Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:09 am
isn't Rutgers Family Nite-will pump attendance about 2-3,000
Page 8 of 9
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:15 am
A win over TCU would certainly go a long way towards getting a few more people in the stands, but I'm not counting on that.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:35 am
Stallion wrote:isn't Rutgers Family Nite-will pump attendance about 2-3,000
At the Galleria
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:40 am
Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:40 am
StallionsModelT wrote:A win over TCU would certainly go a long way towards getting a few more people in the stands, but I'm not counting on that.
We all remember how folks packed the stands after the last win at tcu.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:48 am
Frog Barrister wrote:Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
Only thing worse than FCS games are the "fans" who want a pretend victory so they can qualify for Peanut Bowl. Why does TV allow this crap. They are putting an inferior product on the field every September which in the long run has got to lower interest in College Football.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:53 am
Frog Barrister wrote:Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
But we probably would have lost if we had played Baylor.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:59 am
Not probably. We'd have lost.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:01 am
Stallion wrote:Frog Barrister wrote:Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
Only thing worse than FCS games are the "fans" who want a pretend victory so they can qualify for Peanut Bowl. Why does TV allow this crap. They are putting an inferior product on the field every September which in the long run has got to lower interest in College Football.
I agree. If teams do not want to play 12 FBS schools go back to the 11 game schedule.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:12 pm
Stallion wrote:Frog Barrister wrote:Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
Only thing worse than FCS games are the "fans" who want a pretend victory so they can qualify for Peanut Bowl. Why does TV allow this crap. They are putting an inferior product on the field every September which in the long run has got to lower interest in College Football.
It's not a bad thing for the big public schools to play their smaller counter parts so they spread some of the wealth, like A$M scheduling SHSU. Those games are usually discounted and sometimes are the only opportunity for fans without season tickets to actually attend a game. Over in these parts, Clemson just played S.C. State and other FCS state schools (Citadel, Coastal Carolina) like to schedule those games as well because it basically can cover a large part of their football budget. SMU playing Montana State makes no sense to me. I've said for years we should play TCU and UNT every year and arrange the schedule so one of those is at home and one away every year. That leaves 2 open dates, one of which should feature a former SWC foe (Baylor, Tech, A&M or Arkansas if we can get home/home series with them). I'd rather play Rice, UTEP or La Tech than go out of state for some FCS opponent, but I understand we might need the FCS opponent to balance our home/road schedule if we have to give the big boys 2 for 1 deals for them to keep playing us.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:27 pm
Charleston Pony wrote:Stallion wrote:Frog Barrister wrote:Hopefully this will be a lesson to coaches and athletic directors. Give fans the games they want. I have no doubt SMU-Baylor would have caused a lot more excitement. Personally, I hate FCS games. I don't attend these glorified practices.
Perhaps we should schedule one away game every year against a team like LSU, Bama to get a big payday as well plus it would give our players a chance to play in a "big time" atmosphere........
Only thing worse than FCS games are the "fans" who want a pretend victory so they can qualify for Peanut Bowl. Why does TV allow this crap. They are putting an inferior product on the field every September which in the long run has got to lower interest in College Football.
It's not a bad thing for the big public schools to play their smaller counter parts so they spread some of the wealth, like A$M scheduling SHSU. Those games are usually discounted and sometimes are the only opportunity for fans without season tickets to actually attend a game. Over in these parts, Clemson just played S.C. State and other FCS state schools (Citadel, Coastal Carolina) like to schedule those games as well because it basically can cover a large part of their football budget. SMU playing Montana State makes no sense to me. I've said for years we should play TCU and UNT every year and arrange the schedule so one of those is at home and one away every year. That leaves 2 open dates, one of which should feature a former SWC foe (Baylor, Tech, A&M or Arkansas if we can get home/home series with them). I'd rather play Rice, UTEP or La Tech than go out of state for some FCS opponent, but I understand we might need the FCS opponent to balance our home/road schedule if we have to give the big boys 2 for 1 deals for them to keep playing us.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:31 pm
SMU SID wrote:CORRECT ATTENDANCE WAS 15,107. BETWEEN TEXTS AND STATCREW PROGRAM DATA ENTRY, IT WAS MISKEYED. I HAVE CORRECTED WITH THE NCAA AND AM RESENDING TO MEDIA OUTLETS.
Strike 5 on Hart becoming Copeland the second
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:35 pm
PlanoStang wrote:SMU SID wrote:CORRECT ATTENDANCE WAS 15,107. BETWEEN TEXTS AND STATCREW PROGRAM DATA ENTRY, IT WAS MISKEYED. I HAVE CORRECTED WITH THE NCAA AND AM RESENDING TO MEDIA OUTLETS.
Strike 5 on Hart becoming Copeland the second
You are clueless - Hart doesn't type the numbers in.
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:40 pm
No he is just responsible for them being RIGHT
Mediocre AD = mediocre results
Mediocre AD = mediocre results
Re: Attendance - 10,107??? Really???
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 6:49 pm
PlanoStang wrote:No he is just responsible for them being RIGHT
Mediocre AD = mediocre results
Wrong. No one had made a mistake before. This mistake was rectified and I'm sure whoever was responsible heard about it.
Like it or not, Hart has 1) Improved the Gameday Experience and 2) Attempted to advertise the product on billboards, etc. Copeland didn't do either of those things.