(10-02-2016 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 08:13 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 07:36 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 07:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That social disconnect could be seen two decades ago at High School events. In my lifetime I've watched attendance at High School events go from packed with standing room whether for football or basketball, to virtually just the parents of the players and cheerleaders. There are many factors but it goes hand in hand with the breakdown in the cohesion of the towns and cities. People no longer attend to support their neighbors. I think the isolationism of electronics has played a large role in this along with the shift from a single paycheck household to a double paycheck household. Many young parents find themselves too tired to even consider getting out for the evening to go to a sporting event where they have to control their children and where many times now they find themselves to strapped for sitters or tickets. So supporting the local school is no longer a civic priority.

"Civic priority" - we stopped teaching (and caring) about civics around 20 or so years ago. That's probably the beginning of it all.

However, electronics are actually becoming more engaging in a way. People are still making connections, but they're making different ones - communication networks are no longer localized, but rather based on shared interests. (It is important to realize that shared interests =/= charity.) Ideas and kinship is being shared from people in remote locations - and the concept of community is being reconstructed in front of our very own eyes. The problem could be that the electronic community is more powerful and interesting than the local one - and that explains why everyone stays home.

And I would argue that the need for human intervention and contact will always remain local. If you cannot be involved locally you aren't really involved. A tweet, email, or post hardly carries the weight of open discussion at the City Council. A visit to the hospital room of a neighbor is much more effective than an electronic conveyance. And if you found yourself at home in a crisis situation I doubt remote electronic acquaintances will be able to assist you. But good luck to you counting on your E-support. Just take this board for instance. All too often posters just disappear. Sometimes that's a choice and that's fine. But sometimes they've passed and unless a family member (like that of Grey Avenger) let's us know there's no connection, sense of loss, or remembrance. As with all "real" relationships we need to know when to say "goodbye" as readily as say "hello". But the inability to confront death in this electronic age of simply disappearing from the internet has led to more and more funerals without a service, or with just a picture of the deceased, or just an e-site registry. It is a form of denial of the inevitable and its permanent consequences. It is also expedient and easier to handle because our time and presence is not really required. We can just electronically transfer $10 to their favorite charity and get standard form electronic thank you. That way we can call ourselves human, consider ourselves to be connected, spend $10 bucks, and not have to do anything.

Well I guess that is what taxes and government have become. We send our cash and hope the government leaves us alone. Somehow I just don't think in the end that is the tie that binds.

I didn't say it was better - just different. Also, most of the younger electronic generation are under 35 - as my veteran grandfather once said (and there are BIG exceptions here, he recognized as much) "they've never seen real struggle". They don't know what they're missing because the vast majority of them haven't needed it.

...but if they do, it will be a rude awakening for everyone.

I wonder if this conversation has gone down a dark road (especially when we started on college football attendance), but you're making connections that seem plausible. I don't think the ending will be what you're expecting as human nature will naturally redirect people in a time of need. Hurricanes are a good example of this.

Not at all. As a sociologist I'm merely saying that congregating for activities is dying because of external influences. You are pointing out some of the positive aspects of the electronic world. I'm countering with the need for real human presence in our lives and pointing out the disconnect is massive even in the way our government relates to us. And you are now holding out natural disaster response as evidence that human compassion is still innate.

I'd say this is a discussion that needs to be held because between us is the divide of how two very different generations relate to the world. It should be however, as I initially pointed out, a huge warning or precursor of major shifts which will be upon us before we know it. Both my generation and your generation have experiences and viewpoints that are very much needed in this discussion. We have some inefficient ways which need to be replaced, but we have some very tactile methods of human interaction that need to be sustained instead of bypassed by technology. The less we interact face to face the more accepting we are of violence against, or the marginalization of, those with whom we don't interact. After all if we don't see the real human damage, or have to empathize with it, the more accepting we are of it.

That's why compassion, and humaneness, begin with tactile interaction. We should take great pains to keep as much of it as possible. Relationships after all do help to define our existence and to provide meaning to it.

