Recently...they still have struggled some drawing fans off and on throughout the years.

The Rose Bowl is a 30 minute drive from UCLA. But there is a culture at UCLA where 5-10,000 students (depending on game) use their TAP card to ride the bus to the stadium every game. It's a thing you do at UCLA. (UConn doesn't have that)

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Universi...613284!3e0

(08-11-2019 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 01:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 09:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA plays far away from Westwood and succeeds.

It works if you play in a historic stadium that people enjoying visiting as much as the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, not so much.

Not really, they've had some attendence struggles.

The other half of it is that LA is a car centric megalopolis and both USC and UCLA have fans all over the region.

UCLA has "attendance struggles" compared to their historical success and size of student body, but they are still top 25.

UH would love to sniff top 60 in attendance. It sucks being a dwarf in the top 30.

(08-10-2019 10:51 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UConn plays all the big basketball games in Hartford. All the alumni and students are from Hartford. 6 weekends a year for football its fine. All SEC schools used to play half their games in larger cities in their states ie Alabama in Birmingham, Ole Miss in Jackson, Arkansas in Little Rock.

The reason SEC schools played off campus originally was because of geography. Back before televised games, playing all over the state was a way to advertise your product (I.e. the university). This is why Alabama played home games in Birmingham, Montgomery, Huntsville, and Mobile in addition to Tuscaloosa.

By the 1950s, popularity had risen to such an extent that large, overflow crowds could be expected at the most popular games, but media revenue was non-existent and donations and ticket revenue were nowhere near what they are today. Athletic departments were largely funded by the state through the university. Rather than dump large sums of money into on-campus venues, the states elected to build and expand large, centrally located stadia instead. This is how Legion Field and Mississippi Veterans Memorial Stadium got to be so big, and also why they hosted so many big games.

By the 1990s, the schools had greatly expanded their revenue streams, and were no longer reliant on the state for athletic money. It made sense then to convert the home fields into destinations which would encourage fans to spend money on the program. You simply can’t do this in a stadium located two hours away that is shared by other schools, FCS programs, high school playoffs, and every event the operators can convince to pay to use the stadium.

(08-11-2019 04:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Anyone who plays at an NFL stadium. Pitt, San Diego State, USF.

From an outsider's perspective, Pitt's situation didn't seem to work very well. Their move off campus coincided with their disappearance from national relevance. Sad that a team with such great history can't even get 40,000 people to see them play a top-10 Oklahoma State team in 2017.

I'm most familiar with SDSU, having lived there for 3 years. The stadium is about 5 miles away. It works well for them. I mean, it's not a historical football power and half the students are commuters anyways. An on-campus stadium would work better, but probably not a whole lot better. The taxpayers recently voted to give the land that the NFL stadium is on to SDSU anyways, so now it's technically going to be an "on-campus" stadium, even though most of the "campus extension" there will be retail, a park, and faculty housing. They don't have the money to add a lot of academic space or increase enrollment because state funding has been flat and they've chased off a lot of their big donors who don't share the SDSU administration's public disdain for capitalism.

Believe it or not, Heinz Stadium, where the Steelers play,, is not very far at all from the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. I think a Pitt fan told me it was like a 5 minute walk maybe? Regardless, I've heard it's close enough that the Pittsburgh students can walk to it.

Name me one fanbase that is happy to have their fball team playing off campus vs on?

(08-12-2019 03:48 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 04:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Anyone who plays at an NFL stadium. Pitt, San Diego State, USF.

From an outsider's perspective, Pitt's situation didn't seem to work very well. Their move off campus coincided with their disappearance from national relevance. Sad that a team with such great history can't even get 40,000 people to see them play a top-10 Oklahoma State team in 2017.

I'm most familiar with SDSU, having lived there for 3 years. The stadium is about 5 miles away. It works well for them. I mean, it's not a historical football power and half the students are commuters anyways. An on-campus stadium would work better, but probably not a whole lot better. The taxpayers recently voted to give the land that the NFL stadium is on to SDSU anyways, so now it's technically going to be an "on-campus" stadium, even though most of the "campus extension" there will be retail, a park, and faculty housing. They don't have the money to add a lot of academic space or increase enrollment because state funding has been flat and they've chased off a lot of their big donors who don't share the SDSU administration's public disdain for capitalism.

Believe it or not, Heinz Stadium, where the Steelers play,, is not very far at all from the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. I think a Pitt fan told me it was like a 5 minute walk maybe? Regardless, I've heard it's close enough that the Pittsburgh students can walk to it.

Its 4 miles. Nobody walks from campus. Its shuttle/bus/subway/lyft.

(08-12-2019 04:21 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Name me one fanbase that is happy to have their fball team playing off campus vs on?

I guess it depends on where most of the fans live? It's only 6 games a year. It's not every weekend for 6 months. Many college students have cars or can "afford" Ubers to and from. I mean really, how many regular students are sitting in their dorm, bored on Saturdays and go "Gee, there's a game starting in 10 minutes, I'll just walk up and get a ticket"

The stadium location doesn't matter. Fans will go if you give them something to watch.

