(09-18-2017 10:46 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:32 PM)ProfessorEagle Wrote:  It's not due to losing any particular game, 2-3 "bad" administrators, or coaches who stayed too long or left too early. Every program in America has experienced these things. It's not because of the conference we are in. Lots of people claimed CUSA sucked when we dominated it. Those people didn't care when we played Memphis, Houston, or Louisville. I sat in the stands with 14k fans as we beat Memphis to clinch our first Liberty Bowl bid.

They wouldn't care if we were playing them again. It is because of several decades of students who never really "bought in" and while students, they never attended games, and openly rooted for other schools in the state or region. They haven't set foot on campus again since they graduated. They support many other schools other than USM by buying season tickets in Baton Rouge, Starkville, Tuscaloosa, or Oxford, wearing their gear, and sending their kids to school to the schools they support other than USM. I know, your kid wants to go to ____ and they have a good program in _____, but they never even considered USM. I know tons of people like this. They are my "friends" but it irks me to no end.

I don't know the answer to the problem. We've been talking about it since I started following the Golden Eagles in 1987. Student participation has improved over the years and that bodes well for the future, but can we weather the present until then?

As I've said before, part of that equation is our high out-of-state student ratio. Kids come in as [insert applicable P5 team here] fans since birth, and while our little program provides a nice pastime while on campus, their passions remain with the school they're not attending. Then they graduate, go back home, and as you say, never make it back or contribute in any meaningful way. Add in the in-state students with Ole Miss & State ties who do the same thing, and it's a tough row to hoe, made even tougher when you do all the other stuff already mentioned in this thread on top of it.

Our OOS % isn't high at all. 22%. And that's the highest it's been in decades.

(09-19-2017 10:32 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:26 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:59 AM)EagleFWB Wrote:  That's the whole thing now where they are counting actual butts in the seats this year. I guess in the past they counted every ticket that was given away, etc. not who was actually in the stadium.

Where are you getting that information? I've only seen 1 article that mentions attendance. We are counting more than butts-in-seats. Link below.

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...44432.html

Quotes from article...
USM senior associate athletic director Stephen Pugh, who handles external operations, said that the number announced Saturday accounted for all tickets sold and distributed for the game.

“That was the number of tickets we had out for the game,” Pugh said Tuesday. “That included tickets sold, comp tickets and how many students were scanned in.”
Also included in the number were the band and USM staff on hand at Roberts Stadium.

I don't get how no one in the athletic department would not know this...
“We sat down and figured it out,” Pugh said. “I don't know how attendance was decided previously.”

Sure there are a lot of new people, but there is typically a known formula for such a MAJOR metric.

It is my understanding that the number of comp and discount tickets are tremendously reduced under the new regime.

I could see that being the case.

(09-19-2017 11:03 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:32 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:26 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:59 AM)EagleFWB Wrote:  That's the whole thing now where they are counting actual butts in the seats this year. I guess in the past they counted every ticket that was given away, etc. not who was actually in the stadium.

Where are you getting that information? I've only seen 1 article that mentions attendance. We are counting more than butts-in-seats. Link below.

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...44432.html

Quotes from article...
USM senior associate athletic director Stephen Pugh, who handles external operations, said that the number announced Saturday accounted for all tickets sold and distributed for the game.

“That was the number of tickets we had out for the game,” Pugh said Tuesday. “That included tickets sold, comp tickets and how many students were scanned in.”
Also included in the number were the band and USM staff on hand at Roberts Stadium.

I don't get how no one in the athletic department would not know this...
“We sat down and figured it out,” Pugh said. “I don't know how attendance was decided previously.”

Sure there are a lot of new people, but there is typically a known formula for such a MAJOR metric.

It is my understanding that the number of comp and discount tickets are tremendously reduced under the new regime.

I could see that being the case.

I would love to know just which group of comps has been reduced. I think also its a good thing but will take time to recover.

