(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

(07-08-2023 04:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 09:17 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 08:38 AM)goofus Wrote:  I did not read the entire 7-part series documenting the decline of the PAC, it did seem to do a good job capturing a decrease in interest in college athletics in term of numbers, so I am going to assume its real.

But the more interesting question is why this is happening to the PAC and is this acontagious trend that could spread to the rest of country. Or is it restricted to the west coast which is so different culturally that the rest of country has nothing to worry about.

College football fandom is a multigenerational affair and is inversely related to the proportion of recent migrants in a population. The Midwest and Deep South have the lowest rates of migration into their regions which means less disruption to the social continuity that’s required to support college sports.

There’s a certain critical mass where CFB fandom for a local team is a default part of the culture. Once enough people move into an area with their alternate interests, that critical mass is lost. If a migrant is a sports fan, the sports inclined migrants tend to affiliate with pro-teams because there isn’t the same gatekeeping around pro sports fandom as with college sports (there’s no looking down on profession T-shirt fans).

The larger migrant-rich metropolitan areas in the South are experiencing similar declines (Virginia, GT, Miami) in local interest.

For college football that’s great for the rust belt and Deep South. In a broader sense though, the lack of economic opportunity that drives domestic migration and underlies these trends suggests that intense local college sports fandom isn’t a great economic indicator.

That's a good point. Although I will add that Texas, Georgia and Florida all have huge migrant populations. Your point is reflected with metro schools like Houston, Georgia Tech and Miami, but not so much with Texas, Texas A&M, Georgia, Florida and Florida St.

Those big state schools have to maintain immense followings outside the urban areas with highest transient populations in order to maintain that critical mass.

This is why I am not bullish on the BigXII. If UT, OU, and A&M soak up all the T shirt fans and bring their undivided attention over to the SEC, then the remaining Texas demographic starts to look a lot like California in being very transplant heavy.

Losing critical mass of CFB fandom in the demographic heart of the PAC (CA) was baked in. Losing critical mass to support non-SEC football in Texas is not currently baked into the B12 perception.

You've never seen a Texas High School Friday Night. There are too many rabid fans here for just A&M, UT, and OU in the DFW/North Texas area. Texas Tech and Baylor are both important state wide, TCU a bit less so but also up there, then you have schools like UH in Houston and UTSA in San Antonio that do very well in their regional markets. The only reason the SEC added A&M then OUT was that the value for one more just wasn't there relative to those 3, but take any of the #3-7 schools in the state and they still have a very large and enthusiastic following.

The issue is not immigrants refusing the local culture and bringing their own sports passion (like soccer) with them, it's that the natives in California, especially Northern California, just don't have the same enthusiasm for football that you see in much of the rest of the country. People come here and they're watching games within a few weeks, then their kids want to fit in and be accepted, football is a great way to do that. In California, that might be football, it might be soccer, it might be an olympic sport, it might be surfing, or skiing, etc etc etc. It's not bad, it's just different.

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

I just want to say that it's been a while since we only had 92,000, or 92,114, average over a (non-Covid) season.

2022: 97k
2021: 98k
2019: 101k
2018: 99k
2017: 98k
2016: 101k
2015: 103k
2014: 104k

Right at 100k average over the past 8 seasons.

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

Your analysis is not correct. Or that is to say...someone somewhere didn't calculate their numbers consistently because Jeff Fuller's source is this site:

D1Tracker

The number he placed in his spreadsheet is precisely what is on that page. In other words, he didn't just make up a number. Upon examining the site, I see no obvious or inferred bias. In fact, it appears to be a partner or perhaps a subsidiary of Learfield. It's not a random blog.

Now, the numbers on Houston's athletic website are slightly off, but as JR pointed out, by no means a significant difference.

Either Houston didn't count correctly on their website or perhaps someone pulling info from the NCAA didn't count correctly. Either way, this is nothing remotely close to bad cocaine.

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

(07-08-2023 05:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

Your analysis is not correct. Or that is to say...someone somewhere didn't calculate their numbers consistently because Jeff Fuller's source is this site:

D1Tracker

The number he placed in his spreadsheet is precisely what is on that page. In other words, he didn't just make up a number. Upon examining the site, I see no obvious or inferred bias. In fact, it appears to be a partner or perhaps a subsidiary of Learfield. It's not a random blog.

Now, the numbers on Houston's athletic website are slightly off, but as JR pointed out, by no means a significant difference.

Either Houston didn't count correctly on their website or perhaps someone pulling info from the NCAA didn't count correctly. Either way, this is nothing remotely close to bad cocaine.

