College Football Has Its Largest Attendance Drop in 34 Years

[Mean Green 93-98]

Quote

Attendance among the 129 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) teams in 2017 was down an average of 1,409 fans per game from 2016. That marked the largest drop since 1983...

The 2017 FBS average of 42,203 fans per game is the lowest since 1997.  

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-heads-in-wrong-direction-with-largest-attendance-drop-in-34-years/

[wardly]

NFL had drop in television, but I don't know about at the gate.

[jdennis82]

ADs and Conference Commissioners have been arrogant in assuming attendance numbers were guaranteed as they announced to all that their chief concern was TV dollars.  Realignment motivated by media markets leads to lower visiting guest attendance and the ease of access to CFB on television makes attending a game less "necessary."

In the end, though, the real problem is the length of games.  Making a four hour (or more) commitment is a huge hurdle to many as they decide whether to head to the game or spend their time elsewhere.

[THOR]

good news, is that our school is increasing!!!  that's what we need to keep doing year after year

[Matt from A700]

1 hour ago, wardly said:

NFL had drop in television, but I don't know about at the gate.

Not much difference at the gate. However, the numbers overall will be down because the Chargers were playing in a stadium smaller than Apogee.

[UNTexas]

33 minutes ago, THOR said:

good news, is that our school is increasing!!!  that's what we need to keep doing year after year

That's exactly my thought.

[southsideguy]

10 minutes ago, Matt from A700 said:

Not much difference at the gate. However, the numbers overall will be down because the Chargers were playing in a stadium smaller than Apogee.

did they ever sell out this year?

 

[Matt from A700]

5 minutes ago, southsideguy said:

did they ever sell out this year?

 

That I'm not sure of but according to ESPN they only averaged 25,335 in a stadium they had increased the capacity to 30,000. A lot of those were typically opposing fans. Really sucky situation for the Chargers.

[Mean Green 93-98]

3 hours ago, jdennis82 said:

In the end, though, the real problem is the length of games.  Making a four hour (or more) commitment is a huge hurdle to many as they decide whether to head to the game or spend their time elsewhere.

I don't think so.  Considering that most people are committing at least a couple additional hours for travel, tailgating, etc., I'd say an extra 15-30 minutes of football won't stop too many from attending.  If anything, it makes the time investment in their travel more worthwhile.  And the kind of pass-heavy offenses that lead to longer games tends to more entertaining for most spectators.

That said, the slow death of television timeouts is an absolute momentum killer and makes attending college football games noticeably less entertaining than they otherwise would be.

Your comments about media markets and TV dollars are right on the money.

[NM Green]

I’ve never been a time watcher at athletic events.  However, since I started following FC Dallas and the premier league, the fact that I can squeeze a 1:50 minute drop by the pub to watch a game midweek is sweet. The intensity of a game in a 2 hour block start to finish works. 4 hour college football games don’t bother me.  4 hour any other sport games wear me down.  Insert baseball, hockey and especially the nfl. So over that league.

GMG

[breaker110]

13 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

 

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-heads-in-wrong-direction-with-largest-attendance-drop-in-34-years/

Don't forget to blame a part of it on the personal vehicle traffic. Just so many cars on the roads these days makes it hard to justify the suffering vs. watching on TV. Plus beers are cheaper at bars.

[Ben Gooding]

It's 100% TV being issue number 1. Schools have fallen to their knees to the mercy of the almighty TV dollar. Therefore, TV dictates horrible start times such as noon September kickoffs and awkward TV timeouts. Schools have lost their say and the fans are kind of fed up with it. 

A close 2nd is price. Not just gate price, but parking, tailgating, gas, hotel stay, etc. Then of course the terribly inflated prices of anything and everything inside stadiums. This doesn't quite apply to us here at UNT as far as parking and gate prices. 

Fix those, like really fix those, and attendance will spike. But administrations keep going to the excuse of "fan experience." That is not the problem, but fixing the real problems puts hands in their cookie jar and that exact greed is kind of why they're bleeding fans. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Ben Gooding

[Wag Tag]

You need to offer more than just a game! Need to cut time on official reviews! 

[wardly]

1 hour ago, Wag Tag said:

You need to offer more than just a game! Need to cut time on official reviews! 

You got that right. Reviews have been both a blessing and a curse.

[kj86]

1 hour ago, Wag Tag said:

You need to offer more than just a game! Need to cut time on official reviews! 

Bingo!  Replay is a bigger fun killer than TV timeouts.  It has diminished the experience for all sports that use it.