If anyone can sum you up in a short description and label you as an enemy without ever having to know you, then it is much easier for them to dispose of you remotely without suffering the guilt associated with the taking of another human life, especially if they don't have to watch you die. Electronic relationships are uni-dimensional. There is no eye contact, no body language, no personality with which to identify, empathize with, or contend with. In other words no visceral person to person discernment of the nature of that person. Without that we are all merely the sum of our electronic ideas and subject to someone else's desire to delete us. To me that is a very frightening world in which to live. If we can avoid that and keep the conveniences of the electronic age then I think we should. But we must always be aware of the costs of diminishing a person's existence to a data set.

**********************************************************

Let me bring this full circle now with regard to athletic attendance. First I think fewer young people go because of economics. The events as Bison cited have gotten way too expensive. Second there is a disconnect in that many of the younger people haven't actually played the games so they don't have an inherent appreciation of what they are watching and that means they also lack the emotional touchstone to the experience. But finally for me, the inability to speak with and enjoy the folks around me who had been our event friends for 4 decades plus meant that there was no longer an external reason to the event itself that drew me back to the game. After all when schools have losing records or down years it's the relationships with those you have celebrated with, and commiserated with for decades that bring you back, not the game itself. Those engineering the experience of the game have been extremely neglectful in realizing the importance of conversation time between fans who attend these events. They see times of relatively low crowd eruption as boring. In reality it is in those times that fan attendance is ensured regardless of the outcome of the game.

That disconnect happened because they equated TV ratings numbers with success and those seem to be enhanced by crowd noise. Because they weren't studying the interactions of the fans present they missed the connection that kept those stadiums full of loyal fans. Loyal to the program? Yes. But far more loyal to the relationships they have had with the other fans. So a corporate disconnect has led to less enjoyable and meaningful stadium experiences. The personalities of the fans have been removed from the study and a quantifying number has been assigned. The result is an environment no longer conducive to meaningful fan interaction and because of it they now are dealing with empty seats. The cost and lack of connection to the game are now amplified in their affect upon the event because the stronger factor for participation, the relative one, has been removed from the corporate study.

There is little to dispute with the idea that the different generations experience the world very differently. What is also impossible to dispute, JR, is that our generation is going to die out a lot sooner than the electronics generation. Unless something very dramatic happens to change how that generation wants to experience the world it lives in, that trend toward de-personalization (and the resulting negative social behaviors that leads to) will only get worse.

Unfortunately, those possible dramatic changes usually only come about through wars or other calamitous events. But that may be the price society has to pay.

The future will happen, however it will happen, whether we like it or not.

For tens of thousands of years, older generations have bemoaned the ways of the younger generation.

Ten thousand years from now, the same story will likely occur.

Things change, that is just the way it is.

(10-03-2016 12:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The future will happen, however it will happen, whether we like it or not.

For tens of thousands of years, older generations have bemoaned the ways of the younger generation.

Ten thousand years from now, the same story will likely occur.

Things change, that is just the way it is.

I'm more in your camp. Don't really think this is that big of a deal. Sure there are TVs now, but theres also more people in general and more alumni.

People watch good product, generally. Notre Dame might have weak crowds this year, but if they go 12-0 next year I'm sure they won't have an issue.

(10-03-2016 01:05 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 12:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The future will happen, however it will happen, whether we like it or not.

For tens of thousands of years, older generations have bemoaned the ways of the younger generation.

Ten thousand years from now, the same story will likely occur.

Things change, that is just the way it is.

I'm more in your camp. Don't really think this is that big of a deal. Sure there are TVs now, but theres also more people in general and more alumni.

People watch good product, generally. Notre Dame might have weak crowds this year, but if they go 12-0 next year I'm sure they won't have an issue.

I just mean that change is inevitable and fate is inexorable.

Whether we like the coming changes or not is mostly irrelevant.

Just roll with the changes and live through them as best you can.

Nations and empires rise and then inevitably fall, despite the wishes and best attempts of those who don't want them to do so.

There may not be college football at all by 2050. That may be the least radical of the coming changes.

*I'm tired of all the ticky-tack penalties. Let them play. Putting your left hand on the back of a receiver should be part of the game, not 15 yards.

