Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since: 07/27/11

Maverick

Lead

Oct 9 13 1:09 PM

Tags : :

This is obviously a hypothetical question, but if we brought in football today, what do you guys guess would be the attendance and the pricing structure?
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

hooch

Posts: 131 Member Since:11/15/11 Senior

#1 [url]

Nov 18 13 3:56 PM

Re: Football hypothetical

I would guess the attendance would be pretty decent at first, 7-9k for the first few games, then probably drop off to around 2-3k. It depends on the opponents that come into Arlington.

As we saw in basketball terms, the first game at the CPC and Homecoming 2012 were packed because of the circumstance and then playing Oklahoma. But this year, almost the entire lower bowl was filled and just a couple hundred in the upper decks for the Cleveland State game.

Pricing, I would imagine non-students would be about $25-30 and then $10-15 for students/faculty.

I'm assuming they'd try to price it to get as many butts in seats as possible.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#2 [url]

Nov 18 13 10:26 PM

Re: Football hypothetical

Good hypothetical questions. I think Hooch is about right on the pricing for the non-students, and his assessment that butts in seats will be a high priority. Our attendance should be somewhere around 10 to 12 thousand per game during the transitional years, and will vary depending on the teams we play and the quality of our own team. After that, we should do no worse than Lamar, Texas State, Rice, SMU or UNT, and when we begin winning we should draw very well.

Remember when club football started out in 2007, we had a fairly large crowd the first game, probably more than showed up last Friday at CPC for Cleveland State. Had the club team been more successful on the field, their crowds would've continued to be good.

For FB to be a success at Arlington, we would need the students to be excited about it, and turn out in decent numbers. I think that is do-able, and that it would be smart to ratchet up the student athletics fee $5 per semester hour, then give them "free" tickets. The best way to do that would be to have another student-led referendum, but this time, for it to be binding upon the administration.

From a marketing standpoint, there is a good potential niche for us as an initially low-priced non-bcs program. Even without football, our athletics budget already exceeds that of LaMo. We could very easily afford to add FB while still maintaining excellence in the other sports.

I would even be willing to wear orange once a year to see that happen!

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#4 [url]

Nov 27 13 7:05 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

I would say that number is probably too low. We used to draw between 8-10,000 for 1-AA SLC games on a commuter campus with a shoestring marketing department that wasn't able to reach out to the students or community. It is consistently said that in 1985 we averaged 5,600, but that year was an anomaly. Several times we averaged in the 7,000's for a year.

Now that we have so many more students on-campus, a better athletic department and a burgeoning downtown area, I think we'd consistently hit 16,000. We won't be world beaters, but I am certain we'd draw better than Georgia State and maybe Monroe. If we could get some kind of deal with the other local schools or some other lower level P5, then all the better.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

runamuck

Posts: 72 Member Since:01/04/12 Junior

#5 [url]

Nov 28 13 8:14 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

we would probably have good crowds for games we could schedule against "name" schools but it has been proven in years past that metroplex fans will not show much interest in games against most of the teams in the sun belt. since there are more students living on campus now, that would be the unknown variable. how many would show up because it is close by and they have some desire to support school stuff is hard to say. you use basketball attendance as some sort of indicator but geez..we only have 1 win against a d-1 team on the men's side and the girls cant even beat such powerhouse schools as incarnate word or houston baptist..they are 0-7..and destined to lose quite a few more at this pace. putting forth winning teams and playing name opponents should attract decent crowds. I am a '72 graduate and in all the years since then sports at uta have typically been pretty much an afterthought never all that much of a focus. while other schools have been working to improve and upgrade we have been barely treading water and have in fact lost ground because we have actually dropped sports. only in the last few years have we had a president that saw any benefit in boosting our sports profile and he is gone now, so who knows how this will play out from here on.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#6 [url]

Dec 2 13 9:22 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

I disagree that we have been treading water. Prior to the dropping of football, UTA was the worst overall program in the SLC. We had far more last place finishes in all-sports than firsts. Women's sports didn't compete until the 82-83, and our softball team and volleyball squads were nationally competitive. We all know the volleyball team was right up there with UT-Austin and the softball team made a College World Series appearance in the '70's. Otherwise, we were terrible.

Since football was dropped, we spread the resources around and began winning conference championships in a lot of sports. However, the big one in basketball was dropped. I think a better strategy by Nedderman would have been (assuming dropping football was never going to change) to lobby hard for a multi-purpose arena ASAP. Make it priority one. While it would have benefited the athletic department, it also has a huge upside for the whole U, as we have seen with CPC. I wonder how many people who graduated at Texas Hall assumed we were a bush league school. And of those, how many would support UTA more had their ceremony been in a legit venue. There will never be a right answer.

