013.

We really need to figure out a way for Tulsa, SMU, and Tulane to pack the stadium; USF pulling their weight too wouldn't hurt.

I think best case scenario, ECU, Cinci, UCF, USF, UConn, Houston, Memphis should all be at or above 40k, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane and Navy should be in the 28-35k range. 03-cloud9
05-13-2015 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lance99 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,121
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Akron Zips
Location:
Post: #82
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-12-2015 01:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 01:13 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 12:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  The Hall of Shame

Akron 9,170
Ball St. 9,389
FIU 11,966
New Mexico St. 12,269
Idaho 12,886
Kent St. 13,544
Northern Ill. 13,563
FAU 14,122
Georgia St. 15,006
Eastern Mich. 15,025
San Jose St. 15,068
Bowling Green 15,228
Western Mich. 15,625
UNLV 15,674
Miami (OH) 15,906
Massachusetts 16,088
Central Mich. 16,306
Western Ky. 16,306
Troy 16,767

Considering their W-L record the last few years, this one's a shocker.

No wonder their AD did not get the Pitt job when he interviewed.

This is why you don't typically see any MAC teams in best of the rest type senarios. They have some decent performers---just zero fan engagement---even by G5 standards.
Tell that to Toledo
05-13-2015 06:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #83
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 04:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Of course if you draw four people per game and those four are Warren Buffet and three of his friends you might be able to compete at the highest level with ease.

It's true, attendance is a very imperfect measurement of a minimum level of viability and wouldn't be anyone's first choice if we could get our hands on real, verified data about athletic department finances. But, more reliable measurements would probably be vetoed by the schools because they are much more intrusive, eg: Audited records of scholarship funding, to verify that each school funds the required minimums of football scholarships and varsity athletic scholarships. Or, setting minimum levels of football funding and athletic funding for each school and verifying them, and then requiring audited records of gross revenue, to verify whether money received from donors, ticket sales, university subsidies, etc., is real or just a fudge by the accountants.

IMO, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around the publicly-released versions of these numbers, whether they come from athletic departments like Texas, or Texas State, or UT-Rio Grande Valley. No doubt, the real stories are in the data that we don't get to see. But, there's no chance we're ever going to get to see that real data, so we're stuck looking at things like reported football attendance or the sparse and cloudy numbers that the schools report to the federal government.

What few people realize though is how the attendance standard came about.

When I-A was created there were minimum standards for I-A adopted. Schools had to offer a minimum number of sports and schedule in line with the standards. There were a number of schools that had been historically considered major who did not offer enough sports so an exception was created. Average 17k once every four years in a 30k stadium or over four years in a smaller stadium, OR average 20k home and home once in four or over four years in a smaller stadium OR be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the standard.

In 1981 the power schools wanted out of the NCAA TV deal, the NCAA wanted the money and control so their counter-solution was making the rule that had once been an exception to save some schools not sponsoring enough sports the new standard.

The only reason attendance became critical was to allow the NCAA to control the football TV contract for two more years.

The newer standard of 16 sports, awarding a minimum number of football scholarships and not less than 200 grants in all sports is closer to the spirit of the rules set forth when I-A was created.

Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.
05-13-2015 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #84
NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 04:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's true, attendance is a very imperfect measurement of a minimum level of viability and wouldn't be anyone's first choice if we could get our hands on real, verified data about athletic department finances. But, more reliable measurements would probably be vetoed by the schools because they are much more intrusive, eg: Audited records of scholarship funding, to verify that each school funds the required minimums of football scholarships and varsity athletic scholarships. Or, setting minimum levels of football funding and athletic funding for each school and verifying them, and then requiring audited records of gross revenue, to verify whether money received from donors, ticket sales, university subsidies, etc., is real or just a fudge by the accountants.

IMO, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around the publicly-released versions of these numbers, whether they come from athletic departments like Texas, or Texas State, or UT-Rio Grande Valley. No doubt, the real stories are in the data that we don't get to see. But, there's no chance we're ever going to get to see that real data, so we're stuck looking at things like reported football attendance or the sparse and cloudy numbers that the schools report to the federal government.

What few people realize though is how the attendance standard came about.

