PonyFans.com

We at SMU know firsthand what happens when you stop playing old rivals. Fan interest declines.

When regional rivalries are ignored for TV and mega conferences fan interest declines. Don't forget the impact on attendance by the fans of visiting teams. How many visiting fans did West Virginia bring to Ft. Worth this year? How many will travel to Ft. Worth next year when UT comes?

Colleges also must come to realize that they by losing those rabid student fans they are losing their best future alumni donors. Mix in all the foreign students making up the student body today (that have no cultural background in charitable giving) and future alumni giving is at serious risk. In essence we will all become commuter colleges, without school pride and "win or die" fan attitudes that cultivate financial support.

Orsini was wrong, athletic success is not just the front porch of your university; it is the breeding ground for alumni loyalty.

Nicely put - Mex

So true. Almost no alumni sit around the water cooler at work on a Monday during the fall and brag about how great the old Organic lab looked over the weekend.

With conferences getting more far flung, attendance at bowl games is going to lag. I mean the SEC now goes from Kentucky to Florida to College Station. The Big XII goes from WV to Iowa to Lubbock. The Big Ten will go from NJ to Minnesota to Nebraska to Illinois. The PAC 12 goes from Pullman Washington, to Colorado to Arizona to LA. The ACC from Boston to Miami. The BE goes from Houston to Florida to Connecticut. The Bowl tie ins make it very hard to get good regional rivalries. If you had a BE/Big XII matchup, you could end up with UConn vs. WV playing in Houston. Or you could have an SEC/Big Ten match-up with Kentucky playing Minnesota in El Paso. Lots of problems which need to be thought through to improve matchups and travel. Clearly the Hawaii bowl ought to be WAC/MWC/PAC 12 teams.

I don't know if college football has peaked, but I think an argument can be made that it is close to jumping the shark (if it hasn't done so already).

Football may be king right now, but there are definitely headwinds it is going to have to overcome to stay on top. I'm talking about demographic changes, revelations about the potential long-term health consequences of playing, shorter attention spans in the era of internet and smart phones, etc. Remember, there was a time not too long ago when boxing challenged baseball as the number 1 sport in America. Times and tastes do change.

In my opinion college football has peaked. I blame too much media exposure, too much convenience provided by the media with great camera shots and angles and the media making it convenient to see multiple games in a day. All of these conveniences saves money, time, driving/parking hassles, putting up with obnoxious drunk fans...etc. SMU is lucky in that the "vard" provides a wonderful setting that is clean, fun, promotes family participation which most venues do not and justifies the resonable costs and driving issues.

Stallion wrote:not Cotton Bowl-it has a logical regional matchup which is a big part of the problem. Bowls with regional matchups do pretty good

You are right in that the Cotton Bowl this year was a total success because of a regional rivaly; however, that has not been the track record in the past. Never-the-less, I saw many empty seats in most of the bowl games even with some historic and regional rivalries.

As some have posted, there is increasingly less interest in many match ups as conferences expand beyond their regional areas. I am not sure WV fans have much interest in traveling to TCU, KSU, KU, ISU, OSU, TTU ( and visa versa) whereas they were proximate to Pitt, Rutgers, Temple, Syracuse which made for good rivalries. The new TV deals and revamped conferences obviously added many dollars to the coffers, but at some point the lack of fan interest, ability to readily travel, loss of regional rivalries, deminishing student body interest ( current/future) for lack of rivalries all may have started the demise and decline of interest in college sports and in particular football and basketball. Contributing also is over exposure by the media.

To underscore PoconoPony's comments above. The Boulevard is a great development and certainly adds to our own "gameday" experience on the Hilltop. The fact that the stadium is on campus provides the best experience for fans, alums and students. However, prying the students and fans from the Boulevard in order to be in their seats before Kick-off would be helpful. When ND takes the field, the students, in great numbers, go crazy.

More importantly, alums in DFW and, most importantly, the majority of the student body needs to attend games regularly. The atmostphere is more electric when this occurs and it helps draw other fans to the games. I feel that the HC, his staff and student leadership need to expend the effort to enlist the enthusiastic support of the student and promote their attendance. The picture of LB giving 'Pony Ears" struck me as an important demonstration of his support to SMU and our traditions. These small steps are noticed. We need to coaches to get the Greeks there and get everyone vested in their Mustangs.

Mexmustang wrote: Mix in all the foreign students making up the student body today (that have no cultural background in charitable giving) and future alumni giving is at serious risk.

Are you sure about that? I doubt the US is the only country with a history and tradition of charitable giving.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I beleive SMU attendence has been somewhat flat for the past 40 years. Except for a rise during the best days of Mustang Mania, we're drawing about the same -- or less -- now as we did in 1973. Our SWC regional rivalries were on decline when Arkansas, Texas et al. jumped ship in the 1990s.

Conference realignment has meant no more Nebraska - Oklahoma, no more Pitt - Penn State, no more Texas - Texas A&M, the kinds of match-ups that made the game which has been, historically, a regional passion.

Overexposure from television and an NFLization process may very well mean college football is on a downhill slide. We may be moving toward an NFL-style Premier League wherein the big boys leave the rest of us behind for good.

CA Mustang wrote:

Mexmustang wrote: Mix in all the foreign students making up the student body today (that have no cultural background in charitable giving) and future alumni giving is at serious risk.

Are you sure about that? I doubt the US is the only country with a history and tradition of charitable giving.

Not the only country, but I' 've seen numerous reports showing that charitable giving in the US far exceeds the rest of the world, both in terms of total dollars, and as a percentage of that countries GDP. Charitable giving in the US has been a steady 1.9 percent of our GDP for years, through good economic times and bad. Most other developed nations give less than 1 percent of GDP to charity, the lowest is France, which gives just 0.15 percent.

Balatro Diabolus Ex wrote:

CA Mustang wrote:

Mexmustang wrote: Mix in all the foreign students making up the student body today (that have no cultural background in charitable giving) and future alumni giving is at serious risk.

Are you sure about that? I doubt the US is the only country with a history and tradition of charitable giving.

Not the only country, but I' 've seen numerous reports showing that charitable giving in the US far exceeds the rest of the world, both in terms of total dollars, and as a percentage of that countries GDP. Charitable giving in the US has been a steady 1.9 percent of our GDP for years, through good economic times and bad. Most other developed nations give less than 1 percent of GDP to charity, the lowest is France, which gives just 0.15 percent.

By one measure, the US was #1 in 2011 but #5 in 2012.
https://www.cafonline.org/pdf/World_Giv ... 191211.pdf
https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/WorldGivi ... 012WEB.pdf
Either way, there are number of countires that give charitably at similar rates to the US.

"And if they aren't going to games when they're in school because of smartphone issues, what does that bode for the future?"

It would behoove SMU to install cell signal boosters in Ford Stadium. I've had major issues getting a decent signal with both a Blackberry and an iPhone at Ford, just trying to get scoring updates (The scoreboard doesn't update scores fast enough, especially games involving Texas teams that people care about).

Colleges have to invest heavily in being wired to keep up with the competition. Seems like a simple extension to make the football stadium an easy access point for cell phones and even tablets. And something you think could easily be done in exchange for advertising. (I know there are all sorts of protocols on a college campus, but still...)

If you can't get a good smartphone connection, that's just one more excuse for a student - or anyone else - to avoid going to the game.

Attendance is way up at every school in Texas except probably SMU and Rice. Even at SMU it's slightly up

Will college football ever swing back the other way with more regional rivalries/conferences? All the realignment stuff really seems to be what is making this sport ridiculous.