But also consider that UTA was one of the first schools to institute a student athletic fee to support our athletic teams. President Witt and AD Carlon spearheaded that. While I think Witt could have played a more active role, he didn't completely ignore it. Under his tenure were the only Commish Cups that UTA won.

Of course, I don't need to say what Spaniolo did. He was at a lot of events. The current President has been to almost all of them too.

But in the end, UTA's overall performance began to rise and they became a force in ther '90's. They weren't a pushover in the aughts, but we weren't performing at a consistently high rate as we had. Of course, some of that had to do with how they changed the scoring of the Cup, but that is another story.

If you measure by performance, we are better than we were, by a long margin. If you only count sports offered, the have dropped three - football, swimming and rifle - and added one, tennis.

Of course, there will always be people who think UTA isn't legit as long as we don't offer football. in the meantime, I will keep a tally of how often we beat them in the sports we play (looking at you, Louisiana-Lafayette, 4-0 this year).

Quote    Reply   
avatar

80sAlum

Alumni

Posts: 293 Member Since:03/17/11 Alumni

#7 [url]

Dec 14 13 12:11 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

Fo - You said 1985 was an anomaly in lower attendance. If I recall, there was bad weather that lowered attendance at several games that year....then the administration cited lower attendance as one reason to cancel the program...do you recall that at all?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#8 [url]

Dec 14 13 9:04 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

Nothing in the game write-ups indicate bad weather. The thing that hurt us in 1985 was the opening week loss to Angelo State. Then we lost another game where we were favored. The next game at home was small, then attendance climbed as we won a couple. We dropped a few on the road before closing with Louisiana Tech.

If any game had bad weather, that was it, since a win would have kept us in the hunt for an SLC title.

1985 was a weird year, we were 4-6-1, but scored more points than we gave up. We lost by one to Arkansas State, three to UNT and tied McNeese. Had we scored seven more points in those games, we would have been SLC champs and on the way to the playoffs. Another crotch kicker was that every offensive starter was set to return as were eight defensive and both kickers. 1986 really would have been a magical year.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

RTP

Posts: 1 Member Since:01/24/14

#9 [url]

Jan 24 14 11:34 PM

Re: Football hypothetical

This is a minority report from one of the dinosaur age. And a bit of ancient history.

Going back to the Junior College days of NTAC and ASC.:

Except for perhaps the days of Chena Gilstrap and the 1956-1957 Junior Rose Bowl, there never seemed to be much enthusiasm for sports in the student body, especially football.

In the Junior College days most students attended games of their old High School. In those days the college was more or less a commuter college and the campus was more or less empty after the last class. Things may have changed since then.

There was just too much competition from the High School games, TCU, SMU and nowadays professional football from the Dallas Cowboys for much support for football at was then ASC.

I think football for UTA is a dead subject. But this is just an "IMHO" based on ancient history. LOL.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with being a commuter type college or university .It did seem to fill a need at the time.There just seemed to be no need for a footballl team at the time. However the present situation may be completely different.
But that's the way it used to be.

Disclaimer: This isn't the first time I ever got in trouble for one of my posts . LOL.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 986 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#10 [url]

Jan 25 14 8:33 AM

Re: Football hypothetical

RTP wrote:
This is a minority report from one of the dinosaur age. And a bit of ancient history.

Going back to the Junior College days of NTAC and ASC.:

Except for perhaps the days of Chena Gilstrap and the 1956-1957 Junior Rose Bowl, there never seemed to be much enthusiasm for sports in the student body, especially football.

In the Junior College days most students attended games of their old High School. In those days the college was more or less a commuter college and the campus was more or less empty after the last class. Things may have changed since then.

There was just too much competition from the High School games, TCU, SMU and nowadays professional football from the Dallas Cowboys for much support for football at was then ASC.

I think football for UTA is a dead subject. But this is just an "IMHO" based on ancient history. LOL.

I also don't think there is anything wrong with being a commuter type college or university .It did seem to fill a need at the time.There just seemed to be no need for a footballl team at the time. However the present situation may be completely different.
But that's the way it used to be.

Disclaimer: This isn't the first time I ever got in trouble for one of my posts . LOL.


That's not true. UTA played in Memorial Stadium before 1970 and it had a capacity of 10,200. They averaged between 8-9,000 from 1966-69. They were at 10,000 or more in attendance five times by my records with a Tarleton State game I can't find.

During the '60's, if you doubled UTA's attendance, it would have exceeded TCU's, despite them playing in a higher division and higher-profile conference.

UTA moved to Turnpike Stadium after that as well as DI, but with a DII budget and it never recovered. Put a winner out there, or at least a compelling team to watch and the fans show. Bud Elliott's wishbone and 5-6 years were neither.

If there wasn't much enthusiasm for sports, the Rebels-to-Mavericks mascot change would not have generated so much controversy.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help