A final thought on Marrone's tenure here...Attendance and $upport-

[Jake]

On the Dome attendance. I understand his point. But he has to take some of the responsibility himself. 4-8, 8-5, 5-7, 8-5 is better than we had…but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not like he was pumping out 9 or 10 win seasons. There simply wasn’t a long enough susstained winning streak to recapture public confidence.

Take for example the opportunities to change the local momentum. Lets write off 2009 as a rebuilding year.

2010: We had three November home games. Results 0-3. Two of them were played with bowl eligibility on the line. Gag –city. We finally get bowl eligible with a win @ Rutgers and get crushed by BC at home the next week. Ugh.
2011: We had two home games in November with bowl eligibility on the line. 0-2 as part of a five game skid to end the season and miss out on bowl eligibility by a game.
2012: A much better run of home performances, but leaving wins on the table early mean that we don’t become bowl eligible until after the home schedule is complete. But the combination of good home wins and a bowl team should finally move the dial of home attendance for NEXT year. And Doug leaves.

I think Doug had some unrealistic expectations about what a return to bowl eligibility would do for attendance. Could it be better, sure.

I don’t know enough about fundraising to address the financial support for facilities stuff…but I do know that his tenure also coincided with one of the worst economic eras of our lifetime. That certainly didn’t help.

 

[jec1521]

I agree. We never had a streak impressive enough to really improve support. Any time we had the opportunity, we pooped the bed. Doesn't mean it won't happen soon though. We've been on the verge a couple times. Just need to get over that hump.

 

[AirForceOrange]

On the Dome attendance. I understand his point. But he has to take some of the responsibility himself. 4-8, 8-5, 5-7, 8-5 is better than we had…but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not like he was pumping out 9 or 10 win seasons. There simply wasn’t a long enough susstained winning streak to recapture public confidence.

Take for example the opportunities to change the local momentum. Lets write off 2009 as a rebuilding year.

2010: We had three November home games. Results 0-3. Two of them were played with bowl eligibility on the line. Gag –city. We finally get bowl eligible with a win @ Rutgers and get crushed by BC at home the next week. Ugh.
2011: We had two home games in November with bowl eligibility on the line. 0-2 as part of a five game skid to end the season and miss out on bowl eligibility by a game.
2012: A much better run of home performances, but leaving wins on the table early mean that we don’t become bowl eligible until after the home schedule is complete. But the combination of good home wins and a bowl team should finally move the dial of home attendance for NEXT year. And Doug leaves.

I think Doug had some unrealistic expectations about what a return to bowl eligibility would do for attendance. Could it be better, sure.

I don’t know enough about fundraising to address the financial support for facilities stuff…but I do know that his tenure also coincided with one of the worst economic eras of our lifetime. That certainly didn’t help.

Another great post from you Jake. Completely agree. Think maybe DM lost perspective...economy, poor home record, etc. I think he was provided an opportunity to coach in the NFL and took it. Wish he had just said that instead of trying to make up another reason (not really supported by facts) as to why he left. Just say, I am being offered this opporunity, Syracuse was a dream job for me, now I have a chance to fulfill another dream. 'nuff said. No other reasoning needed.

 

[upperdeck]

I think the DM era is defined as a .500 team that stole a few games and left about 10 on the table, but at least we had shots to win about 90% of the games we played maybe more.. looking back and seeing how the season ended we could have run the table this year, some of that is the team is better, some of that is the schedule was not really that hard.

the team that played from the 2nd half of the SB game should have gone undefeated..

 

[sufandu]

I disagree. The Syracuse fanbase has more of a "prove it to me before I'll support you" attitude than many of the schools we're trying to compete with. He wasn't asking to fill a 100,000 seat stadium he was hoping to get a consistent 40,000.

 

[AirForceOrange]

I disagree. The Syracuse fanbase has more of a "prove it to me before I'll support you" attitude than many of the schools we're trying to compete with. He wasn't asking to fill a 100,000 seat stadium he was hoping to get a consistent 40,000.

Maybe...but can you blame the fanbase after the last year or two of Coach P and the GRob era?

 

[Marsh01]

There is one main reason why attendance was down and why it would have improved next year regardless if DM was coaching or not. The word is STALE.

The games against the SAME teams EVERY other season got very stale IMO. No big time teams ever come into the Dome anymore (with the big games now being shipped to the Meadowlands). With the move to the ACC next season attendance IMO would have improved just with the new teams coming into the Dome alone. Instead of watching Louisville, Uconn , Pitt, Rutgers you will possibly get Clemson, Florida State, Maryland, Wake Forest, NC State and teams that we are used to like Pitt and BC. Throw in one of the other teams (Georgie Tech, Miami, Carolina, Virginia and Va Tech). Are you kidding me??? Those are some big time teams coming into the dome. Fans will be intrigued to see new fresh faces. You cant tell me that if Clemson is on our home schedule next season that we will not sell it out. Not buying it. The place will be packed.

