CSNbbs
attendance by conference - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: attendance by conference (/thread-891804.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


RE: attendance by conference - JRsec - 01-10-2020 04:13 PM

(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

College football (much like the NFL) is going to be a very different game in the next 30 to 50 years. Stadiums will seat fewer fans, and fan bases could be smaller. Changing U.S. racial/ethnic demographics, the rise of soccer, the increase in women playing sports, severe injuries incurred during football games ... all will impact both pro and college football.

As such, schools like my Middle Tennessee State need to be proactive. Sadly, I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario.

They'd be better off putting the football money into basketball and baseball. Most Americans don't give a hoot about soccer and only watch it when their kids are playing. But now that alcohol sales are getting approved at many college venues it at least would relieve the boredom of watching soccer.


RE: attendance by conference - NIU007 - 01-10-2020 04:36 PM

(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

College football (much like the NFL) is going to be a very different game in the next 30 to 50 years. Stadiums will seat fewer fans, and fan bases could be smaller. Changing U.S. racial/ethnic demographics, the rise of soccer, the increase in women playing sports, severe injuries incurred during football games ... all will impact both pro and college football.

As such, schools like my Middle Tennessee State need to be proactive. Sadly, I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario.

If you think attendance is bad at football games, you don't want to see what they would be for soccer games. Who wants to sit outside for hours and watch 2 teams futilely attempt to even get a decent shot at goal?

The MAC does have soccer, and it's never going to be strong enough for anybody to care.


RE: attendance by conference - IWokeUpLikeThis - 01-10-2020 04:55 PM

(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.


RE: attendance by conference - Big Frog II - 01-10-2020 07:50 PM

(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.
Yes it would be athletic suicide.


RE: attendance by conference - DawgNBama - 01-10-2020 08:05 PM

My alma mater's baseball program has significantly more followers on Twitter than the men:s basketball program or the men's soccer team. That should tell you all you need to know about soccer right there.


RE: attendance by conference - quo vadis - 01-10-2020 09:54 PM

(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.


RE: attendance by conference - JRsec - 01-10-2020 10:10 PM

(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.


RE: attendance by conference - bill dazzle - 01-10-2020 10:18 PM

(01-10-2020 04:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

College football (much like the NFL) is going to be a very different game in the next 30 to 50 years. Stadiums will seat fewer fans, and fan bases could be smaller. Changing U.S. racial/ethnic demographics, the rise of soccer, the increase in women playing sports, severe injuries incurred during football games ... all will impact both pro and college football.

As such, schools like my Middle Tennessee State need to be proactive. Sadly, I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario.

If you think attendance is bad at football games, you don't want to see what they would be for soccer games. Who wants to sit outside for hours and watch 2 teams futilely attempt to even get a decent shot at goal?

The MAC does have soccer, and it's never going to be strong enough for anybody to care.


To answer your hypothetical question, NIU007:

"If you think attendance is bad at football games, you don't want to see what they would be for soccer games. Who wants to sit outside for hours and watch 2 teams futilely attempt to even get a decent shot at goal?"

My father, mother and I were all extremely ill as newborns and received (in different years, of course) what might have been life-saving treatment at what was then called Vanderbilt Hospital (now Vanderbilt University Medical Center). My brother teaches at Vanderbilt. My nephew attends VU. My uncle on my father's side worked at VU for 34 years. My uncle on my mother's side graduated from VU. I worked at Vanderbilt (part-time) for about two years. My great-great aunt was one of the first women to attend Vanderbilt.

VU is a major part of my being, my karma. Yet I attend ONE VU football game per season. Soccer at a school like VU (and there are lots of colleges like Vanderbilt at which football is not a big deal) has some potential. It is an international game that is gaining support U.S. wide.

The future of college soccer is NOT with us. It's with the future generations. That's my point (I probably failed to make it clearly). People in the future WILL care. And schools that are not "college football factories" need to prep long term for that reality.


RE: attendance by conference - bill dazzle - 01-10-2020 10:23 PM

(01-10-2020 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.



JRSec, you trust know I respect you and appreciate your posts. I strongly follow the SEC (living in Nashville and being passionate about "all things Vanderbilt"). I would not go as far to say I'm "correct" about the soccer topic. But for you to note that I'm "not" correct ... it simply seems a bit of a stretch.

