Posted By: Red Sheep
Date: Thursday, 4 October 2001, at 10:19 a.m.
...substantial achievement on the field = higher attendance. And I'm not talking about the 8-3, 7-4, 6-5 success we've enjoyed during the MacBride regime. I'm talking big time success: Undefeated or near undefeated seasons, potential BCS bowl bids, conference domination, continuous top 10 rankings. We've done none of this.
It's simple really. All the big time programs have done this. Look at their attendance. Look at the emerging powers such as Va Tech and K State. Look at their attendance.
Success breeds a large following and fan excitement. BYU wasn't even a blip on the college football radar before LaVell arrived. Look at all their success through the late 70's, 80's and most of the 90's. Cougar Stadium is always filled to near capacity, even with lousy opponents.
On a related topic, I wasn't particularly pleased with Mac's response about attendance in his radio interview this week. It was like he was blaming the fans for their apathy. Hey, Ronnie...Wake up! Smell the coffee! Poor execution, lack of player discipline and habitual 7-4, 6-5 mediocre season aren't going to get you a packed house every week.
Let's be realistic. Utah is a commuter school with a largely apathetic alumni. Couple that with mediocre to above average success for the last 20 years and what do you get? About 20-25,000 empty seats every Saturday in RE.
Just my two cents.
I don't even really buy the success argument since there are tons of empty seats even during basketball season. The thing that gets the top programs to fill their stadiums is a loyal following and tradition that begins when their fans are students.
Take a look at the student section sometime. It doesn't matter if it's football or basketball, this section is usually less than 2/3 full. The Ute marketing department doesn't do a DANG THING to try to cater to the student population.
I hate to do this, but let's look to our Twinkie-Sucking neighbors to the south. Their student section is usually packed. Why? Because for BYU students, going to a football game is a social event. It's akin to going to a singles bar. It's a place to go with your friends, it gives you something to do on a Saturday, and if all works out right, it gives you a chance to meet that special someone.
We can mock it all we want, but it works. I don't know if the Ute marketing department can follow this line of logic, but let's look at it. Students become alumni - usually. Alumni, if they have a loyalty to the school and athletic teams, become Season Ticket holders and Crimson Club Members. Alumni also become parents, take their kids to games, develop the loyalty at an early age, and these kids become future students, and the Cycle renews.
The problem with Utah is that the students aren't developing the loyalty at all. When I was a freshman, I used to love going to the games with a group from my floor in Baliff. (Yes, I lived in Baliff, I don't want to hear it.) But, it was always a small group that went. No one else cared much. They had no reason to care.
I was also in the first two Ute fan clubs in baskeball in '93/'94 and '94/'95. That was a ton of fun. My friend and I would paint our faces, we'd dance, we'd mock the cheerleaders, we'd sing along with the band, I'd even do a little strip-tease at the end of the game. But many of the others around us were way too cool for such antics. They'd come if it wasn't too inconvenient, and the opponent was decent, but otherwise, they'd skip it. When they did come, they'd get dressed up like they were going clubbing, and get annoyed when the crowd noise interruped their conversation. It was frustrating.
I really feel that the marketing department needs to view the students as an ivestment in the future, and start dropping some money to entice them to come to the games. They need to get some pep-rallies going. They need to have some events to allow them to mingle with the players and coaches. They need to view these athletes as classmates and friends. They need to develop loyalty to their alma mater. It will pay off in the future. If they continue to show an indifferent attitude towards the students, they need to understand why the students, and eventually alumni, take an indifferent attitude towards them.
OK, there's my vent. I'll go back to work now. Though, I should mention, that my going back to work should be to figure out how to develop that student loyalty, but the Ute marketing department still has yet to recognize my genius. Couple more Taz-Mania updates ought to take care of that!
GO UTES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have on computer the information of the students who go all the time. It was a little irritating to have crap seats for the BYU game because a job kept me from waiting in line for tickets on whatever day they happened to let people know about a week before.
They could design a system to get the most active students the best tickets.
First the home schedule. Somehow this year got really screwed up. Not only did we lose a Fresno game which would have been pretty big but somehow we ended up with all the good MWC teams on the road at the same time and the OOC were USU and USF. The OOC gets better that will help as fans in the past have and will continue to turn out for the good teams.
Second night games, the atmosphere is much better at night and the weather almost always holds thru October. We're not in a place yet to ask people to give up everything on a Sat day for the game, but they come at night.