Why do guys cheat on their wives? They get bored and they want something different. Something more exciting.

Attendance will improve on this alone. Mark it down.

 

[Cuseregular]

Shafer will now benefit from all of this as we see upticks in attendance. The way the planets are all aligning for this guy me thinks things will only continue on the upward trajectory with attendance and winning going hand in hand. It's high time for Syracuse football to rebound to more than just being respectable, and that time is now.

 

[AirForceOrange]

There is one main reason why attendance was down and why it would have improved next year regardless if DM was coaching or not. The word is STALE.

The games against the SAME teams EVERY other season got very stale IMO. No big time teams ever come into the Dome anymore (with the big games now being shipped to the Meadowlands). With the move to the ACC next season attendance IMO would have improved just with the new teams coming into the Dome alone. Instead of watching Louisville, Uconn , Pitt, Rutgers you will possibly get Clemson, Florida State, Maryland, Wake Forest, NC State and teams that we are used to like Pitt and BC. Throw in one of the other teams (Georgie Tech, Miami, Carolina, Virginie and Va Tech). Those are some big time teams coming into the dome. Fans will be intrigued to see new fresh faces. You cant tell me that if Clemson is on our home schedule next season that we will not sell it out. Not buying it. The place will be packed.

Attendance will improve on this alone. Mark it down.

Don't forget Notre Dame as well...not sure if those will be in the Dome or NYC...

I think BC will become a nice rivalry for us...other than that, tough to tell what other schools may become rivalrys until we see how well we actually compete in the ACC.

 

[elimunelson]

I disagree. The Syracuse fanbase has more of a "prove it to me before I'll support you" attitude than many of the schools we're trying to compete with. He wasn't asking to fill a 100,000 seat stadium he was hoping to get a consistent 40,000.

Really? I've been to BC games all my life and they ONLY sell out if it's a top 5 team in the house (and they are also playing well) or ND shows up. They are a peer school and i see no difference attendance wise. WE actually get 100x more pub than they do. I also never see Rutgers full each game. When did we theoretically sell out every game. I was there in the early 90s. I don't remember a sell out for every game. Maybe i was asleep or hung over (or both) but a nice uptick will bring us back to where it was when it was never selling out.

 

[Timonen]

On the Dome attendance. I understand his point. But he has to take some of the responsibility himself. 4-8, 8-5, 5-7, 8-5 is better than we had…but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not like he was pumping out 9 or 10 win seasons. There simply wasn’t a long enough susstained winning streak to recapture public confidence.

Him talking about attendance is just rationalizing. The product didn't hit its stride until late this season, the marquee game was shipped to the Meadowlands and the conference opponents are mostly unwatchable (e.g., uconn, pitt). If he expected a noticeable jump in attendance despite this, he needs to fire whoever did his market sizing analysis for the binder four years ago.

When you run a business, it's never the customer's fault that they didn't buy. The product (team, opponent, dome, logistics, cost, experience) needs to be compelling. The basketball team getting 30K+ for big games in worse weather (and often higher prices) shows that the market will come out.

 

[OttoForLife]

Let's not also understate the lack of creativity and emphasis placed on the game day experience by the powers that be.

 

[GoSU96]

Him talking about attendance is just rationalizing. The product didn't hit its stride until late this season, the marquee game was shipped to the Meadowlands and the conference opponents are mostly unwatchable (e.g., uconn, pitt). If he expected a noticeable jump in attendance despite this, he needs to fire whoever did his market sizing analysis for the binder four years ago.

When you run a business, it's never the customer's fault that they didn't buy. The product (team, opponent, dome, logistics, cost, experience) needs to be compelling. The basketball team getting 30K+ for big games in worse weather (and often higher prices) shows that the market will come out.

It shouldn't matter who the opponent is.

 

[Chip]

In my opinion, anyone who thinks attendance was going up to the McNabb years average just by winning more games, miscalculated. Being in that version of the Big East just wasn't going to work. Or at least it was very unlikely.

If he wasn't at least going to try to combine winning + ACC, then fan attendance wasn't a factor. But now it will hopefully be Shafer's windfall. We still need to address sideline seat pricing, even if it's in the short term.

 

[Chip]

It shouldn't matter who the opponent is.

But it does. And it always has. So there are things that can't be controlled. This is one of them. Big East schedule was poop.

