|
Post by ugopher on Nov 24, 2014 9:23:06 GMT -5
TV coverage is actually good for attendance. You need to build interest in the game and the team, and then people will want to come to attend. But moving the start times and game nights around almost randomly is bad for attendance. So whatever the PAC-12 teams gain by having so much TV coverage, they are losing again by the TV-dictated scheduling. That is what I don't understand about the Pac 12 scheduling. I complain about the number of Wednesday night matches in the B1G but we haven't had any, that I am aware of, 11:00 AM Sunday starts, let alone an 11:50 AM start on a Friday. I believe that the Pac 12 network views volleyball as a filler vs. a prime time sport.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 24, 2014 9:24:10 GMT -5
For example, when I reviewed the Washington figures as reported on the link you gave from the NCAA website, I noticed it says they played 12 home games. I assume that include pre-season figures, as I count 9 season home games so far (Stanford on Weds. will make 10 total season home games)...with an average attendance of 3,232 at Alaska Arena. IMHO, I think those should be the figures more people would be most interested in (except for perhaps the pre-season match up with Wisconsin, a Final Four team from last season. The attendance for that game was 3548 according to the Huskies' website.) If those NCAA website figures include pre-season games, perhaps that is where they get the lower attendance averages, as Washington's pre-season games vs. Seattle U, UNLV and UC Davis games were not big draws for local fans. But I count 14 total games at home for both pre-season and season, not 12...so not sure how accurate those figures are anyway...? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as "total average attendance" includes all home games hosted by a team. It doesn't matter if it was part of the conference schedule or played in the pre-conference part of the season. The linked report indicates it is "Thru Games 11/19/14". Washington hosted two matches this past weekend which would have been the 13th and 14th home matches of the season. So, the report showing 12 home matches thru 11/19/14 seems accurate to me.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2014 9:28:09 GMT -5
I believe that the Pac 12 network views volleyball as a filler vs. a prime time sport. Exactly. Sort of. What they are selling is one of the most valuable assets on television right now -- live events. Sports carries a premium these days because in a world of internet video-on-demand and 1000 channels, one thing that hasn't changed is that people want to watch sports live, not on replay. So the more hours of live sports the PAC-12 can claim, the more they can sell their channel to the cable and satellite companies. Thus the scheduling, which aims to spread around the start times and make sure to maximize the number of hours of live TV. If all the matches start at 7pm on Friday, they can't show them all live on the National channel. Even with their six regional channels, they would still be missing an opportunity because the travel partners would be playing at the same time. Even football is getting jerked around for the benefit of TV, as games are scheduled to start from early morning on Saturday all the way until pretty late at night on Saturday, trying to maximize the number of live hours offered. Then the rest of the week is filled up as much a possible with other live sports (mainly soccer and volleyball).
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 24, 2014 10:39:15 GMT -5
Which, to me, would dillute the experience for both in person and television viewers. The odd match times makes it difficult and/or inconvienent for those wanting to attend in person. Which, in turn, reduces the live audience and makes the television viewer feel like it isn't very popular. Television needs to work hand in hand with the schools to increase in person attendance. A venue which is full, or nearly so, makes it that much more enjoyable and exciting to watch on TV. A venue which has a couple of hundred people in the stands for an event makes the event less exciting.
More TV does not always mean a better product. Less isn't always more but you need to be strategic about it.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Nov 24, 2014 11:49:55 GMT -5
Which, to me, would dillute the experience for both in person and television viewers. The odd match times makes it difficult and/or inconvienent for those wanting to attend in person. Which, in turn, reduces the live audience and makes the television viewer feel like it isn't very popular. Television needs to work hand in hand with the schools to increase in person attendance. A venue which is full, or nearly so, makes it that much more enjoyable and exciting to watch on TV. A venue which has a couple of hundred people in the stands for an event makes the event less exciting. More TV does not always mean a better product. Less isn't always more but you need to be strategic about it. Exactly. Scheduling Volleyball matches in the morning or middle of the day on Sunday is not only bad for fans who want to attend, but you are scheduling head-to-head with the NFL, which makes absolutely no sense. NFL football is still a ratings monster...and I talk with volleyball fans all the time who are also Seahawks fans or 49ers fans, etc..and they are NOT going to miss their NFL games for volleyball. Period. The good news is, there is a real opportunity here for the schools and coaches to work with the conferences own network to fix this. Just like the coaches finally figured out how to work together and schedule better to take advantage of RPI for tournament seeding, they now need to work to control this absurd scheduling. I realize that some Pac schools - UCLA, USC, in particular - are going to struggle with attendance. But any AD worth his/her salt has to be embarrassed and angry to see that list of top attendance and NOT see a single PAC-12 school in the top 10. They have a growing sport and the potential to easily increase attendance. These broadcasters can talk non-stop about the PAC-12 being the dominant conference, but fans are starting to tell the schools otherwise...the PAC is really not that big of a deal. The schools should be alarmed.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 24, 2014 11:59:12 GMT -5
The PAC-12's problem is that none of the California schools (and let's be honest, these schools are the base of the conference's strength, historically) have great attendance - in any sport really. Look at football, Stanford can't even fill half their stadium in a Rose Bowl year, and USC fans are, well, a bit bandwagon-y. I don't really foresee Cal or USC ever really topping VB attendance charts, going out to support sports is just not as much a part of the culture. Stanford does fairly well but is probably maxed out (it's not like the program is going to get more elite). UCLA - they need to figure it out; should be better.
