POLL: Why the Decline in Attendance

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

you need an option for the disappearance of jersey chasers posing for skanque polls. i truly feel that herzy's freshman year had a lot of pervs going to games trying to determine if 98 really was a tranny (yeah, i'm looking at you foot)

[twballgame9]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

[dtwalrus]

It is a national trend brought about by Obama's economy and the proliferation of every game being available in high definition.

I looked at this. Lots of teams had troubles with attendance after the '08 recession, not just in college but at the pro level too. I looked at the numbers briefly, and BC had one of the highest effects, which kicked in nationwide for the 2009 season. This is percentage change in attendance compared to capacity. (i.e. 95% of capacity in '07 and 89% of capacity in '08 = -6%)

ASU: -21%
WSU: -15%
Louisville: -13%
BC: -12%
Purdue: -11%
UVa: -9.5%
Northwestern: -9%
UCLA: -9%
Vandy: -9%
Duke: -7%

The problem is, BC didn't recover. Most recovered in '11, with ASU adding 16% towards capacity, WSU adding 13% back, Louisville jumped from 58% in '09 to 92% in '10 and has stayed there. Even more peer schooles like Northwestern, Vanderbilt and Duke recovered most of their '09 losses, and not all of them have played well every year.

Only UVa, Purdue and BC have continued at the same level, or dropped further from their '09 dropoff.

That said, to the extent that it is more heightened at BC (which I am not entirely convinced is true), it is likely due to (1) the small/Nationally-diverse alumni base, (2) Spazification causing folks to become comfortable with watching games on iPads and (3) the terrible tailgating situation.

Like Dick, I donate and I used to buy tickets and regularly make the journey from NYC. However, the effort and time sacrificed to attend simply do not equal the reward of being hassled for 90-minutes in a half-filled lot where "tailgating" is allegedly "permitted". The tailgating element is what keeps fans coming back even when the team sucks. If you aren't offering that, you are left exclusively with the on-field product to attract attendance. Quite frankly, you have to go back to Matty Ice and Jags to find a time when the product was worth the time and money investment to attend.

Dropping ticket prices to virtually nothing will help get locals to attend. Opening the floodgates on tailgating will help get donors and alums to attend. Winning at an elite level will attract both. The fact that BC has elected "D - None of the Above" and still gets 77% of the seats filled during the season is a quite honestly a testament to a very loyal (and long-suffering) fanbase.

I think this falls under the category of a massive negative mojo surrounding BC football that's hard to quantify. Can't argue with any of it though.

[b0mberMan]

It is a national trend brought about by Obama's economy

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

dad, i think he's gonna pork her...

[dtwalrus]

I'm going to preface this by saying that I was always the type of person that would immediately dismiss anyone that complained about BC's move to the ACC, but after looking at the attendance numbers in detail over the last few days I'm really starting to think that the move from the Big East to the ACC is the biggest precipitant of the drop off. In general, I think the schedule prior to the departure was a good fit for BC, geographically (e.g. Service Academies, UConn, UMass, etc) and culturally (ND, Stanford, Miami, etc.). It's not that losing any one Big East team in particular made a difference, but you can just feel a change in the schedule with the move to the ACC (e.g. Wake and UVa and NCST) and it was worsened by more national and shitty OOC scheduling.

Quite simply, the schedule no longer reflects BC's identity as an academically elite northeastern school.

Here are attendance numbers by year with the corresponding home schedule (OOC in parentheses):

Before:
1998 - 41,200 - Rutgers, Temple, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, (Navy, Notre Dame)
1999 - 41,347 - Pittsburgh, Miami, West Virginia, (Baylor, Northeastern)
2000 - 39,327 - Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Rutgers, Temple, (Navy, Uconn)
2001 - 42,640 - West Virginia, Temple, Pittsburgh, Miami, (Stanford, Army, Notre Dame)
2002 - 41,106 - Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Rutgers, (UConn, Stanford, Central Michigan, Navy)
2003 - 42,604 - Miami, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, (Wake Forest, Ball State, Notre Dame)
2004 - 43,190 - Uconn, Rutgers, Syracuse (Penn State, UMass)