When I-A was created there were minimum standards for I-A adopted. Schools had to offer a minimum number of sports and schedule in line with the standards. There were a number of schools that had been historically considered major who did not offer enough sports so an exception was created. Average 17k once every four years in a 30k stadium or over four years in a smaller stadium, OR average 20k home and home once in four or over four years in a smaller stadium OR be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the standard.

In 1981 the power schools wanted out of the NCAA TV deal, the NCAA wanted the money and control so their counter-solution was making the rule that had once been an exception to save some schools not sponsoring enough sports the new standard.

The only reason attendance became critical was to allow the NCAA to control the football TV contract for two more years.

The newer standard of 16 sports, awarding a minimum number of football scholarships and not less than 200 grants in all sports is closer to the spirit of the rules set forth when I-A was created.

Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

If you aren't playing mostly FBS and playing a reasonable number of FBS home games the FBS label doesn't mean much.
05-13-2015 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 813
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #85
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 04:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's true, attendance is a very imperfect measurement of a minimum level of viability and wouldn't be anyone's first choice if we could get our hands on real, verified data about athletic department finances. But, more reliable measurements would probably be vetoed by the schools because they are much more intrusive, eg: Audited records of scholarship funding, to verify that each school funds the required minimums of football scholarships and varsity athletic scholarships. Or, setting minimum levels of football funding and athletic funding for each school and verifying them, and then requiring audited records of gross revenue, to verify whether money received from donors, ticket sales, university subsidies, etc., is real or just a fudge by the accountants.

IMO, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around the publicly-released versions of these numbers, whether they come from athletic departments like Texas, or Texas State, or UT-Rio Grande Valley. No doubt, the real stories are in the data that we don't get to see. But, there's no chance we're ever going to get to see that real data, so we're stuck looking at things like reported football attendance or the sparse and cloudy numbers that the schools report to the federal government.

What few people realize though is how the attendance standard came about.

When I-A was created there were minimum standards for I-A adopted. Schools had to offer a minimum number of sports and schedule in line with the standards. There were a number of schools that had been historically considered major who did not offer enough sports so an exception was created. Average 17k once every four years in a 30k stadium or over four years in a smaller stadium, OR average 20k home and home once in four or over four years in a smaller stadium OR be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the standard.

In 1981 the power schools wanted out of the NCAA TV deal, the NCAA wanted the money and control so their counter-solution was making the rule that had once been an exception to save some schools not sponsoring enough sports the new standard.

The only reason attendance became critical was to allow the NCAA to control the football TV contract for two more years.

The newer standard of 16 sports, awarding a minimum number of football scholarships and not less than 200 grants in all sports is closer to the spirit of the rules set forth when I-A was created.

Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

It's not insurmountable. If you have, say, five, indies, they would probably have a casual scheduling arrangement anyhow, so that's four games spoken for (maybe five if two of them pair off for a home-and-home). Depending on where the school is, they should be able to get at least a couple of series going with regional schools (Liberty and JMU could schedule Sun Belt and C-USA teams). Add in the requisite P5 road and FCS home bodybag games, and you get to 12 fairly quickly.

It's probably not ideal, but it also probably beats staying in FCS if you have anything resembling ambition.
05-13-2015 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightbengal Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,664
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 55
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #86
NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-12-2015 03:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 03:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I changed Wedge's parameters a bit, because 20 wins over 3 years proved to be a pretty low bar. Instead, I took (only) G5 teams that had no fewer than 8 wins in each of the last three seasons. The results are as follows (team, total wins, 2014 avg attendance, increase/(decrease) from 2013):

Northern Illinois...35....13,563......(7,106)
Central Florida.....31....37,812......(4,272)
Boise State..........31....32,504......(1,862)
Utah State...........30....20,467......(2,796)
Cincinnati............28....28,840......(2,931)
LA- Lafayette.......27....25,775........(201)
East Carolina........26....44,786.........801
Bowling Green......26....15,228.........(30)
BYU.....................24....57,141.....(4,084)

Surprisingly, only ECU had an increase in attendance, and their average was more than 2,000 below their 2012 mark.

Interesting, thanks, Ken.

