It's true Sandy, Tedford, the ATO have upset Cal fans, for legit reasons, but only 35k fans showed up for the Utah game is simply disgraceful.

FremontBear;602447 said:

---

It's true Sandy, Tedford, the ATO have upset Cal fans, for legit reasons, but only 35k fans showed up for the Utah game is simply disgraceful.

---

Judging by all the red I saw in Section A and B, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a couple thousand of those were Utah fans.

pingpong2;602452 said:

---

Judging by all the red I saw in Section A and B, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a couple thousand of those were Utah fans.

---

Well, they may have been stanfurd fans who got lost on their way to Palo Alto.

It was a decent crowd and will be bigger than either WSU or OSU. This has turned out to be a lost season but I am enjoying ATT a lot. Much better access than Berkeley, cheaper parking, better views, nicer seats, better food. Sure the campus life and spirit is not there and is greatly missed but many fans are missing out on a good thing.

FremontBear;602447 said:

---

It's true Sandy, Tedford, the ATO have upset Cal fans, for legit reasons, but only 35k fans showed up for the Utah game is simply disgraceful.

---

Sandy and JT can keep whining about the fans, but i'm tired of it. Put a product on the field we can be proud of, then complain. This team as played to its potential in 7 years, and the crowds reflect it.

and restrooms...great view of the bay from the 3rd deck

GB54;602462 said:

---

It was a decent crowd and will be bigger than either WSU or OSU. This has turned out to be a lost season but I am enjoying ATT a lot. Much better access than Berkeley, cheaper parking, better views, nicer seats, better food. Sure the campus life and spirit is not there and is greatly missed but many fans are missing out on a good thing.

---

Decent crowd by AT&T standard? True.

Decent by the standard established by Cal home games over the past 8 years? No.

(And the likelihood that attendance may be worse for the last two home games is certainly not a comfort.)

By "better views", are you referring to the view of the surroundings from the stadium, or the view of the field from the stadium? I'd disagree with either, but I would vehemently disagree with the latter. The view from my seats are almost unwatchable, a reality which is made only more annoying when combined with the decision by the Athletic Department to give the seats behind the visitors bench to the visiting fans. Why should we give the visiting fans arguably the best views in the house?

We've averaged over 50,000 at home in every year since 2004. Based on this alone, I figured the low capacity of AT&T Park would be a limiting factor for our attendance this year. Turns out my fears were unfounded, because Cal fans are too weak to fill a 45k seat stadium just 12 miles from campus. Even against SC, there were plenty of open seats (along with thousands of seats filled with red shirts). Not even to mention the disgrace that was our showing at Candlestick.

Fremontbear said it well. The Athletic Department and the product on the field have not been helpful, but it doesn't matter. This showing is pathetic. Crowd enthusiasm is low and the gameday atmosphere is comparatively dim. The student section is scarcely a shadow of it's Berkeley grandeur, crowd participation for defensive noise and stadium cheers is even worse than it is at Memorial and I don't know if it's their location of a peculiarity of my location, but the band seems barely audible. Nothing personal against GB54, but it seems that what he and many other fans enjoy about the AT&T Park games have very little to do with the game, and could be enjoyed on any random day trip to the city.

Of course, there wasn't much of a recourse, and it's only for this year, but as far as venue goes, I consider this season a disaster. I can't wait to go home next season.

KevBear;602490 said:

---

Decent crowd by AT&T standard? True.

Decent by the standard established by Cal home games over the past 8 years? No.

(And the likelihood that attendance may be worse for the last two home games is certainly not a comfort.)

By "better views", are you referring to the view of the surroundings from the stadium, or the view of the field from the stadium? I'd disagree with either, but I would vehemently disagree with the latter. The view from my seats are almost unwatchable, a reality which is made only more annoying when combined with the decision by the Athletic Department to give the seats behind the visitors bench to the visiting fans. Why should we give the visiting fans arguably the best views in the house?