After:
2005 - 39,429 - FSU, Virginia, Wake Forest, NCST, (Army, Ball State)
2006 - 38,843 - Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke, Maryland, (BYU, Maine, Buffalo)
2007 - 41,990 - Wake Forest, NCST, FSU, Miami, (Army, UMass, Bowling Green)
2008 - 41,037 - Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Maryland, (Central Florida, Rhode Island, Notre Dame)
2009 - 35,716 - Wake Forest, Florida State, NC State, North Carolina, (Northeastern, Kent State, Central Michigan)
2010 - 38,369 - Virginia Tech, Maryland, Clemson, Virginia, (Weber State, Kent State, Notre Dame)
2011 - 35,709 - Duke, Wake Forest, FSU, NC State, (Northwestern, UMass)
2012 - 37,020 - Miami, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia Tech, (Maine, Notre Dame)
2013 - 33,006 - Wake Forest, FSU, Virginia Tech, NC State, (Villanova, Army)
2014 - 34,270 - Pittsburgh, Clemson, Louisville, Syracuse, (USC, Maine, Colorado State)

My thoughts:
1) I don't even know if I can put it into words, but just compare those schedules and I'm sure you feel it in your gut. To me, the schedule just feels more RIGHT from '98 - '04. And it's not that I love Rutgers or Temple, in fact, I don't think they're much of a draw. But when deciding whether to purchase season tickets, those schedules just felt like a good schedule.

2) I think the changing point was actually in 2005. The numbers don't drop until '09, but I think the process was already underway. I looked at the game-by-game numbers and as clear as day, our first matchup against every ACC opponent brought in an extra 5K fans compared to all subsequent matchups. FSU sold out in '05, and has been 40K in every game since. Same thing with Clemson, who sold out in '06 and has averaged 40K since. NCST brought in 43K and has been averaging 33K since. Duke brought in 42K in '06. We even sold out our first Maryland ACC game. I'm not saying traveling fan bases accounted for all of the artificial bump, but there was a clear bump for the novelty of it in '05 and '06.

3) In addition to the novelty of the ACC artificially propping up attendance immediately after the move from the Big East, the Matt Ryan years and BC being consistently ranked also artificially inflated attendance. The years '06, '07 and '08 saw BC ranked better than any sustained time in the Big East, and yet still the attendance is worse than in mediocre years in the Big East. The BC national rankings probably added 3K or 4K for the attendance those years. If the quality of the team had been more in line with previous years, I think the attendance drop off would much more clearly have started in '05 with the move to the ACC.

4) I don't think it's purely opponent quality. We played 8 ranked opponents in those last 7 years in the Big East and 10 ranked opponents in the 10 years in the ACC. That's almost identical. But Miami ranked #1 and #2 respectively in '01 and '03 sold out, as did a #4 VT in '00. Hell, a #23 Syracuse brought in 43K in '99. Not so much for a #16 ranked Clemson or a #9 ranked FSU or a #9 USC. And I know people will say that Spaz killed the team and nobody cares now, and that's certainly contributing, but BC wasn't exactly great from '99-'03. But we still showed up then to try to upset highly ranked Big East opponents.

5) On top of all of this, the Spaz hire (with all of it's terrible results, boring play calling, fans booing the home team, players seeming disinterested), an OOC schedule that makes absolutely no sense in terms of our football identity (Ball State, Central Michigan, Kent State, Weber State, Colorado State, etc), the recession and belt-tightening and -- as much as we like to hate on espn3 -- the fact that you can watch every single game on TV, and the terrible ticket-pricing and game day experience has added to the cultural shift of moving to the ACC and has really created a perfect storm of terribleness.

It's almost as though someone tried to create a game plan for how to destroy BC football. And then they got away with it for 10 years. That's just my $0.02.

p.s. I reread this before posting and immediately started hating myself for suddenly becoming one of those people bemoaning leaving the Big East. For the record, I am 100% thrilled we got into the ACC before the Big East collapsed. I wouldn't want it any other way. But still, I think the moribund state of BC football is one of the side effects of the move.

[twballgame9]

This is a good theory if you ignore the fact that BC had no option to stay in the Big East, as it imploded thereafter. Attendance would be gone if BC hadn't moved.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

stupid gdf and his banishment of bears. we could really use a bear around here right now...

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

This is a good theory if you ignore the fact that BC had no option to stay in the Big East, as it imploded thereafter. Attendance would be gone if BC hadn't moved.

yep - it's right up there with the "fill in the corners and attendance will skyrocket" theory

[RegalBCeagle]

It is a national trend brought about by Obama's economy

What's with the homeless guy talking to the 3 young children?

