Memphis Tigers attendance improved during historic 2019 season (Subscription required)

Memphis changed the way attendance was counted.

Quote:Memphis announced a total attendance of 271,710 fans over the course of the seven home games in 2019 average of 38,816 per game.

City reported 191,131 for an average of 27,304 fans.

Kudos for current staff for addressing this, Bowen just let them say whatever they wanted and allowed people to think we were drawing 14k for some games

The article says that only 43,000 were scanned into the SMU game. If any proof of under-scanning was needed, there you have it.

Glad to see the change. Next year looks good as far as season ticket sales go compared to this time last year. The first game should have a good announced number as Ark. St. included it in their season ticket package.

(03-02-2020 11:36 AM)UofMark Wrote:  

That really is pathetic.

Why the let the city of Memphis handle the attendance figures is beyond me. The Memphis government would screw up a 1 car parade

I have a retail scanner that used to be attached to an inventory computer. It never kept the correct count. But now I use it to find products, not to ring up sales.

It just doesn’t always scan the UPC code no matter how you hold it.

I’m not sure it’s operator error or crappy scanners that need replacing...?

So the stadium is full and they announce that as attendance. Did they use that method and add 38% to every other announced attendance? Un ******* believable. So aside from the obvious stupidity, it seems that the school could have chosen to announce whatever attendance they wanted, and there were games that they announced LESS than what it looked like. How is that even possible? It's incredible.

(03-02-2020 02:24 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  I’m not sure it’s operator error or crappy scanners that need replacing...?

I'm sure it's both. Just look at the hi tech devices the gate people use when you enter the FedExForum compared to the 'Progressive name your price tool' looking device the Liberty Bowl staff uses. The stadium is also run by Spectra Management. Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

(03-02-2020 05:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

Exactly. Which, again, tells you all you need to know about FEF's outlook on the stadium-customer-concessions relationship.

(03-02-2020 06:21 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

Exactly. Which, again, tells you all you need to know about FEF's outlook on the stadium-customer-concessions relationship.

It’s a tough call for the Forum. I would imagine their deal with the forum/Grizz is substantial; and Coke has really cut back on stadiums/arenas. Will a happy customer buy more soft drinks? Maybe. Will they buy 1MMM more in soft drinks... doubt it.

(03-02-2020 06:21 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

Exactly. Which, again, tells you all you need to know about FEF's outlook on the stadium-customer-concessions relationship.

Could be worse. Coke didn't even outbid Big K for the stadium rights.

(03-02-2020 05:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

Wtf are you talking about?

(03-02-2020 06:21 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 05:09 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:34 PM)UofMark Wrote:  Unlike the FEF and the UofM campus, the Liberty bowl at least has Coke products so a big two thumbs up for that.

Ain't that the truth. Coke is preferred 2-to-1 over Pepsi nationwide. The fact that any stadium in the South would give an exclusive to Pepsi, tells you all you need to know about the stadium management's outlook on customer-concessions.

It’s all about the money. Pepsi pays FEF far more than Coke is willing to pay. Stadiums are usually money losers for Coke and Pepsi... it’s just a question of who is willing to lose more. Coke, in a market dominated by Coke, doesn’t feel the need to lose a boatload of money paying the Grizz to serve their brand.

Exactly. Which, again, tells you all you need to know about FEF's outlook on the stadium-customer-concessions relationship.

Pepsi offers more, Coke is weird about placing equipment. They hate it for some reason. Always have.

(03-02-2020 02:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  So the stadium is full and they announce that as attendance. Did they use that method and add 38% to every other announced attendance? Un ******* believable. So aside from the obvious stupidity, it seems that the school could have chosen to announce whatever attendance they wanted, and there were games that they announced LESS than what it looked like. How is that even possible? It's incredible.

What really doesn't make any sense, they announce the ole miss game attendance is 44,107 but then the Southern game was 34,487. There is ZERO chance that there were 10,000 less fans for the Southern game than the ole miss game.

I will defend the LB for one small issue. The SMU game was band day, where local HS band members were allowed to join the band and their parents got reduced priced tickets. I bet none of those band members were counted and probably less than half of the parents. That is still less than 1k of the more than 16k difference in attendance numbers.

It was reported that the attendance at the game was 59,506. However, most the year, those numbers were horribly off. Not sure what figure they used to get the numbers that they report. This would've EASILY been the highest average attendance, if they reported them the same way as they did in 2004.

I’m still frustrated that certain members of the local media (looking at you, CA and those clown shoes at Sports56 not named Greg Gaston) insisted on pointing out the ridiculous attendance numbers and then insist on their authenticity - just looking for cheap jabs at the school, instead of getting off their arse and actually investigate the issue. Now it’s a freakin’ afterthought in March.

(03-02-2020 08:54 PM)MvETigers Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 02:33 PM)Stammers Wrote:  So the stadium is full and they announce that as attendance. Did they use that method and add 38% to every other announced attendance? Un ******* believable. So aside from the obvious stupidity, it seems that the school could have chosen to announce whatever attendance they wanted, and there were games that they announced LESS than what it looked like. How is that even possible? It's incredible.

What really doesn't make any sense, they announce the ole miss game attendance is 44,107 but then the Southern game was 34,487. There is ZERO chance that there were 10,000 less fans for the Southern game than the ole miss game.

I will defend the LB for one small issue. The SMU game was band day, where local HS band members were allowed to join the band and their parents got reduced priced tickets. I bet none of those band members were counted and probably less than half of the parents. That is still less than 1k of the more than 16k difference in attendance numbers.

It was reported that the attendance at the game was 59,506. However, most the year, those numbers were horribly off. Not sure what figure they used to get the numbers that they report. This would've EASILY been the highest average attendance, if they reported them the same way as they did in 2004.

Without a doubt. At a minimum EVERY school would have reported at least 45k average for the year. It is beyond idiotic.