JR posted this link elsewhere. Although the SEC still reins supreme there are some good signs for the ACC. Miami saw a 23% increase in Richts first year, incredible. The ACC trails the PAC average by just 285.

SEC- 77565 (-1%)
B1G 66162 (+1%)
B12 57238 (+1%)
PAC 50112 (-3%(-14% since '07))
ACC 49827 (+3%)

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ight-year/

The biggest increases among Power Five schools: Miami (23 percent), Colorado (18 percent), Duke (13 percent), Iowa (10 percent), Louisville (10 percent), Illinois (10 percent) and Texas (9 percent).

***

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five. But the ACC was up 3 percent from last year. Louisville, Florida State, Miami and Duke enjoyed spikes. Virginia Tech, which had fewer fans than Kentucky in 2015, was back near the top 25. Clemson (80,970) remained the ACC attendance leader and in the top 15.

I hope so.

Big issue for Miami is next season FSU isn't on the home schedule and that is where they get their big boost. IF they lose to FSU the 3rd game, their fans normally abandon them after that loss.

Think Miami deserves a fan base that shows up regardless.

(02-08-2017 11:01 AM)nole Wrote:  I hope so.

Big issue for Miami is next season FSU isn't on the home schedule and that is where they get their big boost. IF they lose to FSU the 3rd game, their fans normally abandon them after that loss.

Think Miami deserves a fan base that shows up regardless.

The good thing is that Miami's schedule in 2017 would allow them to rebound a bit if they do lose to FSU.

I think it's a given that the first two home games against Bethune-Cookman and Toledo probably won't draw that well (even if they beat FSU, I wouldn't expect the following game's attendance for Toledo to be that great).

They have a manageable ACC slate to start though, with games at Duke, home against GT & Syracuse, then at UNC. If they can get through those games 4-0, the first couple dates in November against VT and Notre Dame could be big.

If the Hokies come to Miami at 6-2 or better, I think that could be a solid draw. And if Notre Dame can get back to even average, that should be a decent crowd as well.

Obviously, that depends on Miami's performance too, but given how wide open the Coastal figures to be this year, anything is possible.

(02-08-2017 11:01 AM)nole Wrote:  Big issue for Miami is next season FSU isn't on the home schedule and that is where they get their big boost.

https://twitter.com/CaneFBNutrition/stat...0610544640
‏
The suite level is officially a construction zone
-- @HardRockStadium

have no fear ...
notre dame is here ...
first time since '89 ...
can't wait to break in the final phase of well-received reconstruction ...
suite, concourse, parking lot ...

RETURN ENGAGEMENT

(02-08-2017 10:20 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  JR posted this link elsewhere. Although the SEC still reins supreme there are some good signs for the ACC. Miami saw a 23% increase in Richts first year, incredible. The ACC trails the PAC average by just 285.

SEC- 75565 (-1%)
B1G 66162 (+1%)
B12 57238 (+1%)
PAC 50112 (-3%(-14% since '07))
ACC 49827 (+3%)

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ight-year/

The biggest increases among Power Five schools: Miami (23 percent), Colorado (18 percent), Duke (13 percent), Iowa (10 percent), Louisville (10 percent), Illinois (10 percent) and Texas (9 percent).

***

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five. But the ACC was up 3 percent from last year. Louisville, Florida State, Miami and Duke enjoyed spikes. Virginia Tech, which had fewer fans than Kentucky in 2015, was back near the top 25. Clemson (80,970) remained the ACC attendance leader and in the top 15.

According to the report the SEC's attendance average was 77565, not 75565. Missouri dropped a little over 20% due to all of its ills combined. If not for Missouri the SEC would have set another attendance record. But, to put that into perspective Missouri which averaged just over 52,000, and was 13th in attendance in the SEC only beating out Vanderbilt, still finished ahead of North Carolina. Clearly the football interested schools of the ACC led the way in your growth (Duke excepted).

(02-09-2017 02:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2017 10:20 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  JR posted this link elsewhere. Although the SEC still reins supreme there are some good signs for the ACC. Miami saw a 23% increase in Richts first year, incredible. The ACC trails the PAC average by just 285.

SEC- 75565 (-1%)
B1G 66162 (+1%)
B12 57238 (+1%)
PAC 50112 (-3%(-14% since '07))
ACC 49827 (+3%)

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...ight-year/

The biggest increases among Power Five schools: Miami (23 percent), Colorado (18 percent), Duke (13 percent), Iowa (10 percent), Louisville (10 percent), Illinois (10 percent) and Texas (9 percent).

***

ACC: At 49,827 fans per game, the basketball-centric ACC remained last among the Power Five. But the ACC was up 3 percent from last year. Louisville, Florida State, Miami and Duke enjoyed spikes. Virginia Tech, which had fewer fans than Kentucky in 2015, was back near the top 25. Clemson (80,970) remained the ACC attendance leader and in the top 15.

According to the report the SEC's attendance average was 77565, not 75565. Missouri dropped a little over 20% due to all of its ills combined. If not for Missouri the SEC would have set another attendance record. But, to put that into perspective Missouri which averaged just over 52,000, and was 13th in attendance in the SEC only beating out Vanderbilt, still finished ahead of North Carolina. Clearly the football interested schools of the ACC led the way in your growth (Duke excepted).

