|
Post by Coyote Fan on Jan 8, 2018 22:35:49 GMT -6
I used the numbers from Gojacks.com and Goyotes.com's respective stats page for 2018. The links are below. The exact number for the Jacks is listed as 96,951 and for the Yotes is 46,676. The Jacks had more home games total but the regular season averages still are as shown in my first post above. You will need to scroll down on the sites to find the numbers. They are just above the scores by quarters section. http://sdstate_ftp.sidearmsports.com/custompages/www.gojacks.com/fls/15000/stats/2017_FB/teamcume.htm stats.goyotes.com/custompages/sports/m-footbl/2017/teamcume.htm My post above was not meant to be smack put simply an accurate presentation of dat No one can argue with hard data. Except maybe Coyotefan. The only thing I can come up with when Aldewitt disparages SDSU and UND is that USD's results are more impressive given the inputs and environment. I'm not sure it's his point and I'm not going to argue it. I think it is much more likely that he just hates UND and SDSU and will give neither credit for anything. I guess I do get a little confused when the capacity of a stadium is smaller than the average attendance. I will never understand that one.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jan 9, 2018 6:08:04 GMT -6
Just for fun I did a quick count on 2017 attendance. SDSU ~78,500. UND ~43,500 You were either a bit too quick or your batteries are low. I found that the 6 regular season games brought 82,850. As you are a guy who is usually throwing complex numbers together for statistical analysis, I would have expected more accurate numbers. http://sdstate_ftp.sidearmsports.com/custompages/www.gojacks.com/fls/15000/stats/2017_FB/teamgbg.htm What did you get for UND? Because I added in my head and rounding I used some complicated mathematical notation that obviously threw you off: ~. FYI: That means more-or-less. Thanks for dialing it in to the nats a**. I know now you are a bit indignant because I used SDSU as an example. My main point stands. FCS is not a dying brand. Watching SDSU on TV always revealed a lot of empty seats. Every one of those seats is money left on the table. UND had barely over 3,000 later in the season. I accepted their attendance figures with a snicker.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jan 9, 2018 6:33:42 GMT -6
Yotes, I think you pointed out the better question when you wrote: "Time to call into question the health of the FBS." There's been a lot written about how most FBS programs are constantly looking for funds in an effort to stay productive at that level. Certainly the top tier of teams make a boatload of money but most FBS programs pray they can break even in football. That's the information I think about when people start talking about moving to FBS. aldewitt: Are you making an argument that percentage of available seats sold is the preferred measure? Skewed example to illustrate: Two schools in the region -- so their game-ticket prices are close to equal (e.g. USD game tickets and SDSU game tickets do not vary by much). School A has a 5,000-seat stadium and they sell all 5,000 seats -- 100% -- for every home game. School B has a 20,000 seat stadium and they sell only 50% of available every game. Don't tell me you prefer the revenue from 100% of 5,000 seats vs. 50% of 20000 seats? [You wrote above: "Both of those programs (talking about UND and SDSU) are under performing and leave a lot of money on the table. USD is harvesting a lot more of their potential than either of them." Oldhare noted above that you regularly provide statistical analysis on games. Your pregame analysis is a reason why I will stop in and check this board out because of your interesting and logical statistical prediction of game outcomes. Today's comments are uncharacteristic. My argument was inspired by the disparaging remarks made about FCS as I explained in the original post. On your other point I am saying the unsold seats are the future of FCS growth. Successful programs on the field like SDSU have to market better. They only sell half their seats, more-or-less. Failing programs on the field, like UND, have to put out a marketable product. That small arena should be filled every week. Simple point, simple call to action. Market and improve. The FCS isn’t dying. FCS growth potential is in its empty seats.
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Jan 9, 2018 6:49:04 GMT -6
Hmmm. I thought the overall point was that FCS is doing OK, and aldewitt's point about SDSU/UND is that they have peaked and found that peak was much lower than they expected, while NDSU/USD's peak has not arrived, and thus will be higher.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jan 9, 2018 7:23:51 GMT -6
No, I was always trying to point out that the future of the FCS is in it's empty seats: Better marketing and better football. The best examples I had from the Dakotas were UND and SDSU. I was too harsh in my presentation. I don't hate either program and am sorry I sounded that way. I meant no ill-will.
SDSU has the product and the facilities and needs to sell it. I was told they drew a little over 82,000 fans this year with a total potential of just under 155,000.
UND has no product and needs to build one. When they get a team they will sell all 12,000 every week.
A lot of programs in the FCS need a little of both.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jan 9, 2018 7:27:16 GMT -6
The point made about the FBS brand was a insightful. They have a lot of empty seats too. Those are the most expensive empty seats in college football.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 9, 2018 7:38:10 GMT -6
Everyone knew there would be empty seats in the Brookings stadium. They built it with an eye toward the future, optimistic that the fanbase will grow over time and eventually utilize the space. It seems unlikely that they have as many fans as they can ever hope for right now.
|
|
dave
Sophomore Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by dave on Jan 9, 2018 8:10:22 GMT -6
Everyone knew there would be empty seats in the Brookings stadium. They built it with an eye toward the future, optimistic that the fanbase will grow over time and eventually utilize the space. It seems unlikely that they have as many fans as they can ever hope for right now. This x 1000. If you are going to use percentage of seats sold as the measure of program health than SDSU, prior to DJD stadium being built, was selling between 11000 and 12000 seats in the old Coughlin Alumni Stadium which only had 10000 seats.So back in the CAS era we were selling 110-120% of our stadium capacity, now in the DJD era we are only selling 67%, so did our football program go from being one of the best in the nation to an under performing program with the addition of a new stadium? I think we are the same program we've always been. Also I would take the FCS/FBS argument from UND fans with a grain of salt, they want to go FBS to stick it to the Bison, they are letting their hatred of all things Bison cloud their judgement.
