Dr. Gross on the NJ Games

[OttoMets]

I remember when the new stadium was proposed - the Dome - in 1977.

At the time we couldn't fill Archbold with a capacity of 27,000.

And a lot of folks made pretty much the same argument then that you're making now.

In our best days we had no trouble filling the place. We will fill the place again once the team starts to win and once the ACC schedule becomes a reality.

Sorry, but reducing capacity is loser approach in my judgement.

Define "best days" and "filling." Because I don't think that's true. Marrone even talked about that in a Poliquin piece last fall; there have been something like 11 actual football sellouts in Dome history.

I don't like the idea of reducing capacity. My logic is absurd and indefensible, so I won't argue the matter. But it's always been a struggle to attract fans to football games. In an era of larger televisions, more youth sports obligations on weekends, and probably 20,000 fewer blue collar jobs in Central New York, it's going to be more of a struggle, even with a good team and the novelty of ACC opponents (which, frankly, is overstated - no one cares about the majority of those teams any more than they do about Big East teams).

 

[Cuseman78]

Sorry, but reducing capacity is loser approach in my judgement.

I'm a realist. We're never going to be Penn State (attendance wise), no matter how much winning goes on here. And nobody is asking to reduce capacity to UB levels. We're talking about a 10% drop which will further the game experience at the Dome (better seating, less empty seats) and reduce supply, which will hopefully drive up season ticket prices when we are an 8 win team again. I am 100% in agreement that an ACC schedule will result in increased attendance, and if we do get back to the prime Coach P years (that was for you), then we can have sell-out crowds of 45k. Those 45k crowds with no silver will be manic, and it will be fun again in that place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dropping capacity a bit. You're way hung up on the actual capacity number.

And just so you can go on record, what do you want to increase capacity to? 60K? 70k?

 

[OttoMets]

LOL. Everyone gave up on the 2008 season before it started. Using that as a basis is silly. Also this has nothing to do with Marrone. He doesn't have attendance numbers, the program does. 2008 was a waste of a year. Of course no one showed up. The fact that attendance increased vs that point is not an accomplishment. Fact is that SU is still under 40k per game the last 3 years and that is the announced number, not butts in seats.

Last three years per game is at 39820
Four years prior per game was at 36440
Difference 3380

That isn't much of an increase vs the lowest point in our program's history. 2009 brought increased excitement and we were a few plays away from a Bowl. 2010 brought hope and then we went out and had a winning season. 2011 we were coming off a high as a program and started 5-2 yet still couldn't get people to show up. This year will be more of the same. I think the UConn game in 2010 told us all we need to know about the size of our fanbase. We were 4-2 in conference with a chance to tie for the conference championship. And if things broke right go to a BCS game. We were playing a rival school. It was a night game. Yet we had an attendance of 41500 and much less than that actually showed up. That was a sad day.

I'll quibble with that a bit - not making excuses, just noting the bad timing. UConn was the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Tough draw for a home game - many students have left for the holiday, but very few of the townies (who usually have a strong showing for Thanksgiving and Christmas games) have arrived yet.

Not a fun game, not a fun crowd. But if that had been a week later or a week earlier, I bet 45,000 would have been in the house.

 

[GoSU96]

You can't reduce capacity for football without reducing capacity for basketball.

At the present time, fan #24,500 can still get a decent basketball seat.

If you eliminate 5000 seats, fan #24,500 will end up on the far side of the mythical curtain.

Why screw him over?

Losing seats sounds like a permanent solution to what could be a temporary problem.

It's not like it costs more $$$ to heat and light the Dome with 49,200 seats as it would with 44,000.

Exactly. The building is the building, someday you might want those seats. If there are two games a year that draw 48K, that's when you want them.

Who's to say that Allen, Broyld, and Funderburk don't become big draws.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Here's a much easier solution:

Everyone in CNY should just gain 50 pounds. People will take up more room on the benches, and the Dome will look fuller.

Judging by the crowds at this year State Fair, this could work.

