The hard core fans will travel to AT&T to watch the games. For other Cal fans, and college football fans, it must be hard to plan for such an outing if you have to leave the entire day open and unplanned until the game time is announced.

Holmoephobic;584327 said:

---

I was at the game in my season ticket seats and it was half empty. I'm sure it had a lot more to do with our opponent and the fact that it was an absolutely beautiful day in the bay area.
My point is that Stanford is the exception and yet you used it as if it were the norm. Stanford's pricing reflects the fact that NOBODY will attend their games. Lot's of that is due to a far smaller alumni base, most of which, came from other states/nations.

Regardless, our fan base lacks the dedication to pack the house for games against Washington State, Oregon State, Utah, and Presby regardless of price.

---

I think only Oregon definitely is more expensive than Cal on a per game basis this year (some seats at SC are expensive but some are very cheap).

You're wrong about not packing the house too. We had 55-60k for the likes of Sac State and UC Davis, I remember $1 tickets being available (I already had season tickets and was going anyway). Look, I hustled from three kids' sporting events from the East Bay, the traditional core of our season ticket base, to the City and will continue to do so if possible, but it's a pain and when you factor in ridiculous ticket prices a lot of fans stay home.

Holmoephobic;584338 said:

---

Come up with excuses for Cincy and Louisville yet or are you still googling?
Yeah, averaging 99k per year must suck for Tennessee. They complain because they expect better from their fanbase and so should we.

Utah averaged 45,155 (which is larger than AT&T) against a MWC schedule that featured powerhouses like Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State, etc.
Surely you remember how awesome our draws were against those opponents.

Penn State averages 100k+ every year since forever and they've had more than their share of struggles over the past decade.

---

I'm not sure what you guys are debating. Cal's fanbase is not particularly passionate. There are some diehards but not nearly enough to fill a stadium by themselves. It is what it is. The AD needs to recognize this and market accordingly. Honestly, why is it relevant whether South Carolina or whoever's fans would pay these prices? It only matters if Cal fans would and it should've been obvious that they would not pay these prices to watch this team play a largely uninteresting schedule. If you want to call the fanbase fickle, that's fine but the AD needs to operate in reality and the reality is that the fanbase was not willing to pay these prices in high enough numbers. That should've been obvious yet somehow it wasn't to the people in charge.

I think a more interesting question is as follows: Let's imagine that the AD can choose between filling up the stadium by pricing tickets lower or maximizing revenue by charging higher prices that would result in greater revenue but lower overall attendance. Which should it choose?

Prices are a rip-off. Instead of whining about it (as one poster above whiningly complains about those who don't like the prices), I'm not going. Looks like I'm not alone. I look forward to lower prices in the future and if that happens it will be because a lot of us didn't or couldn't bend over for the athletic department. For a couple games this year I will probably buy scalped tickets just after kickoff.

A very good friend of mine (may she rest in peace) just five years ago gave up her season tickets because after years of loyalty she was pushed out of section F row 15 (as if those seats were valuable - in fact they were seats nobody wanted because they were too low). She wrote a letter complaining that when the inevitable bad teams returned the AD would be begging for her to buy tickets. Looks like this will be happening.

but Thursday night has a negative effect. Southern California fans (fucla and sc) look forward to visiting the Bay Area every other year - especially southern cal, who bought furd season tickets to attend the furd game.

This is a big transition year and we just need to suck it up - IMO..........

dinan3;584380 said:

---

but Thursday night has a negative effect. Southern California fans (fucla and sc) look forward to visiting the Bay Area every other year - especially southern cal, who bought furd season tickets to attend the furd game.

---

Didn't even think about that.....did we mess up the "Weekender" by scheduling the game on Thursday? What a shame....

C'mon people think a little bit here

1) USC has no pro football to compete against. If you want to watch big time football and there's no NFL then USC gets that slcie of the pie whereas in Bay Area you have 49ers, Raiders, Cal and Stanford. Most families can't afford a weekend of football games live so they'll pick one. Usually the NFL will trump the college gigs except when the local college team is exciting or is a championship contender.