Thanks for the correction JR, my bad. I went back & edited the OP.

Is there an average attendance figure for basketball as well? Men's and women would be acceptable though my query is for men's basketball.

Would love to see TOTAL attendance for each sport combined and school by school.

So just spitballing, I think UofL had approximately 700,000 in attendance for all games combined for men's football and men's basketball HOME games.

I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie, except for programs that are in the race to be #1 (I'm looking at you UK basketball). I'd imagine that the ACC takes a ding - although maybe not because SU reports cheeksbin seats (vs tickets handed out/sold/printed), so we have at least one honest program towards the bottom.

(02-10-2017 02:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie

as a way for schools to demonstrate commitment to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Current rules require FBS schools to average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis.
-- ncaa.org

CARESS ON THE CHEEK

(02-10-2017 12:48 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie

as a way for schools to demonstrate commitment to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Current rules require FBS schools to average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis.
-- ncaa.org

CARESS ON THE CHEEK

Yeah, but I mean schools like UK that just want to save face.

(02-10-2017 12:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:48 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie

as a way for schools to demonstrate commitment to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Current rules require FBS schools to average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis.
-- ncaa.org

CARESS ON THE CHEEK

Yeah, but I mean schools like UK that just want to save face.

1. I doubt they bought 53,000 plus of their own tickets.

2. If they were saving face why not buy just 2000 more so they could finish ahead of Louisville.

All of the schools count sold tickets. Very few measure what is done with those tickets. When a school is down season ticket holders may not go. When a school is hot somebody winds up with those seats even if it isn't the original ticket purchaser.

(02-10-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:48 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie

as a way for schools to demonstrate commitment to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Current rules require FBS schools to average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis.
-- ncaa.org

CARESS ON THE CHEEK

Yeah, but I mean schools like UK that just want to save face.

1. I doubt they bought 53,000 plus of their own tickets.

2. If they were saving face why not buy just 2000 more so they could finish ahead of Louisville.

All of the schools count sold tickets. Very few measure what is done with those tickets. When a school is down season ticket holders may not go. When a school is hot somebody winds up with those seats even if it isn't the original ticket purchaser.

UK is notorious for inflating attendance. But use Tulane if you'd rather. Im on a phone, so I can't easily post pics, but if there are any Cards fans out there who want to do me a solid, I'd appreciate it.

And not all schools do it. I know SU's attendance bottomed out because we switched from tickets sold to people through the door. I'd be surprised if schools like Auburn inflated. Maybe you do, but I doubt it.

(02-10-2017 01:50 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 01:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:59 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 12:48 PM)green Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 02:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder what the cheeks in seats number is. Smaller attendance programs have more of an incentive to lie

as a way for schools to demonstrate commitment to the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Current rules require FBS schools to average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis.
-- ncaa.org

CARESS ON THE CHEEK

Yeah, but I mean schools like UK that just want to save face.

1. I doubt they bought 53,000 plus of their own tickets.

2. If they were saving face why not buy just 2000 more so they could finish ahead of Louisville.

All of the schools count sold tickets. Very few measure what is done with those tickets. When a school is down season ticket holders may not go. When a school is hot somebody winds up with those seats even if it isn't the original ticket purchaser.

UK is notorious for inflating attendance. But use Tulane if you'd rather. Im on a phone, so I can't easily post pics, but if there are any Cards fans out there who want to do me a solid, I'd appreciate it.

And not all schools do it. I know SU's attendance bottomed out because we switched from tickets sold to people through the door. I'd be surprised if schools like Auburn inflated. Maybe you do, but I doubt it.

Counting sold tickets is not inflating as long as they were sold at face value. What I said, and you really need to learn to distinguish between what you want to hear and what is actually said, is that most schools count sold tickets and not butts in the seat. If Syracuse is different so be it. Auburn counts sold tickets. But thankfully in our case there are usually another 15 to 40 thousand outside the stadium on a given Saturday (depending upon the opponent) who want tickets and can buy standing room only tickets at the gate as long as that limit is not sold out. They mostly stand on the ramps leading to the upper deck to watch. So we are usually packed out, but not always. There are, however, programs that undersell the printed value of the ticket, or buy them themselves for a dollar or two a piece and give them away to groups to attend their games. That is inflating attendance! But, if in our case 87,451 plus tickets are printed and sold at face value (along with requisite donations to the athletic fund for the privilege of buying seats in that particular location) then claiming 87,451 is not inflation regardless of whether those people all attend or not. It's simply a sell out.

If Kentucky sells 52,000 tickets and toward the end of a so so season they have 35,000 in attendance (which they did not) they still sold 52,000 tickets. The income is still the same. The financial support of their ticket holders is still the same.

Now as far as this childish snapshot of a crowd thing goes I've seen the same used against Miami, T.C.U. and many other schools. It merely depends on at what juncture of the game they are taken and what the circumstances of the game happen to be. Is it early first quarter? Is it late 4th quarter in an out of hand game? Is it a shot of where the band would sit before they come in or perform at halftime? Is it even a decent opponent? And then there is weather. I've even seen doctored photos showing a 2nd quarter scoreboard superimposed by photo-shopping over a pregame or post game crowd.