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Jan 9, 2018 8:11:00 GMT -6
No, I was always trying to point out that the future of the FCS is in it's empty seats: Better marketing and better football. The best examples I had from the Dakotas were UND and SDSU. I was too harsh in my presentation. I don't hate either program and am sorry I sounded that way. I meant no ill-will. SDSU has the product and the facilities and needs to sell it. I was told they drew a little over 82,000 fans this year with a total potential of just under 155,000. UND has no product and needs to build one. When they get a team they will sell all 12,000 every week. A lot of programs in the FCS need a little of both. My point of posting in the first place is that if you want to make an argument, get your facts straight don't mix apples and oranges. The facts in your last post are also wrong. You compared capacity for 8 games with attendance for 6 games. The SDSU stadium holds 19340. For 6 football games that is a maximum attendance of 116,040 or for 8 games (counting playoffs) 154,720 seats which is the number of seats you used in your last post. The attendance was 83,000 out of 116,000 during 6, the number you used, the regular season or 71%+ of capacity and if playoff games are included, 96,000 out of 155,000 or 62%. And the attendance is based on butts in the seats. If total ticket sales were included, both percentages would be higher. The Dana was approximately 94% filled for the NDSU game although all seats were sold. From attending and setting in the season ticket section, I would estimate a similar difference in numbers for other games, but I don't have access to those numbers. As was indicted by one of the posters above, the Dana was built with a vision of what the demand could become and even includes the potential for expansion if and when that becomes appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by aldewitt on Jan 9, 2018 8:51:30 GMT -6
All good points gorabbits.
In the end we will agree SDSU had 96,000 out of 155,000 or 62%. Those are good numbers.
Your point about seats sold vs. seats occupied is apples oranges too. If we are talking attendance on seats sold we should reference revenues. If we are talking seats occupied we should talk people. Revenues really distort comparisons between different sized/priced stadiums. Your use of percentages is the best when comparing different stadiums.
As they have a superior argument, I withdraw SDSU as an example of a program that needs to market better. I hold fast that the FCS is not a dying brand but does have sick programs.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jan 9, 2018 8:51:42 GMT -6
My goodness, give it a rest. Or better yet, take your SDSU discussion to the appropriate place, the bunny board.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 9, 2018 11:42:25 GMT -6
When talking about the health of the FCS, it is worth pointing out the increasing exposure its gotten. The HBCUs have always had their giant Classics on TV, but now we are getting more playoff games televised, Week 0 games on ESPN, and College Gameday seems to have resolved to going to an FCS campus every year. The general public won't become invested in FCS schools but they might start recognizing names.
|
|
|
Post by jacksfan29 on Jan 9, 2018 12:36:38 GMT -6
Very interesting set of comments when USD put approximately 47,000 fans in the seats at home this year compared to SDSU's 96000. USD averages about 9400 for regular season games, SDSU 14,000 for regular season games. USD's best ever performance in the Valley is this year's 4-4 record. SDSU's worst ever performance in the Valley is 4-4. Over the last 6 years since USD joined the Valley they have a record of 24-46. During the same period UND, in a weaker conference, has a record of 32-36. USD is making giant strides now but the above comments about SDSU and UND not stepping up are, well what they are. Typical that the bunny poster would make it all about themselves and the ag school and miss the bigger picture of the discussion being had in this thread. Yes... we all know that you guys have an amazing team up there (#10turnovers). Thanks for dragging me down to your level and having to talk smack. This thread is about FCS attendance overall... they were just drawing reference to local examples. Pretty sure it was the OP who made it about SDSU, and UND. But carry on, facts scare some folks.
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Jan 11, 2018 8:52:57 GMT -6
Fun facts, Agricultural college's 2017 average playoff attendance according to ESPN game summary in the greatest season in the history of their program, when they had 2 potential draft picks, their fans were claiming them as favorites for the national championship was 6,699. According to gorabbits numbers from above USD's home game average in 2017 was (46,676) 9,335. Would have been over 10k if the dome had a larger capacity on Ddays and the beltbuckle-nutmeg bowl. In the greatest season in the history of your university you couldn't outdraw USD's regular season average in the playoffs when you claim us as irrelevant because of our start to the MVFC 6 years ago? I'm confused why you are on "NOT YOUR RIVALS" board in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Jan 11, 2018 12:20:08 GMT -6
You have to state your actual attendance in the playoffs, since the NCAA gets a cut of each ticket. They probably would have claimed those crowds at 10k in the regular season.
|
|