Anarchistbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).

---

This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care

---

Agreed, but while channel surfing, all things being equal, I am more inclined to stop and watch a game if it is a packed stadium than i am if it is an empty stadium.

Which is just one more reason why it makes sense to offer free game day general admission to anyone with a student ID, especially Cal students, with the only limit being stadium capacity.

---

There were only 211k viewers for the Wake-Cal game. That's a dreadful number. And it was on ESPN2. Numbers for the CW for the Cal-SMU game aren't available. But SMU is winning and their stadium was empty. UCLA got 2 million viewers to an empty stadium. Well it wasn't empty but would have been without all the Wisconsin fans.

Seems like more and more fans are staying home. Ticket prices. Length of games. Its too much.

---

380 000 for SMU. I have to say they seem to be another poor cousin despite being in football mad Texas

---

211,000 for Cal-Wake and 380,000 for Cal-SUM? Wonder what today's game will bring? Gee, I have absolutely no idea why none of the big conferences wanted Cal to join them. I mean, how can the Big Ten ignore these numbers? [Insert sarcasm emoji here]

Anarchistbear said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

MrGPAC said:

---

UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).

---

This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care

---

Agreed, but while channel surfing, all things being equal, I am more inclined to stop and watch a game if it is a packed stadium than i am if it is an empty stadium.

Which is just one more reason why it makes sense to offer free game day general admission to anyone with a student ID, especially Cal students, with the only limit being stadium capacity.

---

There were only 211k viewers for the Wake-Cal game. That's a dreadful number. And it was on ESPN2. Numbers for the CW for the Cal-SMU game aren't available. But SMU is winning and their stadium was empty. UCLA got 2 million viewers to an empty stadium. Well it wasn't empty but would have been without all the Wisconsin fans.

Seems like more and more fans are staying home. Ticket prices. Length of games. Its too much.

---

380 000 for SMU. I have to say they seem to be another poor cousin despite being in football mad Texas

---

That football fandom is spread over the Dallas Cowboys, Houtson Texans, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston, TCU, Rice, North Texas, Utep, UTSA… SMU is more the later than the former. SMU is a small private school for spoiled rich kids with a small stadium that had to buy their way into a Power conference three years ago. Their fanbase is wealthy, not big.

Someone on the "Sky is not falling thread" claimed SMU as a school thst would get an invite to the SEC or B1G and bolt the ACC. No way. They are peaking right now. If Cal had their success since joining the ACC we would be selling out CMS and our games would be on ESPN with hood ratings instead of the ACC Network.