Yulman or the SD. What stadium gives TU a chance to live?

[Fred Dowler]

Who exactly are the "MANY" here that want the stadium to fail? Maybe 1 or 2 guys.

True - I should have said "some." And a very bellicose 1 or 2.

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

[jonathanjoseph]

So, if we are $150 million away from being at the top of our current conference or included in the ACC or Big 12, how can you argue that Yulman was a bad idea? Even without Yulman we would be $80 million short of that goal while still playing in the Dome (ie not attracting the attention, possible donations, and added fans possible with Yulman) where we make no money. We might possibly have an indoor practice facility for football but frankly with our ability to use the Saints facility for now is just as good especially with local recruits.

An on campus stadium of 23K may not get us a P5 bid, but expanded to 30-35K will if you look at schools like Duke, Wake Forest, Vandy, Northwestern, and Stanford (and compare the city sizes to their stadium capacity and attendance). We keep building new dorms on campus and force Sophomores to live on campus, when the students are perfectly happy to live off campus after freshman year instead of funneling that money into athletic facilities. If we average investing $10 million a year in athletics facilities over the next decade then we can easily add facilities for tennis and track, an indoor practice facility, expanded weight, locker, and training facilities for football, and expanded stadiums for football and basketball. If Tulane cannot get donations then the school should issue bonds because it has been proven that a solid athletic program is massively beneficial financially and for the brand of the school as a whole. Look at Louisville, Baylor, and even Alabama recently and the continued strength of Duke, Stanford, Vandy, Miami, and Notre Dame vs Tulane, Rice, Emory, etc.

It's not accurate to say that the "attention, possible donations, and added fans" were not possible at the Dome. And no, assuming we used the Dome as our football stadium we could have spent far less than the $70M spent on the Yulman project and we could have had the finest football facilities in the country and kept the tennis courts, etc. Winning increases donations, not stadium building.

Building the stadium was not a zero sum decision. There are opportunity costs.

[jonathanjoseph]

Who exactly are the "MANY" here that want the stadium to fail? Maybe 1 or 2 guys.

True - I should have said "some." And a very bellicose 1 or 2.

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

That's certainly what he's implying.

[2ndGenWave]

The whole key there is 1.) IF the stadium really is going to be expanded (and that's been discussed a whole lot already and many of us see the answer there, for many reasons as either a flat "no" or a "not anytime soon" -- and then consider also that there are already stories about donation requirements being relaxed in certain seating areas, which, if true, points to demand for tickets being softer than TU has anticipated) and 2.) IF there really are strongly robust institutional goals for the programs in the two major sports programs, e.g. making the NCAA tournament frequently, playing in major bowl games, winning consistently at a high level, earning an invitation to the Big 12 (good question, no?).

Yes, possible expansion of the stadium and success on the field are both incredibly important.

But success comes from investing in good coaches and the ability to attract good coaches (with good facilities, a solid support from the administration, and a plan for the future). We need to spend this entire basketball season searching for the right basketball coach and be prepared to pay him because Conroy is not going to cut it in the American. We also need to figure out a long term plan for women's basketball depending on the teams performance next year.

[2ndGenWave]

It's not accurate to say that the "attention, possible donations, and added fans" were not possible at the Dome. And no, assuming we used the Dome as our football stadium we could have spent far less than the $70M spent on the Yulman project and we could have had the finest football facilities in the country and kept the tennis courts, etc. Winning increases donations, not stadium building.

Building the stadium was not a zero sum decision. There are opportunity costs.

Yes, I understand the Dome didn't prevent an increase donations and fans, but the ceiling for all of those was much smaller in the Dome, especially in the long run.

1) Attracting students to Tulane football and Tulane athletics and thus the Tulane brand for a lifetime is important to increasing our tragically low alumni giving rate or decades down the road (not for just athletics but the school as a whole). Having an on campus tailgating experience will attract students and local fans from across the city and especially Uptown back to supporting the Green Wave.

2) While a super awesome football facility would increase our recruiting ability, that is an unknown increase in quality that might not even make us a regular bowl team continuing to not providing the campus experience and money the stadium will create in the long run.

3) Where you and I differ as well is that I think that a packed Yulman stadium with on campus tailgating experience will draw local recruits equally or better than the Dome and a practice facility (especially since a practice facility is not impossible with Yulman).

I will say that I was and am a huge proponent of an on campus stadium. However, I may not have been equally as enthralled with the stadium that we are getting. BUT...

Yulman cannot be treated as the final achievement in the renewed Tulane athletic investment.

What we will have on September 6th should be considered a great base to build upon for the future. The stadium needs expanding, the facilities need continued improvements, and the coaching needs to continue to be fostered with good hires and money.

[JTLiuzza]

It's not accurate to say that the "attention, possible donations, and added fans" were not possible at the Dome. And no, assuming we used the Dome as our football stadium we could have spent far less than the $70M spent on the Yulman project and we could have had the finest football facilities in the country and kept the tennis courts, etc. Winning increases donations, not stadium building.

