Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/att ... PACITY.pdf

We placed 89 in total % of capacity. Toledo, Marshall and...ahem...BALL STATE are the only MAC teams that averaged higher than us. Interesting...

Bleeding Orange wrote:http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/att ... PACITY.pdf

We placed 89 in total % of capacity. Toledo, Marshall and...ahem...BALL STATE are the only MAC teams that averaged higher than us. Interesting...

I not sure what you were looking at, but also see NIU and Ohio above us in accummulative % capacity. This is unacceptable that programs like BSU and Ohio are filling a greater percentage of their stands than we are, but I don't have to say this. We all know we have to improve on our attendance.

Just thought I'd point out something I thought looked interesting. I noticed that Buffalo drew 60923 (39% capacity). Not bad for Buffalo right, well unfortunately UB drew half of that attendance figure in one game against Syracuse (29013). The other 30,000 was over four MAC games, which is about 8,000 per game.

The % capacity is a bogus stat to look at. Average attendance is all that matters. We still have plenty of work to do in that regard, of course, but I don't feel like bringing Secretariat out for that one again.

TG1996 wrote:The % capacity is a bogus stat to look at. Average attendance is all that matters. We still have plenty of work to do in that regard, of course, but I don't feel like bringing Secretariat out for that one again.

Oh I don't know about that. It at the very least shows that you can fill the facility that you've built for your team.

UK Peregrine Fan wrote:

TG1996 wrote:The % capacity is a bogus stat to look at. Average attendance is all that matters. We still have plenty of work to do in that regard, of course, but I don't feel like bringing Secretariat out for that one again.

Oh I don't know about that. It at the very least shows that you can fill the facility that you've built for your team.

I guess you could put it that way, but as far as comparing one school to the next, it really doesn't mean much. Is Ohio U. better than us because they have a smaller stadium? Or are we better because we've stuffed our junk down their throat the past few times we've played them?

I mean, um, because we've put more people into a bigger stadium, but in a lesser proportion?

TG1996 wrote:

UK Peregrine Fan wrote:

TG1996 wrote:The % capacity is a bogus stat to look at. Average attendance is all that matters. We still have plenty of work to do in that regard, of course, but I don't feel like bringing Secretariat out for that one again.

Oh I don't know about that. It at the very least shows that you can fill the facility that you've built for your team.

I guess you could put it that way, but as far as comparing one school to the next, it really doesn't mean much. Is Ohio U. better than us because they have a smaller stadium? Or are we better because we've stuffed our junk down their throat the past few times we've played them?

I mean, um, because we've put more people into a bigger stadium, but in a lesser proportion?

Agreed, I was just unwilling to totally discount the data at hand. But your right 100% that it doesn't mean as much as average attendance or quality of the product on the field. A team could very well decrease stadium seating by removing a section of seats to build an athletic center and consequently improve their standing in % capacity.

UK Peregrine Fan wrote:A team could very well decrease stadium seating by removing a section of seats to build an athletic center and consequently improve their standing in % capacity.

Now who would do that!?!?!

this is part of why krebs is going to leave BG. he has worked hard to get asses in those seats and they still dont fill. he may like it here but with the money and the ease of puttin butts in the seats at OSU, he is GONE