(08-25-2017 08:24 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ]Keep in mind that when we play UT or olemiss the stadium is 25%~40% Vols and Rebs fans. When we play Marshall or whoever else the stadium is virtually all Tigers fans.
Some of those games with 60K attendance were basically 40K Tigers fans and the rest opposing fans.
Ole Miss has never had more than the same 12-15K.
It doesn't matter whose fans are in attendance from a financial perspective, they all buy tickets. And from my list above, they'll represent much more than 5K additional attendance. In the last OM game, a sellout, OM fans represented a relatively small amount of the crowd (15-20%) probably. And since they are not season ticket holders, they paid top dollar for the tickets - a good thing. UTK would be a similar situation but again, as a sellout would provide 20K additional ticket buyers over our average attendance in good yrs (@ 38K last season), including UTK fans & our bandwagon fans above avg attendance. Miss St would likely bring a good crowd & we'd draw 50K+ in a 2017 type season, same for most any of the FB rapid SEC schools. USM, UL & national programs would also help draw crowds above the 37-40K avg - all of these would likely have a crowd of 50K+. So the key to improved attendance is continuing a winning tradition to maintain a 40K base & then to increase that 40K base avg, schedule an interesting OOC home schedule & add a 2nd P5 opponent from among the group of schools on my list.
(08-25-2017 09:16 PM)AlonsoWDC Wrote: [ -> ] (08-25-2017 08:24 PM)3601 Wrote: [ -> ]Keep in mind that when we play UT or olemiss the stadium is 25%~40% Vols and Rebs fans. When we play Marshall or whoever else the stadium is virtually all Tigers fans.
Some of those games with 60K attendance were basically 40K Tigers fans and the rest opposing fans.
Ole Miss has never had more than the same 12-15K.
Some delusional fans will tell you they have 50% some years.
Red and orange stick out more than blue. That's why it seems like there are so many.
UT has had bigger crowds than Ole Miss. Close to half before, but the usual for them is a third maybe? The usual for Ole Miss is probably 15 to 20%. I wish every team we played brought a sizeable crowd.
(08-26-2017 12:21 PM)72Tiger Wrote: [ -> ]UT has had bigger crowds than Ole Miss. Close to half before, but the usual for them is a third maybe? The usual for Ole Miss is probably 15 to 20%. I wish every team we played brought a sizeable crowd.
Especially since we need the $$$......
I hope we go undefeated this season and win the Peach Bowl, then next season sell over 30,000 season tickets.
I guess it's a matter of priorities. I am on the side that helps the program the most. Hoping we schedule P5, because you'd rather see us go 5-7 against good competition than 8-4 against bad is pathetic. Scheduling P5s in hopes that their fans attend isn't a whole lot better.
I guess the true argument is what is best for the program vs what is best for the fans. The schedule as it is now seems to have greatly helped the program, so I will go with what is working. I will let the selfish people have the whine... maybe they can hope we schedule Wisconsin!?!
The opponent impacts attendance.
Winning impacts attendance.
The equation is not about which of these 2 impacts it more. The equation also has the 7-home game variable and the shot-at-Access-bowl variable.
We don't want a top 10 OOC schedule because it increases our likelihood of getting beat, and decreases our likelihood of the Access bowl.
We want a 7-game home schedule because it improves season tix sales.
We want more season tix, and not just one-off SEC tix, because it increases the health of the program.
It really is not rocket science.
That's a more reasonable stance, '87. I still disagree. The best way to advance our football program is to consistently have high home attendance. You aren't going to get that with the amount of unattractive home OOC games on the schedule in the next 7 years.
The programs that have dramatically improved their position over the past few decades - Florida State, Louisville, TCU, Utah . . . - have done so with aggressive scheduling.
And Memphis can afford to schedule aggressively. The AAC is just not that strong yet. Here are the preseason ranks of some AAC teams on our schedule - SMU, 97; ECU, 102; Tulane, 107; and UConn, 124. Add in UL Monroe, 99; Georgia State, 124; and Southern Illinois FBS and unranked. So 7 of our 12 opponents this year are 97 or below in preseason rank.
A lot of us watched Colorado State rout Oregon State on Saturday. Colorado State has 3 P5s on their schedule this year - Oregon State, Colorado and Alabama.