*I'm tired that because of X-whatever geographic regulation I can't listen to a college football game I am interested in on the radio. I have the intertubes, I should be able to get the NIU-BSU game on some station.

*I'm tired of showboating after mediocre plays. Every play should not be an awards acceptance speech

*I'm tired of the victimhood mentality. Every good play has the other team yelling foul, crying, posturing, giving the throwing the flag motion.

*I'm tired that the Powers That Be deem P5 football the only thing to be written about, talked about, opinied about, and prioritized while G5 football is but a footnote, or more regularly, simply to be mocked.

Add this to all the above and I spent most of last Saturday at an apple orchard with the family and could not have cared less I wasn't dealing with CFB.

(10-02-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Games are expensive.

A lot easier to watch on TV.

Plus no drunks to worry about while leaving, and no worries about whether or not you have to find a DD, no waiting line for the bathroom, and no money unless you go to the store and buy stuff just for the game. My wife likes to buy flour tortillas and stuff for guacamole dip almost every Friday during football season, to make chips and guac on game day.

Games are TOO LONG.Clock should keep running after a first down(except poss. last 2 min.). Commercial breaks should be limited to two minutes(never happen). Consider other steps.People just can't hold up in the heat,cold,rain for FOUR hours or more.Games need to go three hours or less.Once these improvements are made--promote the changes as a way to get fans back.

(10-03-2016 01:11 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  *I'm tired of all the ticky-tack penalties. Let them play. Putting your left hand on the back of a receiver should be part of the game, not 15 yards.

*I'm tired that because of X-whatever geographic regulation I can't listen to a college football game I am interested in on the radio. I have the intertubes, I should be able to get the NIU-BSU game on some station.

*I'm tired of showboating after mediocre plays. Every play should not be an awards acceptance speech

*I'm tired of the victimhood mentality. Every good play has the other team yelling foul, crying, posturing, giving the throwing the flag motion.

*I'm tired that the Powers That Be deem P5 football the only thing to be written about, talked about, opinied about, and prioritized while G5 football is but a footnote, or more regularly, simply to be mocked.

Add this to all the above and I spent most of last Saturday at an apple orchard with the family and could not have cared less I wasn't dealing with CFB.

My alltime favorite is when team X is down by 30 with five minutes left and their starting defensive lineman beats a 2nd or 3rd string offinsive lineman to sack a 2nd string qb and starts dancing like he has made a great achievement... the loser mentality...

Convenience.

The fact that the networks show so many games that it is not necessary to travel to the game to see it, especially if you have a family. Plus, with the playoff system, a lot of fans want to see how other teams play to see how it effects the team or conference making the playoff.

(10-03-2016 03:28 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Convenience.

The fact that the networks show so many games that it is not necessary to travel to the game to see it, especially if you have a family. Plus, with the playoff system, a lot of fans want to see how other teams play to see how it effects the team or conference making the playoff.

I go to Cincinnati home games, but I must admit it is real convenient to sit on the couch and click through all the stations to simultaneously watch several games at a time from noon until later in the evening.

Of course, I can't even do this as much as I once could given that I am married with three young kids, but I do catch snipets from time-to-time.

Grumpy old men bemoaning the decline of western civilization because "millennials" aren't going to college football games anymore!

It's actually quite simple. Football is the one sport where it is better watching on TV then going in person. Also throw in the fact that people turn into drunken @$$holes more often at football games compared to baseball or basketball. Throw in the rising costs and other entertainment options and you have the recipe for a decline in attendance. People are still watching though, thats why ratings are still sky high.

People care, they just don't want to be there in person. It doesn't mean people have no values or whatever. 80 years ago people would be saying things are bad because the younger folks rather go to a football game on Saturday instead of spending time with their families/friends/communities.