We've averaged over 50,000 at home in every year since 2004. Based on this alone, I figured the low capacity of AT&T Park would be a limiting factor for our attendance this year. Turns out my fears were unfounded, because Cal fans are too weak to fill a 45k seat stadium just 12 miles from campus. Even against SC, there were plenty of open seats (along with thousands of seats filled with red shirts). Not even to mention the disgrace that was our showing at Candlestick.

Fremontbear said it well. The Athletic Department and the product on the field have not been helpful, but it doesn't matter. This showing is pathetic. Crowd enthusiasm is low and the gameday atmosphere is comparatively dim. The student section is scarcely a shadow of it's Berkeley grandeur, crowd participation for defensive noise and stadium cheers is even worse than it is at Memorial and I don't know if it's their location of a peculiarity of my location, but the band seems barely audible. Nothing personal against GB54, but it seems that what he and many other fans enjoy about the AT&T Park games have very little to do with the game, and could be enjoyed on any random day trip to the city.

Of course, there wasn't much of a recourse, and it's only for this year, but as far as venue goes, I consider this season a disaster. I can't wait to go home next season.

---

Views=of the field, from view section, 40 yard line where I sit. Far better perspective than Memorial coupled with views of the Bay. Can't beat it.

Why do we go to Cal football games? Because a matchup of 3-3 teams is so compelling? Because watching football in person is far superior to watching it on TV? No. It's a combination of things-camaraderie, school spirit, atmosphere, food, drink, nostalgia, etc. So I would argue that why I would enjoy ATT and you wouldn't doesn't have anything to do with the game but what we value as experience. Oh and things like access, parking, etc. add or detract from that experience.

Is Memorial better? Sure because it is a campus not a public stadium so of course the gameday atmosphere is going to be different. We are not talking about a replacement but a highly enjoyable alternative if our fans weren't so provincial.

I would blame it on seanon ticket sales. Cal raised the prices greatly thinkng because there were fewer seats at AT&T that all games would be a selout. Well a lot of people got pissed off because they raised the prices on a 5-7 team. I think they announce the the tickets sold and not the butts in the seats. Blame it on greed by the athletic department on a mediocre team.

It is a disgrace but not b/c of Sandy's doing but b/c of the boring football teams tedford has fielded the last 3 or 4 years.

This is what happens when you have
1. No home
2. Games across a bay with so-so transportation
3. Baseball stadium
4. Average/Below Average team (while another team is playing a top 25 game a few miles away)
5. Random start times
6. 3 straight losses


Cal is getting what a normal person would expect. I was surprised so many people showed up.

Just about the ONLY thing that would cause a sellout in a stadium like that with random start times would be if Cal was 6-1 or better...

I would guess Memorial sells out every game next year. (lowered capacity means perception will be tickets are hard to come by, New stadium everyone wants to see, ZM will be starting his second season with a MUCH improved D and run game, we have a schedule that includes several "revenge" games, etc).

Phantomfan;602522 said:

---

This is what happens when you have
1. No home
2. Games across a bay with so-so transportation
3. Baseball stadium
4. Average/Below Average team (while another team is playing a top 25 game a few miles away)
5. Random start times
6. 3 straight losses


Cal is getting what a normal person would expect. I was surprised so many people showed up.

Just about the ONLY thing that would cause a sellout in a stadium like that with random start times would be if Cal was 6-1 or better...

I would guess Memorial sells out every game next year. (lowered capacity means perception will be tickets are hard to come by, New stadium everyone wants to see, ZM will be starting his second season with a MUCH improved D and run game, we have a schedule that includes several "revenge" games, etc).

---

Interesting point about the start times. I gotta agree. Back when Cal was "good" we had typically 12:30 or 5ish starts. Not we are Thursday night, Saturday lunch, Saturday mid afternoon, Saturday night

Phantomfan;602522 said:

---

This is what happens when you have
1. No home
2. Games across a bay with so-so transportation
3. Baseball stadium
4. Average/Below Average team (while another team is playing a top 25 game a few miles away)
5. Random start times
6. 3 straight losses


Cal is getting what a normal person would expect. I was surprised so many people showed up.

