Tulane ranks #122 out of 124 for Superdome stadium experience....

[tpstulane]

http://www.stadiumjourney.com/news/02-0 ... kings-2012
Tulane ranked #122 out of 124

The Mercedes-Benz Superdome is a monument of football, but maybe not college football. The venue has hosted Super Bowls and the annual Sugar Bowl. Tulane Football has not lived up to the reputation of their NFL counterpart, the New Orleans Saints.

[Fred Dowler]

There's plenty to question in that ranking, beginning with Arkansas at no. 5 and Ole Miss being no. 11 but LSU not even being in the top 15. And then Virginia Tech where I've always heard is a really great atmosphere being only at no. 50.

But notice which program is in last place -- Tulsa, who has posted not just winning seasons but seasons of 8 wins or better in 7 of the past 8 seasons (and 4 of those being seasons of 10 or more wins). I'd be much inclined to believe in that "stadium experience" would have a lot to do with how much success a program is having on the field but perhaps that's not always the case. And that facility, indeed, seats 30,000 and is on campus.

[JerseyWave]

The Cow/Dick experience...

[Dave breslin]

The ones responsible are you know who!!!

[sader24]

Didnt read the list, but Ive been to LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee in the SEC and the stadium experiences from those are

1) LSU
2) Tennessee
3) Florida
4) Alabama
5) Ole Miss

LSU and Tennessee are close just b/c Tennessee is on a river and they are the 2 loudest. I really dont think anything compares to LSU at night in my opinion.

[AugWave]

Didnt read the list, but Ive been to LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee in the SEC and the stadium experiences from those are

1) LSU
2) Tennessee
3) Florida
4) Alabama
5) Ole Miss

LSU and Tennessee are close just b/c Tennessee is on a river and they are the 2 loudest. I really dont think anything compares to LSU at night in my opinion.

MAN!! We traveled to Tennessee for our (LSU) game against them my sophomore year in 06. Man, that stadium was ROCKIN and all that orange was insane! It's HUGE! That's one of the programs I hope gets back on its feet. The people there were really nice and all about having a good time. We beat 'em though.

I'm a Tulane grad though, so f*** LSU now.

[Show Me]

Tiger Stadium was rated #24 because the stadium itself is a dump. I went to ther Saints games there during the Katrina season and it was terrible. It's not even rated top 5 in the SEC.

[winwave]

Tiger Stadium was rated #24 because the stadium itself is a dump. I went to ther Saints games there during the Katrina season and it was terrible. It's not even rated top 5 in the SEC.

+1. Had the same experience at those Saints games there.

[jonathanjoseph]

It should be pretty obvious, but there's a direct correlation between a winning program and placement on that list.

There's zero correlation between on-campus stadiums or not sharing stadiums with NFL teams. Of course, everyone but Cowen and Dickson know that already.

[AugWave]

Here comes the college football professor. Give it a rest bro-ham.

[Krewe of Ham & Eggs]

Here comes the college football professor. Give it a rest bro-ham.

Dude don't say that or you will be accused of being a plant from the athletic department. Once again it is pretty obvious if you don't agree with him that is what you are. This has been explained to us ad nauseum

[sader24]

Tiger Stadium is a college stadium. Generally speaking 98% of them aren't nice. They are stadiums.

[Ray]

Of course it's on Tulane to make their home games more of an event. Pretty hard when you're 3 & 9 or worse every year. I will say that Pro Stadiums in general just don't seem to be real good venues for the college game-day experience. Except for 'special' type situations like Illinois vs. Northwestern at Soldiers Field or more marquee match-ups in La. or Tx. I like college stadiums for college ball

[OUG]

It should be pretty obvious, but there's a direct correlation between a winning program and placement on that list.

There's zero correlation between on-campus stadiums or not sharing stadiums with NFL teams. Of course, everyone but Cowen and Dickson know that already.

Pro stadiums on that list:

Pitt: 55
Miami: 72
UMass: 102
San Diego State: 106
Temple: 110
Tulane: 122

Yes, those aren't great teams. But every single one of them (with the possible exception of UMass) is a better program than their stadium ranking would indicate.

Have you been to a Tulane game at the dome? When was the last time you were there? can you honestly say you had a good time? Even the two times when we had decent teams in the past 20 years, it was a terrible atmosphere. People have such bleak perceptions of Tulane games in the dome at this point that nothing is going to change it. Meanwhile we have a campus in the most beautiful area of the Nation's most amazing city that we can tap into. Sorry, with 30+ CFB games on tv every Saturday, it takes a superior "college experience" to get people to games. We could have winning teams for 5 straight years and the Dome would still be a graveyard that is 3/4ths empty at best.

[Fred Dowler]

Dave Dixon's got to be turning in his grave.

[Fred Dowler]

The main problem with the Superdome is that if TU wants to play there and have people come to games, support the program, etc., they have to have a winning team that plays tough opponents.

[jonathanjoseph]

It should be pretty obvious, but there's a direct correlation between a winning program and placement on that list.

There's zero correlation between on-campus stadiums or not sharing stadiums with NFL teams. Of course, everyone but Cowen and Dickson know that already.

