Attendance. It's not just us...

[Marsh01]

I know i am beating a dead horse (and setting myself up for a joke about raking leaves) but there is a lot more to do in the fall than there is in the winter.

Living in syracuse the temptation to "skip" a football game is pretty high if you get a 60 degree day in late october. I dont skip but i know a lot people who do. Winter i wouldnt miss a hoops game because there is nothing for me to do in the winter. Zero. I am not in the minority here either.

Wins and losses do matter for sure but time of year also does.

 

[Millhouse]

Interesting piece about Big Ten attendance challenges and

That's one way to do it.

Probably easier to just have a more entertaining program.:noidea:

FWIW, I think we're moving in the right direction.

No.

Not in Syracuse.

You want sell-outs, you have to win big.

And, yes, we're moving in the right direction.

Imagine SU could transform into mich st or Oregon. Which would draw better?

Then ask yourself how many non factories are important because of defense? Then ask same question about offense

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Winning is 99.999999999999991% of the battle. We'll average three more fans per game if its due to a high powered "exciting" offense vs a stingy defense and a 1960's running game.

Seriously - the hoops team has had fun-and-gun seasons and seasons of endless rock fights. If the team is top 5, we get great crowds. If its a borderline NCAA/NIT team, we don't. So it's really unclear to me why you think "entertaining" is even close to the same magnitude of importance as "winning". It's not in Syracuse (or anywhere in the Northeast).

Ugh, entertainment is the thing. Winning is a part of what makes it entertaining. A PART. You guys think about this in the wrong direction.

 

[CanadianSU]

I know i am beating a dead horse (and setting myself up for a joke about raking leaves) but there is a lot more to do in the fall than there is in the winter.

Living in syracuse the temptation to "skip" a football game is pretty high if you get a 60 degree day in late october. I dont skip but i know a lot people who do. Winter i wouldnt miss a hoops game because there is nothing for me to do in the winter. Zero. I am not in the minority here either.

Wins and losses do matter for sure but time of year also does.

Absolutely correct. Us northerners enjoy the good wheather while we can. That's spot on.

 

[xc84]

There was a time when we knew we always had a chance to beat our opponent and we frequently did just that. For some crazy reason, I guess all coincidence, people bought tickets (average attendance):
1988 46,081
1989 48,885
1990 47,022
1991 43,444
1992 49,318
1993 48,092
1994 47,746
1995 43,276
1996 48,177
1997 45,865
1998 47,898
1999 46,741
Was the fall weather bad those years?

 

[Chip]

I know i am beating a dead horse (and setting myself up for a joke about raking leaves) but there is a lot more to do in the fall than there is in the winter.

Living in syracuse the temptation to "skip" a football game is pretty high if you get a 60 degree day in late october. I dont skip but i know a lot people who do. Winter i wouldnt miss a hoops game because there is nothing for me to do in the winter. Zero. I am not in the minority here either.

Wins and losses do matter for sure but time of year also does.

That's true, as is your last point. But they also go together. It's a lot easier to skip a game when you're watching a 6-7 win program who competes at the mid level but not the high level (I'm going to full skip the low level, those days appear safely buried).

To consistently see 45k in that building with the near sellout pop of the big name, it needs to be the 1991 to 1998 formula.

Winning team who is in, or just outside of the Top 25.
Star power on offense. Names like Ismail, Graves, Gedney, McNabb, Harrison, Johnson, they made enough people pick the Dome over any other fall event. You don't need all of them, just 45-50k of them.
Play interesting opponents (that new Big East really dragged this down). ACC should help build it back up.

All the rest of the stuff (marketing, parking, NYC, economy), I just don't think they are factors. Maybe they're factors now combined with how long we've failed to get the 3 items above working together. But get those top 3 above, and the others aren't going to be barriers.

The million $ question is whether or not we can get back there without a full Dome to help sell the program to recruits. But the fans rallied for Clemson, should show up for FSU. Just need one of those big crowds to be rewarded with a win.

Hoops being the ongoing phenomenon that it is doesn't do the football crowd any favors. But it does do the football program favors (helps pay the bills, shows very nicely on recruiting weekends).

 

[anomander]

I know i am beating a dead horse (and setting myself up for a joke about raking leaves) but there is a lot more to do in the fall than there is in the winter.

