http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sport...basketball

We are ranked 113 in attendance for FBS teams. This is out of 119 and is totally unnacceptable. Where is the attendance? The price of a ticket is practically a giveaway.

The article is basically assigning a power ranking to the 119 schools in the FBS. They concoct this ranking using an attendance rank (1-119), total wins (2006-2010), and a total wins rank (1-119).

We place 113 in attendance, we have 33 wins which ranks us 63rd. Our overall power ranking is an 88.

The top team is Ohio State with a power rank of 2 (The lower the number the better). Their attendance rank is 2. Their total wins are 56. Their wins rank is 2.

The bottom team is Eastern Michigan. Power ranking of 114. Attendance rank = 109, Wins = 10, Wins rank = 119.

Second to last was Akron. Power rank of 112.5. Attendance rank 118. Wins 18. Wins rank of 107.

The teams below us in attendance are:

114) FAU
115) Bowling Green
116) Buffalo
117) Idaho
118) Akron
119) Ball State

MAC teams make up 7 of the bottom 10 teams in attendance.

Oh, and the highest ranked MAC team is Central. Power ranking = 62. Attendance Rank = 93. Wins = 41. Wins rank = 31.

This is disturbing. Many of you will call this research flawed or say that they counted ticket holders that didn't exist. The cold hard facts are the numbers that are available. This is what the outside judges us on....what is known.

If and when super conferences are created the talk is along the lines of the top 80 FBS schools being included. Everybody else is in some subpar sisters of mercy conference. I Don't want that!!!!!

If they use anything close to the system used here CMU is in and we are not......I will then have to eat my vomit!

(09-16-2011 10:52 AM)Windycitybronco Wrote:  If and when super conferences are created the talk is along the lines of the top 80 FBS schools being included. Everybody else is in some subpar sisters of mercy conference. I Don't want that!!!!!

If they use anything close to the system used here CMU is in and we are not......I will then have to eat my vomit!

Spot on. Good research, this is scary. We desperately need to get people to the game. We all know how EMU get's their numbers, but the outsider won't.

Until the MAC gets rid of the November Tuesday/Wednesday night home games, the conference will always be last in attendance.

You simply can't talk to the casual fan into going to a game on a school/work night when it's 30 degrees outside.

It's a trade-off. In the MAC's eyes, TV exposure trumps having butts in the seats.

We have a nice win ranking, it's getting the people to the games that really matters. Revenue!!!

But who is to say they will spend a saturday in 30 degree weather watching a football game? Is it realistic to think attendance would be up that much....maybe the exposure is better.....be it bad exposure or not.

(09-16-2011 11:21 AM)Windycitybronco Wrote:  But who is to say they will spend a saturday in 30 degree weather watching a football game? Is it realistic to think attendance would be up that much....maybe the exposure is better.....be it bad exposure or not.

Agreed.

I think the TV exposure outweighs the attendance. I'm just saying all of the teams in our league are sacrificing the exposure for attendance. People would be more likely to attend a game at Noon on a Saturday as opposed to 7 pm on a Tuesday night, even if it's cold.

We're in a big enough market, with a big enough student population that we should be able to draw 30,000 to every game. Building a consistent winner will bring them to Waldo. Going 9-4 is nice, but following that up with a 5-7, losing 2 big games at home doesn't help the attendance.

(09-16-2011 11:33 AM)broncos24 Wrote:  Going 9-4 is nice, but following that up with a 5-7, losing 2 big games at home doesn't help the attendance.

This.

(09-16-2011 12:24 PM)Nacho Wrote:  

(09-16-2011 11:33 AM)broncos24 Wrote:  Going 9-4 is nice, but following that up with a 5-7, losing 2 big games at home doesn't help the attendance.

This.

Exactly.

Put another way ............. WMU needs to regain its' home field advantage.

Since Cubit has been HC, here are the home records.

2005 4 - 1
2006 5 - 0
2007 2 - 3
2008 5 - 0
2009 3 - 2
2010 3 - 3

2011 1 - 0 so far

5 of those 6 seasons we had 5 home games. Over those 6 seasons, WMU averaged 3.66 home wins. It's been said that the best formula to win the MAC is to go unbeaten at home and win most of your road games. With our schedule this season that is almost an imperative, with road games at NIU and UT.

You want students and the community to come out? Win your home games! We all know that folks like a winner. Give us one and see what happens.

While 23 - 9 at home since 2005 isn't terrible, there were several games lost in the past few years at home that should have been won. I would like to see the growth of the attitude that this is our house and winning here will take your very best "A" game and even then it may not be enough. Then back it up by creating that reality.