I would think that if a team is winning 8+ for a few years in a row, their attendance is close to as high as it's ever going to get, unless they get a brand new stadium or win a national championship or something like that. The exception might be a team for whom only 8 wins seems disappointing (eg Boise State) or might get the coach fired (eg Alabama).

Those numbers are what you would get if you took most mid to bottom tier p5 schools and had them play an fbs worst smu etc. that game hurt us and the weather was awful. We were averaging 39k before that game. Max is 44k and included numerous late night Thursday night games that the big boys don't play. Ucf is better than most acc schools so I think we did just fine.
05-13-2015 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #87
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 07:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What few people realize though is how the attendance standard came about.

When I-A was created there were minimum standards for I-A adopted. Schools had to offer a minimum number of sports and schedule in line with the standards. There were a number of schools that had been historically considered major who did not offer enough sports so an exception was created. Average 17k once every four years in a 30k stadium or over four years in a smaller stadium, OR average 20k home and home once in four or over four years in a smaller stadium OR be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the standard.

In 1981 the power schools wanted out of the NCAA TV deal, the NCAA wanted the money and control so their counter-solution was making the rule that had once been an exception to save some schools not sponsoring enough sports the new standard.

The only reason attendance became critical was to allow the NCAA to control the football TV contract for two more years.

The newer standard of 16 sports, awarding a minimum number of football scholarships and not less than 200 grants in all sports is closer to the spirit of the rules set forth when I-A was created.

Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

If you aren't playing mostly FBS and playing a reasonable number of FBS home games the FBS label doesn't mean much.

Of course it does. That was my original point.

It means that your athletic department aims to meet a higher minimum requirement, for sports sponsored, for football scholarships and for total athletic scholarship equivalencies provided.

Any school that wants to do that and has the money to do that should be allowed to do that.


The only reason they don't allow it now is because they don't want the CFP party to be crashed, so to speak. But I already explained how that could easily be accounted for.


So for example, North Dakota State. If they so choose, they should be allowed to move up to FBS independent and start providing 85 full scholarships. Perhaps they could only get 5 FBS games scheduled the first couple years, because naturally no major FBS teams want to play the Bison. It's worse than Boise St.
05-14-2015 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #88
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 08:08 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 09:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  What few people realize though is how the attendance standard came about.

When I-A was created there were minimum standards for I-A adopted. Schools had to offer a minimum number of sports and schedule in line with the standards. There were a number of schools that had been historically considered major who did not offer enough sports so an exception was created. Average 17k once every four years in a 30k stadium or over four years in a smaller stadium, OR average 20k home and home once in four or over four years in a smaller stadium OR be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the standard.

In 1981 the power schools wanted out of the NCAA TV deal, the NCAA wanted the money and control so their counter-solution was making the rule that had once been an exception to save some schools not sponsoring enough sports the new standard.

The only reason attendance became critical was to allow the NCAA to control the football TV contract for two more years.

The newer standard of 16 sports, awarding a minimum number of football scholarships and not less than 200 grants in all sports is closer to the spirit of the rules set forth when I-A was created.

Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

It's not insurmountable. If you have, say, five, indies, they would probably have a casual scheduling arrangement anyhow, so that's four games spoken for (maybe five if two of them pair off for a home-and-home). Depending on where the school is, they should be able to get at least a couple of series going with regional schools (Liberty and JMU could schedule Sun Belt and C-USA teams). Add in the requisite P5 road and FCS home bodybag games, and you get to 12 fairly quickly.

It's probably not ideal, but it also probably beats staying in FCS if you have anything resembling ambition.

I agree!
05-14-2015 08:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 188
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #89
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
Yawn. We need to get back to 50k avg.
05-14-2015 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #90
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 09:19 PM)Knightbengal Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 03:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 03:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  I changed Wedge's parameters a bit, because 20 wins over 3 years proved to be a pretty low bar. Instead, I took (only) G5 teams that had no fewer than 8 wins in each of the last three seasons. The results are as follows (team, total wins, 2014 avg attendance, increase/(decrease) from 2013):

Northern Illinois...35....13,563......(7,106)
Central Florida.....31....37,812......(4,272)
Boise State..........31....32,504......(1,862)
Utah State...........30....20,467......(2,796)
Cincinnati............28....28,840......(2,931)
LA- Lafayette.......27....25,775........(201)
East Carolina........26....44,786.........801
Bowling Green......26....15,228.........(30)
BYU.....................24....57,141.....(4,084)

Surprisingly, only ECU had an increase in attendance, and their average was more than 2,000 below their 2012 mark.

