Could the early season game attendance be affected by the late summer heat being outdoors in Texas labor day through September gotta be around 100 degrees there.

(03-20-2012 12:17 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Could the early season game attendance be affected by the late summer heat being outdoors in Texas labor day through September gotta be around 100 degrees there.

September in Texas ain't getting any cooler any time soon. The attendance is what it is. I don't think it's cooler in Austin or in College Station or Lubbock than it is in Fort Worth or at SMU or at UH.

(03-19-2012 06:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 05:55 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 05:29 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 01:23 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(03-19-2012 12:51 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  It was the season opener. Baylor and TCU is an old rivalry. Fort Worth is only 90 miles from Waco. TCU sells over 20,000 season tickets.

But more than that, I watched the game on TV. There was a lot of purple there. I would say at least 10,000 Frogs made that trip.

I don't think tcu averaged 40,000 fans during both of their bcs seasons. I would be amazed if hey took 10,000 to waco

They averaged 42 or 43K in 2010, the year after the second BCS run. Less than that this year.

TCU's stadium was under construction this year. It only held 30,000 if I recall. Of course their average attendance was down.

Wikipedia says they drew 35,632 for the SMU game, and besides that, between 32,000 and 34,146. So they didn't sell out their reduced-capacity stadium. Or am I missing something relevant again?

It seems to me that for the non-SMU games, they had, er, 35,632 minus 34,146, over 1000 empty seats. No?

Our stadium only sat 32,000 and change last year while under construction. Every game was played during the afternoon, some under brutal heat conditions this past September. Every game was technically a sellout, but due to the heat and crappy schedule, there were no shows. Our season ticket base last year was 22,000 not counting the students. Our goal with the new stadium this year is 28-30,000 season tickets. Playing a very good schedule, I would be willing to bet that we sellout every home game this fall. The capacity of the new stadium will be 45,000 plus a big area for SRO. And by the way, most games in Texas are played at night in September and October.

(03-20-2012 02:04 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Our stadium only sat 32,000 and change last year while under construction. Every game was played during the afternoon, some under brutal heat conditions this past September. Every game was technically a sellout, but due to the heat and crappy schedule, there were no shows. Our season ticket base last year was 22,000 not counting the students. Our goal with the new stadium this year is 28-30,000 season tickets. Playing a very good schedule, I would be willing to bet that we sellout every home game this fall. The capacity of the new stadium will be 45,000 plus a big area for SRO.

Frog, I went to the Tech-TCU baseball in Ft. Worth a couple of weeks ago and noticed the football stadium. It will be very nice and I look forward to seeing it when it is finished when Tech comes to Ft. Worth this season. I just hope ole pine box( Tuberville) has Tech ready.

(03-17-2012 02:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 02:38 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Only 1 problem, The big 6, more and more seem to be going to 9 conf games. B12 has, Pac 10 has, BE was planning to, not sure on the other 3. There will be less and less games available for the alliance against the current Big 6.

Then The Alliance counters by doing the same thing. That makes their own OOC games worth that much more. That pits the majors against each other for those fewer scheduling positions.

Having less slots on schedules makes it a little more difficult to work out the complexities of how to make all of these schedules work together. If the Alliance can score a decent tv deal then they can always threaten to have more of their OOC games be against other weaker conferences. While that would definitely have some detrimental affects, it is a pretty good bluff to play if they have a large enough control on the bottom end of OOC scheduling.

That's a very bad thing for the Alliance. Letting the majors only play each other helps create a new division of football and will leave the Alliance on the outside looking in. The Alliance has to walk a very tight line to find the balance between the sell games and staying relevant enough that the Big 6 doesn't start looking at them as D-IAA opponents and split away. If you are part of the "have-nots" the last thing in the world you want is for the "haves" to stop bothering with you...

(03-21-2012 11:34 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 02:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 02:38 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Only 1 problem, The big 6, more and more seem to be going to 9 conf games. B12 has, Pac 10 has, BE was planning to, not sure on the other 3. There will be less and less games available for the alliance against the current Big 6.

Then The Alliance counters by doing the same thing. That makes their own OOC games worth that much more. That pits the majors against each other for those fewer scheduling positions.

Having less slots on schedules makes it a little more difficult to work out the complexities of how to make all of these schedules work together. If the Alliance can score a decent tv deal then they can always threaten to have more of their OOC games be against other weaker conferences. While that would definitely have some detrimental affects, it is a pretty good bluff to play if they have a large enough control on the bottom end of OOC scheduling.

That's a very bad thing for the Alliance. Letting the majors only play each other helps create a new division of football and will leave the Alliance on the outside looking in. The Alliance has to walk a very tight line to find the balance between the sell games and staying relevant enough that the Big 6 doesn't start looking at them as D-IAA opponents and split away. If you are part of the "have-nots" the last thing in the world you want is for the "haves" to stop bothering with you...