Not to throw shade at my own school but our website is full of incorrect info. I would almost always defer to 3rd party websites over the university pages.

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

(07-08-2023 12:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 12:15 PM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 12:00 PM)Danger in Carolina Wrote:  The first question that came to mind for me is how did he handle the calculations to consider the COVID pandemic? Each conference handled it differently and had their own timelines. I'd be hesitant to put much stock in this analysis until he explains how that unusual situation was interpreted.

The point is you can toss the COVID data entirely and forget that year even happened and the trends in attendance remain in place. Generational trends are changing, along with technology, along with the impact of less disposable income.

Attendance has been declining incrementally for well over a decade.

I don't disagree. But did he do that? We don't know. And wasn't it longer no arena and modified stadium attendance rules for the B1G and PAC compared to SEC ACC Big12? Like more than a year?

My point is it doesn't matter and isn't worth pursuing, or arguing about. The data overall for the past decade and really before has shown a steady decline for all conferences in attendance. There is a little seesawing from year to year if a large stadium school has a horrid year, but the over all trend has been incremental decline. You'll see a spike up for the SEC when Texas and Oklahoma join as both are above the SEC MEAN in capacity and attendance. You'll see a bigger dip in those of the Big 12 when they leave due to capacity of stadia alone.

COVID and how it was handled may create an anomaly in this report, but the conclusions of this report don't vary much at all from the trends which were there prior to COVID and will continue after it.

You're right. But attendance has even been declining at SEC stadiums as well. I remember seeing an article about decreasing attendance at Alabama games, and I'm sure the same holds true for UGA games as well. And if this trend is in areas where college football is on par with pro-sports, you can imagine what other areas would be like.
The way some universities are trying to combat this is upgrading stadium seating like loge or club seating. Remember FSU reducing the seating capacity of their stadium?? Or USC reducing the seating of the Coliseum from roughly 90,000 down to its current capacity of 77,500??? The reason why is that FSU & USC were upgrading their seating!!

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

(07-08-2023 06:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What a discrepancy of 601 in attendance when you don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance? If that's your argument objection to you sustained. Nothing changes the overall trend, which is incrementally down and has been for well over a decade. There are many factors in it. HD TV, increasing prices, aging fan bases, the taking over of venues by companies like IMG which streamline experiences instead of leaving them unique, and on and on.

It is what it is and dissembling the thread intent to quibble over a miniscule variance in a reported attendance for a low attendance school is a kind of troll. If Texas A&M reported a crowd of 92,114 to the newspaper for home games and the paper rounded the totals down to 92,000 for the sake of writing an article on attendance, and both averaged the totals for the 6 home games, and the paper said A&M averaged 92,000 at all home games, and the Aggies said we averaged 92,114 for all home games, the actual variance in total attendance would be 684 in total attendance, and the round down would cheat A&M out of 114 on average for those six games. So, when a statistical report is issued from the NCAA saying A&M averaged 92,114 and the local paper says they averaged 92,000 are you going to scream bogus numbers, fraud? Please! If they were off 25,000 I'd say you had a point. At 600 you are wasting our time.

It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

I was asked to show that Fuller was working with bad data and I was able to prove it with a specific, well-sourced example within 30 seconds after reviewing his work, based on my unique recollection of the Houston/SMU attendance figures.

I posted a link to all of Houston's official 2022 box scores with attendance figures. I also posted a link to Houston's official 2022 stat sheet showing their average attendance calculation was consistent with my calculation and not whatever Fuller used. If you have an alternative calculation for Houston's 2022 attendance and can substantiate it with individual game-by-game calculations from a more credible source than the University of Houston, then I am more than happy to take a look.

(07-08-2023 05:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:58 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 01:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 09:17 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 08:38 AM)goofus Wrote:  I did not read the entire 7-part series documenting the decline of the PAC, it did seem to do a good job capturing a decrease in interest in college athletics in term of numbers, so I am going to assume its real.

But the more interesting question is why this is happening to the PAC and is this acontagious trend that could spread to the rest of country. Or is it restricted to the west coast which is so different culturally that the rest of country has nothing to worry about.

College football fandom is a multigenerational affair and is inversely related to the proportion of recent migrants in a population. The Midwest and Deep South have the lowest rates of migration into their regions which means less disruption to the social continuity that’s required to support college sports.

There’s a certain critical mass where CFB fandom for a local team is a default part of the culture. Once enough people move into an area with their alternate interests, that critical mass is lost. If a migrant is a sports fan, the sports inclined migrants tend to affiliate with pro-teams because there isn’t the same gatekeeping around pro sports fandom as with college sports (there’s no looking down on profession T-shirt fans).