Living in syracuse the temptation to "skip" a football game is pretty high if you get a 60 degree day in late october. I dont skip but i know a lot people who do. Winter i wouldnt miss a hoops game because there is nothing for me to do in the winter. Zero. I am not in the minority here either.

Wins and losses do matter for sure but time of year also does.

Just shows how far we have to come as a program. Eventually we have to hope to get to a point where there is nothing more you would want to do then attend the Syracuse game that weekend. I think it would be fair to call those people casual fans. I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone who posts on this board that wouldn't be the case. I couldn't see fans of northern schools like Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, and Penn St using that as an excuse. Unfortunately our fan base is far from matching theirs.

 

[Scooch]

I'll say what I always say... We need to get about 5,000 more people to the Dome each game to get back to the crowds we had in the 90s. You guys make it seem like some Herculean task. It's not.

 

[TheCusian]

This town is a sleeping giant. Otto's Gritatto is right - it is entertainment driven - but it won't take Oregon level offense to do it. A hard hitting aggressive defense, with an offense that McDonald and Shafer have both said they want? Led by a really good, easy to root for kid like Hunt? Could be a fun season.

 

[anomander]

I'll say what I always say... We need to get about 5,000 more people to the Dome each game to get back to the crowds we had in the 90s. You guys make it seem like some Herculean task. It's not.

I don't know what happened, but it seemed last season we took a HUGE step back. Whatever was being announced is one thing, but there was a noticeable decline in actual butts in the seats last season. Wagner, Tulane, and Pitt were Grob era crowds. The last 2 years under Marrone weren't great, but there seemed to be an actual 38-40k in attendance.

Here I was thinking attendance would have got a nice boost since it was inaugural season in ACC, coming off bowl win, and new HC. To see attendance take a dramatic step backwards should be a huge red flag, and you would think steps would be taken to help address the issue. At least show some sort of fight, instead it's seems business as usual, who cares attitude.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I don't know what happened, but it seemed last season we took a HUGE step back. Whatever was being announced is one thing, but there was a noticeable decline in actual butts in the seats last season. Wagner, Tulane, and Pitt were Grob era crowds. The last 2 years under Marrone weren't great, but there seemed to be an actual 38-40k in attendance.

Here I was thinking attendance would have got a nice boost since it was inaugural season in ACC, coming off bowl win, and new HC. To see attendance take a dramatic step backwards should be a huge red flag, and you would think steps would be taken to help address the issue. At least show some sort of fight, instead it's seems business as usual, who cares attitude.

I agree the Pitt game was a travesty it was 25k in there tops, BC was better but I agree the attendance was terrible last year.

 

[rrlbees]

I don't know what happened, but it seemed last season we took a HUGE step back. Whatever was being announced is one thing, but there was a noticeable decline in actual butts in the seats last season. Wagner, Tulane, and Pitt were Grob era crowds. The last 2 years under Marrone weren't great, but there seemed to be an actual 38-40k in attendance. Here I was thinking attendance would have got a nice boost since it was inaugural season in ACC, coming off bowl win, and new HC. To see attendance take a dramatic step backwards should be a huge red flag, and you would think steps would be taken to help address the issue. At least show some sort of fight, instead it's seems business as usual, who cares attitude.

It's business as usual. Prices went up again. They aren't going to sell single games at $75-$150 per.

 

[RMH44]

Ugh, entertainment is the thing. Winning is a part of what makes it entertaining. A PART. You guys think about this in the wrong direction.

Says who? You? I guess you're pushing your style over substance crap again.

All things being equal, I'd be just as likely to attend if we played like Stanford or MSU as I would if we'd played like Oregon. I think the quality of the product is far more important than the style. I'd rather watch a well played, hard fought, low scoring win than a poorly played, high scoring win any day.

Winning cures most ills. Winning leads to 30,000-plus hiking up the hill in sub-freezing temps and sideways snow to watch SU hoops.

 

[Chip]

I don't know what happened, but it seemed last season we took a HUGE step back. Whatever was being announced is one thing, but there was a noticeable decline in actual butts in the seats last season. Wagner, Tulane, and Pitt were Grob era crowds. The last 2 years under Marrone weren't great, but there seemed to be an actual 38-40k in attendance.

Here I was thinking attendance would have got a nice boost since it was inaugural season in ACC, coming off bowl win, and new HC. To see attendance take a dramatic step backwards should be a huge red flag, and you would think steps would be taken to help address the issue. At least show some sort of fight, instead it's seems business as usual, who cares attitude.