Interesting, thanks, Ken.

I would think that if a team is winning 8+ for a few years in a row, their attendance is close to as high as it's ever going to get, unless they get a brand new stadium or win a national championship or something like that. The exception might be a team for whom only 8 wins seems disappointing (eg Boise State) or might get the coach fired (eg Alabama).

Those numbers are what you would get if you took most mid to bottom tier p5 schools and had them play an fbs worst smu etc. that game hurt us and the weather was awful. We were averaging 39k before that game. Max is 44k and included numerous late night Thursday night games that the big boys don't play. Ucf is better than most acc schools so I think we did just fine.

One of the reasons for averaging data is to smooth out anomalies. Everybody plays some good opponents and some bad ones. And schools have good years and bad ones. This comparison, which shows UCF's average for 2014 only compared to a single prior year, demonstrates why you want more data points in your sample.

UCF's 2014 average of 37,812 is right in line with its five year average - 37,680. The anomaly year was 2013, when the Knights averaged 42,084. The three years prior to that they averaged 34608, 34283 and 39614.

I assume your comment comparing UCF to ACC schools was a typo, and that you meant to say AAC. UCF averaged more than three ACC schools (BC, Duke and Wake Forest), but among AAC schools trailed only East Carolina.
05-14-2015 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #91
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-13-2015 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 02:37 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 02:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 02:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 12:55 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  The Hall of Shame

Akron 9,170
Ball St. 9,389
FIU 11,966
New Mexico St. 12,269
Idaho 12,886
Kent St. 13,544
Northern Ill. 13,563
FAU 14,122
Georgia St. 15,006
Eastern Mich. 15,025
San Jose St. 15,068
Bowling Green 15,228
Western Mich. 15,625
UNLV 15,674
Miami (OH) 15,906
Massachusetts 16,088
Central Mich. 16,306
Western Ky. 16,306
Troy 16,767
Middle Tenn. 17,408
South Ala. 17,445
La.-Monroe 18,108
Rice 18,562
North Texas 19,271
Toledo 19,548
Wyoming 19,599
Tulsa 19,647

The schools in bold averaged 25% above the FBS minimum attendance standard. What makes that shame worthy?

IIRC that 15,000 attendance rule was abandoned several years back.

No it's still on the books, it just takes forever to fall out of compliance enough to warrant expulsion from FBS.



They may not have repealed it. But they gave up on it. It was virtually impossible to enforce.

For example, I read about one school that in an attempt to increase their attendance numbers, closed the cafeteria's on campus for lunch on game day. They served lunch inside the stadium. So if the students wanted to eat and use their food card they had to enter the stadium.

No, they haven't given up on it. The NCAA delayed South Alabama's entry into FBS a year because of it. And Georgia State's and EMU's figures just eeking over the 15k line tell me that it is something each has been warned about. There's no way those are true figures, but they game the system (and the system is rife with gaming across the board - look at Miami). Each school has to report and perform a certified audit the of the numbers, but the NCAA only inspects the audit once every four years.

The rules state you only have to average 15k once in a 2-year period to be within compliance. Then if you don't you get a warning, where if you're in non-compliance again within 10 years, you're put on restricted membership, where you have one year to get in compliance. So basically, you have two years to get to 15k once, but if you don't you'll get another 2 years to get to 15k once, and if you still don't, you'll get another year to get to 15k. So basically, you get 5 years to get to that number before they'll take any action.
05-14-2015 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #92
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 10:06 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 02:50 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 02:37 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 02:22 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-12-2015 02:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The schools in bold averaged 25% above the FBS minimum attendance standard. What makes that shame worthy?

IIRC that 15,000 attendance rule was abandoned several years back.

No it's still on the books, it just takes forever to fall out of compliance enough to warrant expulsion from FBS.