I loved the guy who quoted his veteran father something along the lines of "They don't know what struggle is." Well if we're being honest, thats you guy. Thats the baby boomers. Those under 40 are the first generations to have it WORSE than their parents. The boomer post war bubble is finally popped. The era where europe and asia were to destroyed from WWII is over. They are back to 100% and that middle class mirage has vanished and the real america has come back into sight. Super rich and then poor. Thats the true america. The younger folks know struggle more than their parents do. The Boomers are the ones who don't know what it's like. Younger folks are dealing with stagnant wages, mountains of debt they were told they needed to take on, lack of jobs because the older boomer generation isn't retiring when they should and staying in the workplace longer, a lack of affordable housing and an infrastructure that has been neglected over the last 30+ years. You boomers wouldn't switch places with us in a million years.

(10-03-2016 03:37 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 03:28 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  Convenience.

The fact that the networks show so many games that it is not necessary to travel to the game to see it, especially if you have a family. Plus, with the playoff system, a lot of fans want to see how other teams play to see how it effects the team or conference making the playoff.

I go to Cincinnati home games, but I must admit it is real convenient to sit on the couch and click through all the stations to simultaneously watch several games at a time from noon until later in the evening.

Of course, I can't even do this as much as I once could given that I am married with three young kids, but I do catch snipets from time-to-time.

I am envious. I live in Houston and can't realistically go to UCF home games in my current economical situation.

(10-03-2016 03:58 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Grumpy old men bemoaning the decline of western civilization because "millennials" aren't going to college football games anymore!

It's actually quite simple. Football is the one sport where it is better watching on TV then going in person. Also throw in the fact that people turn into drunken @$$holes more often at football games compared to baseball or basketball. Throw in the rising costs and other entertainment options and you have the recipe for a decline in attendance. People are still watching though, thats why ratings are still sky high.

People care, they just don't want to be there in person. It doesn't mean people have no values or whatever. 80 years ago people would be saying things are bad because the younger folks rather go to a football game on Saturday instead of spending time with their families/friends/communities.

I loved the guy who quoted his veteran father something along the lines of "They don't know what struggle is." Well if we're being honest, thats you guy. Thats the baby boomers. Those under 40 are the first generations to have it WORSE than their parents. The boomer post war bubble is finally popped. The era where europe and asia were to destroyed from WWII is over. They are back to 100% and that middle class mirage has vanished and the real america has come back into sight. Super rich and then poor. Thats the true america. The younger folks know struggle more than their parents do. The Boomers are the ones who don't know what it's like. Younger folks are dealing with stagnant wages, mountains of debt they were told they needed to take on, lack of jobs because the older boomer generation isn't retiring when they should and staying in the workplace longer, a lack of affordable housing and an infrastructure that has been neglected over the last 30+ years. You boomers wouldn't switch places with us in a million years.

This Boomer was and is agreeing with you.

I am a big fan of history, which tells me that things change and there is nothing the (then) older generation can do but decry what is happening to their world.

One thing collapses/ends and is replaced by something else. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Life will go on, even if college football does not (at least not like it did).

(10-03-2016 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frank,

RE: your first paragraph --- OK, *if* you strictly define "watching TV" as "sitting down on a coach, grabbing a remote, and turning on a passive box that displays a passive stream of video that you otherwise can't interact with". In that case, yes, I agree.

But to simple claim that kids aren't consuming video entertainment?? Absurd.

Younger people definitely stream more, but even if you add online streaming to their TV viewing totals, they still watch a lot less of that longer-form content than older people (whether it's sports or TV shows). The show loyalty rates are significantly lower for younger people ("show loyalty" is the equivalent of sports fandom in the entertainment context).

Now, if you want to say younger people will watch a lot more short-former content than older people (e.g. YouTube clips), then there's no doubt about that.

Regardless, I agree with Terry D. Older people ALWAYS complain about the younger generations about being lazier, having it easier, etc. It's the circle of life.

(10-03-2016 04:42 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 03:58 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Grumpy old men bemoaning the decline of western civilization because "millennials" aren't going to college football games anymore!

It's actually quite simple. Football is the one sport where it is better watching on TV then going in person. Also throw in the fact that people turn into drunken @$$holes more often at football games compared to baseball or basketball. Throw in the rising costs and other entertainment options and you have the recipe for a decline in attendance. People are still watching though, thats why ratings are still sky high.