Just about the ONLY thing that would cause a sellout in a stadium like that with random start times would be if Cal was 6-1 or better...

I would guess Memorial sells out every game next year. (lowered capacity means perception will be tickets are hard to come by, New stadium everyone wants to see, ZM will be starting his second season with a MUCH improved D and run game, we have a schedule that includes several "revenge" games, etc).

---

People complain about bandwagon fans but when you have 26,000 season ticket holders bandwagon fans is what you want and need. I think the ATO totally discounted last year's stinkbomb of a team when projecting demand and they discounted the eagerness of our fan base to try a new experience at an exorbitant cost

^^^^good points also

pingpong2;602452 said:

---

Judging by all the red I saw in Section A and B, I wouldn't be surprised if at least a couple thousand of those were Utah fans.

---

Well ome was my cousin who failed to realize we were playing Utah. :headbang

tc3590;602567 said:

---

Well ome was my cousin who failed to realize we were playing Utah. :headbang

---

Why was he wearing red in the first place?!?!?!

The fact is the hardcore Old Blues in the mold of Col. Travers have died off and what is left is a group of people mostly interest in the social aspects of CFB. With the games this year being off campus they easily found reasons to drop the Bears from their schedule.

Here's a couple what-if questions....

What if we did AT&T Park in a year like 2004, when we had an Aaron-Rodgers-led contending team? Would there have been as much of a drop-off just from playing in SF? I think not only every game would have been sold out, but they would have been big-time EVENTS, something that doesn't seem to be happening now.

Also, what if furd were to play a season in AT&T Park? What kind of numbers do you think they'd get?

The Cal fans in my section were horrible yesterday. My wife and I were literally the ONLY people in our entire SECTION making noise on 3rd down. Everyone else was busy on their cellphones. Really, really bad.

pingpong2;602569 said:

---

Why was he wearing red in the first place?!?!?!

---

It was his only clean sweatshirt. Unless he is a closet furd fan

FremontBear;602447 said:

---

It's true Sandy, Tedford, the ATO have upset Cal fans, for legit reasons, but only 35k fans showed up for the Utah game is simply disgraceful.

---

For most of the last 50 years, 35K has been about what we could expect for non-SC/Ucla, non-Big Game games, in years when we weren't contending. In other words- that's how many real fans we have; the folks who'll show up through thick and thin because they plain love Cal, warts and all. The only disgrace, as far as I'm concerned, is the number of athletic administrations that have blown through here, decade in and decade out thinking they could change that by employing whatever gimmicks-of-the-month/day/year were then the fashion; and then walked out in disgust when what worked so splendidly elsewhere didn't work here.

I actually give the current folks *alot* of credit on that score. Because most of what they're doing isn't gimmicks. They're doing what's needed doing for 40 years: upgrade the stadium; pay the coaches competitive salaries; emphasize academics in recruiting; get first class training facilities; link football more closely with non revenue sports; take on the on campus haters. They've made some whopping mis judgements on just about all those fronts but you know what? They're still *here.* And they're still fighting. Nobody's thrown up their hands and marched off to greener pastures; nobody's declared this whole football-in-a-place-as-strange-as-Berkeley thing absurd and impossible and just called it a day. And that's *different.* It's miles and miles different from anything we've seen since before Pappy Waldorf was fired- truly.

The biggest thing I'd say that they still just don't seem to have a handle on is understanding that just because we're not in South Bend or Tuscaloosa, doesn't mean it's not *college* football that we're selling. Tightwad Hill and Oski; the Band and the songbook; the Cannon and the card stunts and Roll On and the Axe; are every bit as much "the product" as the touchdowns and the Ws - it's just that you can't *market* them here in the same way you can in South Bend or Tuscaloosa. You can't assume a willing and broadly receptive audience that agrees that such things are fun and valuable. Indeed, what you've got instead is an audience that- in general - finds such things anywhere from vaguely weird and pretty laughable to utterly foreign and downright threatening. And the only way to deal with that is either to a) play up the absurd and laughable meme to the hilt (the furdie "band" solution) or b) reframe for all your worth, so as to take down the perceived "threat" level on the other end.