The larger migrant-rich metropolitan areas in the South are experiencing similar declines (Virginia, GT, Miami) in local interest.

For college football that’s great for the rust belt and Deep South. In a broader sense though, the lack of economic opportunity that drives domestic migration and underlies these trends suggests that intense local college sports fandom isn’t a great economic indicator.

That's a good point. Although I will add that Texas, Georgia and Florida all have huge migrant populations. Your point is reflected with metro schools like Houston, Georgia Tech and Miami, but not so much with Texas, Texas A&M, Georgia, Florida and Florida St.

Those big state schools have to maintain immense followings outside the urban areas with highest transient populations in order to maintain that critical mass.

This is why I am not bullish on the BigXII. If UT, OU, and A&M soak up all the T shirt fans and bring their undivided attention over to the SEC, then the remaining Texas demographic starts to look a lot like California in being very transplant heavy.

Losing critical mass of CFB fandom in the demographic heart of the PAC (CA) was baked in. Losing critical mass to support non-SEC football in Texas is not currently baked into the B12 perception.

You've never seen a Texas High School Friday Night. There are too many rabid fans here for just A&M, UT, and OU in the DFW/North Texas area. Texas Tech and Baylor are both important state wide, TCU a bit less so but also up there, then you have schools like UH in Houston and UTSA in San Antonio that do very well in their regional markets. The only reason the SEC added A&M then OUT was that the value for one more just wasn't there relative to those 3, but take any of the #3-7 schools in the state and they still have a very large and enthusiastic following.

The issue is not immigrants refusing the local culture and bringing their own sports passion (like soccer) with them, it's that the natives in California, especially Northern California, just don't have the same enthusiasm for football that you see in much of the rest of the country. People come here and they're watching games within a few weeks, then their kids want to fit in and be accepted, football is a great way to do that. In California, that might be football, it might be soccer, it might be an olympic sport, it might be surfing, or skiing, etc etc etc. It's not bad, it's just different.

We aren't talking about people moving to Texas from Mexico. We're talking about the damn Yankees migrating down to Texas!

(07-08-2023 11:38 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Let me give y'all a specific example, just because I happen to have this data handy. Let's pick a school in the ACC, so we're not in the Pac-12/Big 12 wang-measuring contest for a second...and the Big Ten.

I happen to have all of the scanned ticket data for Louisville basketball from 2017-18 through 2019-20. I have this data for...about 70 or so schools right now...smaller data set for football. COVID may have shut down the end of the 2019-2020 season, but it didn't really do anything for regular season attendance.

Based on the scanned ticket data I obtained, I found that Louisville overstated in-game attendance anywhere from 10%-35% in the data it submitted to the NCAA. If they reported in-game attendance of say, '19,250', the actual number was generally around 16,000. The arena was close to capacity exactly once during that three year run (a Feb game in 2019 against Duke). Based on data I've obtained from my ol' alma mater, Ohio State...there are similar gaps. Ohio State overstated attendance in every game over that three-season run, usually by around 10%, but sometimes as high as 22%. The gap between real and reported attendance was more than 2,000 in virtually every single game.

So that's a pretty big error bar, especially for one of the largest arenas in the ACC and Big Ten! Even if UNC, UVA, Pitt, etc weren't overstating tickets by quite that much, that's enough of a swing to meaningfully impact the data! And if Louisville and Ohio State, some of the better staffed athletic departments in the country, have an error bar this high, imagine what it might be for a program that isn't so well equipped.

Is the general trend line here accurate, where Pac-12 in-game attendance has cratered way worse than other leagues? It's possible, maybe even probable given what a dumpster fire Cal and Stanford have become, and UCLA's horrible ticket situation for football. But if the variance in actual in-game numbers is more than 15%, well, you'd have to do more homework to be sure if you want to compare across conferences. The reported data just isn't very good.

MattBrownEP, although I'm not a journalist ( and have a strong desire to be one more times than not), if I really wanted people to take interest in my work, and I was extremely desperate, I would have a lot of ambiguity in my work. Then I would say that I am working on getting accurate figures for the future. Now, having said the above Matt Brown, I want you to continue to be you. I know what your style is, and I love it!!!

These are the attendance figures for the Pac, year by year. I skipped 2020. You can see the decline across almost all the schools.
2012 through 2019 are from the NCAA website. 2021 and 2022 I used d1ticker as I haven't been able to find any reporting on the NCAA website.