(09-19-2017 11:03 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:32 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:26 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:59 AM)EagleFWB Wrote:  That's the whole thing now where they are counting actual butts in the seats this year. I guess in the past they counted every ticket that was given away, etc. not who was actually in the stadium.

Where are you getting that information? I've only seen 1 article that mentions attendance. We are counting more than butts-in-seats. Link below.

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...44432.html

Quotes from article...
USM senior associate athletic director Stephen Pugh, who handles external operations, said that the number announced Saturday accounted for all tickets sold and distributed for the game.

“That was the number of tickets we had out for the game,” Pugh said Tuesday. “That included tickets sold, comp tickets and how many students were scanned in.”
Also included in the number were the band and USM staff on hand at Roberts Stadium.

I don't get how no one in the athletic department would not know this...
“We sat down and figured it out,” Pugh said. “I don't know how attendance was decided previously.”

Sure there are a lot of new people, but there is typically a known formula for such a MAJOR metric.

It is my understanding that the number of comp and discount tickets are tremendously reduced under the new regime.

I could see that being the case.

If this was mentioned previously I apologize but as far as "reported student attendance".......i wonder if in the past we counted more students since they all pay an activities fee whereas this year we are just counting the ones who show up and get their ID scanned?

I mentioned this in another thread a few weeks ago, but I don't think students are the problem. Yeah they leave early, but it's those upper decks that are like a ghost town. I suspect that they used to count all tickets that were comp to whatever organization and now they don't. I'm assuming that most of those seats were in the upper deck oasis. The visual look of the crowd hasn't changed to much, we just aren't counting those empty upper deck seats anymore.

I may be wrong

USM has always been an anomaly when it comes to fan bases. Like I said in a previous thread we put 30,000 in the stadium for some games in the early 80s. Maybe probation after that killed it. There was some excitement generated when Brett Favre was here but I don't remember sell outs or anything. Had some decent years with Bower but up and down. Had some solid years with Fedora but still wasn't consistent. I'm convinced that bringing in one Power 5 school (not named Miss. State) once every 5 years or so obviously isn't the answer as even those games don't sell out. Texas A&M and Nebraska come to mind......f'n sad. But maybe if we played them regularly it might build something. Hell, do some more 2 for 1's or even 3 for 1's. But play the Nebraskas etc every year or at least every other year.

You know, we used to play Bama yearly which was cool but I got sick and tired of their home refs screwing us all the time and us taking a beating every year. We won once every 10 years I think. That sucks. No idea what the answer is.

(09-19-2017 01:06 PM)usm99 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 11:03 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:32 AM)Eagleholic Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:26 AM)va-eagle Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:59 AM)EagleFWB Wrote:  That's the whole thing now where they are counting actual butts in the seats this year. I guess in the past they counted every ticket that was given away, etc. not who was actually in the stadium.

Where are you getting that information? I've only seen 1 article that mentions attendance. We are counting more than butts-in-seats. Link below.

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...44432.html

Quotes from article...
USM senior associate athletic director Stephen Pugh, who handles external operations, said that the number announced Saturday accounted for all tickets sold and distributed for the game.

“That was the number of tickets we had out for the game,” Pugh said Tuesday. “That included tickets sold, comp tickets and how many students were scanned in.”
Also included in the number were the band and USM staff on hand at Roberts Stadium.

I don't get how no one in the athletic department would not know this...
“We sat down and figured it out,” Pugh said. “I don't know how attendance was decided previously.”

Sure there are a lot of new people, but there is typically a known formula for such a MAJOR metric.

It is my understanding that the number of comp and discount tickets are tremendously reduced under the new regime.

I could see that being the case.

If this was mentioned previously I apologize but as far as "reported student attendance".......i wonder if in the past we counted more students since they all pay an activities fee whereas this year we are just counting the ones who show up and get their ID scanned?

In the past, they counted the entire student section (4k) + how ever many students came in to the game. So, if 1500 students came in the game the student total would be 5500. They were basically counting people twice. This year they are only counting students that have entered the game. There's your difference.