Alas, the currently preferred solution seems to neither - but to opt instead for trying to pull the "average" bay area sports fan in by converting the whole thing into a sort of "pro sports lite." And that doesn't work. Hence you end up with just the same 35,000 Cal fans as always. You want to grow that number? Make college football more comprehensible to the wider campus and bay area comminity. Anchor it firmly within their values and concerns. Show them how the ritual and the lore of it can reflect *them.* But don't kid youself that better washrooms, more comfy seats, a big video board, and slightly-less-cardboardy-than-before food are somehow going to do the trick all by themselves. They don't and they won't. Period.

KevBear;602490 said:

---

The view from my seats are almost unwatchable, a reality which is made only more annoying when combined with the decision by the Athletic Department to give the seats behind the visitors bench to the visiting fans. Why should we give the visiting fans arguably the best views in the house?

The Athletic Department and the product on the field have not been helpful, but it doesn't matter.

---

This should be a textbook case for Haas business school on how [U]NOT [/U]to market a team. I cut out all the other stuff, but that first point is totally 100% on incompetent marketing. That then has a direct affect on the latter.

These are rank amateurs driving CAL marketing into the ground. It's been made worse by the fact that there are far more qualified people out there who get spurned by the department (and i'm not self servingly talking about me).

It's not a disgrace on the fans. It's a disgrace on the CAL marketing department. They've cost the department millions in lost ticket revenue. They've created an embarrassing environment. And worse, they've let the team down.

Absolutely rank amateurism and marketing malpractice.

tc3590;602605 said:

---

It was his only clean sweatshirt. Unless he is a closet furd fan

---

sweatshirts don't need to be clean. that's why they are sweatshirts.

Take off that red shirt!

Top factors for low attendance:

* Only 5 home games, 2 of which are on Thursdays. (If you can't make Thursday games, essentially you're paying for 3 games.)
* Prices

I think all the other factors are relatively minor or factors that were true last year. Last year I don't think expectations were high. I don't think the distance is a huge factor. I think AT&T is a decent venue (and in some ways superior).

The biggest mistake they made is that limited supply could demand higher prices but the product was diminished (fewer games) and the prices were set too high to meet demand.

Anyway, no biggie. It's just one year and next we'll be back in CMS.

I think X really nailed it on the marketing of AT&T. Amateur hour and a disaster.
With the added factor of p*ssing off a number of long time fans and Bear backers, of which I am one.

Hope the AD and the incompetents in the ATO enjoy the view of the sideline bleachers filled with our opponents fans. Whoops, actually they aren't filled, but they do have mostly our opponents fans, at least so far.

Grade? I'd give an F.

nm

wasn't at the game but the stadium sounded awfully quiet on tv.

march2397;602705 said:

---

I think X really nailed it on the marketing of AT&T. Amateur hour and a disaster.
With the added factor of p*ssing off a number of long time fans and Bear backers, of which I am one.

Hope the AD and the incompetents in the ATO enjoy the view of the sideline bleachers filled with our opponents fans. Whoops, actually they aren't filled, but they do have mostly our opponents fans, at least so far.

Grade? I'd give an F.

---

I get this but those seats are also available to Cal fans and so are better priced ones at a 30% discount for remaining games so why aren't we buying them?

And pay double

And what about non season ticket holders?

GB54;602710 said:

---

I get this but those seats are also available to Cal fans and so are better priced ones at a 30% discount for remaining games so why aren't we buying them?

---

Of course, I really don't know, but my guess is it is a number of factors.

5-7 team last year and disappointing stretch this year even though it is about what was expected.