2) Most of those schools people were listing have no other game in town. So of course they'll sell out because what the hell else are you going to on a Saturday in Tuscaloosa, Knoxville, Columbia, SC, etc. You can't compare Cal against those schools because Cal is competing agaisnt the Giants, A's 49ers, Raiders, Sharks, Warriors for a limited dollar and that's just the sports teams we're not even addressing the multitude of other entertainment options in the Bay Area.

3) The ASOC has botched tickets for year on end. They need to get that situation fixed and pronto. It's needs to be a streamlined and efficient process that operates on logic.

4) The AD needs to step up and I know it's hard to do promotions but even when Cal is at Memorial the promoting needs to be stepped up as Cal is competing with so many other sports and entertainment choices for the average sports fans entertainment dollars. You can't just say we'll get people to buy tickets because it's Cal.

5) Cal has to promote the hell out of school, the football experience and that needs to involve the city of Berkeley and it needs to involve partners like EA sports, powerbar and many of the local companies of the bay area. Have gameday expositions like having an EA sports tent, a portable Cal sports museum in a tent so the average sports fan can identify with the school. Cal hasn't shown the ability to sell out using only die hard Cal fans. So to get those extra seats you need to build a casual fan base.


Bottom line is that the Bay Area is a front running community unless you provide them with a great game day experience. Improving memorial will help a great deal but Cal needs to sing for its supper to get the sellouts.

Cal_Fan2;584236 said:

---

You're kidding right?... If our fan base is so bad we need the Athletic Dept to motivate them to see the team, we are a sorry lot.....thank God that isn't true for the most part, though the AD failed at making this an easier sell.

---

To be fair: Cal has about 7-12,000 actual CAL football fans. Another 5-8,000 show up on game day because they are casual fans or fans of sitting in a stadium.

The rest are at games because the team is marketing and WINNING; that happens directly from the AD (with the point of that knife being the HC of Football).


What Sandy has done is DRASTICALLY errode the support of the base 12,000 to support the people who show up for winning. That is fine, when the team is WINNING. When the team regresses, you lose a large chunk of the "fair weather" and you have already sold out a chunk of the base.

Then Cal has so-so to terrible marketing and that has reduced the number who show up based on marketing.



Bottom line: it is the AD's job to get about 75% of the fans to the game. In good times, it is OK to shart on loyal bears because it will pay off if you stay good, or are good enough to build a new loyal base.

Cal, OTOH, has sold out the loyal fan, and has failed to make up for it by attracting the fair weather fan.

Why do people say that the students won't come to the games at ATT?? If you went to the Presby game you could see that the only section that was packed WAS the student section..

Phantomfan;584404 said:

---

To be fair: Cal has about 7-12,000 actual CAL football fans. Another 5-8,000 show up on game day because they are casual fans or fans of sitting in a stadium.

The rest are at games because the team is marketing and WINNING; that happens directly from the AD (with the point of that knife being the HC of Football).

What Sandy has done is DRASTICALLY errode the support of the base 12,000 to support the people who show up for winning. That is fine, when the team is WINNING. When the team regresses, you lose a large chunk of the "fair weather" and you have already sold out a chunk of the base.

Then Cal has so-so to terrible marketing and that has reduced the number who show up based on marketing.

Bottom line: it is the AD's job to get about 75% of the fans to the game. In good times, it is OK to shart on loyal bears because it will pay off if you stay good, or are good enough to build a new loyal base.

Cal, OTOH, has sold out the loyal fan, and has failed to make up for it by attracting the fair weather fan.

---

Hit the nail on the head.

It really doesn't matter whether we are "better" of "worse" than other fans. Sandy's job is to put butts in seats, maximizing revenue. That means operating in the reality that is Cal Football fandom.

I know Cal must raise enough revenue to meet the budget, pay for the stadium upgrade, etc. But like any business, customers don't pay for what the seller needs, they pay what they feel the product is worth. Fortunately, many of us love Cal and Cal Football and believe that is worth extra.

But, as Phantom says, this is not a large (enough) group, and the AD doesn't do a very good job of stewarding it.