 

[Orangello]

Him talking about attendance is just rationalizing. The product didn't hit its stride until late this season, the marquee game was shipped to the Meadowlands and the conference opponents are mostly unwatchable (e.g., uconn, pitt). If he expected a noticeable jump in attendance despite this, he needs to fire whoever did his market sizing analysis for the binder four years ago.

When you run a business, it's never the customer's fault that they didn't buy. The product (team, opponent, dome, logistics, cost, experience) needs to be compelling. The basketball team getting 30K+ for big games in worse weather (and often higher prices) shows that the market will come out.

I agree with your analysis. I think a lot of fans continued to remain on the fence until they believed we had actually turned the corner (I know I know there's that damn corner again). The dip in year 3 I believe, really set things back and had we had another winning record that year, I believe attendance last year would have been significantly better. It's the old "if you beat a dog too much' thing (and having rescued a couple of abused mutts something I know about) . I think the fan base was crushed by the last few years of P and the epic diasaster which followed. A lot of those peeps walked away and may not ever come back. We'll see. At the end of the day, the customer is always right. They have to want to buy your product. I think we finally may have a product that sells and continues to improve.

 

[Marsh01]

It shouldn't matter who the opponent is.

This isnt the SEC where football on Saturdays are a religion. It absolutely will matter who the opponent is and that is why (per my post above) it will improve next season.

 

[xc84]

I am in the "winning cures many ills" camp but will say this - Marrone sort of fell down on the PR side. He was very secretive about almost everything about the program. He didn't converse well with the press and I don't think he did a good job "managing" fans and getting them excited. Hopefully the new coach can do better in that area while continuing to execute other things Marrone did well.

 

[Timonen]

It shouldn't matter who the opponent is.

"should" is you prescribing your values. "is" and "does" matters a whole lot more.

 

[OrangeTown]

It shouldn't matter who the opponent is.

I'm not sure how you can honestly think this. Yes, for some of us diehard fans, the opponent shouldn't matter. I go to see the team regardless of who they are playing, because I live, die, and bleed orange.

However, you can't be so naive as to believe that the average fan will not care about who the opponent is. You need look no further than our consistently top-10 basketball team, which can see almost a 100% attendance difference between someone like Canisius or someone like Georgetown/Villanova. Let's be realistic here.

 

[Scooch]

Great post, Jake.

Look, everyone here would love it if CNY was some crazed college football hotbed that sold out the Dome every Saturday whether we were playing Florida State or URI. But that's not the way it is and its never been the way it is.

Marrone started his tenure in front of 48,617 against Minnesota. If nothing else the community turned out to support his inaugural game. Two weeks later we had 40K against Northwestern. Not great, but no worse than lots of late September games that we've played over the years. The '98 team played Rutgers in late September the week after we thumped Michigan and drew all of 42K.

On a Friday night with the team at 4-2 and a good opponent in town we had 45,265. Heck, even after dropping the next two we still had 41K for a Friday night game against USF.

Attendance was down this year, but when you couple a disastrous 5-game slide to end last year with a terrible home schedule that's what you get.

The very first game I ever attended in the Dome was the opener in 1991 against Vanderbilt. We drew THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND for that game, coming off an 8-win bowl-winning season. I've said it for a long, long, time, but it's not like you have to move heaven and earth to get attendance to a better place. We're talking about lifting it about 5K on average per game to get it back to very healthy levels. A good home schedule and a program that people perceive as competitive and fun will probably get us there. I think we're closer than many think.

 

[upperdeck]

the problem with attendance is its low enough people know they can pick and choose and get good seats.. the other issue is that the dome has some many good seats why spend premium money when the end zone seats are great.. people can complain about the dome, but the site lines are so much better than almost any other stadium.. I have no doubt that we have more quality seating than placed with 100K..

 

[AirForceOrange]

the problem with attendance is its low enough people know they can pick and choose and get good seats.. the other issue is that the dome has some many good seats why spend premium money when the end zone seats are great.. people can complain about the dome, but the site lines are so much better than almost any other stadium.. I have no doubt that we have more quality seating than placed with 100K..

Been to Doak Campbell (FSU) and don't think there is a bad seat there...

 

[orangepassion]

I think people are overanalyzing this. I think Marrone just wanted to be an NFL Head Coach. This is basically what he has said.

 

[sufandu]

Really? I've been to BC games all my life and they ONLY sell out if it's a top 5 team in the house (and they are also playing well) or ND shows up. They are a peer school and i see no difference attendance wise. WE actually get 100x more pub than they do. I also never see Rutgers full each game. When did we theoretically sell out every game. I was there in the early 90s. I don't remember a sell out for every game. Maybe i was asleep or hung over (or both) but a nice uptick will bring us back to where it was when it was never selling out.

Is BC who we're trying to compete with? I was thinking Clemson, Fla St., Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St, etc.