Marrone Speaks!

[bnoro]

you think marrone wants to white knuckle but I think that has to do with the qb. the lockdown mode might indicate he wants the spring to try different things with different qbs. which would mean that maybe he doesn't want to white knuckle

This isn't the case. A lot of what they've tried is with Nassib.

 

[bnoro]

I hope he's getting ready to welcome us to the Ashton Broyld show.

Don't get your hopes up.

 

[hungrychuck]

The team is still not winning consistently so it really makes no sense to suggest the ceiling equates to average attendance for a mediocre team. Does anyone really think that if SU starts to win e.g. 8, 9 or 10 games per year, that there will be no increase in attendance? Really? 41k is the limit? Really?

Really.

It's repeated as a truism that winning will cure all. But that remains to be seen. I suspect there has been both a temporary and a permanent erosion of the fanbase. The permanent version is likely to stem from various factors: from population shift to members who have simply moved on after a decade of losing. We may never again see 1990s-type numbers, even if -- and it's a mammoth IF -- we were to see the type of win totals you suggest.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

This isn't the case. A lot of what they've tried is with Nassib.

EAT IT, MILLHOUSE.

But seriously, Milly, your Nassib obsession is really creepy.

 

[xc84]

Really.

It's repeated as a truism that winning will cure all. But that remains to be seen. I suspect there has been both a temporary and a permanent erosion of the fanbase. The permanent version is likely to stem from various factors: from population shift to members who have simply moved on after a decade of losing. We may never again see 1990s-type numbers, even if -- and it's a mammoth IF -- we were to see the type of win totals you suggest.

Right now there is very little enthusiasm for the team. Forget about population erosion...in fact, Syracuse may be up since the 90s (when some years averaged 48-49K) in population. It makes no sense at all to think that in the wake of a 5-8 season with mediocre interest ... that it would equate to a peak in attendance. While I think we can certainly get back to 90s attendance figures...I didn't say that. You said, attendance may have reached a limit. I responded.

 

[SU2NASA]

Don't get your hopes up.

Yay, more Nassib screens to tight ends.

 

[hungrychuck]

Right now there is very little enthusiasm for the team. Forget about population erosion...in fact, Syracuse may be up since the 90s (when some years averaged 48-49K) in population. It makes no sense at all to think that in the wake of a 5-8 season with mediocre interest ... that it would equate to a peak in attendance. While I think we can certainly get back to 90s attendance figures...I didn't say that. You said, attendance may have reached a limit. I responded.

Yep, and I stand by it. I do not think we will exceed low 40s at any time in the near-to-mid term, even with the ACC development.

 

[xc84]

Yep, and I stand by it. I do not think we will exceed low 40s at any time in the near-to-mid term, even with the ACC development.

We won't without more wins. With more wins, attendance will increase for sure. No doubt in my mind. Does winning cure all ills? Not directly. But indirectly it will. Win = better recruits. Win=more attendance. Win=more money for facilities.

 

[hungrychuck]

We won't without more wins. With more wins, attendance will increase for sure. No doubt in my mind. Does winning cure all ills? Not directly. But indirectly it will. Win = better recruits. Win=more attendance. Win=more money for facilities.

BTW, the point re population shift is not the raw numbers -- they are, slightly, up 2010 versus 2000 -- but whether people with an historic or traditional tie to the program will have relocated, and whether they have been replaced by people with similar tendencies.

 

[Millhouse]

EAT IT, MILLHOUSE.

But seriously, Milly, your Nassib obsession is really creepy.

nice avatar

 

[Millhouse]

Can you please explain what you mean in regards to the section I bolded?

Because if your saying that the time & effort Marrone put in to promoting the program, reaching out to the community for support, and being generally fan friendly the first three years was ineffective, I would really question that.