2022 2021 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012
Southern Cal 64,487 56,215 59,358 55,449 72,683 68,459 75,358 73,272 73,126 87,945
Washington 62,933 62,046 68,238 69,068 68,822 64,589 61,919 64,508 68,769 58,617
UCLA 41,593 45,818 43,849 51,164 56,044 67,459 66,858 76,650 70,285 68,481
Arizona State 43,081 47,248 48,322 48,515 51,380 47,736 52,712 57,179 62,689 56,835
Oregon 54,950 49,468 53,591 53,016 55,483 54,677 57,631 57,422 57,660 57,490
Arizona 44,209 34,900 39,532 45,436 42,632 48,288 51,393 50,710 47,619 47,931
Colorado 42,847 46,484 49,573 45,809 47,056 46,609 39,389 37,778 38,463 47,263
California 38,596 37,383 42,433 42,866 36,548 46,628 48,800 47,675 49,329 55,876
Utah 52,057 51,817 46,462 46,332 45,913 46,506 46,533 46,437 45,194 45,347
Stanford 29,965 35,684 37,018 37,842 47,398 44,142 49,917 47,862 50,726 43,343
Oregon State 31,498 30,524 32,424 35,209 34,754 37,622 36,079 42,176 42,964 43,424
Washington St 26,185 23,217 28,541 30,091 31,982 31,675 29,407 30,794 29,738 35,365

(07-08-2023 05:54 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:02 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 04:48 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Reported attendance is a squishy metric to place a lot of importance on. There has been a decline nationally, and some schools have adapted while others have not. If two schools report 60k in attendance and one has a 75k stadium and the other recently downsized its 65k stadium to 60k with added luxury seats, the scarcity and co fort premium means the school with 60k capacity is making a lot more money from ticket revenue than the school with empty seats.

Everyone, I invite you to critique Fuller's work upwards and downwards. If he's wrong then I want to know it too, but making general remarks and offering speculation is not a critique.

He's wrong; I showed my work above after looking at his "data" for literally 30 seconds.

You ever see those movies about Latin American drug lords where they check a cocaine shipment to see if it's pure by pulling a random sample from the middle of the shipment and snorting it? That's what I did with Fuller's data; I snorted a random sample and his cocaine sucks. Fortunately for him his punishment is just some people laughing at him online...the dealers in Mexico get much worse.

Your analysis is not correct. Or that is to say...someone somewhere didn't calculate their numbers consistently because Jeff Fuller's source is this site:

D1Tracker

The number he placed in his spreadsheet is precisely what is on that page. In other words, he didn't just make up a number. Upon examining the site, I see no obvious or inferred bias. In fact, it appears to be a partner or perhaps a subsidiary of Learfield. It's not a random blog.

Now, the numbers on Houston's athletic website are slightly off, but as JR pointed out, by no means a significant difference.

Either Houston didn't count correctly on their website or perhaps someone pulling info from the NCAA didn't count correctly. Either way, this is nothing remotely close to bad cocaine.

Not to throw shade at my own school but our website is full of incorrect info. I would almost always defer to 3rd party websites over the university pages.

It’s not just you guys, it’s everyone. As Matt Brown mentioned earlier in this thread, even Ohio St is off 10-22% on their data, and Louisville was off by an even greater %. At least, they are when you compare actual butts in seats with tickets sold. And lots of factors can impact differences.

(07-08-2023 07:13 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 06:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

I was asked to show that Fuller was working with bad data and I was able to prove it with a specific, well-sourced example within 30 seconds after reviewing his work, based on my unique recollection of the Houston/SMU attendance figures.

I posted a link to all of Houston's official 2022 box scores with attendance figures. I also posted a link to Houston's official 2022 stat sheet showing their average attendance calculation was consistent with my calculation and not whatever Fuller used. If you have an alternative calculation for Houston's 2022 attendance and can substantiate it with individual game-by-game calculations from a more credible source than the University of Houston, then I am more than happy to take a look.

I’d like to revisit this thread after you find out that SMU isn’t getting a Pac invite. I’m curious how your new perspective will be factored into your data.

(07-08-2023 07:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 07:13 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 06:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

I was asked to show that Fuller was working with bad data and I was able to prove it with a specific, well-sourced example within 30 seconds after reviewing his work, based on my unique recollection of the Houston/SMU attendance figures.

I posted a link to all of Houston's official 2022 box scores with attendance figures. I also posted a link to Houston's official 2022 stat sheet showing their average attendance calculation was consistent with my calculation and not whatever Fuller used. If you have an alternative calculation for Houston's 2022 attendance and can substantiate it with individual game-by-game calculations from a more credible source than the University of Houston, then I am more than happy to take a look.

