ESPN...

[steve deberg]

The basketball program actually proves my point. It's easy to be a fan when you're winning 30 games. In 2002 we averaged 17,000 with a team that had a winning record, but missed the dance. In 2005 we averaged just a shade under 23,000 two years removed from winning a national championship with an exciting combo of GMac and Warrick making all kinds of SC highlights. If we had a couple of years below .500 we wouldn't come close to 15,000.

I'm on your side in this but I am not sure if the basketball team proves your point, or refutes it. (Assuming your point was the importance of media perception vs. winning in fan attendance.)

About 45% of a basketball schedule is OOC, compared to football where it is usually 33%. For teams in top conferences, most of those OOC games are going to be home game where the home team is favoured. This may also be the case with football but a greater percentage of basketball OOC games will be "sure fire wins".

You can be a team in a top conference with an overall winning record that still usually misses the dance. A football team with an overall winning record, regardless of conference record, will always go to the dance (bowling). Basically, I believe simply having a winning record goes a lot further in football than in basketball.

Should that increase in attendance between 2002 and 2005 be more attributed to actually winning the national championship (winning at a higher level), or the increased positive pub we got because of it (better perception in the media)?

Obviously they go hand in hand, just not sure if this proves your point or not.

 

[sufandu]

I'm on your side in this but I am not sure if the basketball team proves your point, or refutes it. (Assuming your point was the importance of media perception vs. winning in fan attendance.)

About 45% of a basketball schedule is OOC, compared to football where it is usually 33%. For teams in top conferences, most of those OOC games are going to be home game where the home team is favoured. This may also be the case with football but a greater percentage of basketball OOC games will be "sure fire wins".

You can be a team in a top conference with an overall winning record that still usually misses the dance. A football team with an overall winning record, regardless of conference record, will always go to the dance (bowling). Basically, I believe simply having a winning record goes a lot further in football than in basketball.

Should that increase in attendance between 2002 and 2005 be more attributed to actually winning the national championship (winning at a higher level), or the increased positive pub we got because of it (better perception in the media)?

Obviously they go hand in hand, just not sure if this proves your point or not.

Those numbers were refuting Marsh01's claim that the basketball program doesn't have fairweather fans. Obviously winning and perception go hand in hand. I don't know which has a stronger influence with attendance. I do know that a lot of locals that aren't hardcore fans judge SU sports based on national perception as seen through outlets like ESPN. If they hear that SU is good from a local it's just homerism. If they hear it from ESPN it must be true. It's annoying, but that's how it works for so many. Those are the people that fill the seats that have been empty lately. They're waiting for someone other than their buddy or a local sportscaster to talk up the team.

 

[Bayside44]

For two days they had the headline on their front page about our two suspended players. We just whooped WVU and theres not even a mention on the front page. Anywhere. And I turn on Sportcenter and after the highlights they spend 5 minutes on Geno Smith. Ummmm..

Maybe ESPN should hire a Cuse grad or two. :bang:

 

[PoppyHart]

Headline placement is ultimately determined by page views. If Joe Public doesn't click the link frequently enough, if gets moved down.

 

[Marsh01]

If we had a couple of years below .500 we wouldn't come close to 15,000.

But we dont. Ever

 

[sufandu]

But we dont. Ever

No, we haven't in a long time. But, as the numbers showed, if we are less than dominant, attendance drops. 6,000/game less in 2002 versus 2005. And in 2002, we had a winning record both overall and in conference.

 

[JeremyCuse]

The basketball program actually proves my point. It's easy to be a fan when you're winning 30 games. In 2002 we averaged 17,000 with a team that had a winning record, but missed the dance. In 2005 we averaged just a shade under 23,000 two years removed from winning a national championship with an exciting combo of GMac and Warrick making all kinds of SC highlights. If we had a couple of years below .500 we wouldn't come close to 15,000.

Bingo, if the basketball program had even a fraction of the issues the football team has had the past decade attendance would take a signficant hit. The non diehards are coming out to watch SU vs Seton Hall on a Wed night in Feb if SU sucks.