Attendence is always a misunderstood subject IMO. What every program obviously wants is a sellout. And we are no different. I've given my opinions on our attendence and why I think we are bombarded with tons of disinformation on the subject. But I just don't think attendence is anything more than sight candy for a lot of fans when all is said and done.

Now don't get me wrong, an empty seat is never a good thing, but as I've stated before, we aren't much worse off than a lot of BCS schools who average more empties than we do.

I think it was a mistake to gut Skelly Stadium the way it was done and reduce the capacity because its made it harder for us to schedule better programs here. But it was a good thing that the stadium received the millions in upgrades. Lets face it, Skelly was a decaying rust bucket of a venue that jeopardized the program and made it almost impossible to maintain it at the desired level.

But can we increase attendence from this point forward? That is the real question many of us ask. Well, I think we can if we have the right product on the field, a schedule that allows for growth and an ever increasingly upgraded venue - Chapman Stadium.

So is there enough interest in TU football to merit good attendence every year? Let me point something out and look to the past to make my case.

The year was 1990. In our last non-conference game of the year (November 17) we drew 40,248 fans to watch a 3-8 TUfb team (a 20-2 win). So who did we play that day in a sold out Skelly Stadium? Montana State thats who! So was that a fluke? Well, let me give example #2. Our opening nonconference game the very next year (August 31, 1991) was a 34-13 victory in front of 31,124 fans in Skelly. So who did we play? Answer: Southwest Missouri St (now Mo St). Now that WAS the Freedom Bowl year, but noone knew we'd go to the FB since it was the first game. So that couldn't be the reason for the good attendence that day.

So in conclusion. We played two games that meant very little as far as a conference championship, poll position etc. We were favored and the opponents were teams very few fans knew anything about.

I know I cherry picked this out of the past, but think about it for a second. A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make the trip to TU to watch a fb game just for the fun of it. Isn't that what its supposed to be like? Can't we do that again? Why not!

Has the "renovation" of Chapman Stadium actually hurt attendence overall? I think there is a good argument that it has which is why I advocate a few major changes in the stadium size - not quite back to its original size, but something that will drastically increase revenue.

For instance, the price of tickets to the OU game is once again a factor of much discussion. But to be honest, this is being done to keep an OU (for instance) from taking a huge money hit to come here. The last OU game played here was when we had the 40,000 seats and the ticket prices weren't so astronomically high. OSU a couple years ago was the same way - $100 tickets - for a game that ended up with thousands of fans just giving up due to bad weather and lateness. That result really hurt the program and is still a reason why some fans won't take the risk. They were at the mercy of not only the weather, but the bad decision making of our AD imo.

But TU "must" create a revenue stream that allows us to grow from here. With the BCS schools basically becoming a mini NFL and setting all the rules to please themselves, we are kind of in the same boat we were before joining the AAC. The saving grace has been a decent TV deal.

But now that TU has made a commitment to play at as high a level as is humanly possible, the facilities have to follow that thinking. We need more money wo putting the squeeze on our loyal fans. Done enough times, and those fans won't come back imo. But this was created when TU renovated the stadium by tearing it apart instead of just upgrading it.

IMO

(09-04-2014 02:48 PM)rabidTU2 Wrote:  Has the "renovation" of Chapman Stadium actually hurt attendence overall? I think there is a good argument that it has which is why I advocate a few major changes in the stadium size - not quite back to its original size, but something that will drastically increase revenue.

For instance, the price of tickets to the OU game is once again a factor of much discussion. But to be honest, this is being done to keep an OU (for instance) from taking a huge money hit to come here. The last OU game played here was when we had the 40,000 seats and the ticket prices weren't so astronomically high. OSU a couple years ago was the same way - $100 tickets - for a game that ended up with thousands of fans just giving up due to bad weather and lateness. That result really hurt the program and is still a reason why some fans won't take the risk. They were at the mercy of not only the weather, but the bad decision making of our AD imo.

But TU "must" create a revenue stream that allows us to grow from here. With the BCS schools basically becoming a mini NFL and setting all the rules to please themselves, we are kind of in the same boat we were before joining the AAC. The saving grace has been a decent TV deal.