"Soccer and American Interest" might not "intersect" (as you note) NOW... but I feel they very well might as this great nation moves into the future (and I'm NOT a soccer fan).


RE: attendance by conference - bill dazzle - 01-10-2020 10:26 PM

(01-10-2020 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

College football (much like the NFL) is going to be a very different game in the next 30 to 50 years. Stadiums will seat fewer fans, and fan bases could be smaller. Changing U.S. racial/ethnic demographics, the rise of soccer, the increase in women playing sports, severe injuries incurred during football games ... all will impact both pro and college football.

As such, schools like my Middle Tennessee State need to be proactive. Sadly, I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario.

They'd be better off putting the football money into basketball and baseball. Most Americans don't give a hoot about soccer and only watch it when their kids are playing. But now that alcohol sales are getting approved at many college venues it at least would relieve the boredom of watching soccer.

I do like the thought of, for example, MTSU putting more emphasis on hoops and baseball than football, JRSec.

But I also feel soccer is going to get very big in this country.


RE: attendance by conference - JRsec - 01-10-2020 10:30 PM

(01-10-2020 10:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.



JRSec, you trust know I respect you and appreciate your posts. I strongly follow the SEC (living in Nashville and being passionate about "all things Vanderbilt"). I would not go as far to say I'm "correct" about the soccer topic. But for you to note that I'm "not" correct ... it simply seems a bit of a stretch.

"Soccer and American Interest" might not "intersect" (as you note) NOW... but I feel they very well might as this great nation moves into the future (and I'm NOT a soccer fan).

Nothing against you Bill, but one thing American's are trending to is more action, and constant action, and lots of points. This is true for football where defense is becoming passe'. It's been true for basketball where the shot clock was put in to please viewer interest, and it has hurt one of the best American games, baseball. Baseball looks faced paced and exciting compared to soccer. What American Soccer is becoming is an acceptable women's sport. But even then Softball shines by comparison and is becoming a revenue sport at some schools.

I know I'm old but I learned a long time ago to judge the public trends and the trends are for shorter sports competitions with lots of action, and soccer just doesn't fit that bill. I see no great future for soccer in this country outside of being a solid sport for women in college which few people will watch.


RE: attendance by conference - IWokeUpLikeThis - 01-10-2020 10:33 PM

(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

I went to NIU because of FBS football. I’ve met countless people who’ve done the same. MAC/CUSA schools give an FBS culture to students who can’t gain admission to certain schools, are priced out of certain schools, or that MAC/CUSA school is simply the affordable school locally that offers FBS football for people who don’t want to move away.

I was an NIU FB fan before college. If NIU’s 2003 season of beating Alabama/Maryland/Iowa St, peaking in the top-10 of BCS, & playing in College Gameday at Bowling Green doesn’t happen — I probably don’t end up attending NIU. That put NIU at the forefront of my mind through Jr High/High School (can’t get into Northwestern, Illinois super expensive) and molded me into a Huskie fan.

Take away FBS football, and I would’ve thought of NIU the same as EIU or WIU.


RE: attendance by conference - bill dazzle - 01-10-2020 10:43 PM

(01-10-2020 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.



JRSec, you trust know I respect you and appreciate your posts. I strongly follow the SEC (living in Nashville and being passionate about "all things Vanderbilt"). I would not go as far to say I'm "correct" about the soccer topic. But for you to note that I'm "not" correct ... it simply seems a bit of a stretch.

"Soccer and American Interest" might not "intersect" (as you note) NOW... but I feel they very well might as this great nation moves into the future (and I'm NOT a soccer fan).

Nothing against you Bill, but one thing American's are trending to is more action, and constant action, and lots of points. This is true for football where defense is becoming passe'. It's been true for basketball where the shot clock was put in to please viewer interest, and it has hurt one of the best American games, baseball. Baseball looks faced paced and exciting compared to soccer. What American Soccer is becoming is an acceptable women's sport. But even then Softball shines by comparison and is becoming a revenue sport at some schools.

I know I'm old but I learned a long time ago to judge the public trends and the trends are for shorter sports competitions with lots of action, and soccer just doesn't fit that bill. I see no great future for soccer in this country outside of being a solid sport for women in college which few people will watch.