This may be a bizarre thought, and I'm not claiming that it was "the" reason for our lack of fanbase growth. But I've always felt like hurricane Katrina, changed our path somewhat. Came at a horrible time. I remember feeling like we were really gaining some momentum at the time. Check the earlier post with the attendance (thanks VA-eagle):

2001 : 25,649
2002 : 26,961
2003 : 28,645
2004 : 28,964
2005 : 27,862 Katrina

Really sucked. If I recall correctly, we had plans for the stadium expansion that called for 40,000+. Katrina caused a delay and higher cost so we had to settle for a stadium under 40,000. I think that really hurt. AAC may have considered us otherwise.

For the record - I also blame hurricane Katrina on ESPN, Notre Dame, The University of Alabama, and the SEC Refs.

(09-19-2017 01:36 PM)theheadeagle Wrote:  USM has always been an anomaly when it comes to fan bases. Like I said in a previous thread we put 30,000 in the stadium for some games in the early 80s.

Attendance grossly inflated in the 80's...and we didn't draw chit when Favor was here.

The only thing that bothers me is this: I went to a few games where the Rock was close to being full, and the attendance was announced as 31,000, 32,000 or 33,000. So, does that mean, in reality, there was only 27,000, 28,000, or 29,000 fans in the stands?

Where would we have put the other 5,000 folks?

(09-19-2017 09:24 AM)jebaroo Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 09:58 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  We won a lot of games during that time, but as someone else mentioned, the competition wasn't great. More importantly, though, whenever the competition was good, we'd lose to it 49 times out of 50. Bower's 0-fer vs winning major conference teams is well-documented, but his record vs. winning teams in general wasn't much better.

Everybody harps on that Louisville game, but the one I'd most like to change the outcome of is Tulane 1998. Win that one, and we're conference champions & in the Liberty Bowl 3 years in a row. That's how you build momentum and get people's attention.

Frankly, there were too many times during the period given that we were challenged and weren't up for the task. We conditioned fans (and I'll suggest players & coaches, too) to expect USM to lose the big one. There's an ingrained institutional lack of sack that con-
Tinues
To
This day.

Tulane 1998, loserville 2000, Cinci 2004 blowout at home was a real eye-opener...... The fact is that Bower won 4 cusa (one of those a tie and we stayed home for the bowl game ) championships and easily could have won 7-8.... we simply did not win enough big games to go to 'the next level'

So how many big games and conference championships did Tulane, Rutgers, Tulsa, Memphis and E. Carolina win? (Tulane, ECU and Memphis couldn't even beat us!) Bogus excuse..

those schools were lucky enough to be in bigger TV markets when the conferences were realigning based on possible TV audience. The SEC just got huge TV money and the TEXAS TV network was underway etc. our wins and conference championships and consecutive winning seasons didn't mean crap because of lack of TV sets.

(09-18-2017 09:58 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  We won a lot of games during that time, but as someone else mentioned, the competition wasn't great. More importantly, though, whenever the competition was good, we'd lose to it 49 times out of 50. Bower's 0-fer vs winning major conference teams is well-documented, but his record vs. winning teams in general wasn't much better.

Everybody harps on that Louisville game, but the one I'd most like to change the outcome of is Tulane 1998. Win that one, and we're conference champions & in the Liberty Bowl 3 years in a row. That's how you build momentum and get people's attention.

Good point. The problems with that 2000 team had been evident for weeks.

(09-19-2017 10:43 AM)BeagleUSM Wrote:  Our OOS % isn't high at all. 22%. And that's the highest it's been in decades.

Hmm. Never would've guessed from my own experience in the early 90s. Seemed like I was surrounded by out-of-state students (also while being one myself).

Shame on me for speaking anecdotally and not looking up actual numbers.

(09-19-2017 04:43 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  So how many big games and conference championships did Tulane, Rutgers, Tulsa, Memphis and E. Carolina win? (Tulane, ECU and Memphis couldn't even beat us!) Bogus excuse..

For the most part, their attendances suck, too. Conference affiliation i$ a whole different ball of wax.