[Corporal Funishment]

If we had pretended the ground wasn't shifting beneath our feet and declined to go the ACC, we could very well have been left behind in some moronic conference like Uconn playing Tulane and SMU every year. Leaving the Big East was one of the few smart things GDF did.

[b0mberMan]

It is a national trend brought about by Obama's economy

What's with the homeless guy talking to the 3 young children?

He seems legit

[Dick Rosenthal]

I used to regularly attend home games, but have not done so for a few years now. Aside from the normal family development where my kids are now old enough that they are playing football in the fall--daughter is playing soccer (girl's soccer being the only acceptable form of an otherwise useless sport)--which constricts the ability to travel for a Saturday game, the other part of it is the gameday experience, which still thoroughly sucks. Even if you are like me and willing and able to shell out the money to have prime on campus parking, great seats, etc., at the end of the day, the time it takes to get into your space and the time constraints placed on tailgating, catching up with friends, etc. makes it not worth it. A football weekend is supposed to be entertaining and on some level a time to unwind. There just isn't time to do it at BC and the Jack Booted Thugs pestering people only devalues an at best precarious value proposition.

Living in DC, it is a much easier pull for me to drive to any of the Virginia or North Carolina schools--or even Clemson, where the game day experience is either exponentially better or at the least, far less of a hassle. With the addition of Pitt, I now have another place to watch BC that is within four hours of driving and offers better facilities and game day experience.

The bottom line is that BC must significantly improve the on field product to get people to come to an experience that otherwise sucks. It's a shame to, because the atmosphere in he early 90s was about as good as it was anywhere--Win, Lose, Booze.

To play devil's advocate, are you comparing the gameday atmosphere as an adult to that as a student? Is this just the dissatisfaction of a 40 year old not finding drunkenness as fun now as when they were younger? Or are there people on this board that were "mature adults" in the 90's who can attest to the fact that the gameday atmosphere was just more fun? When did this change? The fence? When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

I'm not trying to be a dick. My personal experience was loving gameday as a student, especially in the mods. When I came back for my first game 4 years later, it was way different.

I recognize that the game day experience will be different for a 19,20 or 21 year old kid than it will be for a guy in his early 40s. It is just the overall atmosphere. There were literally no rules when I went to school. Shit, my junior year before the Miami game we dragged a fucking pony keg into the stadium and wedged it in the bleachers a few hours before kick off (luckilly it was a cold and rainy day that kept the thing cold) and nobody said a thing. It was festive. I have a couple of family members who graduated in the late 70s and early 80s--so they were in their mid 30s or early 40s during my time at school and I've asked them if they notice a difference and they are unanimous that the atmosphere began to change from their perspective in the late 90s or thereabouts and that it has gotten progressively less fun ever since. That sounds about right to me. I had direct friends going to BC and living on campus through 2000--I don't think there was much difference between my experience and their experience from what I observed, but now that I have some younger cousins who have attended and graduated in recent years I am shocked by how much less fun they have. Part of that is that they are Millenials and suck a lot, but there is little doubt that some sort of clampdown was put in place around 2002 or so.

[DomingoOrtiz]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Yes, the increased interaction with the Staties has really improved the gameday experience!

[twballgame9]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Yes, the increased interaction with the Staties has really improved the gameday experience!

Frankly, if you can't be bothered to show up for kickoff, no one should give a fuck about your gameday experience.

[dtwalrus]

This is a good theory if you ignore the fact that BC had no option to stay in the Big East, as it imploded thereafter. Attendance would be gone if BC hadn't moved.

yep - it's right up there with the "fill in the corners and attendance will skyrocket" theory

Obviously we can't and shouldn't undo the move to the Big East. But maybe, if there is something to the fact that the more-southern ACC schedule is a big part of the problem, there are things we can actually do moving forward.

1) There's already talk of division realignment in the ACC thanks to Louisville's addition in the Atlantic. If BC can actually get back to 9-10 wins per year, those calls for redistributing the divisions will grow a lot louder. Outside of Notre Dame, most of our recent sellouts came from Miami. We need Miami annually. BC should push for a Big East/ACC division split to get Miami, VT, Pitt and Syracuse back on the schedule annually. Miami's attendance has also been struggling since the ACC move. I'm sure they're not thrilled with UNC, Duke, and UVa every year. There's enough Big East in the ACC to get this done. I'm imagining an Atlantic of Louisville, Miami, VT, UVa, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC. Get rid of the fixed cross-division rival and then we sprinkle in FSU, GT, Clemson and the Carolina garbage. The less the Carolina schools come to Boston, the better our attendance will be.