I do agree, JRSec, that Americans are trending toward "more action" but they are doing so with the thought that team sports be played in a more "time compact manner" (which soccer is and football is not). And with the changing demographics in our country ... I simple see a bright future for soccer (and less so for American football). Now in 30 years, I'll be dead (I'm pushing 60). So my argument is pure hypothetical speculation.

I'm also (admittedly) a bit biased because Nashville is getting an MLS franchise and I want pro soccer to do well to benefit my city. So maybe I'm not the best man to be posting regarding this topic.


RE: attendance by conference - bullet - 01-10-2020 10:50 PM

(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

How many go to MAC schools because of FBS football? 85 at each school?04-cheers


RE: attendance by conference - bill dazzle - 01-10-2020 10:51 PM

(01-10-2020 10:33 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

I went to NIU because of FBS football. I’ve met countless people who’ve done the same. MAC/CUSA schools give an FBS culture to students who can’t gain admission to certain schools, are priced out of certain schools, or that MAC/CUSA school is simply the affordable school locally that offers FBS football for people who don’t want to move away.

I was an NIU FB fan before college. If NIU’s 2003 season of beating Alabama/Maryland/Iowa St, peaking in the top-10 of BCS, & playing in College Gameday at Bowling Green doesn’t happen — I probably don’t end up attending NIU. That put NIU at the forefront of my mind through Jr High/High School (can’t get into Northwestern, Illinois super expensive) and molded me into a Huskie fan.

Take away FBS football, and I would’ve thought of NIU the same as EIU or WIU.


Good points, IWoke.

I once (when I lived in Chicago) had a major crush on a beautiful young lass who attend Western Illinois University and we talked one time about MAC sports. It was interesting (as best I can recall the chat).

NIU has separated itself from many of the football programs in the MAC, Sun Belt and C-USA. I give full credit for that.

I do feel there is something to be said for the "lure" that college football can have on young students. BUT, I also feel that lure (and particularly with many programs outside the P5) is going to wane in the next 10 to 30 years — in part because of soccer.

I root for Belmont, Middle Tennessee and Tennessee State, so I "get it" related to non-high-profile athletic programs.


RE: attendance by conference - JRsec - 01-10-2020 10:57 PM

(01-10-2020 10:43 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.



JRSec, you trust know I respect you and appreciate your posts. I strongly follow the SEC (living in Nashville and being passionate about "all things Vanderbilt"). I would not go as far to say I'm "correct" about the soccer topic. But for you to note that I'm "not" correct ... it simply seems a bit of a stretch.

"Soccer and American Interest" might not "intersect" (as you note) NOW... but I feel they very well might as this great nation moves into the future (and I'm NOT a soccer fan).

Nothing against you Bill, but one thing American's are trending to is more action, and constant action, and lots of points. This is true for football where defense is becoming passe'. It's been true for basketball where the shot clock was put in to please viewer interest, and it has hurt one of the best American games, baseball. Baseball looks faced paced and exciting compared to soccer. What American Soccer is becoming is an acceptable women's sport. But even then Softball shines by comparison and is becoming a revenue sport at some schools.

I know I'm old but I learned a long time ago to judge the public trends and the trends are for shorter sports competitions with lots of action, and soccer just doesn't fit that bill. I see no great future for soccer in this country outside of being a solid sport for women in college which few people will watch.

I do agree, JRSec, that Americans are trending toward "more action" but they are doing so with the thought that team sports be played in a more "time compact manner" (which soccer is and football is not). And with the changing demographics in our country ... I simple see a bright future for soccer (and less so for American football). Now in 30 years, I'll be dead (I'm pushing 60). So my argument is pure hypothetical speculation.

I'm also (admittedly) a bit biased because Nashville is getting an MLS franchise and I want pro soccer to do well to benefit my city. So maybe I'm not the best man to be posting regarding this topic.

Well Bill I wish you a long and happy life, but I don't think it will be uplifted by American soccer. No doubt that immigration brings a love for that sport, but then that also bodes well for baseball.

If I had to bet on who the superstars would be 30 years from now I'd say probably online gamers, because of the common interest of so many. Those will probably feature head to head competition in some form of reality TV. Olympians will do well because it is brief not having a season, and everyone expects to watch it on television. I think the main games will be around, but Pop Culture always raises the unexpected and then it fades like Polo, Horse Racing, Indy Car Racing, NASCAR, Boxing, and the waning of country club sports like Golf and Tennis which looked like world beaters from the 60's through the 90's, but are now losing impact.