Now to prevent the downturn in student attendance at games, many schools are now simply selling more alumni tickets. The students get what they demand and nothing more. But that's great for the school. An alumni ticket in the cheapest seats in our stadium are now $75 bucks a pop as opposed to the $5 bucks for a student. And the same requisite donation is required for it. So if they don't want to attend the school makes more. It is what it is. If Kentucky were trying to impress anyone at all they would make sure they sold a lot more more than 52,000 which is 25,000 below the SEC mean.

NZM here ya go:

Jen Smith of the Lexington Herald Leader did an interesting piece on UK football attendance a few years ago. She found:

Game Announced Actual

Kent State 48,346 37,000
Western Kentucky 53,980 43,174
South Carolina 49,810 35,086
Miss State 49,498 29,927
Georgia 54,553 33,420
Vanderbilt 44,902 18,885

http://ukfootball.bloginky.com/2012/11/0...-football/

The only reason UK cooks it's football attendance numbers is because they want to claim they have more fans attending their games than Louisville.

http://insiderlouisville.com/lifestyle_c...es-secret/

JR - I'm not sure the insults were necessary or appropriate, but see a Jim's two posts.

Jim - Thanks!

(02-11-2017 11:27 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  JR - I'm not sure the insults were necessary or appropriate, but see a Jim's two posts.

Jim - Thanks!

Jim's two posts prove nothing related to what I had to say. If the tickets were purchased at face value to count sold tickets is an acceptable practice at most schools. Padding is when tickets are bought by the school, or sold at a reduced rate just to prop up attendance figures. What Jim's post proves is that Kentucky had attendance problems which reflected poorly against sold ticket numbers. Many venues now don't even have turnstiles. Ticket sales are the only mode of accounting for attendance. Almost all games are on TV now, so padding actually doesn't make much sense except for those at the Mendoza line of FBS acceptance. Then I suppose they would be tempted to do any number of things to meet that minimum attendance requirement for membership. Kentucky certainly is not in that category.

And it is not an insult to say that you, and for that matter many others that post at CSNbbs, need to clearly read what others are saying before a tangential argument to the main discussion ensues. On the main board there are now oodles of OP's that have been derailed or sidetracked from their original intent and if Wedge and I closed them all it would severely constrict the active threads. If we hand out warnings and started to issue bans there would be howls from the offenders.

Right now things are very slow, so more grace is afforded. Generally having a legitimate hot topic clears a lot of this stuff up. But when several pages of a mid sized thread are consumed with such argumentation it makes the threads unreadable.

(02-11-2017 12:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2017 11:27 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  JR - I'm not sure the insults were necessary or appropriate, but see a Jim's two posts.

Jim - Thanks!

Jim's two posts prove nothing related to what I had to say. If the tickets were purchase at face value to count sold tickets is an acceptable practice at most schools. Padding is when tickets are bought by the school, or sold at a reduced rate just to prop up attendance figures.

And it is not an insult to say that you, and for that matter many others that post at CSNbbs, need to clearly read what others are saying before a tangential argument to the main discussion ensues. On the main board there are now oodles of OP's that have been derailed or sidetracked from their original intent and if Wedge and I closed them all it would severely constrict the active threads. If we hand out warnings and started to issue bans there would be howls from the offenders.

Right now things are very slow, so more grace is afforded. Generally having a legitimate hot topic clears a lot of this stuff up. But when several pages of a mid sized thread are consumed with such argumentation it makes the threads unreadable.

Great. Then stay off ACC boards if you find our threads unreadable.

While in the context of how my conference, the ACC, might be fudging their stats, my initial comment was that a number of schools are incentivized to inflate attendance figures by counting tickets sold vs actual fans at the game, and I listed UK as an example (as well as Tulane - but I did that in a later post). You said that my personal definition was wrong ("attendance should be tickets sold") and said that U.K. doesn't inflate their numbers. I responded by mentioning that I was on a phone, but I was confident that some Cards fans could probably offer proof. You insulted me and called any picture proof "childish." Jim then posted proof that U.K. does in fact announce numbers in excess of people in the stadium seats, thereby confirming my assertion. I pointed out that your comments were, in addition to being highly unbecoming of both a guest on this board and a mod, factually wrong.

And for the record, 1) U.K. counts press in their attendance figures, 2) even with the definition that you wish to impose on me, there are schools that deflate attendance, so my point remains, and 3) the first definition of attendance that I found on my google search is linked below, and it stresses the importance of being present at the event. So at the very least, I'm confident in saying that my definition is reasonable. It may not be the only definition, or even the only reasonable definition, but it is, at a minimum, reasonable.

And the following is probably best done through PM, but you brought up this topic on a public board in response to my post, so I'll reply: 1) this site is a discussion board. If you shut down every thread where there's a discussion that deviates from the narrow confines of the OP, then there would be zero interesting discussions and 2) this is an ACC board and you're an SEC fan/mod. Don't let your mod status get to your head. You used to be a great poster.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attendance