A policy of scheduling two P5s OOC per year is reasonable, and better for our program in the long term.
lol, are y'all STILL complaining about this? The schedule is what is is and all the posts in the world won't change it...all we're gonna do is plug in FCS home games so the schedule is done through 2024 essentially.
We need to play the toughest ooc schedule possible
(08-29-2017 10:53 AM)memphisike Wrote: [ -> ]We need to play the toughest ooc schedule possible
Is UCLA tough enough ?
(08-29-2017 11:03 AM)Tiger57 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2017 10:53 AM)memphisike Wrote: [ -> ]We need to play the toughest ooc schedule possible
Is UCLA tough enough ?
Memphis should have at least two non-conference games every year that offer the opportunity to achieve greatness.
I have no idea why folks think the North Texas and Georgia State deals makes sense.
(08-14-2017 09:47 AM)Tigx Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2017 09:45 AM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2017 09:41 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I do not agree with a rigid schedule formula. We should strive for P5 home and home even when it means playing two P-5's in one year.
that's easy to say...but when they get 33 million per year and you get 2 million per year...well, you can't be above the occasional buy-game.
Mississippi, UCLA, Mizzou, Miss State, Duke, Kansas...the last few year along with the next few years have seen and will see a broad range of P5 teams come through the Liberty Bowl.
Next September we get Mercer, Georgia State and South Alabama at home. Excited about that?
NO !!!!!!!!!
(08-14-2017 03:06 PM)Tigx Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2017 03:01 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-14-2017 02:40 PM)Tigx Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, 3601, but you can't just pick the DeAngelo/Wimprine year as an example, and apply its results across many years.
Whether winning or losing, quality of opponent is the biggest driver of crowd size for the U of M. Weather is probably the 2nd biggest contributor.
This. Hypothetically, let's say we had a home game against Miss St in place of the S. Illinois game. Let's say we lose that game. Let's say we finish 8-4 vs. 9-3. Was it worth it? Absolutely.
With the team we have this season, a game against Miss St. might come close to a sell out and atmosphere would be electric vs. So. Illinois drawing 35K in a ho hum affair. Yes, So. Illinois guarantees a victory, but I know the Tigers are good. I don't need to see them get a bunch of guaranteed wins. I want to see fun, big games.
And we would be talking about a Mississippi State game for weeks leading up to the game. And the Bulldog fans would pour in to town with their obnoxious cowbells. Gets me fired up just thinking about it.
Anybody going to be talking about Mercer or South Bama or Georgia State the weeks prior to the game? If it rains, might you just decide to stay home and watch college football that day? Can anybody even tell any of their nicknames without googling it?
(09-19-2017 06:20 AM)bubbapt Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2017 11:03 AM)Tiger57 Wrote: [ -> ] (08-29-2017 10:53 AM)memphisike Wrote: [ -> ]We need to play the toughest ooc schedule possible
Is UCLA tough enough ?
Memphis should have at least two non-conference games every year that offer the opportunity to achieve greatness.
I have no idea why folks think the North Texas and Georgia State deals makes sense.
I FULLY endorse this comment!
I prefer playing two P-5 schools per year (based on home and home) but it may not be feasible. The other P-5 schools need to agree to play us and they may not find it in their self-interest. Does anyone think UCLA would have agreed to play us had they know then what they now know?
(09-19-2017 07:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer playing two P-5 schools per year (based on home and home) but it may not be feasible. The other P-5 schools need to agree to play us and they may not find it in their self-interest. Does anyone think UCLA would have agreed to play us had they know then what they now know?
Actually, rumor is there's another 2-games series being discussed........
(09-19-2017 08:05 AM)Atlanta Wrote: [ -> ] (09-19-2017 07:48 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote: [ -> ]I prefer playing two P-5 schools per year (based on home and home) but it may not be feasible. The other P-5 schools need to agree to play us and they may not find it in their self-interest. Does anyone think UCLA would have agreed to play us had they know then what they now know?
Actually, rumor is there's another 2-games series being discussed........
If true, I guess they either think they will very likely win or do not mind getting beat. Scheduling LA Monroe (for example) would be a safer choice. I will be pleasantly surprised if the rumor is well founded.