 

[kingottoiii]

In our best days we had no trouble filling the place. We will fill the place again once the team starts to win and once the ACC schedule becomes a reality.

Really? We had high expectations going into 96-98 and ended up winning the Big East everyone of those seasons. We got 44k or less four times those three seasons. That isn't trouble filling the place? Thats over 20% of our home games during that stretch. Thats our peak. Also you have to factor in that back then we did not play 1AA teams. If we had, then you can reduce our home attendance those 3 years by at least 1000 per game. So we would have been at 47k, 45k, and 47k. If one of our peak years was only getting 45k per game, why is it so far fetched to think that 44k should be the norm?

 

[kingottoiii]

I'll quibble with that a bit - not making excuses, just noting the bad timing. UConn was the Saturday before Thanksgiving. Tough draw for a home game - many students have left for the holiday, but very few of the townies (who usually have a strong showing for Thanksgiving and Christmas games) have arrived yet.

Not a fun game, not a fun crowd. But if that had been a week later or a week earlier, I bet 45,000 would have been in the house.

But there is always an excuse. That is part of the problem. Our "fanbase" has more excuses than we have empty seats at the Dome. That is why I think it is insane to go after the excuse crowd. They will never be satisfied. So why not make the Dome experience (how many threads have we seen complaining about that?) more enjoyable for the 42k who actually do care? Cater to the real fans. Having 42k in a 44k seat Dome is full. Having 42k in a 49k Doem is empty.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I'm a realist. We're never going to be Penn State (attendance wise), no matter how much winning goes on here. And nobody is asking to reduce capacity to UB levels. We're talking about a 10% drop which will further the game experience at the Dome (better seating, less empty seats) and reduce supply, which will hopefully drive up season ticket prices when we are an 8 win team again. I am 100% in agreement that an ACC schedule will result in increased attendance, and if we do get back to the prime Coach P years (that was for you), then we can have sell-out crowds of 45k. Those 45k crowds with no silver will be manic, and it will be fun again in that place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dropping capacity a bit. You're way hung up on the actual capacity number.

And just so you can go on record, what do you want to increase capacity to? 60K? 70k?

I currently sit on the 35 yard line. When you reduce capacity ... won't my seats get pushed closer to the end zone?

How am I getting "better seating"?

IMO - most people have limited recreational dollars. If you drive up the price of season tickets, people will just stop buying and watch from home. Which will give you excess capacity again.

 

[44cuse]

UConn and Rutgers became viable because of us?

No.

You're wrong.

Our slow demise was hastened by UConn and Rutgers - regional competitors - who both put gobs and gobs of money into their programs - and improved greatly - while we sat there with Astroturf in the Dome, no real weight room, poor locker facilities, poor coaching salaries, no indoor facility and on and on.

We called for a unilateral truce in the facilities war while everybody else charged ahead with money and development.

The excuses you noted in your post were correct - eight years ago.

You kinda just made his point. Our demise (for whatever reason) contributed to their success. Facilities...coaching...scheduling...whatever. They benefitted from our demise.

44cuse

 

[kingottoiii]

Exactly. The building is the building, someday you might want those seats. If there are two games a year that draw 48K, that's when you want them.

Who's to say that Allen, Broyld, and Funderburk don't become big draws.

LOL that is simply insane. So you want 5k empty seats 4 times a year just because you may need 48k twice a year? How does that benefit the 42k that show up every week? How does that benefit SU? If you have 42k every game and charge $31.50 you earn more money than having 42k for four games and 48k for 2 games at $30. The financial benefit of being at 49k vs 44k is negligible.

Hell if we do become good again wouldn't it be nice to have a sell out streak? Wouldn't that be good publicity and for the moral of the program. If you have SU selling out 12 straight games there is a buzz about the program. Just look at BBall and all the silliness that goes along with having 34k.

Having empty seats has a negative effect on the players, recruiting, fan attitude, and looks bad on TV. So why not reduce those things as much as possible? Especially if financially it doesn't have a negative consequence? I fail to see a negative in going down to 44k. The only people it will impact is the bandwagon fans. But since they are bandwagon fans who cares. Shouldn't the real fans coem first?