People care, they just don't want to be there in person. It doesn't mean people have no values or whatever. 80 years ago people would be saying things are bad because the younger folks rather go to a football game on Saturday instead of spending time with their families/friends/communities.

I loved the guy who quoted his veteran father something along the lines of "They don't know what struggle is." Well if we're being honest, thats you guy. Thats the baby boomers. Those under 40 are the first generations to have it WORSE than their parents. The boomer post war bubble is finally popped. The era where europe and asia were to destroyed from WWII is over. They are back to 100% and that middle class mirage has vanished and the real america has come back into sight. Super rich and then poor. Thats the true america. The younger folks know struggle more than their parents do. The Boomers are the ones who don't know what it's like. Younger folks are dealing with stagnant wages, mountains of debt they were told they needed to take on, lack of jobs because the older boomer generation isn't retiring when they should and staying in the workplace longer, a lack of affordable housing and an infrastructure that has been neglected over the last 30+ years. You boomers wouldn't switch places with us in a million years.

This Boomer was and is agreeing with you.

I am a big fan of history, which tells me that things change and there is nothing the (then) older generation can do but decry what is happening to their world.

One thing collapses/ends and is replaced by something else. Nature abhors a vacuum.

Life will go on, even if college football does not (at least not like it did).

Actually Terry D everything is always moving toward death, which in itself is a form of change, and it manages to encompass all change. One might even argue that with the extinction of species moving ever at a more rapid rate that a time is coming when nothing that involves humans will eventually replace what we know today and that would be correct. While death is inevitable the efforts to forestall it are never in vain for those facing it. It is in the struggle to survive that we find our greatest empathy for everything and everyone else fighting to do the same. And, it is where we can finally abandoned, for those who recognize its folly, all pretexts of vanity and in so doing find meaning not only in our lives and the lives of others, but in our deaths as well. So while the commonality of death is an end we all find, the forestalling of it can provide us with the chance of finding a commonality in life. So perhaps in a pursuit that is selfish, struggling to stay alive, we learn to ultimately value all life instead of the singular one. So then it might be said that fighting that ultimate change is not only worthwhile but transformative and in so being it is hardly futile.

(10-03-2016 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frank,

RE: your first paragraph --- OK, *if* you strictly define "watching TV" as "sitting down on a coach, grabbing a remote, and turning on a passive box that displays a passive stream of video that you otherwise can't interact with". In that case, yes, I agree.

But to simple claim that kids aren't consuming video entertainment?? Absurd.

Younger people definitely stream more, but even if you add online streaming to their TV viewing totals, they still watch a lot less of that longer-form content than older people (whether it's sports or TV shows). The show loyalty rates are significantly lower for younger people ("show loyalty" is the equivalent of sports fandom in the entertainment context).

Now, if you want to say younger people will watch a lot more short-former content than older people (e.g. YouTube clips), then there's no doubt about that.

Regardless, I agree with Terry D. Older people ALWAYS complain about the younger generations about being lazier, having it easier, etc. It's the circle of life.

I dread the day when it reverses.

Wouldnt it suck to have to say kids today have it so much worse than us, have to work harder, have less than we did, their life is worse than ours was at that age.

That's when it over folks.

(10-03-2016 07:50 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frank,

RE: your first paragraph --- OK, *if* you strictly define "watching TV" as "sitting down on a coach, grabbing a remote, and turning on a passive box that displays a passive stream of video that you otherwise can't interact with". In that case, yes, I agree.

But to simple claim that kids aren't consuming video entertainment?? Absurd.

Younger people definitely stream more, but even if you add online streaming to their TV viewing totals, they still watch a lot less of that longer-form content than older people (whether it's sports or TV shows). The show loyalty rates are significantly lower for younger people ("show loyalty" is the equivalent of sports fandom in the entertainment context).

Now, if you want to say younger people will watch a lot more short-former content than older people (e.g. YouTube clips), then there's no doubt about that.

Regardless, I agree with Terry D. Older people ALWAYS complain about the younger generations about being lazier, having it easier, etc. It's the circle of life.