They may not have repealed it. But they gave up on it. It was virtually impossible to enforce.

For example, I read about one school that in an attempt to increase their attendance numbers, closed the cafeteria's on campus for lunch on game day. They served lunch inside the stadium. So if the students wanted to eat and use their food card they had to enter the stadium.

No, they haven't given up on it. The NCAA delayed South Alabama's entry into FBS a year because of it. And Georgia State's and EMU's figures just eeking over the 15k line tell me that it is something each has been warned about. There's no way those are true figures, but they game the system (and the system is rife with gaming across the board - look at Miami). Each school has to report and perform a certified audit the of the numbers, but the NCAA only inspects the audit once every four years.

The rules state you only have to average 15k once in a 2-year period to be within compliance. Then if you don't you get a warning, where if you're in non-compliance again within 10 years, you're put on restricted membership, where you have one year to get in compliance. So basically, you have two years to get to 15k once, but if you don't you'll get another 2 years to get to 15k once, and if you still don't, you'll get another year to get to 15k. So basically, you get 5 years to get to that number before they'll take any action.

Well based on what you say, it sounds to me like they have given up on it.. Plus, a school can sell tickets for a dollar each, let fans in with a used toy, give away tickets to all the local kids etc. and find away to meet the rule. IIRC the rule has never been enforced.
05-14-2015 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #93
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
IIRC, there are actually rules stating that a school can only count attendance on tickets sold at a price greater than or equal to some percentage of the most expensive ticket sold (suite tickets all have a face value printed on them).

Of course, they could print a $1 face value on all tickets, period, if they were that desperate to meet some arbitrary attendance number. There are ways around it, obviously.


But the bigger question is: who cares?? Why does it matter if EMU or Idaho only has 4k people in actually in the stands?

Those schools have made a financial commitment to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS. End of story. There shouldn't need to be any more said about it.
05-14-2015 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #94
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  IIRC, there are actually rules stating that a school can only count attendance on tickets sold at a price greater than or equal to some percentage of the most expensive ticket sold (suite tickets all have a face value printed on them).

Of course, they could print a $1 face value on all tickets, period, if they were that desperate to meet some arbitrary attendance number. There are ways around it, obviously........

I do not beleive such a rule exists. Maybe CommuterBob knows for sure
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2015 10:33 AM by SMUmustangs.)
05-14-2015 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #95
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 08:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 07:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 08:56 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Exactly. Attendance doesn't matter.

It's only used by FBS haters (usually FCS fans) who would love nothing better than to pull some of the "low-major" FBS teams down to FCS.


In fact, I think that any school who wants to meet the higher minimum requirements of FBS should be allowed to do so, as they choose. They would simply be FBS independents if they don't get an invite to an FBS conference. And that's how CFP money would be controlled. No CFP media deal money to independents. (Doesn't matter to Notre Dame and BYU, they have their own media deals and do get money from bowls appearances directly)

If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

If you aren't playing mostly FBS and playing a reasonable number of FBS home games the FBS label doesn't mean much.

Of course it does. That was my original point.

It means that your athletic department aims to meet a higher minimum requirement, for sports sponsored, for football scholarships and for total athletic scholarship equivalencies provided.

Any school that wants to do that and has the money to do that should be allowed to do that.


The only reason they don't allow it now is because they don't want the CFP party to be crashed, so to speak. But I already explained how that could easily be accounted for.


So for example, North Dakota State. If they so choose, they should be allowed to move up to FBS independent and start providing 85 full scholarships. Perhaps they could only get 5 FBS games scheduled the first couple years, because naturally no major FBS teams want to play the Bison. It's worse than Boise St.

Every NCAA Division sets an expectation that you will schedule a majority of games vs. division members. I view it as a consumer protection issue that if you are holding yourself out as a member of the divison, you will mostly play within the division.
05-14-2015 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskieJohn Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,591
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 64
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #96
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 10:31 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  IIRC, there are actually rules stating that a school can only count attendance on tickets sold at a price greater than or equal to some percentage of the most expensive ticket sold (suite tickets all have a face value printed on them).

Of course, they could print a $1 face value on all tickets, period, if they were that desperate to meet some arbitrary attendance number. There are ways around it, obviously........

