(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It seems to me that the NCAA needs to mandate a standard set of criteria for attendance reporting.

Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

(08-30-2018 03:08 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 03:02 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 02:54 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 02:49 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 02:40 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Memphis sold over 22k season tickets last year. Does it make any sense that their actual attendance would be lower than their season ticket sales for a team that went undefeated at home and 10-3 on the year and beat ranked UCLA and Navy at home? Not to mention a plethora of recorded youtube games from last year tell me how ridiculous 21k is. Trust me, they are not accurate.

Just because someone bought a ticket, doesn't mean they showed up and scanned them at the gates.

Yea assuming there is no walkup crowd for any game all year. Not to rag on USF, but having seen quite a few of their games there is a stark difference in attendance between the two schools.

Dude, pull your panties out of your backside. I merely stated that just because a ticket is sold doesn't mean it is used. There are many reasons for a dip in attendance. There could have been storms, major accidents blocking transportation routs. Who knows, anything can happen. Just because the numbers aren't what you believe they should be doesn't make them wrong. By the same token, just because they're reported doesn't make them right. The numbers were provided (Purportedly) by your school, so they should be accurate.

Now go whine to someone else.

The issue is the difference between actual and announced. Memphis announces extremely close to actual (if not actual). Storms have no affect on that because it isn't a measure of the average. Memphis reported 10k and 17k for our two storm games last year and both looked very accurate based on the stadium shots.

Storm games eh?

I mean, I'm with you. Last year, UC played one of those against UCF. This hanky panky journal thing doesn't understand. I was there and I have eyes, there were at least 70k people there. Check the YouTube. Takes 10 seconds. Doesn't seem like that was factored in our total.

Trust me, I have eyes. If you doubt this, then you just don't understand. I go to a lot of games guys.

(08-30-2018 01:56 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 11:06 AM)goofus Wrote:  SCHOOLs with most no shows

ANNOUNCED ATTENDANCE.......SCANNED TICKETS

Coastal Carolina* .......89,754..........15,248
Louisiana Monroe........49,640...........13,302
Buffalo................... ......80,102............22,233
Eastern Michigan ........73,649............23,282
Miami (Ohio) ................. 98,666..........35,582
Akron. ............ ............ 117,414.........43,675
Arkansas State............. 119,538.........45,631
San Jose State............. 85,235..........33,892
Ohio U. ........... ..............116,324..........47,579
UTEP............................... 97,740...........45,444

I attended at least 20 Ohio University home games when I went to college (2009-2015).

Students never had actual tickets to get into the games. All we had to do was show our Student IDs and walk in.

I wonder if might account for the huge disparity between scanned tickets and announced attendance.

As I recall at Kent State you would show your ID and get in when I first went but later on they had people scan the IDs as they went in. Perhaps this was their way of getting more accurate counts?

(08-30-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It seems to me that the NCAA needs to mandate a standard set of criteria for attendance reporting.

Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

Even if the rule is supposedly being enforced, you don't need to have 15,000 fans in the stands to report an average of more than 15,000. The requirements for the attendance figures reported to the NCAA are loose. IIRC reported attendance can include every ticket sold, for any price, whether or not the tickets are used at the game. The home team can add to that number pretty much any non-ticket-user who is at the game other than players, coaches, and football staffers - as mentioned in the WSJ article, even Michigan includes those people in its reported attendance figures.

Attendance is not a good dividing line, anyway. Does there need to be any mandatory dividing line? Does there even need to be two subdivisions in D-I football? D-I basketball includes some teams that pay their head coaches several million a year and require five-figure donations to get the best seats, while some other teams average fewer than 500 fans per game and spend less money on their whole program in 10 years than Coach K makes in one year. Most fans wouldn't notice any difference in the game if all of FBS and FCS was just one division.

(08-30-2018 11:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It seems to me that the NCAA needs to mandate a standard set of criteria for attendance reporting.

Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

Even if the rule is supposedly being enforced, you don't need to have 15,000 fans in the stands to report an average of more than 15,000. The requirements for the attendance figures reported to the NCAA are loose. IIRC reported attendance can include every ticket sold, for any price, whether or not the tickets are used at the game. The home team can add to that number pretty much any non-ticket-user who is at the game other than players, coaches, and football staffers - as mentioned in the WSJ article, even Michigan includes those people in its reported attendance figures.

Attendance is not a good dividing line, anyway. Does there need to be any mandatory dividing line? Does there even need to be two subdivisions in D-I football? D-I basketball includes some teams that pay their head coaches several million a year and require five-figure donations to get the best seats, while some other teams average fewer than 500 fans per game and spend less money on their whole program in 10 years than Coach K makes in one year. Most fans wouldn't notice any difference in the game if all of FBS and FCS was just one division.

Do we need split divisions? Structurally maybe not. But the split is going to be there and it is only going to have a wider divide and television is behind it.

