College football attendance declines for seventh straight season to lowest average since 1981
Even the best teams and conferences across college football saw attendance drops this season
www.cbssports.com
College football attendance declines for seventh straight season to lowest average since 1981
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
www.cbssports.com
Except for the usual offenders where there is nothing else to do and they have sheep for fans, it looks like people are getting smart about what college sports has turned into. They won't get the casual fan attending games much any longer. At least not until they clean it up.
Or we were still in the midst of a pandemic and people were risk aversive. Let's see what this year looks like.
They need games to start approaching three hours long as opposed to four hours.
That doesn’t explain a slide going back 7 years though. I think it’s just as simple as people dont have the same desire they once did to make the drive to the stadium, long walk to seat, heavy traffic, drunken behavior, high costs, and other factors. Much easier to maintain your fandom in the comforts of home with your big screen TV.
It seems somewhat like a generational thing to me, when I go to UNLV games I see the same old season ticket holders that have been there forever, but not a lot of younger people.
That's one of the reasons I hate going to football games....they're wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too long. 3 hours should be about right, maybe even a little less. Limit the "official reviews" to 1 a quarter and limit the time a play is in review to 30 seconds. If it goes over that, the original call prevails.
No I agree. I think it is a combination of things including how much time is devoted to going to games. I spend about 13 hours for pitt games when you factor drive time for me. I enjoy it but I know that is not the norm. I would just pause when 2 of those 7 years have been in a pandemic. Lets see what trends look like in the next few years.
Also the fact that so few teams clearly can compete for the national title also plays a role here.
It seems odd to argue that attendance is down seven straight years when you leave out one of the years in the middle of that seven year stretch.
Time and cost (mainly concession costs) are the main factors for me. In my head, 2.5 hours is a good time for a sporting event. Game play is an hour, then you have 1.5 hour of breaks (which is still excessive, but it still feels like it moves at a good pace). Between the unnecessary replay reviews and officials trying to take over games with penalties, these games are closer to 4 hours now. I love football, but I'm itching to get out of there by the time the fourth quarter starts knowing they're going to drag the game out for another hour.
Can't argue with any of that. When a football game lasts more than 3 hours, I check out. The incessant reviews and replays have to stop. Limit the number of them and the time they take. Just that alone could take off a half of an hour off the length of a game.
I'll be honest, I have a hard time watching a full game nowadays even for Pitt, given how long the games take. If they were 30-45 minutes less, I would have a much better chance watching the full thing. It was not that uncommon for me to deal with some housework or yardwork for a little bit and put the game on the radio, and miss a few series, then go back to the TV and watch the end of the game. Then during the week I'll catch what I missed when the ACC network has a replay.
Also, I love the replays that the networks do after where they cut out all of the breaks between plays and you can watch the full game within like an hour.
Exactly. They can handle all replay reviews in the booth in about 15-20 seconds and if it can't be decided by then, the play stands. Buzz down to the refs if something needs to be overturned. Shorten halftime. The bands will still have plenty of time to perform. Most importantly and the least likely is to reduce commercial time.
You could get rid of replay entirely and it wouldn't save anywhere close to a half hour a game.
These refs take sometimes 3 - 5 minutes per review, and there are sometimes 5 or 6 reviews in a half. That's already potentially a half an hour IN ONE HALF saved.
Limit reviews to 2 per half and each review must be concluded in 30 seconds, 1 minute tops.
They just use that for commercial time. The ones where they stay on the broadcasts when they have all the commercials in would save some time.
I'd like for you to find one game, just one, where they took over a half an hour in one half for replay reviews.
And the fact of the matter is that in the average game there is no where near 5 or 6 reviews in a half, and the fact of the matter is that most reviews do not last 3-5 minutes each.
In fact, I can't find anything on the last couple of seasons, but in 2019 there were an average of 2.1 replay reviews per game. So no where close to 5 or 6 per half.
