College football studies MLS to solve attendance problem
There is an interesting article on WSJ about how college football powers are studying MLS to learn how to combat declining ticket sales and poor attendance by students:
In May, a group from Florida's athletic department became one of hundreds of sports teams to visit Sporting Kansas City, the reigning MLS champion, and Sporting Innovations, the team's spinoff consulting firm focused on fan engagement and technology.
The trip wasn't as unorthodox as it sounds. As colleges seek out ways to enhance their stadiums and entice a generation of absentee fans, they are looking at MLS teams as models, even though the average MLS crowd is about a quarter of the 75,674 that the SEC averaged last season, the top figure in college football.
It seems that SEC has the problem that we are having. The solution?
Sporting KC is trending in the opposite direction. The team formerly known as the Wizards averaged 10,287 fans a game in 2010. Then it rebranded, moved from a minor-league baseball stadium to soccer-specific Sporting Park and saw attendance climb to 17,810 a game. That number has increased this year to a franchise-record 19,709 per MLS game.
So more rebranding is comming to the Big House.
I can, at this time, buy a pretty nice HD TV that will last me for years for the $1150 it costs for two season tickets. Unfortunately I had to surrender my two tickets this year because I could no longer justify the price for the experience (and quality of games, which are atrocious and have been discussed ad nauseum here). I still plan on making a couple games though.
The advantages to televsion are numerous -- you're not cramped like sardines, your own beer, your own bathroom, comfortable seating, great camera angles, replays, shelter from the weather, watch other games simultaneously, cheap food, no parking, etc.
I love going to games at the Big House, but honestly at $75 a pop per person per game, watching from home is enticing.
what's your seating policy? Do my friends and I have to enter your living room at the same time to sit together?
YOU my friend are the majority. And I don't know if you like the Dave Brandon stuff or not...but the fact is, those aren't ANY of the reasons you mentioned in your unprompted post.
So people really need to get off the Dave Brandon b/s because it's not the real reason.
I'd ask you this...if you didn't have that TV and couldn't go to a bar or friends house to watch the game, but you had to watch on a 1994, 20" tube TV, low-def, and you only get a Notre Dame/Navy game as your other college football game for the day...would you be more inclined to go to a game at the stadium?
Please answer, but I think you would. You maybe not as frequently as you would like because it costs too much...but certainly more than you do now with this 2014 set up that you and much of America now has.
Back in the day we didn't have an option. Now we do. And unlike some sports (hockey and baseball for many people)...you don't have to necessarily be at the stadium for a significantly better experience. I know plenty of people that HATE watching baseball on TV, but they'll go to a minor league game. I know plenty of people that HATE watching hockey on TV, but they'll go to a hockey game.
The TV people know these people too so they tried gimmicks like glowing pucks for a few years and a tail to the puck so you could follow the game better. Remember that? That was Dave Brandon of TV...because they weren't getting the viewers and they were trying EVERYTHING. For football and basketball it's flipped. People don't have to be at the game for the best experience. ESPECIALLY if it's not a marquee matchup.
They had a bunch of really popular youtube videos from when they hosted viewing parties for the game and posted the reaction videos. Definitely some good PR stuff there
I mean, that sort of makes me what to go to a Sporting KC game if I'm ever in the area. Looks like soccer has a good following over there
I'm not very familiar with the MLS in particular but, in general, one of the appeals of soccer is that the games are relativley quick. No TV breaks and over in the about 2 hours sometimes. And are MLS games even on TV?
Actually, probably the best way to save college football would be to severely restrict the number of games on the television. Maybe like the old days with only 1-2 on TV each season. Fans would have to attend if they wanted to watch. They wouldn't be forced to endure lengthy TV timeouts. Plus, without all the extra money of television flooding into college football, the chorus of complaints that student athletes are "exploited" would be much less damning.
The first point, about game length and time predictability, is certainly true. Knowing that games will start and finish in about 2 hours is a huge plus. I've gone to evening Red Bull games with my 2nd grade kids. Even with 45 minutes on the train from NYC, you know you can go to the whole game and be home at 10 from a 7 PM game. There's no way that happens with any other spectator sport.
Games are televised locally, with one or two national broadcasts weekly, but there's just no ability within the structure of the sport to insert commercial breaks. I wonder if that will impact rights fees paid by broadcasters if soccer continues to gain in popularity. There's only so much time for commercials.
1. Weak schedules
2. Dreadful atmospheres
3. Not winning/ style of team.
4. Too many tv timeouts
They are in search of what they already had an threw away... Something unique.