(08-31-2018 12:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 11:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

Even if the rule is supposedly being enforced, you don't need to have 15,000 fans in the stands to report an average of more than 15,000. The requirements for the attendance figures reported to the NCAA are loose. IIRC reported attendance can include every ticket sold, for any price, whether or not the tickets are used at the game. The home team can add to that number pretty much any non-ticket-user who is at the game other than players, coaches, and football staffers - as mentioned in the WSJ article, even Michigan includes those people in its reported attendance figures.

Attendance is not a good dividing line, anyway. Does there need to be any mandatory dividing line? Does there even need to be two subdivisions in D-I football? D-I basketball includes some teams that pay their head coaches several million a year and require five-figure donations to get the best seats, while some other teams average fewer than 500 fans per game and spend less money on their whole program in 10 years than Coach K makes in one year. Most fans wouldn't notice any difference in the game if all of FBS and FCS was just one division.

Do we need split divisions? Structurally maybe not. But the split is going to be there and it is only going to have a wider divide and television is behind it.

Maybe. TV money would have to be a massive driving force behind it, and that would require the TV guys to care enough about a smaller "top division" to throw a ton of money around to make it happen.

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 11:59 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  Memphis announces actual attendance not tickets sold despite what the article says. There were two games last year where announced attendance was below season ticket sales. Memphis likely leads to conference in actual attendance in football most years and will easily lead it again in basketball this year.

If Memphis announces actual how is it possible that actual and announced don't match up?

They do match up. That is what I am saying. Not sure where the article gets its numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a game attendance where announced and actual didn't match in recent years. I don't know why we don't do announced in football because basketball does do it. If anything I would think you would want it to be inflated by using announced because it looks better. Memphis fans were pissed last year because using actual tanked our average attendance due to the hurricane game and 2 other rain games.

Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either. If Memphis only really had 21k then they were making people move to camera side in the couple games I saw on TV and they didn't draw flies in the games I didn't see on TV.

AState, I was at every game. Even the worst attended game hit more than 1/3rd full so either count is wrong or the stadium capacity is over-stated by about 10,000 or more seats.

Asked AState's AD. He said scanners are accurate when they work.

(08-31-2018 09:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If Memphis announces actual how is it possible that actual and announced don't match up?

They do match up. That is what I am saying. Not sure where the article gets its numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a game attendance where announced and actual didn't match in recent years. I don't know why we don't do announced in football because basketball does do it. If anything I would think you would want it to be inflated by using announced because it looks better. Memphis fans were pissed last year because using actual tanked our average attendance due to the hurricane game and 2 other rain games.

Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either.

Funny how it's fans of schools that have the lousiest numbers that don't buy the numbers. Go figure.

(08-31-2018 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  They do match up. That is what I am saying. Not sure where the article gets its numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a game attendance where announced and actual didn't match in recent years. I don't know why we don't do announced in football because basketball does do it. If anything I would think you would want it to be inflated by using announced because it looks better. Memphis fans were pissed last year because using actual tanked our average attendance due to the hurricane game and 2 other rain games.

Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either.

Funny how it's fans of schools that have the lousiest numbers that don't buy the numbers. Go figure.

Funny how people who have never seen the games in question are ******* experts about them.

(08-31-2018 09:16 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either.

Funny how it's fans of schools that have the lousiest numbers that don't buy the numbers. Go figure.

Funny how people who have never seen the games in question are ******* experts about them.

Yeah, I know ODU's isn't right. I looked at a couple of others that it would be pretty much impossible for it to be right. WSJ got the numbers from the schools. If schools know they are reporting distributed/paid numbers then they might not be worried about the accuracy of the turnstile numbers.

ODU has reported nothing but sellouts since the beginning and nobody is saying that we've had butts in every seat in every game but a 57% average last year just isn't right.

Here's a tweet from CCU last year from their home game against Ga State. Their stadium capacity is roughly 15K. It looks pretty close to full probably not completely full. According to the article there was only a little over 15K for the entire season. So the other 5 games nobody but the band showed up?


https://twitter.com/ccuchanticleers/stat...6974885889

(08-31-2018 09:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:11 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If Memphis announces actual how is it possible that actual and announced don't match up?

They do match up. That is what I am saying. Not sure where the article gets its numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a game attendance where announced and actual didn't match in recent years. I don't know why we don't do announced in football because basketball does do it. If anything I would think you would want it to be inflated by using announced because it looks better. Memphis fans were pissed last year because using actual tanked our average attendance due to the hurricane game and 2 other rain games.

Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either. If Memphis only really had 21k then they were making people move to camera side in the couple games I saw on TV and they didn't draw flies in the games I didn't see on TV.

AState, I was at every game. Even the worst attended game hit more than 1/3rd full so either count is wrong or the stadium capacity is over-stated by about 10,000 or more seats.

Asked AState's AD. He said scanners are accurate when they work.