East Carolina isn't in a big market and grew their average attendance from 20k to almost 50k during that time.

(09-19-2017 04:34 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 01:36 PM)theheadeagle Wrote:  USM has always been an anomaly when it comes to fan bases. Like I said in a previous thread we put 30,000 in the stadium for some games in the early 80s.

Attendance grossly inflated in the 80's...and we didn't draw chit when Favor was here.

The only thing that bothers me is this: I went to a few games where the Rock was close to being full, and the attendance was announced as 31,000, 32,000 or 33,000. So, does that mean, in reality, there was only 27,000, 28,000, or 29,000 fans in the stands?

Where would we have put the other 5,000 folks?

No, in the early 80s for one or two seasons we had quite the fan base watching many NFL caliber players on the field. That was the first time (as a kid) I ever attended a Southern Miss game and it was amazing. Became hooked for life. We did have 30,000 + at games back then...for a couple seasons anyway.

As a side note, this thread is a great example of good no drama discussion on this board. It's really nice to read everyone's opinions and not have all the childish ridicule that was once every other post.

(09-20-2017 09:14 AM)EagleFWB Wrote:  As a side note, this thread is a great example of good no drama discussion on this board. It's really nice to read everyone's opinions and not have all the childish ridicule that was once every other post.

Well said. While I don't agree with everyone's opinion in this thread, I can certainly agree with this^^^^

This is what message boards are supposed to be: open talk about differing opinions on topics related to the the forum's subject matter. So refreshing not to see the condescending few that used to be allowed here chiming in to call other people idiots just because of a difference of opinions.

(09-19-2017 04:43 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 09:24 AM)jebaroo Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 09:58 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  We won a lot of games during that time, but as someone else mentioned, the competition wasn't great. More importantly, though, whenever the competition was good, we'd lose to it 49 times out of 50. Bower's 0-fer vs winning major conference teams is well-documented, but his record vs. winning teams in general wasn't much better.

Everybody harps on that Louisville game, but the one I'd most like to change the outcome of is Tulane 1998. Win that one, and we're conference champions & in the Liberty Bowl 3 years in a row. That's how you build momentum and get people's attention.

Frankly, there were too many times during the period given that we were challenged and weren't up for the task. We conditioned fans (and I'll suggest players & coaches, too) to expect USM to lose the big one. There's an ingrained institutional lack of sack that con-
Tinues
To
This day.

Tulane 1998, loserville 2000, Cinci 2004 blowout at home was a real eye-opener...... The fact is that Bower won 4 cusa (one of those a tie and we stayed home for the bowl game ) championships and easily could have won 7-8.... we simply did not win enough big games to go to 'the next level'

So how many big games and conference championships did Tulane, Rutgers, Tulsa, Memphis and E. Carolina win? (Tulane, ECU and Memphis couldn't even beat us!) Bogus excuse..

Tulane did win the conference in 1998 and beat us..we win that game, we win the conference, memphis beat us 3 of bower's last 4 years.... we win any of those games, we win the conference. ECU beat us one year when we could not make an extra point.... win that game, we win the conference.

Tulsa, Rutgers, Tulane, Memphis..... TV market myth.

in no specific order, I'll offer the following in bullet format....

- a 30% increase in D1 teams since the early 80s has diluted our ability to recruit

- realignment changed how our current conference competition is perceived coupled with the bitter taste as we remained stuck in the sand

- centralized tailgating was eliminated by two buildings that could've been built elsewhere.....accessible parking has become increasingly more difficult over time....why they don't raze the physical plant warehouse bldgs and adjacent parking lot and turn that into a prime time 'green' tailgate venue is beyond me....they can always go vertical with student parking....

- inability to keep up with increasing our budget relative to other schools

- tv saturation

- lack of local support from 16 yrs of Johnny Dupree and corp.

- international students that don't care diddly and the newest thumbtapping generation that pretty much doesn't care about athletics in general....

there are others, but I'm tired of repeating myself and typing....