(09-09-2017 09:57 AM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 04:54 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 04:28 PM)Lizard Breath Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 03:29 PM)stodgdog Wrote:  

(09-05-2017 08:49 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Lets see every game is shown on TV...LOCALLY. No dollar or five dollar night. Small population. Poor state. Two national championship and top all time programs (#1 & #6 ) with in 2.5 hours and both state schools.

The only one fighting that last part is UNCC and UAB. neither are figing the other problems of Small population base or every game being shown on live TV

So with that Western is sitting at 83% of butts in seats...17% of a full stadium. Would it look better and be better to fill those other 3900 seats? Sure it would.

But lets see which is more valuable to the conference....

17% of your seats sitting empty and winning 23 games over the last 2 seasons

Or having 4 to 5,000 more fans in the stands in a stadium that is half full and winning 7 or below games each of the last 2 years?

Seats sitting unused mostly only hurt that team. A team losing affects us all...

now out of these two has the larger negative affect on a conference...

1. 17% of your seats going unused and winning

2. 50% of your seats sitting empty even you are averaging 24k in attendance and losing

Lets be honest which do you think the average fan sitting at home watching a game is going to notice as a negative.....

only 18,600 fans in a 22k seat stadium winning
24,000 fans sitting in a half empty stadium losing

Lets just drop the winning or losing .....the average fan does not know or care the total number of butts sitting in those seats. The average fan will see a mostly full to a mostly empty stadium and take notice.

Man, talk about rationalization

lol I was thinking the same thing

If you though the same...why didn't you say it? I asked you a question on which do you think fans sitting at home watching on TV would notice more as a negative.

A stadium less than 50% (actually 1/3) full or one 83% full?

Only a idiot will think the average fan sitting watching on TV is going to say...

stadium looks mostly full but only 18,600 there.

The average fan couldn't tell you what either stadium held...nor do they care. But they can see when a stadium is more than half empty. They can see when that team is getting the dog crap beat out of them. That is what matters.

BTW what % of the fans is USTA getting? So you are telling me you are impressed with your school averaging 23,038 in a stadium that Capacity is 72,000 and playing in a city with a Population of 1.493 million

WOW! really impressive. 23k in a 72k stadium with a 1.5million base with in 30 minutes of that stadium to draw from

And you think other teams that plays in a stadium that is 83% full in a city of 60,000 is a problem... talk about rationalization

Relax dude. Geezus. Talk about going overboard. I didn't even read your whole reply.,

Your stadium looks like a lot of our high school fields here. as our other sports facilities look like HS facilities or below too. Yes, regardless I'd rather have a larger number in regards to attendance, 24k vs 16-18k. Because it adds up after years of attendance. It's just common sense. Our city is around 2.6-2.7 million. We have a ton of the population;Cowboys, UT, Baylor, Houston, Texas A&M, Texans, Texas Tech, ect fans. Military here that are from other states. It's a big city meaning there's more than just college football to occupy people with which might be different wherever you live with a pop of 60k. We've had CFB for a few years, so eventually our base will grow & that will turn into 30k+. We have had 3 losing seasons in a row, just think of what happens when we win.

His scenario didn't really make sense. I mean, why go into this long, rambling reason why attendance is disappointing. WE ALL need to increase attendance.