I have always wondered how UTEP's attendance would be if we were in a power league. Attendance wise UTEP does good considering the horrible product on the field and the lack of "brand" names we have on the conference schedule.

(03-04-2013 12:11 AM)S11 Wrote:  1- Level is wrong on the subject according to the people I have talked to but believe who you want. Tech was rebuffed and we outbid you for Bennett as well. Why else would you hire a young coordinator with only three years of play calling experience?

2- BU was nowhere near what we are now for 90% of that time frame you quote. Worse facilities, apathetic admin, and no success on the field. OSU and TCU were also much lesser competitors. You are trying to rely on the past decade, I am looking at where things are going. BU, OSU, and TCU were nothing like are now for at least half of your time period and in BU's case most of it. Tech was head and shoulders above BU and TCU in 2008... but not now and current recruits were in middle school back then.

3- Please pm any reply to this to discourage further derailing of the thread.

This thread is already derailed. Tech talked to Briles but we weren't willing to pay his large buyout from Baylor. Some Tech fans wanted Briles but a good portion wanted Kliff. I honestly didn't think Kent Hance would allow a Leach protege to come in and fix the mess that he( Kent Hance) and pine box created. When it became it apparent that we wouldn't spend the money on basically the same coach at Baylor, we went after the Clemson OC and Kliff. The Clemson OC is an aggy, Kliff is a Red Raider. Kliff got the job and we all know the potential upside that he has. You mentioned Phil Bennett but I don't recall Tech wanting him. I thought aggy wanted him since he lived in College Station.

Kliff and Co had a decent 13 class despite pine box leaving in the fashion he did. Kliff can relate to Texas HS studs who want to play for a West Texas legend. In talent rich Texas, we will get more than our fair share and win quite a few battles among TCU, Baylor and Okla St. Our coaches are young and relate to the players better.

Despite our location, we shouldn't lose to Baylor in this era of football. Leach came close a few times and pine box finally mailed it in because he couldn't compete in the Big 12 on a regular basis. Kliff won't accept losing to Baylor, TCU or Oklahoma St.

Edit: Sammy don't listen to Zebbie. He is a known a pine box supporter who found ways to justify pine box being in Lubbock. Zebbie, Saiken, and others on RP and RRS gave true Red Raiders like myself, JD, Seattle, etc a bad name knowing we hired a washed up coach who was relying on his 2004 glory. Tech wasn't the only school in the country to have injuries and we won't be the last. The difference is having players coached up to take their positions when they get hurt. Pine box couldn't do that and his supporters will blame that on Leach.

(03-04-2013 12:13 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:53 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:36 PM)S11 Wrote:  5- I NEVER said BU was a better brand right now. Don't misquote.

I was talking about which is a better JOB. I said that if a coach was going to have to take a job at either BU or Tech and we assume the programs are in similar shape record wise it would be a better job in Waco due to better facilities once the stadium is done and closer regional proximity to pretty much every recruit in Texas. Neither is a bad job now and the better job would have been tech by far a few years back but now I would favor BU.

New Baylor Stadium will seat 45K which should get rid of the tarps but to say it is better is completely bias. Cowboys stadium is nice and new but I'd rather watch a pro game at Reliant. Just because its new doesn't mean its better.

It isn't about what you think, it's about high school aged recruits who see nicer digs in Waco, Fort Worth, and Stillwater. It shouldn't matter but ask Oregon or Ok State if elite practice facilities matter to recruits. We both know the answer.

At least the tarps will be gone. For your sake, you had better hope Briles can find another RG3 or new Baylor stadium will look like old Baylor stadium.

Despite your idea that recruits like playing in new digs, they also like playing in near sold out stadiums with 55-60K plus. When is the last time Baylor played a regular season game in front of 55-60K plus in Waco?

We are headed to 70K seats in the future while Baylor downsizes. Recruits will see the difference in atmosphere, etc.

(03-04-2013 12:34 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I have always wondered how UTEP's attendance would be if we were in a power league. Attendance wise UTEP does good considering the horrible product on the field and the lack of "brand" names we have on the conference schedule.

I've often wondered the same thing. UTEP had decent attendance in the 2000's and they would bridge the gap to the PAC 12.

(03-03-2013 09:59 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 09:49 PM)canewton Wrote:  That's an enormous amount of work you put in to **** on a school you hate. For that, I commend you good sir.

Come on now, I didn't **** on any school. I knew KSU was bad but I was amazed at how awake their crowd became once they started winning in the Big 12.

Keep it civil. From 1976-1995, Houston was UT's 2nd largest draw.

Judging by your posts on CF and on here, yes it was to **** on us. Please continue on with your postings.