I know a number of mid-level Bear Backers / long-time season ticket holders that dropped out in the past two years due to a perception that it was no longer worth the investment. Some of you would rag on those former BB's, but the fact is they got moved to poorer seats, in some cases their groups got split apart, and in most cases their former seats remained unsold and empty. They're not being "bad fans" by buying their tickets on Craig's list now, they're being smarter consumers in a down economy. They still go to games and support the team. They sit in better seats at a fraction of what they used to spend, including their BB donations. The sad part is that the AD is continually making a big push to add Bear Backers, but I see them completely failing to make an effort to retain the meat-and-potatoes current ones.

Of course a Rose Bowl or BCS bowl would cure all. But absent those, the AD needs to be a lot smarter than they seem to be.

Holmoephobic;584311 said:

---

UCLA's seats are empty because of the fans? Sure.

USC averaged 84k per contest despite the sanctions and down year.

---

Last year SC, mighty and football tradition rich SC with no pro teams against whom to compete, averaged 79K.

This year they are averaging 67K per game in their first 4 games. That including their lowest home opener and smallest crowd in 10 years. That's on average, 25,000 empty seats per game.

CAL's ticket sales this year are a function of one thing. Absolutely incompetent sales and marketing. People should be fired for it. No not Sandy, but people who work for her. They have totally screwed the pooch. The Fresno State ticket sales were a debacle as were Presbyterian. Hell, the pricing for seats back in the spring started it when they could only sell a dozen or so of the sections a-c seats. These people are simply incompetent.

Looperbear;584317 said:

---

Not true. Stanford offers a family plan ticket package in a state of the art football facility with ample parking and a superior product for far less than what Sandy gouges us for.

---

For UCLA-Stanford, I got a ticket on the goal line, ten rows up for $8.

Parking on dirt in a eucalyptus grove cost me $15 though. If I had known they were charging this year, I would have just parked for free on El Camino like I usually do.

I am not losing any sleep over it!

LafayetteBear;584458 said:

---

77x: If you took the trouble to read beyond the thread title (which the "..." generally suggests that you do), you would have noted that Larno was talking only about ticket sales. His post was hardly incendiary. Frankly, I think it's a bit early to make a definitive conclusion on the issue of ticket sales (or the team's success, for that matter), but his post hardly merited your suggesting that: (1) he is an idiot, and (2) can't help himself. To me, that seemed a bit of an hominem.

---

The title was purposefully and unnecessarily incendiary. That is to say, there was no reason to title the thread like that and then be talking about ticket sales. People who matter could read that and get the wrong impression. I stand by everything I wrote. Being a jackass has consequences, even on the internet.

bar20;584501 said:

---

I am not losing any sleep over it!

---

BEST POST OF THE THREAD!

Everyone...save your hostility for the upcoming curb stomp we are about to receive :headbang

This is the first year in 25 I considered not getting tickets, not because it was too far, but because the prices were too damn high. With the donation it is basically 200 a game, or 400 a game for two. Leaving out the FSU game was a further insult and scheduling Presbyterian was a waste. And why are they charging so much more with a $Billion TV contract? It is gouge city, and as a long time loyal Cal fan I resent it. Loyalty means nothing to Barbour. Did I mention cutting baseball and rugby?

So she assumes we will pay whatever she asks for football.

This is just the beginning of the earthquake that is going to hit college football on the wast coast in the years ahead. We had to sell our souls to ESPN/Fox to support the rising costs of supporting non-revenue producing sports, which is everything other than men's football and hoops. If you think the crowds are bad at Cal, take a look around and see that USC just had one of the lowest crowds in years this past weekend, there would have been nobody at the rose bowl for UCLA/Texas without Longhorn fans. Does anybody really think UTAH is a draw and has added anything other than a title game for television to the conference.

If any of you think the crowds are less than stellar this year wait to see how poorly our basketball team draws this year on Sunday nights, Monday and Tuesdays in the future and every game on television for us to watch in the comfort of our homes, beer in hand, the ability to stop anytime you want to and no traffic to beat going and coming home from the game. In the midwest and south football and basketball are the only thing fans have for entertainment. In California we have so much more to offer which included now seeing every game in both the football and basketball seasons for free.