The 0-2 starts take their toll. Imagine back to how you felt right after the Northwestern game. Our starting QB was completing more passes to the other team. I don't think it left too many people thinking 'well, I surely can't miss that Wagner game next week'.

Next year, not tripping up in those first 2 games against underdogs, has to help a little. Maryland should be somewhat improved over last year. If nothing else, they'll have completed the former Big East portion of their schedule (@USF, home against WVU). Should be a much more interesting atmosphere than this year's game 2 against Tulane.

 

[Chip]

It's business as usual. Prices went up again. They aren't going to sell single games at $75-$150 per.

Do prices go up every year? I'll be honest, I only pay attention to my ticket. Which did go up for the first time in a long time. But that didn't bother me. I feel like I've been robbing them to the tune of $99 per year all these years.

 

[rrlbees]

Do prices go up every year? I'll be honest, I only pay attention to my ticket. Which did go up for the first time in a long time. But that didn't bother me. I feel like I've been robbing them to the tune of $99 per year all these years.

Yes they did and I'm talking about preferred seating where the stands remain 1/2 empty because people won't donate and single game buyers won't pay prorated prices.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Says who? You? I guess you're pushing your style over substance crap again.

All things being equal, I'd be just as likely to attend if we played like Stanford or MSU as I would if we'd played like Oregon. I think the quality of the product is far more important than the style. I'd rather watch a well played, hard fought, low scoring win than a poorly played, high scoring win any day.

Let me start by saying that whatever beef you clearly have with me - you will be happier if you let it go. And, it's weird.

You're thinking about it in the wrong direction because you are failing to consider what the SU FOOTBALL ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE is competing against - people keeping money in their pocket, raking leaves, spending the day with their family, watching on TV at home, going to the movies, going to Dave and Busters, etc. The competition for attendance isn't a choice between having a winning program and a losing one. It's competing against things that have nothing to do with winning and losing like the alternatives I mentioned so why would you believe that leading with "winning" swings it? It's about providing an overall experience that people value over their other choices. Winning is a good part of it, but it's not the whole thing like you guys want it to be. You and OPA will be there through thick and thin - you aren't the person that needs to be attracted To come to the Dome. It's foolish to think the things that appeal to you are what appeals to the general audience. Think like your audience.

Lastly, I'm disappointed that OPA tried to pull the too young card, and you tried to pull "who sez? you?" instead of just providing better arguments why I'm wrong. If you genuinely think it through, you'll see the logic of what I'm saying. My point that winning is a part of the overall experience isn't even debatable.

 

[Stern]

I agree the Pitt game was a travesty it was 25k in there tops, BC was better but I agree the attendance was terrible last year.

The 0-2 start to a season kills all enthusiasm. Right or wrong the "casual fan" when they see SU is 0-2...they check out for the Season. By Sep 15th or so if SU is 0-2 the "casual fan" has no interest in going to any game all year. They chalk it up as another bad SU team and check out on SU football for the year. The die-hards can't, won't, and will never understand that. But that's the way a lot of people think. It's a mind-set and a culture that is around SU football. On the other hand if SU basketball started off 0-2 the fans will show up in force and say we need to support them more to help turn this ship around. It's two different worlds and two different mind-sets in this city when it comes to SU football and SU basketball.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

The 0-2 start to a season kills all enthusiasm. Right or wrong the "casual fan" when they see SU is 0-2...they check out for the Season. By Sep 15th or so if SU is 0-2 the "casual fan" has no interest in going to any game all year. They chalk it up as another bad SU team and check out on SU football for the year. The die-hards can't, won't, and will never understand that. But that's the way a lot of people think. It's a mind-set and a culture that is around SU football. On the other hand if SU basketball started off 0-2 the fans will show up in force and say we need to support them more to help turn this ship around. It's two different worlds and two different mind-sets in this city when it comes to SU football and SU basketball.

Agree 100% on the poor starts

 

[ImperialOrange]

To me it's as simple as viewing options. Comparing attendence to the 90s or earlier is tough because HD home viewing wasn't an option. Would you belive there are folks that go to skytop to tailgate and then go home to watch the game? I wouldn't have before this year but it happened.

 

[kcsu]

Poor starts have killed us. Winning is everything in this town. Ben played three yards and a cloud of dust and the games almost always had a strong crowd because we won.