 

[kingottoiii]

I currently sit on the 35 yard line. When you reduce capacity ... won't my seats get pushed closer to the end zone?

How am I getting "better seating"?

IMO - most people have limited recreational dollars. If you drive up the price of season tickets, people will just stop buying and watch from home. Which will give you excess capacity again.

You would be moving one to two seats over and have a real seat vs a bench, which half of our fanbase complains about. You really rather be squeezed in and sitting on a bench at the 35 than be in a more comfy seat at the 32 with cup holders?

Season tickets are what $205? If SU were a 9-3 type of team and increased the price by $5 a game would people really not renew because it costs $230 for season tickets?

 

[OrangePA]

You kinda just made his point. Our demise (for whatever reason) contributed to their success. Facilities...coaching...scheduling...whatever. They benefitted from our demise.

44cuse

I guess I just look at it differently.

They didn't cause our demise - we did.

While everybody else did what they were supposed to do - we didn't.

So, yes, I guess Rutgers, UConn, and BC, Va Tech, Pitt, WVU and a whole litany of programs "benefited from our demise" in the sense that we stopped competing.

 

[OrangePA]

Really? We had high expectations going into 96-98 and ended up winning the Big East everyone of those seasons. We got 44k or less four times those three seasons. That isn't trouble filling the place? Thats over 20% of our home games during that stretch. Thats our peak. Also you have to factor in that back then we did not play 1AA teams. If we had, then you can reduce our home attendance those 3 years by at least 1000 per game. So we would have been at 47k, 45k, and 47k. If one of our peak years was only getting 45k per game, why is it so far fetched to think that 44k should be the norm?

I'll have to check the stats but my recollection is the during the McNabb years we drew upwards of 48,000 to 49,000 every game - we essentially filled the place every game.

That can be done again with a winning program and some tweaks to the Dome - which I guess we will see next week.

 

[OrangePA]

I'm a realist. We're never going to be Penn State (attendance wise), no matter how much winning goes on here. And nobody is asking to reduce capacity to UB levels. We're talking about a 10% drop which will further the game experience at the Dome (better seating, less empty seats) and reduce supply, which will hopefully drive up season ticket prices when we are an 8 win team again. I am 100% in agreement that an ACC schedule will result in increased attendance, and if we do get back to the prime Coach P years (that was for you), then we can have sell-out crowds of 45k. Those 45k crowds with no silver will be manic, and it will be fun again in that place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dropping capacity a bit. You're way hung up on the actual capacity number.

And just so you can go on record, what do you want to increase capacity to? 60K? 70k?

Increasing capacity to 60,000 or 70,000 would be impossible.

We should be over 50,000 in my opinion - that presents a major league football facility to the public and to opponents.

Is that "on the record" enough for you? (crack me up!)

 

[OrangePA]

Define "best days" and "filling." Because I don't think that's true. Marrone even talked about that in a Poliquin piece last fall; there have been something like 11 actual football sellouts in Dome history.

I don't like the idea of reducing capacity. My logic is absurd and indefensible, so I won't argue the matter. But it's always been a struggle to attract fans to football games. In an era of larger televisions, more youth sports obligations on weekends, and probably 20,000 fewer blue collar jobs in Central New York, it's going to be more of a struggle, even with a good team and the novelty of ACC opponents (which, frankly, is overstated - no one cares about the majority of those teams any more than they do about Big East teams).

I will do my research but I recall days when it was not a "struggle" getting fans to the games.

Yes, times are a bit challenging with TV coverage for home games and other distractions, but with solid success in the ACC and with ca continued effort to make the Dome experience better and better, I think it can be done.

Reducing seating is the wrong approach - really wrong and really silly.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I will do my research but I recall days when it was not a "struggle" getting fans to the games.

Yes, times are a bit challenging with TV coverage for home games and other distractions, but with solid success in the ACC and with ca continued effort to make the Dome experience better and better, I think it can be done.

Reducing seating is the wrong approach - really wrong and really silly.