A few issues:
1. Gouging: Anyone arguing that the prices and donation levels were/are not seriously out of wack need only to go to calbears.com and search for available tickets. I bought single game tickets to two different games as gifts to friends/family in addition to season tickets. Not only was there no donation required, I was able to obtain BETTER seats than my own--meaning I most likely could have gamed the system, bought single game seats for every game and made 0 donation. Yes, they may have been different seats each game, but it would have netted savings in the thousand + range. Also, weird that the majority of club was EMPTY for Presby. You can't tell me that was all because of the opponent and/or "the weather was nice in the bay area that day". Message to 20+ year season ticket holders: you loyalty means nothing. Maybe they should have pro-rated the donations for single games, or given different tiers of loyal fans better incentives?

2. TBD: What message does it send when almost every gametime is TBD? I get the tv exposure is valuable, but you would think this year, if any, they would realize that having set gametimes would be important. For those traveling, who have other time commitments, etc?? The fact that people are negotiating the unknown with AT&T. If you are a parent (I'm not, but the point remains), how can you justify getting tickets when you may need to miss one or more games? If I throw a party in three weeks and tell my friends the time is "TBD", what percentage are going to RSVP yes? Not because they don't want to go, but for the simple fact that they don't know. There's a difference between 12p, 4p, and 7p. Message: not only do we care more about tv than the fans in the stadium, but we want you to block off the whole day and make no other plans to ensure you can go.

calumnus;584477 said:

---

For UCLA-Stanford, I got a ticket on the goal line, ten rows up for $8.

Parking on dirt in a eucalyptus grove cost me $15 though. If I had known they were charging this year, I would have just parked for free on El Camino like I usually do.

---

$15? Bummer, I remembered it always being free.

I think it's a triple whammy. Bad economy, losing season last year, and the extra travel for east bay fans. Probably the biggest is just not having a ranked team. If you want top end attendance, you need a top end team.

xultaif;584453 said:

---

Last year SC, mighty and football tradition rich SC with no pro teams against whom to compete, averaged 79K.

This year they are averaging 67K per game in their first 4 games. That including their lowest home opener and smallest crowd in 10 years. That's on average, 25,000 empty seats per game.

CAL's ticket sales this year are a function of one thing. Absolutely incompetent sales and marketing. People should be fired for it. No not Sandy, but people who work for her. They have totally screwed the pooch. The Fresno State ticket sales were a debacle as were Presbyterian. Hell, the pricing for seats back in the spring started it when they could only sell a dozen or so of the sections a-c seats. These people are simply incompetent.

---

I think you really nailed it. I agree 100%.

Thanks

pappysghost;584682 said:

---

I think it's a triple whammy. Bad economy, losing season last year, and the extra travel for east bay fans. Probably the biggest is just not having a ranked team. If you want top end attendance, you need a top end team.

---

+1 Note Stanfurd drew >50000 for UCLA. When is the last time that happened?

Plus there are not ads on the sides of your TV screen.

cal97;584361 said:

---

I think a more interesting question is as follows: Let's imagine that the AD can choose between filling up the stadium by pricing tickets lower or maximizing revenue by charging higher prices that would result in greater revenue but lower overall attendance. Which should it choose?

---

I agree; this is the interesting question. Price discrimination is a tricky thing and extracting the full willingness to pay out of the die hards often entails losing other customers.

Maybe they have taken things too far and aren't maximizing revenue, but, if they are, is it worth it if it means lower attendance?

CubanPete;584757 said:

---

I think there's no doubt that they aren't maximizing revenue.

---

Agreed. They attempted to maximize revenue but I'm pretty sure they failed because they got far too aggressive in their pricing structure. The result is the worst of both worlds -- money left on the table, a bunch of empty seats, and a lot of pissed off fans. But that point is an execution point. I'm more interested in the goal. Should the goal be to maximize revenue or to maximize revenue conditional on filling the stadium?

I think it should be the latter. We need to give the program a homefield advantage and we need to think long term. I think the former is shortsighted and will ultimately be ineffective over time.

I think there will be a bump in interest with the new stadium. The problem being that for west Siders there will be very few seats at a reaonable cost. Once those are taken early by people with alot of priority points, there could be a problem.