You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

(03-21-2012 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 11:34 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 02:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 02:38 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Only 1 problem, The big 6, more and more seem to be going to 9 conf games. B12 has, Pac 10 has, BE was planning to, not sure on the other 3. There will be less and less games available for the alliance against the current Big 6.

Then The Alliance counters by doing the same thing. That makes their own OOC games worth that much more. That pits the majors against each other for those fewer scheduling positions.

Having less slots on schedules makes it a little more difficult to work out the complexities of how to make all of these schedules work together. If the Alliance can score a decent tv deal then they can always threaten to have more of their OOC games be against other weaker conferences. While that would definitely have some detrimental affects, it is a pretty good bluff to play if they have a large enough control on the bottom end of OOC scheduling.

That's a very bad thing for the Alliance. Letting the majors only play each other helps create a new division of football and will leave the Alliance on the outside looking in. The Alliance has to walk a very tight line to find the balance between the sell games and staying relevant enough that the Big 6 doesn't start looking at them as D-IAA opponents and split away. If you are part of the "have-nots" the last thing in the world you want is for the "haves" to stop bothering with you...

You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

Ah, yes I misunderstood what you were stating, I took it as the Big 6 schools would end up playing each other. Still, you have to be careful about not allowing too many majors to play other majors in OOC, though that may be inevitable anyway. It'll be interesting to see how other conferences react to the B1G/Pac12 deal, especially if that ends up bringing in larger sums of cash.

(03-21-2012 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

Just pass a rule that 2 FCS games count towards the 7 wins you need for bowl eligibility. Problem solved.

A much more likely outcome than the non-SEC power conferences approving conference semifinal games.

(03-21-2012 02:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

Just pass a rule that 2 FCS games count towards the 7 wins you need for bowl eligibility. Problem solved.

A much more likely outcome than the non-SEC power conferences approving conference semifinal games.

Why wouldn't other conferences want semifinal games? Especially if it is a week devoted to those games. That means very few games to be aired which means premium pricing to air them. That is big money, explain why other conferences wouldn't want that.

(03-21-2012 11:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 02:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

Just pass a rule that 2 FCS games count towards the 7 wins you need for bowl eligibility. Problem solved.

A much more likely outcome than the non-SEC power conferences approving conference semifinal games.

Why wouldn't other conferences want semifinal games? Especially if it is a week devoted to those games. That means very few games to be aired which means premium pricing to air them. That is big money, explain why other conferences wouldn't want that.

Because of where they are on the food chain. The Big 12 and ACC would be looking again at being raided by the SEC and PAC and Big Ten. The PAC and Big Ten seem pretty reluctant to go to 16, and signing off on a 16-team SEC increases the gap in football between the SEC and the Big 10. Does getting Texas and Oklahoma close the SEC-PAC gap? Maybe--but only if you get those negotiations to work, which they've tried and failed at twice.

Or those conferences could just vote "No." Big Ten, PAC, ACC, Big 12, Big East vote no. Notre Dame casts the independent vote, and they don't want superconferences. SEC, MWC, C-USA are the only solid "yes" votes. MAC isn't too worried about losing teams, but also don't have a strong reason to vote yes. The SUn Belt is always at risk of losing teams, but could also bring up enough FCS upgrades to go to 16 themselves. I have no idea how the WAC would vote. But with 6 "no" votes out of 12, does it matter?

(03-22-2012 10:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 11:42 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 02:15 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-21-2012 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You misinterpret. The "have's" need warm up games. They wont get those by only dealing with each other.

The part of my post that you bolded and seemingly misunderstood is that the "Have's" will be pitted against each other in competition FOR these games against the lesser teams due to tighter scheduling.

Just pass a rule that 2 FCS games count towards the 7 wins you need for bowl eligibility. Problem solved.

A much more likely outcome than the non-SEC power conferences approving conference semifinal games.

Why wouldn't other conferences want semifinal games? Especially if it is a week devoted to those games. That means very few games to be aired which means premium pricing to air them. That is big money, explain why other conferences wouldn't want that.

Because of where they are on the food chain. The Big 12 and ACC would be looking again at being raided by the SEC and PAC and Big Ten. The PAC and Big Ten seem pretty reluctant to go to 16, and signing off on a 16-team SEC increases the gap in football between the SEC and the Big 10. Does getting Texas and Oklahoma close the SEC-PAC gap? Maybe--but only if you get those negotiations to work, which they've tried and failed at twice.