[untjim1995]

2 hours ago, Ben Gooding said:

It's 100% TV being issue number 1. Schools have fallen to their knees to the mercy of the almighty TV dollar. Therefore, TV dictates horrible start times such as noon September kickoffs and awkward TV timeouts. Schools have lost their say and the fans are kind of fed up with it. 

A close 2nd is price. Not just gate price, but parking, tailgating, gas, hotel stay, etc. Then of course the terribly inflated prices of anything and everything inside stadiums. This doesn't quite apply to us here at UNT as far as parking and gate prices. 

Fix those, like really fix those, and attendance will spike. But administrations keep going to the excuse of "fan experience." That is not the problem, but fixing the real problems puts hands in their cookie jar and that exact greed is kind of why they're bleeding fans. 

As far as price, at the P5s, people complain and give away their tickets for non-conference matchups with FCS spares or bodybag games.

The other variable that needs to be factored in is that millennials just don’t like sports the way previous generations do. That will have an affect on everything. Football is the sport that is most susceptible to this change in interest.

[forevereagle]

2 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

The other variable that needs to be factored in is that millennials just don’t like sports the way previous generations do.

Really? Do you have any evidence of this? 

[Aldo]

4 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Really? Do you have any evidence of this? 

Only a millenial would want facts. Typical.

[Ben Gooding]

5 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Really? Do you have any evidence of this? 

Not substantial, but at least circumstantial. At most, demonstrative, as the student sections look emptier and emptier across the country as the years go by.  

[forevereagle]

2 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Not substantial, but at least circumstantial. At most, demonstrative, as the student sections look emptier and emptier across the country as the years go by.  

So...no.

[Ben Gooding]

Just now, forevereagle said:

So...no.

pretty much

[oldguystudent]

I have zero knowledge of what the zeitgeist is among present day students, but I can definitely compare today's environment to that when I was a college age student in the early nineties.  

The entire purpose that we went to games when we were in college was that going to games was one of a menu of excuses to drink a shitload of beer -- most of us doing so underage. 

Today, I see the police escorting out students, sometimes en masse, for underage consumption.  

I can't argue with the police; it's a different era with greater liabilities in an ever increasing litigious world.

But I can't argue with the students either.  Just as we avoided bars where we knew the bouncers were incredibly strict, so would we have avoided football games where we'd seen cops carting students off. 

But maybe the whole excuse to drink beer thing isn't important to current students either.  Maybe it really is that the couch and television is easier and more comfortable. I truly don't know. 

[southsideguy]

13 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I don't think so.  Considering that most people are committing at least a couple additional hours for travel, tailgating, etc., I'd say an extra 15-30 minutes of football won't stop too many from attending.  If anything, it makes the time investment in their travel more worthwhile.  And the kind of pass-heavy offenses that lead to longer games tends to more entertaining for most spectators.

That said, the slow death of television timeouts is an absolute momentum killer and makes attending college football games noticeably less entertaining than they otherwise would be.

Your comments about media markets and TV dollars are right on the money.

Yeah I hate the (Redman (do not think Indian, think TV, RADIO time out guy) seems like he is always on the field stopping the game.

Edited February 14, 2018 by southsideguy

[untjim1995]

59 minutes ago, forevereagle said:

Really? Do you have any evidence of this? 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/25/illegal-streams-live-sports-sports-industry-group

This isn't the only article I can find, but it pretty much represents the reality that millennials don't like the traditional sports the way previous generations did. Injuries, time, attention, cost, etc...they all factor in as reasons that football doesn't appeal to this generation.

Edited February 14, 2018 by untjim1995

[forevereagle]

1 hour ago, untjim1995 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/25/illegal-streams-live-sports-sports-industry-group

This isn't the only article I can find, but it pretty much represents the reality that millennials don't like the traditional sports the way previous generations did. Injuries, time, attention, cost, etc...they all factor in as reasons that football doesn't appeal to this generation.

Mostly it says that they stream sports online and more frequently illegally with more of that attributed to 18-24 year olds. Oddly, the younger people with less money don't have subscription TV services. 

It is a footnote at the bottom that fewer say they follow sports or follow sports that are not the same sports that you do. It says nothing about injuries or time or any reasoning about why that may be. 

Given how little is said about survey methodology, where the 1,500 people surveyed were from, and some of the exact questions from the survey, I have doubts about the validity of the data. If this is a global study, the higher percent that don't follow sports could be cultural for the part of the world they are from. The other issue here is that it is obviously not a representative sample given that ~1,000 of the 1,500 were "millennials" (that the article does a poor job of defining and using consistently). There are some serious issues with the data presented and how the article treats it.

I would call it an interesting directional article, but nothing conclusive was discovered as part of the study and the article doesn't call any of that into question or seek to look critically at the findings.

Edited February 14, 2018 by forevereagle