Not only with simple average attendence statistics:

Pre-Marrone:
2005 avg attendence - 40,252 (down 3,395 or 8% from prior year)
2006 avg attendence - 41,073 (up 821 or 2% from prior year)
2007 avg attendence - 35,009 (down 6,064 or 15% from prior year)
2008 avg attendence - 33,474 (down 1,535 or 4% from prior year)

Marrone first 3 years:
2009 avg attendence - 39,043 (up 5,569 or 17% from prior year)
2010 avg attendence - 40,064 (up 1,021 or 3% from prior year)
2011 avg attendence - 40,504 (up 440 or 1% from prior year)

So the raw data does not support that viewpoint, but there are also many factors that contribute to attendence, not simply the football team's effort to embrace the fans and community, which brings me to my main point, which is:

How do you know that the efforts Doug made his first three years at SU didn't made a big difference? How do you know that, absent of Doug's efforts, attendence would not have continued on the downward trajectory that it was trending in prior to his arrival? You don't. Nobody knows for sure. But I'm willing to bet it didn't hurt, that's for sure.

In fact, it's interesting that the year following the most successful season (2011 season following successful 2010 season), shows the smallest increase in attendence of Doug's three years. Maybe wins and losses isn't the magic silver bullet?

it would help if they won some games at home someday

 

[Millhouse]

This isn't the case. A lot of what they've tried is with Nassib.

like what?

 

[Scooch]

Yep, and I stand by it. I do not think we will exceed low 40s at any time in the near-to-mid term, even with the ACC development.

I think you're wrong. We're averaging 40K during a stretch of mediocre results and hellaciously boring offensive football. Turn tortuous 5-7's into fun 8-4's, with a schedule punctuated by a top 10-15 FSU or Clemson every year, and we'll be at least in the mid-40s again.

The range that SU is working with is really narrow. 47-48K at our peak, 35K at our valley, 40-41K when we're a'ight. Getting another 3-4K in the door every Saturday for a winning team is not exactly a Herculean task.

 

[Millhouse]

I think you're wrong. We're averaging 40K during a stretch of mediocre results and hellaciously boring offensive football. Turn tortuous 5-7's into fun 8-4's, with a schedule punctuated by a top 10-15 FSU or Clemson every year, and we'll be at least in the mid-40s again.

The range that SU is working with is really narrow. 47-48K at our peak, 35K at our valley, 40-41K when we're a'ight. Getting another 3-4K in the door every Saturday for a winning team is not exactly a Herculean task.

yep and open practices and rubber chicken isn't going to do much for those fans at the margin.

 

[xc84]

BTW, the point re population shift is not the raw numbers -- they are, slightly, up 2010 versus 2000 --

Right, that's why I said "Forget about population erosion...in fact, Syracuse may be up since the 90s (when some years averaged 48-49K) in population."

And they don't have to have historic ties to SU to become fans. They just have to get excited and they will get excited about SU when SU starts winning. I know a guy from Tennessee...still has his southern accent. I found out he's a huge SU basketball fan...season tickets, etc. He didn't go there and has no ties to SU other than living 2-3 hours away from Syracuse.

 

[xc84]

I think you're wrong. We're averaging 40K during a stretch of mediocre results and hellaciously boring offensive football. Turn tortuous 5-7's into fun 8-4's, with a schedule punctuated by a top 10-15 FSU or Clemson every year, and we'll be at least in the mid-40s again.

The range that SU is working with is really narrow. 47-48K at our peak, 35K at our valley, 40-41K when we're a'ight. Getting another 3-4K in the door every Saturday for a winning team is not exactly a Herculean task.

I agree... except the actual peak was in '92 and was 49,318.

 

[hungrychuck]

Right, that's why I said "Forget about population erosion...in fact, Syracuse may be up since the 90s (when some years averaged 48-49K) in population."

And they don't have to have historic ties to SU to become fans. They just have to get excited and they will get excited about SU when SU starts winning. I know a guy from Tennessee...still has his southern accent. I found out he's a huge SU basketball fan...season tickets, etc. He didn't go there and has no ties to SU other than living 2-3 hours away from Syracuse.