The XFL that played in 2020 before the pandemic had it down, their timing rules and replay process where all fast and great, and they seemed to go out of their way to avoid flags, which is how it should be, their games where like 2.5 hours if I remember correctly.
I also think only a booth ref should initiate reviews, not the coaches, and they should get 60 seconds with no slow motion to decide, IMO if it's not that obvious, that you need 3-4 minutes, slow motion, different angles, it's not clear and obvious enough to bother with.
Gosh I cant stand this. People been saying this about every sport as long as I have been alive. Unless you are saying we NEED LESS COMMERCIALS I agree with that. They 'speed up' the game all the time and just add more commercial breaks.
I do think the pandemic had a lot to do with this. I also think paying players has a bunch to do with it, it is no longer an amateur sport really. It will just get worse from that stand point. Yeah, when schools churn out 25,000 diplomas a year, you will have plenty of options to attend games, but a school like Pitt that may graduate 6k a year it is different.
I attended a lot more games personally this year. I plan on doing the same this coming year. I know all of my kids dont really care about football or going to a game. And most of their friends like them only go when their dads like me drag them along to them. Sports arent the only entertainment option anymore
you think this is because fans are upset at NIL deals or transfers? college football has been about paying players and recruiting scandals dating back to the days when Tony Dorsett was driving a corvette in oakland.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
TV revenue is going up and attendance is going down. Almost like there's a correlation there because it's just easier to flick on the TV set than it is to spend all day at a game.
we've discussed this many times before but it's truly amazing how much more you get/see when watching it on tv vs being at the game. when i go to a game, i dvr it and re-watch just cause i know there are a thousand things i missed being at it live..
and that doesnt even involve the money spent
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I love going to games. Way more fun than watching on TV. Especially with the terrible announcers that the ACCN has. I just think it's a lot easier for someone that has a lot on their plate or doesn't have disposable income.
If they ever mess with tailgating, there won't be a reason to ever go again, if all you do is file into the stadium and go to your seat sober, what's the use? Watching on TV is better, the only reason to go through the hassle of attending in person is because it's a party a social event.
Partially. To me, it's more about the game becoming a waste of time. A 3.5 to 4 hour game could be cut back to a 3 hour or less game easily, and it wouldn't affect the outcome. I used to love going to games and being there for maybe 3 hours to the end. Now I find myself either checking out by the 4th quarter and/or leaving in the middle of the 4th quarter because I've had enough.
I think someone once noted that in a 60 minute game, there are actually 11 minutes of action, on average. That's just boring. There has got to be a way to shorten the game and make it more interesting for this day and age.
Besides, I hate wasting a major part of my day or evening sitting and watching 11 minutes of actual action interspersed with nothing or people walking around.
well every other play goes to instant replay in college and the nfl. unfortunately once that cat was out of the bag, they arent getting it back in.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Not so much the replay as the all of the subjective rules. More penalties and more reasons to stop the game and figure out what the heck happened.
yep, good point. i've watched probably 5,000 football games in my life and still cant tell you what constitutes an actual catch and what doesnt.
I used to live in an apartment on Centre Avenue in Shadyside, Pitt basketball player Gilbert Johnson lived on the floor above me, every morning Demetrious Gore would pick him up in his brand new Dodge Daytona with the vanity plates "GORE 33", yes, he was just a regular college student, his mom bought him that car
I guess part of it has to do with what you are watching, but I find that you can see way more when actually at the game than when watching on television. At the game you can see what the defense is doing, are they playing zone or man. You can see if guys are getting open and the quarterback is just missing them or if the dbs are completely blanketing the receivers. And so on.
When you watch on tv you get to see one and only one thing, and that's what the director decides that you should see. And when you are at the game you don't even really miss out on replays anymore, because they replay almost every play on the big screen anyway.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Article OL Week: Five big questions facing the offensive line
- Latest: the_insider_
-
