The Doug Marrone "Changes" article from the PS is a must read

[GoSU96]

Hey, they didn't finish in the 100s, but they were damn close:

SSING YARDS​

227.8​

65thOverall​

RUSHING YARDS​

120.4​

95thOverall​

POINTS FOR​

24.2​

84thOverall​

POINTS AGAINST​

28.5​

73rd​

Then just say they need to get better, which is obvious. Getting basic facts wrong weakens an argument, I though you knew that.

 

[Scooch]

Yup. People keep saying all they want to see is a winner, but I don't think you fill the Dome on a winner alone. You fill the Dome when the team wins and the fans have fun watching it.

Last year the team didn't win and the fans didn't have fun watching, so...

I guess. But since our range is so thin, I'm not totally sure.

2001 is a good test of that theory. We were coming off two uninspired seasons (13-10 overall) and were employing a strategy of please-just-don't-lose-it-for-us offense. Granted the D was electric, mostly because Dwight Freeney was an absolute beast. But if offense sells tickets...

9/8, UCF: 35,938
9/22, Auburn: 43,403
9/29, East Carolina: 36,347
10/20, Temple: 42,115
11/10, West Virginia: 43,753
11/24, BC: 45,063

Average of 41,103. Basically 1K more than we just averaged this year going 5-7. But we had a good amount of momentum heading into mid-October, and drew 44K for the 2 November dates. I think getting 45K in the building for that last game, as we were standing at 8-3 (and fresh off a colossal @ss whipping from Miami) is some directional evidence that winning, no matter the aesthetics of it, will drive a few more thousand fans out.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

But we had a good amount of momentum heading into mid-October, and drew 44K for the 2 November dates. I think getting 45K in the building for that last game, as we were standing at 8-3 (and fresh off a colossal @ss whipping from Miami) is some directional evidence that winning, no matter the aesthetics of it, will drive a few more thousand fans out.

The only variable I'd throw in there is that winning alone very well could have been enough in 2001 - that's not far from the McNabb years when the team was a lot of fun to watch.

Now though, I think you do need to win and have a really fun product, because it has been such a long time since the product has been fun. I realize that isn't really testable. I just think a lot of damage has been done to the fanbase due to the poor quality of the product, so you can't get away with just winning whereas at other times maybe you could. :noidea:

 

[qdawgg]

If we win more consistently combined with the teams we'll be playing in the ACC - the dome will be more packed and will be loud as hell. Simple as that.

Oops - almost forgot. I hate Coach Marrone and hope he quits his job. I don't want to be labeled as wearing orange colored glasses b/c my post has some optimism in it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If we win more consistently combined with the teams we'll be playing in the ACC - the dome will be more packed and will be loud as hell. Simple as that.

That's probably true.

Although geez (and I'm not saying you're saying this), I really don't understand why some people are so resistant to the idea that football being fun for the sake of being fun isn't a worthwhile endeavor for the program.

 

[qdawgg]

That's probably true.

Although geez (and I'm not saying you're saying this), I really don't understand why some people are so resistant to the idea that football being fun for the sake of being fun isn't a worthwhile endeavor for the program.

I don't disagree with that at all. If we were to break it down I think you would actually get more "return" single game ticket sales as a result of the offense being exciting. Pretty simple, when fans leave the game and say, "holy that was an awesome game" they will come back again. But I think above and beyond that people want to watch a team that's winning and matchups that are exciting.