UW has great support commensurate with a lot of the Big Ten schools, and there is potential for on-the-rise programs in the Desert and PNW to do well as well. Oregon just pulled in 2300 for an 11 AM Saturday match against USC (not a rivalry). That's not bad, and shows that people are actually adjusting to the Sunday start times.
The NW schools are also hurt by the late school start date - I know Oregon and Washington St. both have a much higher proportion of student attendance (v. non-student), so that plays a role. With no students through the first week of conference play, your average is going to go down regardless though.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Nov 24, 2014 13:02:53 GMT -5
I go back to a comment I made in another thread. It would be nice if the conferences and the NCAA would survey fans on their thoughts. Yes, there would be some self-serving comments but, I feel, on a whole the serious fans are interested in growing the sport, both in person attendance and television viewing, and we would have some great ideas.
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Nov 24, 2014 14:34:40 GMT -5
For example, when I reviewed the Washington figures as reported on the link you gave from the NCAA website, I noticed it says they played 12 home games. I assume that include pre-season figures, as I count 9 season home games so far (Stanford on Weds. will make 10 total season home games)...with an average attendance of 3,232 at Alaska Arena. IMHO, I think those should be the figures more people would be most interested in (except for perhaps the pre-season match up with Wisconsin, a Final Four team from last season. The attendance for that game was 3548 according to the Huskies' website.) If those NCAA website figures include pre-season games, perhaps that is where they get the lower attendance averages, as Washington's pre-season games vs. Seattle U, UNLV and UC Davis games were not big draws for local fans. But I count 14 total games at home for both pre-season and season, not 12...so not sure how accurate those figures are anyway...? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as "total average attendance" includes all home games hosted by a team. It doesn't matter if it was part of the conference schedule or played in the pre-conference part of the season. The linked report indicates it is "Thru Games 11/19/14". Washington hosted two matches this past weekend which would have been the 13th and 14th home matches of the season. So, the report showing 12 home matches thru 11/19/14 seems accurate to me. exactly. yes, sometimes coaches refer to the first few weeks as the "preseason", but that's just a shorthand way of saying "pre-conference season". Those matches definitely affect a team's eligibility and positioning for the NCAA tournament. It's not like the "preseason" games for the NFL, for example, which are purely exhibition. The only time "preseason" matches shouldn't be included in such stats are things like alumni matches, intersquad scrimmages, or perhaps matches against international teams, as those are exhibitions that don't count towards the NCAA records.
|
|
|
Post by playingwithfire on Nov 24, 2014 15:08:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as "total average attendance" includes all home games hosted by a team. It doesn't matter if it was part of the conference schedule or played in the pre-conference part of the season. The linked report indicates it is "Thru Games 11/19/14". Washington hosted two matches this past weekend which would have been the 13th and 14th home matches of the season. So, the report showing 12 home matches thru 11/19/14 seems accurate to me. Thanks for pointing this out. I did not see the "Thru Games" date and had erroneously assumed the figures were up-to-date. I appreciate this thoughtful discussion on this thread as I support any efforts to find ways to improve audience attendance and grow the fan base for volleyball. I believe it continues to be the fastest growing sport for girls in the U.S., so one can hope the attendance at games across the nation will continue to rise.
|
|
|
Post by playingwithfire on Nov 24, 2014 15:17:12 GMT -5
exactly. yes, sometimes coaches refer to the first few weeks as the "preseason", but that's just a shorthand way of saying "pre-conference season". Those matches definitely affect a team's eligibility and positioning for the NCAA tournament. It's not like the "preseason" games for the NFL, for example, which are purely exhibition. The only time "preseason" matches shouldn't be included in such stats are things like alumni matches, intersquad scrimmages, or perhaps matches against international teams, as those are exhibitions that don't count towards the NCAA records. Thanks for clarifying this, JayJ. :-)
|
|
|
Post by italianmattd on Nov 24, 2014 18:46:16 GMT -5
How does Nebraska get 359 more people into their stadium when their capacity is 7907? Breaking the fire code??
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Nov 24, 2014 18:48:19 GMT -5
How does Nebraska get 359 more people into their stadium when their capacity is 7907? Breaking the fire code?? SRO of around 500 at the top of the arena.
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Nov 24, 2014 18:54:17 GMT -5
Updated thru 11/23 though, and Washington is #9, Stanford #13, and Oregon #18
The only thing that really surprised me is BYU, I thought there attendance would be higher.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 24, 2014 18:56:05 GMT -5
How does Nebraska get 359 more people into their stadium when their capacity is 7907? Breaking the fire code?? SRO of around 500 at the top of the arena. No, that's where the -27000 fans for Washington enter the picture. Each negative fan cancels out a positive fan at another school, allowing the other schools to exceed their rated seating capacity.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 24, 2014 20:26:13 GMT -5
TV coverage is actually good for attendance. You need to build interest in the game and the team, and then people will want to come to attend. But moving the start times and game nights around almost randomly is bad for attendance. So whatever the PAC-12 teams gain by having so much TV coverage, they are losing again by the TV-dictated scheduling. In the longer run, hopefully. I remember some years back when UWTV covered UW's home matches live - attendance went down a good bit, perhaps due to the novelty of having any live coverage at all.
|
|