(08-12-2019 04:21 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Name me one fanbase that is happy to have their fball team playing off campus vs on?

Miami Hurricanes

20 miles away from Campus.
Most of their die-hard fans didn't attend the small private school in Coral Gables.
Total Enrollment is like 18k
Average football attendance is like 55k+

It's really the city's team. Hard Rock stadium is a better traffic pattern than the land-locked private school surrounded by million dollar historic homes.

On an average tailgate, you will meet more FIU alum and union workers than Miami alum.

(08-12-2019 04:21 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Name me one fanbase that is happy to have their fball team playing off campus vs on?

I'd say NCSU as semi-off campus. The stadium is technically on campus property but is 2 miles or more from the academic/dorms areas of main campus. The football stadium shares parking lots with the basketball arena. This setup is much better setup for the traditional tailgate parking setup that wolfpack fans have accepted as the norm.

(08-10-2019 09:36 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Has anyone succeeded with a distant stadium.
On campus is preferable but several schools have off campus.
U Conn plays forty miles from campus U Mass even further.
U Mass has an on campus smaller stadium.
Has U Conn ever played on campus and do they have that possibility for FCS foes.
U Mass has the better football situation if the on campus stadium reaches mid twenties in capacity.
U Conn the better overall and basketball situation.
They need to build a rivalry to build up their programs.

Has any program succeeded with a stadium so far from campus.

UConn plays 23 miles from campus. It is still further than ideal, but I just wanted to correct that distance claim.

(08-11-2019 08:58 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Recently...they still have struggled some drawing fans off and on throughout the years.

Incorrect.

UCLA's worst year going back to 1996 was 49,825 (in 1999). And they have had one of their leanest periods on the field in the last 20 years. In good years, they are averaging over 70,000 a game. The last two years are 2 of only 4 years since 1999 they have averaged less than 60k a game. UCLA does not struggle like U of H.

(08-11-2019 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 01:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 09:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA plays far away from Westwood and succeeds.

It works if you play in a historic stadium that people enjoying visiting as much as the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, not so much.

Not really, they've had some attendence struggles.

The other half of it is that LA is a car centric megalopolis and both USC and UCLA have fans all over the region.

UCLA has "attendance struggles" compared to their historical success and size of student body, but they are still top 25.

Attendance usually depends on the opponent for UCLA at the Rose Bowl. It can vary from 40,000 to 90,000. I was at a Fresno State game in 1999 which drew 42,000 fans. At least half of those fans were Fresno State fans. I was at a game against Cal in 2005 which drew about 85,000. Both teams were 5-0 and in the top 25. UCLA won a wild game, 47-40, behind Maurice Jones-Drew's five touchdowns, offsetting touchdowns from Desean Jackson, Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett. A lot of Cal fans and a very raucous crowd.

The point is, UCLA fans will not show up to watch mediocre football. They averaged 76,650 with a good team in 2014 and 51,164 last season with a bad team.

(08-12-2019 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 01:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 09:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UCLA plays far away from Westwood and succeeds.

It works if you play in a historic stadium that people enjoying visiting as much as the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, not so much.

Not really, they've had some attendence struggles.

The other half of it is that LA is a car centric megalopolis and both USC and UCLA have fans all over the region.

UCLA has "attendance struggles" compared to their historical success and size of student body, but they are still top 25.

Attendance usually depends on the opponent for UCLA at the Rose Bowl. It can vary from 40,000 to 90,000. I was at a Fresno State game in 1999 which drew 42,000 fans. At least half of those fans were Fresno State fans. I was at a game against Cal in 2005 which drew about 85,000. Both teams were 5-0 and in the top 25. UCLA won a wild game, 47-40, behind Maurice Jones-Drew's five touchdowns, offsetting touchdowns from Desean Jackson, Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett. A lot of Cal fans and a very raucous crowd.

The point is, UCLA fans will not show up to watch mediocre football. They averaged 76,650 with a good team in 2014 and 51,164 last season with a bad team.

UCLA is a quarter-system school, classes start in late September, and that affects early season home games. Oregon is also on the quarter system and starts fall classes even later, but they don't have a 90,000 seat stadium and they are not competing for local attention with NFL or MLB teams.

(08-12-2019 01:02 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-10-2019 09:36 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Has anyone succeeded with a distant stadium.
On campus is preferable but several schools have off campus.
U Conn plays forty miles from campus U Mass even further.
U Mass has an on campus smaller stadium.
Has U Conn ever played on campus and do they have that possibility for FCS foes.
U Mass has the better football situation if the on campus stadium reaches mid twenties in capacity.
U Conn the better overall and basketball situation.
They need to build a rivalry to build up their programs.

Has any program succeeded with a stadium so far from campus.

UConn plays 23 miles from campus. It is still further than ideal, but I just wanted to correct that distance claim.