Trilogy44;584594 said:

---

2. TBD: What message does it send when almost every gametime is TBD? I get the tv exposure is valuable, but you would think this year, if any, they would realize that having set gametimes would be important. For those traveling, who have other time commitments, etc?? The fact that people are negotiating the unknown with AT&T. If you are a parent (I'm not, but the point remains), how can you justify getting tickets when you may need to miss one or more games? If I throw a party in three weeks and tell my friends the time is "TBD", what percentage are going to RSVP yes? Not because they don't want to go, but for the simple fact that they don't know. There's a difference between 12p, 4p, and 7p. Message: not only do we care more about tv than the fans in the stadium, but we want you to block off the whole day and make no other plans to ensure you can go.

---

Everyone has these issues. Here's an excerpt from schedules around the league:

UCLA:

10/08/11 vs. Washington State TV Rose Bowl 7:30 p.m. PT
10/20/11 at Arizona TV Tucson, AZ 6:00 p.m. PT
10/29/11 vs. California Rose Bowl TBA
11/05/11 vs. Arizona State Rose Bowl TBA
11/12/11 at Utah Salt Lake City, UT TBA
11/19/11 vs. Colorado Rose Bowl TBA
11/26/11 at USC TV Los Angeles, CA 7:00 p.m. PT

WSU:

10/08/11 at UCLA TV Pasadena, Calif. 7:30 p.m. PT
10/15/11 vs. Stanford TV Pullman 4:30 p.m. PT
10/22/11 vs. Oregon State Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA
10/29/11 at Oregon Eugene, Ore. TBA
11/05/11 at California San Francisco, Calif. (AT&T Park) TBA
11/12/11 vs. Arizona State Pullman TBA
11/19/11 vs. Utah Pullman TBA
11/26/11 at Washington Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA

Washington:

10/15/11 vs. Colorado * TV Seattle, Wash. 12:30 p.m. PT
10/22/11 at Stanford * TV Stanford, Calif. 5:00 p.m. PT
10/29/11 vs. Arizona * Seattle, Wash. TBA
11/05/11 vs. Oregon * Seattle, Wash. TBA
11/12/11 at USC * TV Los Angeles, Calif. 12:30 p.m. PT
11/19/11 at Oregon State * Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/26/11 vs. Washington State * Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA

Utah:

10/08/11 vs. Arizona State TV Salt Lake City 1:30 p.m. MT
10/15/11 at Pittsburgh TV Pittsburgh, Pa. 12:00 p.m. ET
10/22/11 at California San Francisco, Calif. TBA
10/29/11 vs. Oregon State Salt Lake City TBA
11/05/11 at Arizona Tucson, Ariz. TBA
11/12/11 vs. UCLA Salt Lake City TBA
11/19/11 at Washington State Pullman, Wash. TBA
11/25/11 vs. Colorado TV Salt Lake City 1:30 p.m. MT

Oregon St:

10/08/11 vs. Arizona TV Corvallis, Ore. 12:30 p.m. PT
10/15/11 vs. BYU TV Corvallis, Ore. 1:00 p.m. PT
10/22/11 vs. Washington State CenturyLink Field, Seattle TBA
10/29/11 at Utah Salt Lake City, Utah TBA
11/05/11 vs. Stanford Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/12/11 at California AT&T Park, San Francisco TBA
11/19/11 vs. Washington Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/26/11 at Oregon Eugene, Ore. TBA

Oregon:

Thu, Oct 06 California * 9 - Eugene, Ore. 6:00 p.m.
ESPN/ESPN3D
Sat, Oct 15 Arizona State * - - Eugene, Ore. 7:15 p.m.
ESPN/ESPN3D
Sat, Oct 22 Colorado * - - at Boulder, Colo. TBA
Sat, Oct 29 Washington State * - - Eugene, Ore. TBA
Sat, Nov 05 Washington * - - at Seattle, Wash. TBA
Sat, Nov 12 Stanford * - - at Stanford, Calif. TBA
Sat, Nov 19 USC * - - Eugene, Ore. 5:00 p.m.
ABC
Sat, Nov 26 Oregon State * - - Eugene, Ore. TBA