I do not beleive such a rule exists. Maybe CommuterBob knows for sure

I was told a few years ago by a previous assistant AD at NIU that tickets had to be sold at or above 50% of face value to count towards the NCAA attendance number. The way to get around this is by having an organization buy a block of tickets at a set group discount and getting the 50% off that price. Then that organization can hand out the tickets somewhere between cost and free as they choose then write off the loss as a donation or marketing expense.
05-14-2015 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #97
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 10:31 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  IIRC, there are actually rules stating that a school can only count attendance on tickets sold at a price greater than or equal to some percentage of the most expensive ticket sold (suite tickets all have a face value printed on them).

Of course, they could print a $1 face value on all tickets, period, if they were that desperate to meet some arbitrary attendance number. There are ways around it, obviously........

I do not beleive such a rule exists. Maybe CommuterBob knows for sure

Rule states any ticket sold at 50% or more of the most expensive ticket available to the general public counts whether used or not. 1/3 to 1/2 of that price only if used. Less than 1/3rd it doesn't count.
05-14-2015 11:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #98
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 11:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 08:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 07:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

If you aren't playing mostly FBS and playing a reasonable number of FBS home games the FBS label doesn't mean much.

Of course it does. That was my original point.

It means that your athletic department aims to meet a higher minimum requirement, for sports sponsored, for football scholarships and for total athletic scholarship equivalencies provided.

Any school that wants to do that and has the money to do that should be allowed to do that.


The only reason they don't allow it now is because they don't want the CFP party to be crashed, so to speak. But I already explained how that could easily be accounted for.


So for example, North Dakota State. If they so choose, they should be allowed to move up to FBS independent and start providing 85 full scholarships. Perhaps they could only get 5 FBS games scheduled the first couple years, because naturally no major FBS teams want to play the Bison. It's worse than Boise St.

Every NCAA Division sets an expectation that you will schedule a majority of games vs. division members. I view it as a consumer protection issue that if you are holding yourself out as a member of the divison, you will mostly play within the division.

But again, it shouldn't matter if those teams aren't going to be eligible for the post-season (because of not meeting the scheduling requirements).

It's an unnecessary requirement, for the regular season.

Maybe it's a moot point, as the other poster suggested. Maybe it wouldn't be that hard to get nine games (or whatever the number is).
05-14-2015 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,278
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #99
RE: NCAA release 2014 attendance data
(05-14-2015 11:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-14-2015 08:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 07:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 06:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  
(05-13-2015 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If they meet the schedule requirements, fine by me.

Well ... that's potentially a rub.

If you only have say four or five independents and no one in FBS will schedule them, it'll be hard to meet the requirements.


I don't really see the need for the scheduling requirements for teams outside the CFP. Or you could always just say that to be eligible for any post-season game in FBS, they need a minimum FBS number of games played.

If you aren't playing mostly FBS and playing a reasonable number of FBS home games the FBS label doesn't mean much.

Of course it does. That was my original point.

It means that your athletic department aims to meet a higher minimum requirement, for sports sponsored, for football scholarships and for total athletic scholarship equivalencies provided.

Any school that wants to do that and has the money to do that should be allowed to do that.


The only reason they don't allow it now is because they don't want the CFP party to be crashed, so to speak. But I already explained how that could easily be accounted for.


So for example, North Dakota State. If they so choose, they should be allowed to move up to FBS independent and start providing 85 full scholarships. Perhaps they could only get 5 FBS games scheduled the first couple years, because naturally no major FBS teams want to play the Bison. It's worse than Boise St.

Every NCAA Division sets an expectation that you will schedule a majority of games vs. division members. I view it as a consumer protection issue that if you are holding yourself out as a member of the divison, you will mostly play within the division.

Year one of the transition play eight road FBS games.
Years two and three meet the five game number for home games .
That number is really four with an FCS game counting.
Having more independents would help it benefits them to add to their group.
The year to move up would be 2020 is my guess.
Idaho,Army , U Mass and NMSU will most likely be independents that year.
Schedule those four to cover year two of the transition .
Banking two years worth of home games from home and home series .
05-14-2015 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.