 

[Phillymoose]

Let me start by saying that whatever beef you clearly have with me - you will be happier if you let it go. And, it's weird.

You're thinking about it in the wrong direction because you are failing to consider what the SU FOOTBALL ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE is competing against - people keeping money in their pocket, raking leaves, spending the day with their family, watching on TV at home, going to the movies, going to Dave and Busters, etc. The competition for attendance isn't a choice between having a winning program and a losing one. It's competing against things that have nothing to do with winning and losing like the alternatives I mentioned so why would you believe that leading with "winning" swings it? It's about providing an overall experience that people value over their other choices. Winning is a good part of it, but it's not the whole thing like you guys want it to be. You and OPA will be there through thick and thin - you aren't the person that needs to be attracted To come to the Dome. It's foolish to think the things that appeal to you are what appeals to the general audience. Think like your audience.

Lastly, I'm disappointed that OPA tried to pull the too young card, and you tried to pull "who sez? you?" instead of just providing better arguments why I'm wrong. If you genuinely think it through, you'll see the logic of what I'm saying. My point that winning is a part of the overall experience isn't even debatable.

You're wasting a lot of effort on merely relabeling things. Winning is like 99% of the entertainment experience you keep referring to. It is a much greater % than you have suggested. Walking out of the dome after a loss hurts. It makes you question your sanity - when you make that walk down the hill - why you care, why you spend your money, why you waste your time? No amount of offense, no pony rides, no video boards, no nothing is going to impact that like winning the damn game. The walk back is an entirely different experience when the team wins.

The distinction you are so adamantly making comes across as oddly defensive.

 

[Millhouse]

Says who? You? I guess you're pushing your style over substance crap again. All things being equal, I'd be just as likely to attend if we played like Stanford or MSU as I would if we'd played like Oregon. I think the quality of the product is far more important than the style. I'd rather watch a well played, hard fought, low scoring win than a poorly played, high scoring win any day. Winning cures most ills. Winning leads to 30,000-plus hiking up the hill in sub-freezing temps and sideways snow to watch SU hoops.

Why do we have to everything the hard way? There are very few Stanfords for a reason

 

[All4SU]

The 0-2 starts take their toll. Imagine back to how you felt right after the Northwestern game. Our starting QB was completing more passes to the other team. I don't think it left too many people thinking 'well, I surely can't miss that Wagner game next week'.

Next year, not tripping up in those first 2 games against underdogs, has to help a little. Maryland should be somewhat improved over last year. If nothing else, they'll have completed the former Big East portion of their schedule (@USF, home against WVU). Should be a much more interesting atmosphere than this year's game 2 against Tulane.

This. No matter the type of offense, or whether you have likable players, or if the uniforms are sweet, or if even your prices may be okay, you have to get some early wins to energize the casual fans.

 

[xc84]

Let me start by saying that whatever beef you clearly have with me - you will be happier if you let it go. And, it's weird.

You're thinking about it in the wrong direction because you are failing to consider what the SU FOOTBALL ENTERTAINMENT EXPERIENCE is competing against - people keeping money in their pocket, raking leaves, spending the day with their family, watching on TV at home, going to the movies, going to Dave and Busters, etc. The competition for attendance isn't a choice between having a winning program and a losing one. It's competing against things that have nothing to do with winning and losing like the alternatives I mentioned so why would you believe that leading with "winning" swings it?

Winning swings it at SU. Did all those things you mentioned exist in the late 80s and 90s? Except maybe Dave & Busters, these are not new things. Raking leaves? That's like saying the basketball team competes with shoveling driveways. That's not competition. That's about "Why go to a game, watch them lose, knowing I have to come home and do work? I'd rather just stay home and do the work." The difference is a winning football program. Think of the GRob era. The hardest part about that was that there was 0% confidence they would win games. So, before I even went to the game, I was thinking they would likely lose or could certainly lose. Even against MAC teams. My 3 hour drive home from games blows...especially at 1:00 a.m. after night games. What REALLY blows is being at the game, knowing they will lose, and then knowing I have a 3 hour drive home ahead of me. In the late 80s and 90s, I knew SU had a chance to WIN each game. The evidence is there. A winning program sells the tickets. Now, if they are winning and generating 48,000 ave. tickets sold like some years in the 90s and want to kick it up to the next level, I agree that gimmicks can do that.