2) OOC has to be very intentional. It can't just be cheap and easy wins. We need to get the service academies back (harder now with Navy in the AAC, I know) and we need UMass, UConn, Temple, and Rutgers to take the places of the Colorado States, Kent State, UCF, etc. And we need a marquees game on the schedule not once every 4 or 5 years, but at least every other year if not annually. Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Stanford, etc. The marquee game can be the difference for some potential season ticket holders, but as was clear with USC or Notre Dame over the last few years, not when the other 5 or 6 home games make no geographic or cultural sense. 2004 was our best attended year in recent history, and look at that schedule!!! Penn State, UConn, UMass, Rutgers, and Syracuse. Geographically appropriate with a payday game. That AVERAGED 43K.

That's not going back in time and rejoining the Big East, but it is correcting what was lost a bit.

[claver2010]

the miserable interactions with the staties extends far beyond showing up on time

[twballgame9]

the miserable interactions with the staties extends far beyond showing up on time

The issue at hand was the closing tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff. The fact that even has to be contemplated is embarrassing. Otherwise, no one disputes the staties are a pain in the ass, its a non sequitur

[ATLeagle]

I don't think there is one reason. Basically it is all the reasons.

The ones BC cannot control are:
-- Better TV experience
-- All the games televised
-- Millennials not caring (a growing issue at traditional football factories)
-- StubHub and other resellers devaluing season tickets. Back in the day if you wanted Notre Dame tickets you had to buy the whole season. Now you can get any ticket you want.
-- More grads moving out of New England.
-- The Whalepants aging
-- The ACC scheduling more non-Saturday games

Things that BC screwed up but cannot fix now
-- How they handled the DBS
-- Spaz
-- Gene

Things BC can control and doesn't do a good enough job at now
-- Better football
-- Better game day experience
-- Better scheduling
-- Playing seven home games. The extra game is now bringing down the average attendance. Some of those years only had five home games.
-- Marketing to non-Alum local fans

[twballgame9]

I've been reading your blog, and the only conclusion to be drawn from the comments is that the drop in attendance coincides with BC's greatest coach leaving.

[hansen]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Offer a reasonable amount of time to tailgate and a good on-field product and this issue goes away.

[hansen]

Nerdification, terrible tailgating, and Obama.

How was unfilled corners not an option? Or pearl necklace? Or scrush4?

[twballgame9]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Offer a reasonable amount of time to tailgate and a good on-field product and this issue goes away.

The former is not in BC's control. The latter isn't remotely true. As a season ticket holder through TOB, Jags and early Spaz, BC fans don't arrive early when the product is fantastic.

[DomingoOrtiz]

Serious question - has Bates ever fielded a "when are we filling in the corners" question?

[dtwalrus]

I used to regularly attend home games, but have not done so for a few years now. Aside from the normal family development where my kids are now old enough that they are playing football in the fall--daughter is playing soccer (girl's soccer being the only acceptable form of an otherwise useless sport)--which constricts the ability to travel for a Saturday game, the other part of it is the gameday experience, which still thoroughly sucks. Even if you are like me and willing and able to shell out the money to have prime on campus parking, great seats, etc., at the end of the day, the time it takes to get into your space and the time constraints placed on tailgating, catching up with friends, etc. makes it not worth it. A football weekend is supposed to be entertaining and on some level a time to unwind. There just isn't time to do it at BC and the Jack Booted Thugs pestering people only devalues an at best precarious value proposition.

Living in DC, it is a much easier pull for me to drive to any of the Virginia or North Carolina schools--or even Clemson, where the game day experience is either exponentially better or at the least, far less of a hassle. With the addition of Pitt, I now have another place to watch BC that is within four hours of driving and offers better facilities and game day experience.

The bottom line is that BC must significantly improve the on field product to get people to come to an experience that otherwise sucks. It's a shame to, because the atmosphere in he early 90s was about as good as it was anywhere--Win, Lose, Booze.