I dread the day when it reverses.

Wouldnt it suck to have to say kids today have it so much worse than us, have to work harder, have less than we did, their life is worse than ours was at that age.

That's when it over folks.

We are there. When I retired I returned to a locale that over 40 years ago paid the common laborer with 1 year's experience in the industry then located here $14 an hour. Compare that wage to the then cost of gasoline .35 cents a gallon, a loaf of bread about the same, and the cost of a T-bone steak under $5. Compare that to today when that same labor force can only find temporary services jobs for which they earn slightly less than half of the wages of the late 60's and early 70's, and where there is no retirement plan for them, and where $1 of their wages is kept by the corporately owned Temp Service for which they work, and where to supply them with any form of healthcare everyone who calls themselves middle class now has to bear the burden of that health care with them instead of the corporations who steal their labor and their health to grow their control of the monetary supply and its leverage.

It is a vastly different world and one which Rutgers Guy has fairly well diagnosed. The thing that disturbs me the most however is how we have allowed red vs blue & liberal vs conservative, and democrat vs republican to become tools to keep a divide between the middle class and the poor so that the real opposition to a better way of life may not be rightfully blamed on those who have continued to purchase political favor at the expense of everyone else.

While the Boomers were willing dupes in this charade, they too are by and large victims of the same villains who are robbing their children's and grandchildren's futures. So generational arguments will become one more distraction that keeps us from uniting against the common foe.

The point of my first couple of posts in this thread was to be intentional about our face to face communications. We must rebuild our sense of community, and a broader one at that, if we are to ever unite for the rights of all and vanquish those who would divide us in order to use us, and keep us docile, to enrich themselves. And before someone bemoans what they think is a socialistic notion it is not. I am and have always been a capitalist, a charitable one, but a capitalist. But those who are our present overlords are not capitalists, nor or they socialists. They pose as one or the other when it suits them, but in reality they are elitists who rule by whatever philosophy or tag line that presently appeals to the masses. But, they believe in none of those systems or philosophies. They merely use them as tools to manipulate and control those without the means or organization to fight them. We need to remember our motto, Out of Many, One, E Pluribus Unum. It has never been Out of the Elite One.

I would contend that our present state of polarity between party and philosophy is the most absurdly obvious farce ever perpetrated upon the American public. It has been carefully crafted to make us each other's enemy, and to keep the focus off of what is really broken in our government. But hell, if "Too Big to Fail" didn't incite the wrath of capitalist and socialist alike nothing every will! It is anathema to capitalists that failure be removed from their approach to a healthy economy as failure is vital to capitalism. It is anathema to socialists that those "Too Big" should ever exist. And yet conservatives and liberals alike bought into it out of fear of loss to themselves. Shame on us!

College Football Realignment is just yet another corporate takeover of another cherished part of our lives. Some of our schools are being placed where they can earn the networks the most money. That comes at the expense of our traditions. Others have been deemed not profitable enough and are being relegated to a lesser status. And yet here on this board nobody is angry about what the corporations are doing. The P5 blame the G5 for constraining their wealth and opportunity and the G5 blame the P5 for their greed and desire to be placed in groups that earn yet even more.

The enemy here is a carefully orchestrated attack on state tax revenue bases which created the need of the public institutions to seek corporate money in the form of grants and television revenue. So we fight each other while the institutions purchasing our rights and manipulating our schools laugh all the way to the bank.

It's the same battle folks, but if you don't see it when it hurts your alma mater and destroys your game day atmospheres, and wipes out a century of traditions, then how are you ever going to unite to demand the same forces be stopped from a destructive use of their power in your government? Trump vs Clinton is just another dog & pony show designed to distract you from business as usual. Did Obama get us out of Cuba? Out of Afghanistan? Out of Iraq? Has it dawned on anyone that healthcare isn't designed to help the poor but rather to mitigate ultimately the payouts for healthcare at a time when Boomers will cost them the most? Oh well, enjoy the games!

We have but one enemy, those who are always seeking to divide us.