AT&T is a mediocre football venue. It does have its good points, e.g., toilets, good food, etc., but it isn't a football stadium.

The season ticket holders are the core fans and they have already made their purchase decisions. I'm not buying discount tickets because I already have mine and don't need more. Suspect many feel the same way.

People I have chatted with are about as equally irritated as i am about the marketing miscalculation.

Bay area fans can watch games on TV without the inconvenience of travel to and from SF.

Game experience is mediocre given the ad marketing dominance. Javing said that, the Cal band half-time show yesterday was great. But, then Cal Band Great!

I was there, and sat in the bleachers (section A) surrounded by Utah fans. I like taking the ferry from the Eastbay, but there are very few students and it is not a game day atmosphere. I paid for my seats plus pay a contribution and got ripped off, as I can't see the corner of either end zone or replays on the big screen, but I am supporting Cal. The team is rebuilding but Barbour and company are soaking the fans as they have a horrible home schedule( compare to Standfurd with Notre Dame, USC, and Oregon) They know it and refuse to participate. it's that simple.

march2397;602718 said:

---

Of course, I really don't know, but my guess is it is a number of factors.

5-7 team last year and disappointing stretch this year even though it is about what was expected.

AT&T is a mediocre football venue. It does have its good points, e.g., toilets, good food, etc., but it isn't a football stadium.

The season ticket holders are the core fans and they have already made their purchase decisions. I'm not buying discount tickets because I already have mine and don't need more. Suspect many feel the same way.

People I have chatted with are about as equally irritated as i am about the marketing miscalculation.

Bay area fans can watch games on TV without the inconvenience of travel to and from SF.

Game experience is mediocre given the ad marketing dominance. Javing said that, the Cal band half-time show yesterday was great. But, then Cal Band Great!

---

Ok. We had 34,000 season ticket holders last year and are down to 26000 this year (if earlier reports are accurate). I think the loss of hard core fans is primarily due to ATO miscalculations.

We do know however that at Memorial we are used to crowds of 50,000 so there is something else going on. The marginal fan is not coming. I suspect this is due to

1) Last year's and this year's performance. Oregon and SC basically killed marginal interest in the rest of the year.
2) Schedule is total crap. Fresno game and Presby games are a joke. Nobody is coming to those on a whim. If they were really interested in money they should have scheduled some strong OOC rival to kick off this year. We are left with USC, Utah, OSU and WSU-all except for one team, the dregs of the conference. We know USC is going to sell out but there is little attraction to the others. The other factor here is homecoming which was the USC weekend. Homecoming is almost a guaranteed sell out. Why not make it the Utah game and do some promotion or run busses and encourage attendance so you at least sell that out.
3) I think the stadium decision factors in for the season ticket holders but not for the casual fan. You would go if the game is important or the team was on a roll. Neither is true. Utah, WSU and OSU are not going to do it.

GB54;602710 said:

---

I get this but those seats are also available to Cal fans and so are better priced ones at a 30% discount for remaining games so why aren't we buying them?

---

Marketing 101. You price, market and sell those tickets BEFORE the season starts so you're not dependent on the whim of the team's record, weather, time of game, etc.

In May the athletic department knew those seats weren't selling. What they should have done is simply switch out the students and young alumni, put them there. The visiting fans would buy the seats that would now be vacated by students and young alumni.

FingeroftheBear;602720 said:

---

Does anyone know the per/game rent for ATT? It can't be cheap given the amenities, ground crew, etc., and it's obviously way more then CMS. In a big time economic downturn that has hit UC very hard and our own little AD funding debacle...I think the AD had to charge ticket fees that would cover costs despite limited number of seats. Of course the AD could have simply miscalculated but I don't know.

---

Up until now, I really had not considered your excellent point. No free/cheap student body helping at AT&T; costs skyrocket.

And is it too simple to blame Sandy and the ATO? What closeted group of profit-experts came up with the pricing/policy? It really can't be all on her shoulders, can it?