Pro stadiums on that list:

Pitt: 55
Miami: 72
UMass: 102
San Diego State: 106
Temple: 110
Tulane: 122

Yes, those aren't great teams. But every single one of them (with the possible exception of UMass) is a better program than their stadium ranking would indicate.

Have you been to a Tulane game at the dome? When was the last time you were there? can you honestly say you had a good time? Even the two times when we had decent teams in the past 20 years, it was a terrible atmosphere. People have such bleak perceptions of Tulane games in the dome at this point that nothing is going to change it. Meanwhile we have a campus in the most beautiful area of the Nation's most amazing city that we can tap into. Sorry, with 30+ CFB games on tv every Saturday, it takes a superior "college experience" to get people to games. We could have winning teams for 5 straight years and the Dome would still be a graveyard that is 3/4ths empty at best.

No, actually besides Miami all of those rankings are fairly consistent with on the field results. And you've left out both the LA Coloseum which came in at #17 and Raymond James Stadium which came in at #62 for USF and was referenced as an asset to the program.

I haven't been to a Tulane game recently for obvious reasons but I sure remember having a good time in 98 versus La Tech and Louisiville, off the top of my head. Again, there is no correlation between atmosphere and venue. Atmosphere has everything to do with the quality of the opponent and the meaning of the game (as in, does it matter in the big picture).

Given that Tulane hasn't played in a game that mattered in 15 years now, it shouldn't be a surprise that the atmosphere sucks. It's an error of correlation and causation. While it's ok for people on forums to debate these points, it is a tragic and fatal problem that Cowen/Dickson don't know the answer.

[wavedat]

It should be pretty obvious, but there's a direct correlation between a winning program and placement on that list.

There's zero correlation between on-campus stadiums or not sharing stadiums with NFL teams. Of course, everyone but Cowen and Dickson know that already.

Pro stadiums on that list:

Pitt: 55
Miami: 72
UMass: 102
San Diego State: 106
Temple: 110
Tulane: 122

Yes, those aren't great teams. But every single one of them (with the possible exception of UMass) is a better program than their stadium ranking would indicate.

Have you been to a Tulane game at the dome? When was the last time you were there? can you honestly say you had a good time? Even the two times when we had decent teams in the past 20 years, it was a terrible atmosphere. People have such bleak perceptions of Tulane games in the dome at this point that nothing is going to change it. Meanwhile we have a campus in the most beautiful area of the Nation's most amazing city that we can tap into. Sorry, with 30+ CFB games on tv every Saturday, it takes a superior "college experience" to get people to games. We could have winning teams for 5 straight years and the Dome would still be a graveyard that is 3/4ths empty at best.

You are the worst at trying to tailor facts to fit your argument. The only team on that list that maybe should be higher is Miami and they haven't been good for a while.

How many games have you been to in the dome in 20 years? The atmosphere sucks b/c Tulane football sucks. People have a bleak perception of TULANE FOOTBALL. PERIOD. Those two years were preceded by 15 years w/one .500 team. We beat no one in those two years. Yet the crowds grew in 98 as the winning continued and got to close to 40,000 w/a great atmosphere. It is total BS to say we could have 5 straight winning seasons and couldn't draw 25,000 in the Dome. You're either clueless or a liar. As for taking advantage of the campus that will be limited to only the well heeled. Won't be much interest in that by the casual fan.

[jonathanjoseph]

. Sorry, with 30+ CFB games on tv every Saturday, it takes a superior "college experience" to get people to games.

Oh, and you clearly made this up. A "superior college experience" with a bad team and no-name opponent will not draw, and that's a fact, jack.

[Fred Dowler]

How about this question: how does the gameday experience with bball games compare against how it was in the 1990's?

[jonathanjoseph]

How about this question: how does the gameday experience with bball games compare against how it was in the 1990's?

Pretty much nailed it with that one.

[sader24]

The stadium is getting built so this argument is pointless. However, it's very telling that we still have people trying to blame the Dome for Tulane Football's failures. The Saints have arguably one of the most "collegiate" atmospheres for a Pro game. They had a terrible atmosphere when they sucked. The Dome has nothing to do with the fact that we lose alot and play nobody.

[Fred Dowler]

The stadium is getting built so this argument is pointless. However, it's very telling that we still have people trying to blame the Dome for Tulane Football's failures. The Saints have arguably one of the most "collegiate" atmospheres for a Pro game. They had a terrible atmosphere when they sucked. The Dome has nothing to do with the fact that we lose alot and play nobody.

Amen.

If TU really wants to have a winning, perennially-successful football program then stop blaming the Superdome. Just do what you have to do to do it.

The fact that there's apparently still a blame-the-Superdome school of thought prevalent in the TU camp, though, has to make you suspicious that the whole mentality toward operating the program is really about to change much.

The main thing that we can say that we know is changing is just the way that they're going to go about having alumni and fans pay for it.

[AugWave]

*yawn*

[Fred Dowler]

*yawn*

Exactly my reaction when I hear about the Superdome being what's destroying TU football.