To be popular a sport has to be played by enough people to create a large mutual interest. Therefore it should be cheap to play, probably not require large open spaces as they are disappearing and cost money to maintain. Basketball will stick around because it is indoors and fast paced, but it may drag as a commonly played sport. Baseball has gotten too expensive to play, football too dangerous in the minds of many parents, and the computer is king. It's only a matter of time before online gaming becomes cult hero status. And by the way, the latter, like football did a century ago, has application for our military future.


RE: attendance by conference - bullet - 01-10-2020 10:59 PM

(01-10-2020 03:53 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 03:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 03:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 02:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It used to be that membership in a BCS conference was proof that you were "in" the club. Now, you're only "in" if you have a legitimate shot of making the playoffs.

If anything for the average P5 they have changed for the better.

E.g., thirty years ago, a Minnesota could go undefeated in the regular season and still have maybe only a 20% chance of being voted #1.

Twenty years ago, they might have had a 30% chance of getting in to the BCS title game.

But now? An unbeaten Minnesota would surely have made the CFP playoffs.

So basically, all P5 now have a clear win-and-in path to the playoffs whereas they didn't in the past.

Well 60 years ago, Minnesota lost 2 games and still won the MNC.

That's like saying 70 years ago Army won a national title. Both Army and Minnesota were powers during that time, but both have fallen from that perch long ago.

So I think my point stands. The current CFP is the first setup that really gives all P5 teams, even the lowliest, a clear win-and-in path. There's no way a P5 champ is going to go unbeaten and miss the playoffs.

That's something I think the Tanks of this forum miss out on about the current CFP when they say there's this strong desire for P5 champs to get in automatically: Basically, if you are a P5 team and you go unbeaten, you are assured of making the playoffs. Any P5 champ - an Iowa State and a Mississippi State, not just a Texas or an LSU. That matters because college football does have an ethos of being undefeated - teams that go undefeated, even against soft schedules, and do not get a chance to play in a big bowl or for the title do draw sympathy, that strikes many as unfair. UCF in 2017 is an example, Boise and Utah got sympathy 10 years ago, even 1998 Tulane still occasionally comes up.

But if you lose a game, even if you are a super-power like an Alabama or Texas, your claim to playing for a title is not viewed with much sympathy.

And in today's CFP, the only P5 champs that won't make the playoffs are ones that have lost. That doesn't bother even the big powers nearly so much. You can't have a situation like 2004 when a unbeaten P5 champ didn't make the BCS title game.

And how many unbeaten seasons does a school have? The point is for a 1 loss team like Baylor or TCU in 2014. Or for a year when a school pulls a conference title out after a slow start.

Texas is one of the top national powers. They have had 14 seasons without a loss during the regular season (including seasons where they had a tie but no losses). But only 7 of those have been since 1923 and 4 of those were in a 10 year period with DKR. So from 1924-1961 and 1971-2019, only 3. Unbeaten seasons are rare even for the top programs.


RE: attendance by conference - bullet - 01-10-2020 11:06 PM

(01-10-2020 10:23 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 10:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 09:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:55 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

A move like this is marketing suicide and would get those admins (correctly) fired before it went anywhere.

Many students go to school because of FBS football. Many more alums donate back to their school because FBS football fosters their connection with the school.

College soccer does neither. It's irrelevant. Millions of people watch meaningless bowl games. No one watches college soccer. College *hockey* brings in more money per school than college soccer.

Dazzle is correct. And it is an unproven myth that football has an impact on marketing at such schools.

I mean, if you are really going to go to college for football why on earth would you go to your typical MAC or CUSA school? That's like someone going to my USF because you love D1 hoops. Makes zero sense.

No he's not. At least not completely. Soccer and American Interest are subsets that do not intersect and particularly not for television.



JRSec, you trust know I respect you and appreciate your posts. I strongly follow the SEC (living in Nashville and being passionate about "all things Vanderbilt"). I would not go as far to say I'm "correct" about the soccer topic. But for you to note that I'm "not" correct ... it simply seems a bit of a stretch.

"Soccer and American Interest" might not "intersect" (as you note) NOW... but I feel they very well might as this great nation moves into the future (and I'm NOT a soccer fan).