(03-04-2013 02:44 AM)canewton Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 09:59 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 09:49 PM)canewton Wrote:  That's an enormous amount of work you put in to **** on a school you hate. For that, I commend you good sir.

Come on now, I didn't **** on any school. I knew KSU was bad but I was amazed at how awake their crowd became once they started winning in the Big 12.

Keep it civil. From 1976-1995, Houston was UT's 2nd largest draw.

Judging by your posts on CF and on here, yes it was to **** on us. Please continue on with your postings.

Good luck

Re: OP

That's a tremendous amount of work you put in. Kudos.

I think most of the growth in attendance (except KU) was due to population growth in the regions concerned. Interesting how it almost all went to the flagship colleges in the region: Texas, A&M, and Tech.

I'm an outsider when it comes to Texas, but based on what I've read, I consider Tech and UTEP to be the flagships in their regions more than UT and A&M. Tech seems like it is the flagship of a region that makes it similar in many respects to WVU. Both rural, widely spaced regions. The area itself doesn't produce much high school football talent, but the fanbase is so passionate that they're able to pull good recruits from heavily populated East Texas in much the same way that WVU is able to pull good recruits from the East Coast and Florida. This theory also explains why the Tech brand has improved while the Baylor brand has fizzled: newcomers to a rapidly growing area will be less likely than an old-timer to support the smaller school in a region; the newcomer (& the 1st generation of their kids) will hop on the bandwagon of the flagship.

Anyone care to tell me if I'm right or wrong on this? Thanks.

LOL! What is is the amount of time you (jeffraider2000) have put into posting historical attendance numbers over the years. Remember, the past does not dictate the future.

It might be time to move on to something more productive...

I have a HUGE problem with these attendance figures. Rather than fans in the seats, the more accurate indicator of fan interest and intensity must also consider ticket prices and donations.

At Oklahoma State, season tickets between the 35 yard lines require a $1,000 donation per seat. Then Oklahoma State now has about 200 boxes. I don't know what these go for but the price is hefty. If you factor all this in, the difference between BCS and NonAQ is absolutely much larger than just plain attendance.

Then there is individual game tickets. If Texas or Texas Tech is coming to town, the ticket price on the 20 yard line is $100. If its Baylor, then $80.

If OU is coming to Stillwater, individual tickets are not sold. You must have a season ticket. A cheap season ticket in the end zone can be had for $250, I think.

(03-04-2013 12:34 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  I have always wondered how UTEP's attendance would be if we were in a power league. Attendance wise UTEP does good considering the horrible product on the field and the lack of "brand" names we have on the conference schedule.

To me, the two schools with the most amazing attendance are Iowa State and UTEP. If these two schools consistently averaged 7-5 seasons, they would probably have to expand their stadiums quite a bit.

(03-04-2013 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

That's a tremendous amount of work you put in. Kudos.

I think most of the growth in attendance (except KU) was due to population growth in the regions concerned. Interesting how it almost all went to the flagship colleges in the region: Texas, A&M, and Tech.

I'm an outsider when it comes to Texas, but based on what I've read, I consider Tech and UTEP to be the flagships in their regions more than UT and A&M. Tech seems like it is the flagship of a region that makes it similar in many respects to WVU. Both rural, widely spaced regions. The area itself doesn't produce much high school football talent, but the fanbase is so passionate that they're able to pull good recruits from heavily populated East Texas in much the same way that WVU is able to pull good recruits from the East Coast and Florida. This theory also explains why the Tech brand has improved while the Baylor brand has fizzled: newcomers to a rapidly growing area will be less likely than an old-timer to support the smaller school in a region; the newcomer (& the 1st generation of their kids) will hop on the bandwagon of the flagship.

Anyone care to tell me if I'm right or wrong on this? Thanks.

1- Tech's ability to recruit outside their region has more to do with tons of winning seasons since 1990. You can count on one hand the number of losing seasons since then and it establishes a well known brand. That is the biggest correlation IMO.

2- Tech and UTEP are to an extent are "flagships" of the Texas panhandle and the El Paso regions respectively so there is a strong regional following in that regard.

CKK has his hands full right now at Tech.

He has to rebuild the program after the failed Tuberville experiment and restore glory to the House of Leach but in a much different environment than what CML had to work with. A&M was down, Baylor was down, OSU was mediocre and TCU wasn't even in the conference.

Now, A&M is up, Baylor is on the rise, OSU has won a Big 12 title, and TCU has CGP, awesome facilities and recent BCS trips to sell to the kids in DWF.

Not saying it can't be done, just that Tech is going to have a much more challenging time recruiting going forward than they did at the programs height under everyone's favorite B12 coach.