I agree 100%, build a better product, invest in the product with additional facilities, etc etc and the fans will come back, you start scaling things back you are settling and basically settling. We just saved ourselves by getting into the ACC, now is not the time to start scaling back, it's time to get back in the game as best as we can. Not saying we will have USC money ever but we need to keep rebuilding the program in every way possible

 

[OrangeXtreme]

You would be moving one to two seats over and have a real seat vs a bench, which half of our fanbase complains about. You really rather be squeezed in and sitting on a bench at the 35 than be in a more comfy seat at the 32 with cup holders?

Season tickets are what $205? If SU were a 9-3 type of team and increased the price by $5 a game would people really not renew because it costs $230 for season tickets?

I'm in a college football stadium. I'm not sitting on a Trans-Atlantic flight. A bench is just fine.

The benches seat 32 across. If you eliminate 6 seats per row, you're displacing 180 people per section. Unless you're planning on adding more rows after Row ZZ, all these people will get bumped to the next section. Not just 1 or 2 seats away.

I'm pretty sure that if you gave people a choice of a bench seat on the 35, or a comfy seat on the 20, most people would want to remain where they are.

4 season tickets cost $820. Charge $920 for worse seats and Gross will be getting told by quite a few people where he can stick his tickets. And his Orange Club donations.

You want to raise prices, and jerk everyone's seat assignment around. Great business model. All for aesthetic purposes.

 

[kingottoiii]

I'm in a college football stadium. I'm not sitting on a Trans-Atlantic flight. A bench is just fine.

The benches seat 32 across. If you eliminate 6 seats per row, you're displacing 180 people per section. Unless you're planning on adding more rows after Row ZZ, all these people will get bumped to the next section. Not just 1 or 2 seats away.

I'm pretty sure that if you gave people a choice of a bench seat on the 35, or a comfy seat on the 20, most people would want to remain where they are.

4 season tickets cost $820. Charge $920 for worse seats and Gross will be getting told by quite a few people where he can stick his tickets. And his Orange Club donations.

You want to raise prices, and jerk everyone's seat assignment around. Great business model. All for aesthetic purposes.

If we reduced capacity 10% then we would be losing 3 seats per row. You are absolutely right about the 35 vs 20 but we are talking 35 vs 33 here. Huge difference. Right now with plenty of empty seats, displacing of fans wouldn't be a factor. Our season tickets are less than 50% capacity. Reducing capacity to 44k there is still plenty of room. Maybe people will have to move two seats over or one row back but they won't be making any drastic moves like the 35 vs 20.

 

[Cuseman78]

Increasing capacity to 60,000 or 70,000 would be impossible.

We should be over 50,000 in my opinion - that presents a major league football facility to the public and to opponents.

Is that "on the record" enough for you? (crack me up!)

So a Domed stadium with a capacity of 49400 or 44444 isn't a major league facility? Is Cameron indoor stadium a big time arena?

Way too hung up on the number.

We should be adjusting our stadium to fit our profile. Bringing it down a bit would be consistent with the demographic swings in the Syracuse area anyhow.

And actually, you know, sell out the building for a change.

 

[44cuse]

I guess I just look at it differently.

They didn't cause our demise - we did.

While everybody else did what they were supposed to do - we didn't.

So, yes, I guess Rutgers, UConn, and BC, Va Tech, Pitt, WVU and a whole litany of programs "benefited from our demise" in the sense that we stopped competing.

Exactly. I'm not sure how anyone can see it any other way. You have been leading charge on facilities for a long time as having been significant negatives to the program. Your argument above to KO was that facilities were an issue.

I think everyone agrees. UCONN built a better stadium and facilities and they benefitted.

44cuse

 

[Cuseman78]

I agree 100%, build a better product, invest in the product with additional facilities, etc etc and the fans will come back, you start scaling things back you are settling and basically settling. We just saved ourselves by getting into the ACC, now is not the time to start scaling back, it's time to get back in the game as best as we can. Not saying we will have USC money ever but we need to keep rebuilding the program in every way possible

This is absurd. You essentially want our stadium to look like the Big A or Oakland Coliseum (different sport, same premise) where they never had any chance to sell out the stadium.