Im curious about the numbers as well. For instance, the table in the article shows the MW ahead of the AAC in total attendance---but the NCAA stats page says the AAC higher total attendance than the MW.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2017.pdf

(08-31-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-31-2018 09:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:39 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 12:15 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  They do match up. That is what I am saying. Not sure where the article gets its numbers. You would be hard pressed to find a game attendance where announced and actual didn't match in recent years. I don't know why we don't do announced in football because basketball does do it. If anything I would think you would want it to be inflated by using announced because it looks better. Memphis fans were pissed last year because using actual tanked our average attendance due to the hurricane game and 2 other rain games.

Well WSJ says Memphis announced 38k but scanned 21k admissions. Presumably they obtained that via freedom of information from the university.

Yea and that is totally bogus. Our attendance is actually really good. We haven't been at the 21k actual attendance figure in nearly 8 years (dark times). I think they probably applied a blind formula across most Non-P5 teams rather than pulling real data. I mean ECU's number is totally believable due to performance, but UConn being that high percentage-wise? Most of these numbers don't make a ton of sense.

I don't buy the numbers either. If Memphis only really had 21k then they were making people move to camera side in the couple games I saw on TV and they didn't draw flies in the games I didn't see on TV.

AState, I was at every game. Even the worst attended game hit more than 1/3rd full so either count is wrong or the stadium capacity is over-stated by about 10,000 or more seats.

Asked AState's AD. He said scanners are accurate when they work.

Im curious about the numbers as well. For instance, the table in the article shows the MW ahead of the AAC in total attendance---but the NCAA stats page says the AAC higher total attendance than the MW.

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2017.pdf

Just playing with the numbers. Assuming AState averaged 1000 students per game (probably pretty close, visibly above that first half of the season and below that late) and say an average of 500 walk-up tickets, that means 20% of season tickets don't get used or more accurately early season probably close to 100% were used and late maybe 60%.

I had excess season tickets and never had any problem finding someone to take the extras and a couple games I used a friend's loge box and still had no trouble finding takers for 8 seats and I know virtually all were used.

Maybe others never made an effort to get rid of their tickets but the math doesn't seem to fit.

(08-30-2018 11:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It seems to me that the NCAA needs to mandate a standard set of criteria for attendance reporting.

Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

Even if the rule is supposedly being enforced, you don't need to have 15,000 fans in the stands to report an average of more than 15,000. The requirements for the attendance figures reported to the NCAA are loose. IIRC reported attendance can include every ticket sold, for any price, whether or not the tickets are used at the game. The home team can add to that number pretty much any non-ticket-user who is at the game other than players, coaches, and football staffers - as mentioned in the WSJ article, even Michigan includes those people in its reported attendance figures.

Attendance is not a good dividing line, anyway. Does there need to be any mandatory dividing line? Does there even need to be two subdivisions in D-I football? D-I basketball includes some teams that pay their head coaches several million a year and require five-figure donations to get the best seats, while some other teams average fewer than 500 fans per game and spend less money on their whole program in 10 years than Coach K makes in one year. Most fans wouldn't notice any difference in the game if all of FBS and FCS was just one division.

In Basketball, all teams give the same amount of scholarships. Football, with the huge number of scholarships, is ripe for subdivisions.

(08-31-2018 12:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 11:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 09:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:35 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-30-2018 07:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't hold your breath. There are minimum standards for attendance if you are going to be FBS. The NCAA will be the last entity to demote.

Didn’t they try that earlier this century? Schools had to average at least 15k three out of four years to stay in Div I-A as it was called back then. I remember seeing the likes of Idaho and EMU on that list but as expcted, it was never enforced.

I think the rule is still on the books. It was supposed to be a safeguard against everyone trying to get into the upper division. The lack of enforcement and the dividing line on schools subsidized above 10% and those subsidized 10% or less will one day probably be the demarcation of yet another upper tier split.

Even if the rule is supposedly being enforced, you don't need to have 15,000 fans in the stands to report an average of more than 15,000. The requirements for the attendance figures reported to the NCAA are loose. IIRC reported attendance can include every ticket sold, for any price, whether or not the tickets are used at the game. The home team can add to that number pretty much any non-ticket-user who is at the game other than players, coaches, and football staffers - as mentioned in the WSJ article, even Michigan includes those people in its reported attendance figures.

Attendance is not a good dividing line, anyway. Does there need to be any mandatory dividing line? Does there even need to be two subdivisions in D-I football? D-I basketball includes some teams that pay their head coaches several million a year and require five-figure donations to get the best seats, while some other teams average fewer than 500 fans per game and spend less money on their whole program in 10 years than Coach K makes in one year. Most fans wouldn't notice any difference in the game if all of FBS and FCS was just one division.

In Basketball, all teams give the same amount of scholarships. Football, with the huge number of scholarships, is ripe for subdivisions.

Only because "traditional powers" in college football, with money to burn, used to have 120 or more football players on scholarship and still think 85 is "not enough". If there was one division, a single scholarship limit could be worked out.

In basketball, all D-I teams are *permitted* to give the same number of scholarships. But there are many schools that give out less than the maximum (in many sports, not just in basketball), presumably for budgetary reasons.