To play devil's advocate, are you comparing the gameday atmosphere as an adult to that as a student? Is this just the dissatisfaction of a 40 year old not finding drunkenness as fun now as when they were younger? Or are there people on this board that were "mature adults" in the 90's who can attest to the fact that the gameday atmosphere was just more fun? When did this change? The fence? When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

I'm not trying to be a dick. My personal experience was loving gameday as a student, especially in the mods. When I came back for my first game 4 years later, it was way different.

I recognize that the game day experience will be different for a 19,20 or 21 year old kid than it will be for a guy in his early 40s. It is just the overall atmosphere. There were literally no rules when I went to school. Shit, my junior year before the Miami game we dragged a fucking pony keg into the stadium and wedged it in the bleachers a few hours before kick off (luckilly it was a cold and rainy day that kept the thing cold) and nobody said a thing. It was festive. I have a couple of family members who graduated in the late 70s and early 80s--so they were in their mid 30s or early 40s during my time at school and I've asked them if they notice a difference and they are unanimous that the atmosphere began to change from their perspective in the late 90s or thereabouts and that it has gotten progressively less fun ever since. That sounds about right to me. I had direct friends going to BC and living on campus through 2000--I don't think there was much difference between my experience and their experience from what I observed, but now that I have some younger cousins who have attended and graduated in recent years I am shocked by how much less fun they have. Part of that is that they are Millenials and suck a lot, but there is little doubt that some sort of clampdown was put in place around 2002 or so.

Ok, we should definitely bring back that atmosphere! That sounds awesome! Here I am thinking I'm clever with my bourbon flask with two fingers of ice on the bottom for FSU...

Wasn't as familiar with the 90's crackdown. That was before my time. But the 30 minute rule, mod fence and increased BCPD presence in the mid-2000's was definitely very noticeable.

[claver2010]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Offer a reasonable amount of time to tailgate and a good on-field product and this issue goes away.

The former is not in BC's control. The latter isn't remotely true. As a season ticket holder through TOB, Jags and early Spaz, BC fans don't arrive early when the product is fantastic.

I disagree on the former. If BC wanted it they could get it.

Regarding the latter, the Pinstripe Bowl was filled at kickoff

[twballgame9]

When was there an escalation in BCPD gameday crackdowns?

The first escalation was in '94 after the stadium expansion. I have been lead to believe there were practically no rules enforced prior to this time.

The second escalation was '06 when they first instituted the policy of shutting down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff.

Shutting down tailgates was really badly received. This does also correspond to the timing of the dropoff.

It was poorly received because BC fans don't give a shit about the football team. Shouldn't have to shut down tailgates 30 minutes before kickoff, as everyone should be in the stadium to support the team.

Offer a reasonable amount of time to tailgate and a good on-field product and this issue goes away.

The former is not in BC's control. The latter isn't remotely true. As a season ticket holder through TOB, Jags and early Spaz, BC fans don't arrive early when the product is fantastic.

I disagree on the former. If BC wanted it they could get it.

Regarding the latter, the Pinstripe Bowl was filled at kickoff

If BC thought that the price to pay to get the former was worth it, it would have been done years ago. On your second point, can't connect the dots between the Pinstripe Bowl and BC fans filling up a home game against top opponents in the early 00s right around the same time the team showed up and TOB started changing QBs.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

If BC thought that the price to pay to get the former was worth it, it would have been done years ago.

Nevertheless, this still means it is within their control.

I agree that the reason BC doesn't have longer tailgate hours is because BC doesn't want to have longer tailgating hours.

[twballgame9]

If BC thought that the price to pay to get the former was worth it, it would have been done years ago.

Nevertheless, this still means it is within their control.

I agree that the reason BC doesn't have longer tailgate hours is because BC doesn't want to have longer tailgating hours.

That's sort of what I said. It would be in BC's control to move the campus to Springfield, build a huge stadium and allow tailgating all day as well. So fuck them for not doing so. Bastards.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

If BC thought that the price to pay to get the former was worth it, it would have been done years ago.

Nevertheless, this still means it is within their control.

I agree that the reason BC doesn't have longer tailgate hours is because BC doesn't want to have longer tailgating hours.

That's sort of what I said. It would be in BC's control to move the campus to Springfield, build a huge stadium and allow tailgating all day as well. So fuck them for not doing so. Bastards.

Springfield like Springfield College? There's a guy who could get that done.