While that's a nice anecdote, it's just that: an anecdote. When people with traditional ties to the program move away or die off, it's always a negative. And it's going to take a lot more to achieve the same level of interest in the newcomer.

 

[hungrychuck]

I think you're wrong. We're averaging 40K during a stretch of mediocre results and hellaciously boring offensive football. Turn tortuous 5-7's into fun 8-4's, with a schedule punctuated by a top 10-15 FSU or Clemson every year, and we'll be at least in the mid-40s again.

The range that SU is working with is really narrow. 47-48K at our peak, 35K at our valley, 40-41K when we're a'ight. Getting another 3-4K in the door every Saturday for a winning team is not exactly a Herculean task.

Oh, I suspect most people would disagree with this. It's a truism, after all, and people don't like truisms being challenged.

It's also worth remembering that we averaged 40K at least partly by practically giving tickets away. How long does that continue if we have a little bit of success? And do we wind up with roughly the same attendance, only with a higher average price paid per ticket as the athletic department is emboldened to raise prices and stop the so-called foodstamp programs?

One of two things will happen. Either we'll continue in this mediocrity, if that's what we're calling it, and the issue will never be tested, or we will win more and the question will get a test. Personally, if it's the second option, I'll be happy regardless of the attendance figures.

 

[orangenirvana]

Yay, more Nassib screens to tight ends.

Shhhhhh...opposing coaches may be reading this forum.

 

[xc84]

When people with traditional ties to the program move away or die off, it's always a negative. And it's going to take a lot more to achieve the same level of interest in the newcomer.

That's as good as my anecdote. Nothing much behind it.

 

[xc84]

Oh, I suspect most people would disagree with this. It's a truism, after all, and people don't like truisms being challenged.

It's also worth remembering that we averaged 40K at least partly by practically giving tickets away. How long does that continue if we have a little bit of success? And do we wind up with roughly the same attendance, only with a higher average price paid per ticket as the athletic department is emboldened to raise prices and stop the so-called foodstamp programs?

One of two things will happen. Either we'll continue in this mediocrity, if that's what we're calling it, and the issue will never be tested, or we will win more and the question will get a test. Personally, if it's the second option, I'll be happy regardless of the attendance figures.

It's not a "truism". It's a statistical fact that attendance correlates to W-L at the dome. I have to laugh at your accusations about "giving tickets away" with all the whiners here (were you among them?) complaining that ticket prices were too high I do agree with this much...we won't know who is right about this unless they start winning. No matter what, they better start winning more games.

 

[hungrychuck]

That's as good as my anecdote. Nothing much behind it.

You were talking about one guy. That would be like me saying, "I know a guy who just moved here and he watches soccer all weekend...couldn't care less about American football."

 

[Scooch]

Oh, I suspect most people would disagree with this. It's a truism, after all, and people don't like truisms being challenged.

It's also worth remembering that we averaged 40K at least partly by practically giving tickets away. How long does that continue if we have a little bit of success? And do we wind up with roughly the same attendance, only with a higher average price paid per ticket as the athletic department is emboldened to raise prices and stop the so-called foodstamp programs?

One of two things will happen. Either we'll continue in this mediocrity, if that's what we're calling it, and the issue will never be tested, or we will win more and the question will get a test. Personally, if it's the second option, I'll be happy regardless of the attendance figures.

Yeah, you got me pegged dude, I am all about protecting conventional wisdom.

:bang:

Or, you know, I'm basing my theory off of facts and rational analysis.

 

[hungrychuck]

It's not a "truism". It's a statistical fact that attendance correlates to W-L at the dome. I have to laugh at your accusations about "giving tickets away" with all the whiners here (were you among them?) complaining that ticket prices were too high I do agree with this much...we won't know who is right about this unless they start winning. No matter what, they better start winning more games.

You will find no record of me complaining about ticket prices. I never have. Hell, I flew to LA to watch the team last year, Tampa the year before. I'm willing to spend a few bucks to watch the Orangemen.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

nice avatar

Well played!