I think there are four main variables in play here:

1. Time- College football is more popular in the last 20 years than the previous 20. Attendance is up across the country.
2. Capacity- More capacity is influencing the attendance increases in some cases, especially at the top.
3. On the field performance- probably the biggest year to year and era to era factor for some teams.
4. Conference affiliation- being in "lesser" conferences definitely impacts attendance, and whether there are travelling fans.

The importance of each variable is different for different teams.

(03-04-2013 09:15 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

That's a tremendous amount of work you put in. Kudos.

I think most of the growth in attendance (except KU) was due to population growth in the regions concerned. Interesting how it almost all went to the flagship colleges in the region: Texas, A&M, and Tech.

I'm an outsider when it comes to Texas, but based on what I've read, I consider Tech and UTEP to be the flagships in their regions more than UT and A&M. Tech seems like it is the flagship of a region that makes it similar in many respects to WVU. Both rural, widely spaced regions. The area itself doesn't produce much high school football talent, but the fanbase is so passionate that they're able to pull good recruits from heavily populated East Texas in much the same way that WVU is able to pull good recruits from the East Coast and Florida. This theory also explains why the Tech brand has improved while the Baylor brand has fizzled: newcomers to a rapidly growing area will be less likely than an old-timer to support the smaller school in a region; the newcomer (& the 1st generation of their kids) will hop on the bandwagon of the flagship.

Anyone care to tell me if I'm right or wrong on this? Thanks.

1- Tech's ability to recruit outside their region has more to do with tons of winning seasons since 1990. You can count on one hand the number of losing seasons since then and it establishes a well known brand. That is the biggest correlation IMO.

2- Tech and UTEP are to an extent are "flagships" of the Texas panhandle and the El Paso regions respectively so there is a strong regional following in that regard.

There is nothing regional about Tech. We are the 3rd largest supported University in the state despite being the 6th/7th largest in terms of students.

I think what he is saying is that Tech is the defacto flagship of the panhandle region since the state of Texas doesn't recognize Tech as an official state wide Flagship like it does UT-Austin and Texas A&M.

(03-04-2013 12:25 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:15 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:22 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

That's a tremendous amount of work you put in. Kudos.

I think most of the growth in attendance (except KU) was due to population growth in the regions concerned. Interesting how it almost all went to the flagship colleges in the region: Texas, A&M, and Tech.

I'm an outsider when it comes to Texas, but based on what I've read, I consider Tech and UTEP to be the flagships in their regions more than UT and A&M. Tech seems like it is the flagship of a region that makes it similar in many respects to WVU. Both rural, widely spaced regions. The area itself doesn't produce much high school football talent, but the fanbase is so passionate that they're able to pull good recruits from heavily populated East Texas in much the same way that WVU is able to pull good recruits from the East Coast and Florida. This theory also explains why the Tech brand has improved while the Baylor brand has fizzled: newcomers to a rapidly growing area will be less likely than an old-timer to support the smaller school in a region; the newcomer (& the 1st generation of their kids) will hop on the bandwagon of the flagship.

Anyone care to tell me if I'm right or wrong on this? Thanks.

1- Tech's ability to recruit outside their region has more to do with tons of winning seasons since 1990. You can count on one hand the number of losing seasons since then and it establishes a well known brand. That is the biggest correlation IMO.

2- Tech and UTEP are to an extent are "flagships" of the Texas panhandle and the El Paso regions respectively so there is a strong regional following in that regard.

There is nothing regional about Tech. We are the 3rd largest supported University in the state despite being the 6th/7th largest in terms of students.

What I am NOT saying:

"Tech only has regional appeal west of I-35"

What I am saying:

"Tech is really well followed in the panhandle and UTEP is really well followed in El Paso."

(03-04-2013 12:38 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that Tech is the defacto flagship of the panhandle region since the state of Texas doesn't recognize Tech as an official state wide Flagship like it does UT-Austin and Texas A&M.

No offense but UT-Austin is the flagship. A&M is very large and is as well regarded as other state flagships but there is only ONE flagship and it's Bevo.

(03-04-2013 12:43 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:38 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that Tech is the defacto flagship of the panhandle region since the state of Texas doesn't recognize Tech as an official state wide Flagship like it does UT-Austin and Texas A&M.

No offense but UT-Austin is the flagship. A&M is very large and is as well regarded as other state flagships but there is only ONE flagship and it's Bevo.

Exactly.

I know you both really want to believe that but its just not true. The state of Texas has recognized both A&M and UT as its state flagship schools for a long time now.

Don't believe me? Ask the former president of UT himself:

http://www.texaslyceum.org/media/staticC...rsity2.pdf

If UT and the State of Texas considered aggy to be a flagship, they would get an equal portion of West Texas PUF oil money.

They don't.