It's all about how good your team is, and even then, Oregon who is great and is going to have every game on TV this year still has a bunch of TBA's. It's all because the way the TV rights have been decided. So you can either complain and whine about it, or realize that all college football fans, at least in the pac-12, have to deal with the same issues and get over yourselves. Either you want to be at the game or not. It just seems that our fans in particular are extra whiny about it. If you don't like it, or if its too inconvenient for you, then see you later - but to come on here and complain about not being able to schedule events is BS. Got kids and have Saturday events, then I guess you don't get to go to games for a few years. It's not like when every game was at 12:30 before we had a real TV deal allowed you to go to Jr's t-ball or soccer game, and if it did - then how is this any different? It says TBA, but you know its going to be one of 4 options; 12:30, 3:00, 4ish, or 7:30. Don't make plans for the evening. If that's too hard, then boo hoo. I've never heard or seen so many excuses about getting to a game or not. It's not like AT&T is hard to get to - I would argue that it's easier to get to than CMS if you just take Bart and/or Muni. Cry me a freaking river.

CubanPete;584764 said:

---

I agree. Over time, if the demand for tickets becomes so much that you can raise prices and still have a sold-out stadium, then by all means raise prices. But given where the team is in 2011, the priority should be building customer loyalty and making the people who are spending the most feel like they're getting a good bang for the buck. The choice the AD made was obviously to try and milk the smaller sized stadium and improved amenities, combined with the fear of not being able to get the seats people want for next year. That strategy appears to have failed on the whole.

The other thing is that a full stadium creates an atmosphere where potential recruits are more excited about coming to your games and creates a better home field advantage, so it aids you in making the team win more games which aids the cycle of fuller stadium begets more season ticket sales which begets ability to raise prices as the available tickets become scarcer.

---

Seems to me that this discussion re: sold out stadiums is at least a tad bit premature. We've had one "home" game so far that was part of the season ticket package, and it was against Presby. Lets see how well the attendance is for USC before we start talking about the failings of fan interest. A win against the ducks would guarantee a sell out imo. A close game and I think it's close to a sellout, probably 2k short. A huge loss to oregon and its going to be 35-38k (or worse) with a bunch of SC honks picking up tickets on stubhub on the cheap. The point is, our fan base is comprised of a bunch of fickle bandwagoners.

Look, I totally agree that ticket prices were too high this year, and that they over adjusted in an attempt to capitalize on the smaller stadium thinking demand would be high enough. Lets remember that we are not only losing total seat revenue, but also have to pay rent for the stadium this year. They made a bad calculation, and are paying for it now. This is apparently nothing new for the ATO. In any event, I wasn't about to spend that kind of coin on tickets for my wife and I, for the simple reason that I can't afford it. A new mortgage in the beginning of my professional career = getting seats in the end zones for $250 each. My section didn't appear to be sold out when I was getting tickets, and it was nowhere near being full for presby (no section was other than the students). So everyone talking about tickets being too expensive really are saying they were too expensive to sit in "the good seats." If you wanted to go to the game, tickets were just as "cheap" as you could get in the endzones at CMS, and were/are available for purchase. I wouldn't miss seeing my bears play at home for (almost) anything, and you can be damned sure I am going to be in the stadium, even if my seats are crappy because I got the cheapest seats in the house. It's just that a bunch of people here are making excuses for the fact that they simply don't want to go to games because its too much of an inconvenience for them, for one reason or another. Those people are not die hard fans, which our fan base lacks for the multitude of reasons already stated previously.

Vandalus;584780 said:

---

Everyone has these issues. Here's an excerpt from schedules around the league:

UCLA:

10/08/11 vs. Washington State TV Rose Bowl 7:30 p.m. PT
10/20/11 at Arizona TV Tucson, AZ 6:00 p.m. PT
10/29/11 vs. California Rose Bowl TBA
11/05/11 vs. Arizona State Rose Bowl TBA
11/12/11 at Utah Salt Lake City, UT TBA
11/19/11 vs. Colorado Rose Bowl TBA
11/26/11 at USC TV Los Angeles, CA 7:00 p.m. PT

WSU:

10/08/11 at UCLA TV Pasadena, Calif. 7:30 p.m. PT
10/15/11 vs. Stanford TV Pullman 4:30 p.m. PT
10/22/11 vs. Oregon State Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA
10/29/11 at Oregon Eugene, Ore. TBA
11/05/11 at California San Francisco, Calif. (AT&T Park) TBA
11/12/11 vs. Arizona State Pullman TBA
11/19/11 vs. Utah Pullman TBA
11/26/11 at Washington Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA

Washington:

10/15/11 vs. Colorado * TV Seattle, Wash. 12:30 p.m. PT
10/22/11 at Stanford * TV Stanford, Calif. 5:00 p.m. PT
10/29/11 vs. Arizona * Seattle, Wash. TBA
11/05/11 vs. Oregon * Seattle, Wash. TBA
11/12/11 at USC * TV Los Angeles, Calif. 12:30 p.m. PT
11/19/11 at Oregon State * Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/26/11 vs. Washington State * Seattle, Wash. (CenturyLink Field) TBA

Utah:

10/08/11 vs. Arizona State TV Salt Lake City 1:30 p.m. MT
10/15/11 at Pittsburgh TV Pittsburgh, Pa. 12:00 p.m. ET
10/22/11 at California San Francisco, Calif. TBA
10/29/11 vs. Oregon State Salt Lake City TBA
11/05/11 at Arizona Tucson, Ariz. TBA
11/12/11 vs. UCLA Salt Lake City TBA
11/19/11 at Washington State Pullman, Wash. TBA
11/25/11 vs. Colorado TV Salt Lake City 1:30 p.m. MT

Oregon St:

10/08/11 vs. Arizona TV Corvallis, Ore. 12:30 p.m. PT
10/15/11 vs. BYU TV Corvallis, Ore. 1:00 p.m. PT
10/22/11 vs. Washington State CenturyLink Field, Seattle TBA
10/29/11 at Utah Salt Lake City, Utah TBA
11/05/11 vs. Stanford Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/12/11 at California AT&T Park, San Francisco TBA
11/19/11 vs. Washington Corvallis, Ore. TBA
11/26/11 at Oregon Eugene, Ore. TBA

Oregon:

Thu, Oct 06 California * 9 - Eugene, Ore. 6:00 p.m.
ESPN/ESPN3D
Sat, Oct 15 Arizona State * - - Eugene, Ore. 7:15 p.m.
ESPN/ESPN3D
Sat, Oct 22 Colorado * - - at Boulder, Colo. TBA
Sat, Oct 29 Washington State * - - Eugene, Ore. TBA
Sat, Nov 05 Washington * - - at Seattle, Wash. TBA
Sat, Nov 12 Stanford * - - at Stanford, Calif. TBA
Sat, Nov 19 USC * - - Eugene, Ore. 5:00 p.m.
ABC
Sat, Nov 26 Oregon State * - - Eugene, Ore. TBA


It's all about how good your team is, and even then, Oregon who is great and is going to have every game on TV this year still has a bunch of TBA's. It's all because the way the TV rights have been decided. So you can either complain and whine about it, or realize that all college football fans, at least in the pac-12, have to deal with the same issues and get over yourselves. Either you want to be at the game or not. It just seems that our fans in particular are extra whiny about it. If you don't like it, or if its too inconvenient for you, then see you later - but to come on here and complain about not being able to schedule events is BS. Got kids and have Saturday events, then I guess you don't get to go to games for a few years. It's not like when every game was at 12:30 before we had a real TV deal allowed you to go to Jr's t-ball or soccer game, and if it did - then how is this any different? It says TBA, but you know its going to be one of 4 options; 12:30, 3:00, 4ish, or 7:30. Don't make plans for the evening. If that's too hard, then boo hoo. I've never heard or seen so many excuses about getting to a game or not. It's not like AT&T is hard to get to - I would argue that it's easier to get to than CMS if you just take Bart and/or Muni. Cry me a freaking river.

---

Did you even read my post? Talk about clueless. You are preaching to the choir! I go to the games already. I specifically said "i do not have children". Why don't you try reading the thread before going off on an idiotic rant? This discussion is not about the die hards (people on this board, and the 13K-15K who would go to any game no matter what)...it's about the casual fans and why they would not come--reasons these casual fans have for not attending. And I would argue that TBDs and the pricing are the two biggest reasons. That's what I was addressing. So get off your soapbox, stop being so self-imporatnt, and actually add something useful.

And I love this part: "It says TBA, but you know its going to be one of 4 options; 12:30, 3:00, 4ish, or 7:30. Don't make plans for the evening. If that's too hard, then boo hoo."

12:30, 3:00, 4ish, or 7:30??? That's the evening to you? That's the whole day!