It starts tomorrow. Is team trainwreck up to the task? Be there at Waldo and watch and learn.

(09-16-2011 10:52 AM)Windycitybronco Wrote:  http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sport...basketball

We are ranked 113 in attendance for FBS teams. This is out of 119 and is totally unnacceptable. Where is the attendance? The price of a ticket is practically a giveaway.

The article is basically assigning a power ranking to the 119 schools in the FBS. They concoct this ranking using an attendance rank (1-119), total wins (2006-2010), and a total wins rank (1-119).

What year or years is the attendance rank formulated from? Is it 2006-2010 like the total wins? IIRC, we're usually in the top one-third of the MAC in terms of attendance (not that this is saying much), even during 'down' years. So 113/119 nationally seems awfully low to me.

If it's based on a string of years, I'd have a hard time believe this.
If it's based on one bad year, it seems a bit unfair to rank a program on one season.

Attendance counts are a joke in this league, starting with EMU. 400 people magically becomes 15k every game.

Some schools dont even have turnstyles.

I've seen CMU games where the entire visitors side is empty and they claim 24k.

We have 5 of the 10 largest crowds in MAC history, but now we can't outdraw a school putting 400 people in the seats, simply because they cheat on their counting methods.

KB might as well report a sellout for every game. It's all b.s. anyway.

(09-16-2011 03:19 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  Attendance counts are a joke in this league, starting with EMU. 400 people magically becomes 15k every game.

Some schools dont even have turnstyles.

I've seen CMU games where the entire visitors side is empty and they claim 24k.

We have 5 of the 10 largest crowds in MAC history, but now we can't outdraw a school putting 400 people in the seats, simply because they cheat no their counting methods.

KB might as well report a sellout for every game. It's all b.s. anyway.

Eastern has a sponsorship agreement with Pepsi in which they are required to purchase the minimum allotment of tickets necessary to maintain D-1 status. It's a joke.

Quote:Eastern has a sponsorship agreement with Pepsi in which they are required to purchase the minimum allotment of tickets necessary to maintain D-1 status. It's a joke.

Yeah, I've heard that. I don't believe it. Do the math.

Minimum is 15k x 5= 75,000. 75,000 x $20= 1.5 Million.

Why would Pepsi pay 1.5 million to put up signs on EMU's scoreboard so that 400 people a game "might" see them. And let's say they have an exclusive to put only Pepsi vending machines at EMU.

At a $1.35 a bottle they need to sell 5600 bottles of Pepsi a day during school days and during the prime student semesters, in order to recoup that money.

I guarantee you they don't sell 560 bottles a day. That being said, the deal with Pepsi is B.S. I'm a 100% sure they don't have to buy 15,000 tickets at face value, like any normal school would in order to make the NCAA minimum.

Eastern has a sponsorship agreement with Pepsi in which they are required to purchase the minimum allotment of tickets necessary to maintain D-1 status. It's a joke.

So why don't we just BS/cheat like the rest of the MAC? I don't get it. Really attendance only matters for revenue reasons/etc. So just count number of tickets sold, not butts in the seats.

(09-16-2011 04:53 PM)Chipdip Wrote:  I'm a 100% sure they don't have to buy 15,000 tickets at face value, like any normal school would in order to make the NCAA minimum.

Exactly. I'm sure they have some special arrangement in place to purchase the allotted tickets (15,000 minus whatever tickets are sold) at a highly discounted rate.

It certainly doesn't look right to me.

I remember reading this a few months ago.
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/budget-sh...epartment/
Eastern Michigan, which averaged 6,401 fans per home game in 2010, uses $150,000 from a distribution contract with Pepsi to purchase tickets from itself at a rate of $3 apiece to remain NCAA compliant.

let me just say this.....

In the years I have been on this forum I have noticed we love to point the finger. We love to say this is why we don't get this and this is why they get such and such.

BS! winners don't *****, winners win. When it counts winners step up.

You can tell me about all of the hijinx involved to cook up an attendance number but I am pretty sure ESPN of all people have a number that the rest of the free world has. This is the number that matters.

You and I know that EMU is substandard and below us. This report is still accurate enough to show that, but we are damn close to their level.

Somebody posted earlier in the thread about being in the top third of the MAC......you are thinking about the first third of the decade, not the last 6 years....we are nowhere close. Besides, being in the first third of the MAC is equivalent to being the tallest midget. Look at the numbers.....the entire conference is below 90!!!!!! This is horrible. We offer a better product then this. It makes me wonder who is selling it.

^
You just pointed a finger. How about who's buying it?

What is your point desertbronco? Spell it out for once and make a point instead of just jabbing to start something.