I got the forty miles from a post on here.
Got me thinking how U Mass and U Conn play off campus further off campus than most.
I hope U Conn does well JMU and NDSU join FBS if they want while staying in good for them olympic conferences.
A nice group of independents emerge giving schools options .

(08-12-2019 06:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 06:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 01:38 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 12:41 AM)Wedge Wrote:  It works if you play in a historic stadium that people enjoying visiting as much as the Rose Bowl. Otherwise, not so much.

Not really, they've had some attendence struggles.

The other half of it is that LA is a car centric megalopolis and both USC and UCLA have fans all over the region.

UCLA has "attendance struggles" compared to their historical success and size of student body, but they are still top 25.

Attendance usually depends on the opponent for UCLA at the Rose Bowl. It can vary from 40,000 to 90,000. I was at a Fresno State game in 1999 which drew 42,000 fans. At least half of those fans were Fresno State fans. I was at a game against Cal in 2005 which drew about 85,000. Both teams were 5-0 and in the top 25. UCLA won a wild game, 47-40, behind Maurice Jones-Drew's five touchdowns, offsetting touchdowns from Desean Jackson, Marshawn Lynch and Justin Forsett. A lot of Cal fans and a very raucous crowd.

The point is, UCLA fans will not show up to watch mediocre football. They averaged 76,650 with a good team in 2014 and 51,164 last season with a bad team.

UCLA is a quarter-system school, classes start in late September, and that affects early season home games. Oregon is also on the quarter system and starts fall classes even later, but they don't have a 90,000 seat stadium and they are not competing for local attention with NFL or MLB teams.

On September 15th of last season, UCLA drew 60,867 for a home game against Fresno State. On November 17th, USC vs UCLA at the Rose bowl drew a crowd of 57,116, the lowest for a USC-UCLA game since 1950. The next week at the Rose Bowl against Stanford, a crowd of 38,391 showed up for the game, the lowest in 21 years at the Rose Bowl. This was not a student attendance issue.

(08-12-2019 03:48 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 04:52 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Anyone who plays at an NFL stadium. Pitt, San Diego State, USF.

From an outsider's perspective, Pitt's situation didn't seem to work very well. Their move off campus coincided with their disappearance from national relevance. Sad that a team with such great history can't even get 40,000 people to see them play a top-10 Oklahoma State team in 2017.

I'm most familiar with SDSU, having lived there for 3 years. The stadium is about 5 miles away. It works well for them. I mean, it's not a historical football power and half the students are commuters anyways. An on-campus stadium would work better, but probably not a whole lot better. The taxpayers recently voted to give the land that the NFL stadium is on to SDSU anyways, so now it's technically going to be an "on-campus" stadium, even though most of the "campus extension" there will be retail, a park, and faculty housing. They don't have the money to add a lot of academic space or increase enrollment because state funding has been flat and they've chased off a lot of their big donors who don't share the SDSU administration's public disdain for capitalism.

Believe it or not, Heinz Stadium, where the Steelers play,, is not very far at all from the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. I think a Pitt fan told me it was like a 5 minute walk maybe? Regardless, I've heard it's close enough that the Pittsburgh students can walk to it.

No... No it's not.

Heinz is on the "North Shore," nowhere near Oakland.

(08-12-2019 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 08:58 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Recently...they still have struggled some drawing fans off and on throughout the years.

Incorrect.

UCLA's worst year going back to 1996 was 49,825 (in 1999). And they have had one of their leanest periods on the field in the last 20 years. In good years, they are averaging over 70,000 a game. The last two years are 2 of only 4 years since 1999 they have averaged less than 60k a game. UCLA does not struggle like U of H.

They have had some games with a half empty or less Rose Bowl and have their averages every other year inflated by USC. They are no doubt an attendence power nationally but stuggled some. Analyze the stats.

UCLA will probably recover this year, as they bottomed out lats year. I expect them to win 7 or 8 games this year and 9 or 10 next year. Still their 5 year average is 63,635 per game. They will likely get it back north of 70,000 with winning records.

It's a huge stadium (92,542 capacity for a regular season football game), much like USC has at the Coliseum. So % filled is kind of meaningless.

The P12 really needs UCLA and USC to be national powers like they were when Donahue and Carroll were coaching. Much of the reason the P12 is down is due to that. That would be like the SEC were Alabama, Flrorida and Georgia bumping along at 5-7 year after year, or the B1G with Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State with similar mediocrity at the same time. It just kills the conference to have to rely on Washington and Stanford to carry the torch.

(08-12-2019 11:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UCLA will probably recover this year, as they bottomed out lats year. I expect them to win 7 or 8 games this year and 9 or 10 next year. Still their 5 year average is 63,635 per game. They will likely get it back north of 70,000 with winning records.

Yes, UCLA fans show up a lot more when the team is good. In that, they are like most schools, even most P5 schools. Very few schools draw huge crowds regardless of performance.

UCLA will not have an on-campus stadium because there really isn't room for it. The UCLA campus is nestled tightly in to Westwood as it is, and there's no realistic way to expand that campus footprint given the extremely expensive elite neighborhoods that surround it.