(10-02-2016 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 07:36 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 07:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 06:58 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'm noticing that at ALL levels below top 10-15 matchups... ...that there are tons of empty seats in nearly every game.

Of course some teams are better than others - and my Tulane aren't doing so well in this regard thanks to gross mismanagement under the previous administration - but I'm seeing teams that I KNOW can turn out fans showing 40-60% capacity, and it makes me a little sad as a college FB fan.

I live thousands of miles away from my school, but I know that can't be the case everywhere. Have ADs priced out their young alumns and neighborhood fans for good?

I love multi-tasking on Saturdays, but nothing beats a good CFB game that you care about.

I'm starting to believe that there is a social disconnection between fans and their schools - and it's the fabric of what makes CFB better than the NFL in my eyes.

That social disconnect could be seen two decades ago at High School events. In my lifetime I've watched attendance at High School events go from packed with standing room whether for football or basketball, to virtually just the parents of the players and cheerleaders. There are many factors but it goes hand in hand with the breakdown in the cohesion of the towns and cities. People no longer attend to support their neighbors. I think the isolationism of electronics has played a large role in this along with the shift from a single paycheck household to a double paycheck household. Many young parents find themselves too tired to even consider getting out for the evening to go to a sporting event where they have to control their children and where many times now they find themselves to strapped for sitters or tickets. So supporting the local school is no longer a civic priority.

"Civic priority" - we stopped teaching (and caring) about civics around 20 or so years ago. That's probably the beginning of it all.

However, electronics are actually becoming more engaging in a way. People are still making connections, but they're making different ones - communication networks are no longer localized, but rather based on shared interests. (It is important to realize that shared interests =/= charity.) Ideas and kinship is being shared from people in remote locations - and the concept of community is being reconstructed in front of our very own eyes. The problem could be that the electronic community is more powerful and interesting than the local one - and that explains why everyone stays home.

And I would argue that the need for human intervention and contact will always remain local. If you cannot be involved locally you aren't really involved. A tweet, email, or post hardly carries the weight of open discussion at the City Council. A visit to the hospital room of a neighbor is much more effective than an electronic conveyance. And if you found yourself at home in a crisis situation I doubt remote electronic acquaintances will be able to assist you. But good luck to you counting on your E-support. Just take this board for instance. All too often posters just disappear. Sometimes that's a choice and that's fine. But sometimes they've passed and unless a family member (like that of Grey Avenger) let's us know there's no connection, sense of loss, or remembrance. As with all "real" relationships we need to know when to say "goodbye" as readily as say "hello". But the inability to confront death in this electronic age of simply disappearing from the internet has led to more and more funerals without a service, or with just a picture of the deceased, or just an e-site registry. It is a form of denial of the inevitable and its permanent consequences. It is also expedient and easier to handle because our time and presence is not really required. We can just electronically transfer $10 to their favorite charity and get standard form electronic thank you. That way we can call ourselves human, consider ourselves to be connected, spend $10 bucks, and not have to do anything.

Well I guess that is what taxes and government have become. We send our cash and hope the government leaves us alone. Somehow I just don't think in the end that is the tie that binds.

Humans, by nature, are social animals. Thank you, for articulating something so well. I think you are correct.

(10-03-2016 06:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Is that attendance list for this season??

I'm surprised at Maryland, if so, because they've been a surprise winner so far. Easy schedule, but interested to see what they can do at Penn State. Minnesota shoulda, coulda. Maybe they can take that game plan and improve it.

I'm not. I attended Maryland home games while attending George Mason. Maryland was awful and I sat on the 50 yard line most games.

(10-02-2016 07:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Games are expensive.

A lot easier to watch on TV.

Thats my guess too. Why pay $10 to $20 a head plus food and parking when you can watch on TV in a nice climate controlled environment where you can immediately go do something else if the game gets boring.

Old time sports owners were always petrified about TV killing their attendance. Turns out they were right, especially when you factor in cost, it just took longer than expected.

Big Events will be fine, that is why football does not suffer as much because there are only 6 to 8 games a year, but a random baseball game in August or September involving 2 teams not in contention, yikes.