I’d like to revisit this thread after you find out that SMU isn’t getting a Pac invite. I’m curious how your new perspective will be factored into your data.

If the SMU/Pac invite doesn't happen, you'll never see me again. I'll go become a missionary in Central America or something. Total life change.

(07-08-2023 07:13 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 06:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:46 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:37 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  It's not a troll at all. He is literally using bad data. I am uniquely familiar with the Houston/SMU attendance numbers given that I've cited them on here numerous times in recent months, so when I clicked over to Fuller's data it was one of the first things I checked. And what do you know, he has it wrong, and the inaccuracy benefits his agenda. As Matt stated, the data he is relying on is questionable to begin with in terms of usefulness, and what I'm saying is that his data is not even accurately reflecting what it purports to show.

As to your comments that I "don't know the sources and there are multiple sources reporting attendance," I'll defer to the University of Houston: https://uhcougars.com/documents/2023/1/1...h=football (see page 3)

Research involves willing to get both sides of the story. You are using one data point to arrive at your preferred conclusion.

See my post above.

I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

I was asked to show that Fuller was working with bad data and I was able to prove it with a specific, well-sourced example within 30 seconds after reviewing his work, based on my unique recollection of the Houston/SMU attendance figures.

I posted a link to all of Houston's official 2022 box scores with attendance figures. I also posted a link to Houston's official 2022 stat sheet showing their average attendance calculation was consistent with my calculation and not whatever Fuller used. If you have an alternative calculation for Houston's 2022 attendance and can substantiate it with individual game-by-game calculations from a more credible source than the University of Houston, then I am more than happy to take a look.

You haven't proven anything, good grief.

Did you bother to look at Fuller's cited sources? I'm assuming not, but you didn't have to...I already linked them for you in an earlier post. Just click on it there or all you had to do was read through his report to find them. I mean, did you just assume he made some numbers up in order to undergird his argument? You didn't consider citations at all?

You are the one who questioned his credibility out of the gate...you're also the one who claims to be a lawyer. Which means you should understand there's a certain burden of proof on you to support your accusation, correct? At the risk of being quite rude, your method of argumentation sucks.

You're not even supporting your assertion about the UH website...how do you know those numbers are 100% accurate? Especially considering you are taking them to be ironclad fact without examining competing reports from 3rd party sources...

And once again, even if the UH website is 100% accurate, how is that relevant to the discrepancy found in the 3rd party aggregator? What metric is UH using that D1Tracker didn't? If you're not going to evaluate the difference then how do you know what the basis of the distinction is?

And how does any of this make Fuller non-credible when he's using 3rd party sources to collect data? A person who isn't credible is one who makes things up. Now, please prove that Fuller made crap up...

(07-08-2023 07:58 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 07:52 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 07:13 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 06:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-08-2023 05:55 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  I am literally using the University of Houston's calculation of how many people attended football games at their on-campus stadium in 2022. That calculation is substantiated by the attendance numbers reported in the box score for each individual home game played at UH in 2022. I like my position here.

You are literally ignoring that Fuller's data comes from an independent 3rd party source. You stated he was wrong...are you sure? Can you explain the discrepancy between UH's website and a 3rd party aggregator? I'm assuming not since you haven't bothered to try.

Can you explain why that discrepancy would alter the overall conclusion? I assume not since you haven't tried that either.

Your only other claim to inaccuracy comes from hearsay about Fuller that you think you might have observed on some random Utah fan site that you haven't bothered to link.

Sounds like you are the one who isn't credible.

I was asked to show that Fuller was working with bad data and I was able to prove it with a specific, well-sourced example within 30 seconds after reviewing his work, based on my unique recollection of the Houston/SMU attendance figures.

I posted a link to all of Houston's official 2022 box scores with attendance figures. I also posted a link to Houston's official 2022 stat sheet showing their average attendance calculation was consistent with my calculation and not whatever Fuller used. If you have an alternative calculation for Houston's 2022 attendance and can substantiate it with individual game-by-game calculations from a more credible source than the University of Houston, then I am more than happy to take a look.

I’d like to revisit this thread after you find out that SMU isn’t getting a Pac invite. I’m curious how your new perspective will be factored into your data.

If the SMU/Pac invite doesn't happen, you'll never see me again. I'll go become a missionary in Central America or something. Total life change.

So you are risking a nice hobby on something completely out of your control?? I managed to stay away from this site in recent history for one day, and it was hard, World Wide Swag!!

Maybe the continued drop in attendance for the PAC parallels TV's drop in their interest to pay.