But now that TU has made a commitment to play at as high a level as is humanly possible, the facilities have to follow that thinking. We need more money wo putting the squeeze on our loyal fans. Done enough times, and those fans won't come back imo. But this was created when TU renovated the stadium by tearing it apart instead of just upgrading it.

IMO

I think the University is waiting to see what happens with the NCAA / P5 / Stipends etc... before even pondering a stadium renovation... We should see an indoor practice facility in the not too distant future (probably will be announced next year after the new dorms by ACAC are done)

(09-04-2014 10:53 PM)Mr Hyde Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 06:42 PM)rabidTU2 Wrote:  The year was 1990. In our last non-conference game of the year (November 17) we drew 40,248 fans to watch a 3-8 TUfb team (a 20-2 win). So who did we play that day in a sold out Skelly Stadium? Montana State thats who! So was that a fluke?

Do you not know the reason for the big crowd that day?

It was to have a large enough avg. attendance to gain admission to the College Football Association. Also, all tickets were sold for 4 bucks each, which was the minimum price that the NCAA was recognize as a sale.

The point was that people came regardless of the circumstances behind it. If it could be done then, it can be done again imo. But we have to make each game an event/a happening rather than just something akin to travelling to Walmart or Riverparks to jog.

There's a very interesting article in the TW this morning about all the important events that will occur on campus in 2014-15. This is a big year to capture a lot of casual attendees. Hope so!

imo

(09-04-2014 07:58 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 02:48 PM)rabidTU2 Wrote:  Has the "renovation" of Chapman Stadium actually hurt attendence overall? I think there is a good argument that it has which is why I advocate a few major changes in the stadium size - not quite back to its original size, but something that will drastically increase revenue.

For instance, the price of tickets to the OU game is once again a factor of much discussion. But to be honest, this is being done to keep an OU (for instance) from taking a huge money hit to come here. The last OU game played here was when we had the 40,000 seats and the ticket prices weren't so astronomically high. OSU a couple years ago was the same way - $100 tickets - for a game that ended up with thousands of fans just giving up due to bad weather and lateness. That result really hurt the program and is still a reason why some fans won't take the risk. They were at the mercy of not only the weather, but the bad decision making of our AD imo.

But TU "must" create a revenue stream that allows us to grow from here. With the BCS schools basically becoming a mini NFL and setting all the rules to please themselves, we are kind of in the same boat we were before joining the AAC. The saving grace has been a decent TV deal.

But now that TU has made a commitment to play at as high a level as is humanly possible, the facilities have to follow that thinking. We need more money wo putting the squeeze on our loyal fans. Done enough times, and those fans won't come back imo. But this was created when TU renovated the stadium by tearing it apart instead of just upgrading it.

IMO

I think the University is waiting to see what happens with the NCAA / P5 / Stipends etc... before even pondering a stadium renovation... We should see an indoor practice facility in the not too distant future (probably will be announced next year after the new dorms by ACAC are done)

I agree with the IPF first, but time is short IMO. I think there will be another period of sweating it out on "realignment". I can see that there may be something like a 6th P5 conference of the strongest programs left out of it now. I could see something like 6, 16 team leagues for a total of 96 in all. But TU will have to become something more than it is right now. We need to become more competitive in everything from enrollment to facilities to exposure and media attention. We are slowly increasing enrollment - up about 500 in the last couple of years to 4,600. But that needs to go up further. We probably need at least a 36,000 seat stadium with all the luxuries to attract a consistant crowd. It'll take money, but TU has an almost $900,000,000 endowment for less than 5,000 students and the campus is growing each year. It can be done. But we are ignored by the powers that be right now who want to see some schools disappear as competititors. That is the problem we face. IMO the P5 will end up in court with a huge problem if they aren't more inclusive. The SCOTUS wouldn't look favorably at a group of semi-pro programs at schools that grow with public moneys and use players in disguised as students. So to keep their status as "nonpro" they will have to include a lot of schools who are strong academically. The courts will inevitably ask if the athletes are really there to get an education or not? So its a good thing to be TU when/if it is asked.

Thats what I hope will occur but noone knows where this is going. But odds are that there will be some litigation along the way.