Instead, they smartly retro-fitted their stadiums and reduced capacity to a point where they could sell out. In doing so, you improve atmosphere.

This fan base is wacky. There are actually fans proposing to expand the stadium when we haven't sold out a game in 15 years. Sheer lunacy. Not a lot of Econ majors around these parts.

 

[kingottoiii]

This is absurd. You essentially want our stadium to look like the Big A or Oakland Coliseum (different sport, same premise) where they never had any chance to sell out the stadium.

Instead, they smartly retro-fitted their stadiums and reduced capacity to a point where they could sell out. In doing so, you improve atmosphere.

This fan base is wacky. There are actually fans proposing to expand the stadium when we haven't sold out a game in 15 years. Sheer lunacy. Not a lot of Econ majors around these parts.

Econ smecon. Money really isn't an issue. The issue is atmosphere for the TV, Fans, Coaches, Players, Recruits, and Buzz around the community. All of that is impacted negatively when you have 40k show up in a 49k stadium. It is a lot easier to fix that problem when you need to only get to 44k vs 49k to make it full. How many threads have we had where people complain how empty the Dome looked on TV? How many threads have we seen where people complain about the atmosphere? Or the seats being too small? Or uncomfortable? How often do you think it is a downer for coaches, players, or recruits to see so much silver? And naturally with less available tickets do games not become more desirable? People like being part of sellouts. Which is why 34k show up for a BBall game even though they can't see a damn thing. Even if we just have one FB sell out a year at 44k, it will create some buzz. There are a lot of negatives to keeping capacity at 49k. I fail to see a negative in going down to 44k. The small time argument is laughable, 49k is just as small time. We would be moving below NW and BC. Thats it. We would still be ahead of 4 schools. Is being 5th from the bottom really that big a deal vs 7th?

 

[OttoMets]

I will do my research but I recall days when it was not a "struggle" getting fans to the games.

Yes, times are a bit challenging with TV coverage for home games and other distractions, but with solid success in the ACC and with ca continued effort to make the Dome experience better and better, I think it can be done.

Reducing seating is the wrong approach - really wrong and really silly.

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2008/4/23/sufootballhomeattendance.aspx

48,177 is the highest average of the McNabb era (sophomore year); we were under 46,000 in 1997, under 48,000 in 1998, and only at 43,276 in 1995.

We've averaged better than 48,000 per game exactly four times (the highest was 49,318, in 1992, before the capacity was reduced by about 600). We averaged ~44,000 while going unbeaten in 1987.

That all those great teams - entertaining teams, too - and great opponents saw so many empties suggests a struggle.

 

[rocklloyd]

I don't like the idea of reducing capacity. My logic is absurd and indefensible, so I won't argue the matter. But it's always been a struggle to attract fans to football games. In an era of larger televisions, more youth sports obligations on weekends, and probably 20,000 fewer blue collar jobs in Central New York, it's going to be more of a struggle, even with a good team and the novelty of ACC opponents (which, frankly, is overstated - no one cares about the majority of those teams any more than they do about Big East teams).

Finally. I read through 9 pages and waiting to post this but you beat me to it. Think of the thousands and thousands blue collars jobs lost. At my company alone, we're down something like 3k since middle 90's, maybe more. These were your diehards. Folks whose lived and died around the football program. Folks who drank 6 beers and got rowdy. In my mind, the pool of football folks wanting to attend the games has shrunk dramatically since the middle 90's. I work with a bunch of caasual fans who will attend to watch a winner, but no interest watching us squeak out Toledo.

 

[rocklloyd]

I can't stand seeing 6k in the place for kickoff. It embarrassing for me as a fan and can't stand that our fan base can't get to their seats in time. I feel terrible for our kids as they run out of the tunnel. It makes me cringe just about every time it happens. Contrast that with mcnabb's last game when he came out on field. It gave me chills. The place was rocking.