Soccer intersects less with this generation than baseball. More of them may have played it, but watch it?

And its hard to watch soccer unless it is played excellently or badly. Kids games can be fun because the defenses aren't good. I've seen bits of 2 or 3 Texas women's soccer games. They are decent in soccer. And they are unwatchable. The women are just not good handling the ball. Barely better than the kid's games I watched. But their defenses are better. So it is horrible to watch. Just dribble a bit or a pass or two and lose the ball.


RE: attendance by conference - arkstfan - 01-11-2020 04:14 AM

(01-05-2020 09:56 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  
(01-05-2020 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2020 12:42 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The three Big Ten kings lead in attention.

True! And the rest of the Big 10 drags them way down. No doubt that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State are as solid as they come. And a few of the others help to hold their average high enough to be solidly in 2nd place. And then the bottom drags them way down.

Thankfully in the SEC there is only 1 cellar dweller and that's Vanderbilt an institution that Northwestern consistently beats in attendance. The salvation of the SEC are the number of schools consistently in that top 25 and the fact that there is only 1 (Vanderbilt 72nd) below the 30th position. The stunning part to me is that the ACC with its many private schools outdraws the PAC 12 with all of its population and state schools.

College football just isn’t a draw on the West Coast. Take the Cali public schools for example, the way the Cali tier and localization system is set up, most Cali HS kids have zero chance of getting into Berkeley or UCLA even if they’ve got great grades and they know it. They don’t grow up as fans and they don’t have anyone in their family who attended either school to help grow that fandom.

Pac-12 has some unique challenges. Nearly all teams are in areas with climates favorable for near year round outdoor activity and currently 7 of 12 teams have an NFL team in the market. In the SEC only Vanderbilt is as close to an NFL team as Cal is.


RE: attendance by conference - DawgNBama - 01-11-2020 07:23 AM

(01-10-2020 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-10-2020 04:03 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Let's be blunt: Most of the athletic programs in the Belt, MAC and C-USA have no business offering 1-A football. And as a Middle Tennessee State grad, it pains me to say that.

If the admins at these schools were farsighted, they would start building now (and some are) to have very strong soccer programs within the next 30 years or so — while phasing out football.

College football (much like the NFL) is going to be a very different game in the next 30 to 50 years. Stadiums will seat fewer fans, and fan bases could be smaller. Changing U.S. racial/ethnic demographics, the rise of soccer, the increase in women playing sports, severe injuries incurred during football games ... all will impact both pro and college football.

As such, schools like my Middle Tennessee State need to be proactive. Sadly, I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario.

They'd be better off putting the football money into basketball and baseball. Most Americans don't give a hoot about soccer and only watch it when their kids are playing. But now that alcohol sales are getting approved at many college venues it at least would relieve the boredom of watching soccer.

Schools that really stink on football might actually look at it. After all, that's how Duke and Wake Forest became powerhouses in men's basketball. Beyond them, I don't see it JR. North Dakota State and Montana make a killing off of FCS football, and their stadiums' have smaller capacities than Wake Forest's (30,000). For a school like Rice, this could be a realistic option. Bill, I don't see Middle Tennessee going that route for a very long time. If you're looking for schools where soccer could really take hold, like the big 4 (football, basketball, baseball, hockey), I would suggest looking at the Ivy League and the Patriot League. Those leagues have nothing to lose and everything to gain by establishing some men's soccer juggernauts. Both of these leagues have been eclipsed by several FBS teams and FCS teams in football and in the Northeast, they are an afterthought to the Big East in basketball. Soccer could be the one thing to propel them back to the spotlight, like how they were in the early days of college football. Furthermore, they have funds to do this too, and could add the requisite sports for Title IX compliance. One thing that would really help soccer get established in the U.S. would be making it a spring/summer sport vs a fall sport, because college football overshadows everything in the fall, just about. This is not the case for spring and summer, IMO, where soccer would be going up against college baseball, which is a lot easier to compete with vs football.

Political consequences aside, I don't see the current influx of immigrants leading a cultural revolution where football is ever replaced. It's American as apple pie, so to speak. Football is to the U.S. what hockey is to Canada, IMO. Peer pressure will have immigrants adopting football, IMO. But, I can see the big 4 sports turning into a big 5. That is definitely possible.