Third the students, somehow we need to get all the students on and near campus to go, there is no reason that this shouldn't happen except no one is really trying.
Finally and perhaps most importantly a couple of break thru seasons. A 10-1 year followed by a 9-2 year with two conference titles and a couple of bowl wins. In 1994 we had an amazing year followed by a suprisingly good year in 1995 when we were all young, and then the team floundered in 96,97 Mike Anderson basically saved us in 98,99 and it all fell out in 2000. thus any excitement which was built by the big 94 season is gone. We need a couple of big years
Plus the support from the Frats and sororities seems really piss pour. Those people are supposedly most involved on campus but the bulk do not come.
Posted By: UtePimp
Date: Thursday, 4 October 2001, at 5:09 p.m.
Let me start by saying that I agree with the points you just made.
That being said I think that the problem needs to be viewed within the paradigm of a system theory. There is not one place in specific that deserves the brunt of the blame. Many factors (some big, some small) contribute to the overall problem.
This comes from my experience being in charge of paid concerts for ASUU for a while. I was sitting in a meeting with Ted Capner, discussing the problem of campus participation. He was looking at the problem in the larger picture of future donations by alumni, we were looking at filling stands for a few shows. That being said, through the experience of actually dealing with problems at the U, I came away with some insights into the problems at the U.
He said that he was concerned that the U has become a place where people come during the day, go to work, go home (usually with mom and dad) and hang out with their High School buddies (translation: commuter campus, already discussed). There are many reasons for this. One is the Greek System, LDSSA, Residence Halls dynamic and its lack of ability to facilitate change. Rather than being a relationship of helping or cooperation, the three main groups that could help the problem of a commuter school have a relationship of rivalry and back-biting. All three organizations are good, but they seem to give a negative energy about the other two.
LDSSA and the Residence Halls are both in periods of growth. The greeks are trying to stay even. I think the greeks do a good job with the hand that they have been dealt, but they are handicapped by a few different things. One is the brilliant neighbors complaining about noise (makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking buying on greek row). This causes parties to be quiet, short and lacking in a participation. As a result, the greeks have a hard time with recruitment.
The group on campus that should be bringing all of these together to form synergy is ASUU. Speaking from experience, ASUU has BIG problems. First of all, their code of regulations (Redbook) is so full of contradictions and garbage that to attempt to follow its rules allows nothing to be done. Second, the people in the University administration that oversee ASUU are so steeped in bureaucracy that they don't like things happening. Their paradigm is that they don't want to get in trouble, and activity of any sort is trouble and therefore must be squashed. It is really typical of any faceless bureaucracy, authority is cached therefore nobody really knows who is stopping the idea or event from happening.
Translation, ASUU has a hard time dealing with endless regulations, and an adversarial administration. Adding to this problem is that ASUU is a political office. Whichever group (GREEK, LDSSA, or RHSA) gets elected to office tends to stick to their own, on policies and political appointments, further stifling synergy and positive flow.
In other words, if you were trying to reach the student body at large, who would you contact? I could really go on a worse tangent than this, however suffice it to say that reaching students is a BIG problem, hopefully I have shed some light on why.
How does this translate to the Athletic Department (think Chris Hill, Crimson Club, Marketing Department)? it is the same thing, conflicting interests coupled with a faceless bureaucracy translating into stifled activity.
Also, this same pervading idea needs to be applied to all departments on campus, Alumni association, various schools, and departments.
Taking from the same theme, the various interests battle bureaucracy, and also battle each other. The same adversarial relationship discussed in the ASUU model also applies to the relationship between on campus departments (ASUU, Academic departments, Athletic department etc.).
Now, how could this be changed? Certainly but realize that University bureaucracy is a by-product of being a government agency. We all know how easy that government change happens.
Change could happen if a shift were to occur by somebody in the power to influence change. Basically, it would have to be Machen, the Board of Regents, Board of Trustees, and Legal Counsel. All of the policies and procedures would need to be re-structured, allowing for people to act on ideas without being burned at the stake. Also, the university needs to go through some serious training of some of its worst offenders and their attitudes toward change.
Take all of this and put the added dynamic of a religious culture in the state that owns the rival school, and the people that love and hate this religion and you begin to see the scope of the problem.
In conclusion (and might I add congratulations for reading this
through) the U has some serious problems, change is not coming soon, window
dressing can be applied, but the roots still exist. Bernie, good luck.