Or those conferences could just vote "No." Big Ten, PAC, ACC, Big 12, Big East vote no. Notre Dame casts the independent vote, and they don't want superconferences. SEC, MWC, C-USA are the only solid "yes" votes. MAC isn't too worried about losing teams, but also don't have a strong reason to vote yes. The SUn Belt is always at risk of losing teams, but could also bring up enough FCS upgrades to go to 16 themselves. I have no idea how the WAC would vote. But with 6 "no" votes out of 12, does it matter?

The only one I would see strongly against it is the PAC. The ACC "should" be against it but folks from the ACC here atleast seem to think they are in a strong position and have nothing to worry about. If the people in charge have the same mindset then I do not see why they would be against it when they are already at 14.

I think the B1G would be all over it at some point. The B1G isn't against expansion, they expand when it makes sense financially. A system with conference playoffs makes a ton of sense financially for the B1G. It would also allow them to redraw divisions after taking so much flak for the current set up.

I think Texas is feeling very strong at the moment with the big 12. Yes, it is likely that a system with conference playoffs will cause either the ACC or Big 12 to get raided. We are seeing the Big 12 making some very strong moves right now. A few months ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you that the Big 12 institutions would vote against any such changes but that may not be the case any more.

Really I only see one staunch opponent against the measure. None of this would come up until after the battle between the ACC and Big 12 is decided anyways so whomever wins that would be all for the measure as well. It is very likely we see those conference playoffs in the future.

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Well, there are a lot of other things to do in Dallas other than watch a relatively small college play football.

(03-22-2012 04:31 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Well, there are a lot of other things to do in Dallas other than watch a relatively small college play football.

Like watching relatively large high schools play football.

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Not sure what he is referring to. UT, A&M and Tech fans show up fairly well when we play Texas teams.

(03-22-2012 05:10 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Not sure what he is referring to. UT, A&M and Tech fans show up fairly well when we play Texas teams.

As have Baylor and TCU recently.

(03-22-2012 05:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 05:10 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Not sure what he is referring to. UT, A&M and Tech fans show up fairly well when we play Texas teams.

As have Baylor and TCU recently.

I probably should have worded my comment a little better. First to clarify.....the original statement I was responding to said..... "fans in the State of Texas go to see (all) the teams in Texas play". I disagree with that statement.

I do not beleive many UT, A&M, TCU, SMU, Baylor, Houston etc., fans go to to other schools in Texas games, IF their team is not playing them.

Also, other than UT games..... fans in general in the State not affiliated in some way with a school seem to rarely attend that schools games.

One of the reasons Baylor, SMU, etc do not fill their stadium is because fans in general in the State do not turn out in large numbers to attend their games.

And to answer the poster's question "of any idea why that is" I believe it is because of the many pro sports teams in the State.

Hope that helps.

Pro teams killed interest in and attendance for the small urban private schools that once upon a time were the pro teams for Dallas and Houston (Rice, SMU, TCU)

Baylor is held back by having a stadium too large for their fan base which they are addressing with a nicer but smaller stadium and UH is slowly working to over come their history as a commuter school. BE membership should help.

UT, A&M and Tech have large enough fan bases to sustain their attendance without relying on locals.

(03-22-2012 09:28 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  UH is slowly working to over come their history as a commuter school. BE membership should help.

The UH campus is changing dramatically. By 2014, there will be over 8000 beds on campus, many of them new or remodeled within the last 10 years. Here's a timeline of the major new construction affecting student "life" (i.e. not including classrooms, etc.) at a cost of over $500M:

Spring 2003: Campus Recreation/Wellness Center. Cost $53M.

Fall 2003: Bayou Oaks Fraternity/Sorority Housing. 490 Beds.

August 2005: Cullen Oaks undergrad housing. 879 beds.

August 2009: Calhoun Lofts. 1000 bed grad/professional student housing. $107M.

November 2009: 1500 space parking garage. Cost $18M

August 2010: Cougar Village Undergad Housing. 1163 beds. Cost $50M.

August 2010: Moody Tower Dining Hall renovation. Cost $11M

July 2012: 600 seat dining hall. Cost $9M.

August 2012: 2300 space parking garage. Cost $26M.

June 2013: Cougar Place Undergrad campus apartments. 800 beds. Cost $49M.

August 2013: Cougar Village Undergrad housing, Phase 2. 1100 beds. Cost $50M.

August 2013: 1500 space parking garage. Cost $20M.

August 2013: Cougar Family Housing. 400 beds. Cost $29M.

August 2014: New Football Stadium. 40,000 seats. Cost $100-120M.

August 2014: Hofheinz renovation. Cost $30-40M.

(03-22-2012 04:31 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(03-22-2012 12:09 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-18-2012 06:12 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Texas folks are notorious for NOT going to see Texas teams play. If you do not believe me, just checkout SMU's attendance figures.

Any idea why that is?

Well, there are a lot of other things to do in Dallas other than watch a relatively small college play football.

I guess Graceland is killing attendance at UM football games eh?