Trilogy44;584810 said:

---

Did you even read my post? Talk about clueless. You are preaching to the choir! I go to the games already. I specifically said "i do not have children". Why don't you try reading the thread before going off on an idiotic rant? This discussion is not about the die hards (people on this board, and the 13K-15K who would go to any game no matter what)...it's about the casual fans and why they would not come--reasons these casual fans have for not attending. And I would argue that TBDs and the pricing are the two biggest reasons. That's what I was addressing. So get off your soapbox, stop being so self-imporatnt, and actually add something useful.

---

Ad hominem much? I quoted your text because you specifically brought up complaints about TBD's. My point, which apparently was useless for your tastes, was that EVERYONE in the pac-12 has to deal with them. This whole discussion was predicated on whether our fans are any more or less farewell than others, either in the west, as one poster specifically brought up, or in the rest of the country. If everyone is having to deal with TBD's, then why are we Cal fans the ones seemingly complaining about it, and according to some, letting these issues of either expenses, location, or convenience in location or scheduling getting in the way of going to games (as evidenced by attendance and sales figures).

If you think that all of us are the hardcore fans, then you are mistaken. this board has had plenty of posts just in this thread alone about personal stories of refusing to buy tickets because they are either too expensive, or its just too damned hard to get to the games at AT&T.

edit: And I'll add - I began using "you" incorrectly - not so much as to YOU Trilogy44, but the proverbial fan that is complaining about all sorts of issues, whether it be TBD's, pricing, or inconvenience. In re-reading my post, I see how that could have been confused - It was not my intent to call YOU specifically out other than the TBD issue, which I stand by. In any event, flame away.

tix prices are waaay to $ this year. + low expectations you should definitely see low attedance.

CubanPete;584837 said:

---

That could be true, but I suspect that what's really going to happen is that a good portion of the people who bought season tickets are going to cash out the USC game to try and recoup some of the money they spent this year. I wouldn't be surprised to see 25% of the stadium in red for this year's game, so I'm not sure a sellout would be a tremendous statement on fan interest (though the revenue is the same to the AD regardless of which team's fans buys the tickets).

---

I tend to agree with you on this point. Although I'm hoping that since its a thursday game, a lot of the LA folks won't be able to miss two days of work to make it up for the long "weekender." Then again, there are plenty of SC grads in the bay area so inconvenient date or not, we are going to see a lot of red next thursday I think.

CubanPete;584837 said:

---

I could be misreading things, but I don't think convenience is the overriding issue. For some folks that live really close to Berkeley, perhaps. But for some people, it may actually be more convenient to have the games in San Francisco because of ferry service or because they live on the west side of the bay. I think price, how good the team was last year, and how good they were perceived to be this year were the biggest factors.

---

Right - convenience is just one excuse. I agree, season ticket holders on the peninsula or in the city have it way better this year. I guess my point is that until the cheapest seats are sold - which are at least reasonably priced (this can be debated for sure, it's just they aren't much more expensive than similarly situated seats at CMS) - then an argument that posits: "I didn't buy tickets this year because they were too expensive" is at least partially a cop-out, because seats were available that were reasonably priced, and my understanding is, they didn't sell out. I agree whole hardheartedly that the majority of seats are/were too highly priced - way over priced for my budget at least, but some were available. Now, if $250 is too much for season tickets for a person, then that's fine. But the argument that "$250 is too much for season tickets to see the bears play crap football against not very good teams other than SC" is BS, and the calling card of a fair-weather fan.

disclosure - I am not calling you CubanPete a fair-weather fan. Again, I am speaking of the general tone of some posters concerning the refusal to either buy tickets or go to games for any multitude of reasons.

cal97;584759 said:

---

Agreed. They attempted to maximize revenue but I'm pretty sure they failed because they got far too aggressive in their pricing structure. The result is the worst of both worlds -- money left on the table, a bunch of empty seats, and a lot of pissed off fans. But that point is an execution point. I'm more interested in the goal. Should the goal be to maximize revenue or to maximize revenue conditional on filling the stadium?

I think it should be the latter. We need to give the program a homefield advantage and we need to think long term. I think the former is shortsighted and will ultimately be ineffective over time.

---

hear, hear