Building the stadium was not a zero sum decision. There are opportunity costs.

Yes, I understand the Dome didn't prevent an increase donations and fans, but the ceiling for all of those was much smaller in the Dome, especially in the long run.

1) Attracting students to Tulane football and Tulane athletics and thus the Tulane brand for a lifetime is important to increasing our tragically low alumni giving rate or decades down the road (not for just athletics but the school as a whole). Having an on campus tailgating experience will attract students and local fans from across the city and especially Uptown back to supporting the Green Wave.

2) While a super awesome football facility would increase our recruiting ability, that is an unknown increase in quality that might not even make us a regular bowl team continuing to not providing the campus experience and money the stadium will create in the long run.

3) Where you and I differ as well is that I think that a packed Yulman stadium with on campus tailgating experience will draw local recruits equally or better than the Dome and a practice facility (especially since a practice facility is not impossible with Yulman).

I will say that I was and am a huge proponent of an on campus stadium. However, I may not have been equally as enthralled with the stadium that we are getting. BUT...

Yulman cannot be treated as the final achievement in the renewed Tulane athletic investment.

What we will have on September 6th should be considered a great base to build upon for the future. The stadium needs expanding, the facilities need continued improvements, and the coaching needs to continue to be fostered with good hires and money.

What tangible evidence do you have that Tulane has committed itself to a winning football program? You have none because there is none. Without that, Yulman will sit as empty as the dome was. The "tailgating experience" isn't what sells football tickets (the Gormley experiment proved that). The only thing that sells football tickets is good football, which is to say winning football.

[Fred Dowler]

The whole key there is 1.) IF the stadium really is going to be expanded (and that's been discussed a whole lot already and many of us see the answer there, for many reasons as either a flat "no" or a "not anytime soon" -- and then consider also that there are already stories about donation requirements being relaxed in certain seating areas, which, if true, points to demand for tickets being softer than TU has anticipated) and 2.) IF there really are strongly robust institutional goals for the programs in the two major sports programs, e.g. making the NCAA tournament frequently, playing in major bowl games, winning consistently at a high level, earning an invitation to the Big 12 (good question, no?).

Yes, possible expansion of the stadium and success on the field are both incredibly important.

But success comes from investing in good coaches and the ability to attract good coaches (with good facilities, a solid support from the administration, and a plan for the future). We need to spend this entire basketball season searching for the right basketball coach and be prepared to pay him because Conroy is not going to cut it in the American. We also need to figure out a long term plan for women's basketball depending on the teams performance next year.

All well and good...but if the stadium isn't expanded, we can both of us agree that the TU program isn't Big 12 material or even close. I dare say that the majority of the people who are pleased about the project do have in mind that somehow, someday it will be expanded and/or if the truth is that expansion was/is never going to happen and somehow people could have been aware of that back 2-3 years ago or so then there were never have been enough support for this project to get it off the ground. You can't tell me that that's not that supremely serious of an issue. It definitely is.

Then, as for the institutional goals, one of my main criticisms is that the TU leadership has kept those pretty vague, and I figure deliberately so, for the longest time, and like the other poster said, all of the stakeholders totally deserve to be fully and completely informed there and that's all that there is to it.

[2ndGenWave]

All well and good...but if the stadium isn't expanded, we can both of us agree that the TU program isn't Big 12 material or even close. I dare say that the majority of the people who are pleased about the project do have in mind that somehow, someday it will be expanded and/or if the truth is that expansion was/is never going to happen and somehow people could have been aware of that back 2-3 years ago or so then there were never have been enough support for this project to get it off the ground. You can't tell me that that's not that supremely serious of an issue. It definitely is.

Then, as for the institutional goals, one of my main criticisms is that the TU leadership has kept those pretty vague, and I figure deliberately so, for the longest time, and like the other poster said, all of the stakeholders totally deserve to be fully and completely informed there and that's all that there is to it.

Yes, that is true. But luckily, Scott Cowen is gone and hopefully Rick Dickson will be soon. Soon, we may have a properly run university and defined goals for the athletic department and its investments in facilities.

In the end, I think a Big XII invite is far more likely with a full on campus stadium as opposed to a half full Dome aka 35K consistent at every game that has been Tulane's historical average for its ten best seasons by attendance.

[jonathanjoseph]

It's not accurate to say that the "attention, possible donations, and added fans" were not possible at the Dome. And no, assuming we used the Dome as our football stadium we could have spent far less than the $70M spent on the Yulman project and we could have had the finest football facilities in the country and kept the tennis courts, etc. Winning increases donations, not stadium building.

Building the stadium was not a zero sum decision. There are opportunity costs.

Yes, I understand the Dome didn't prevent an increase donations and fans, but the ceiling for all of those was much smaller in the Dome, especially in the long run.

1) Attracting students to Tulane football and Tulane athletics and thus the Tulane brand for a lifetime is important to increasing our tragically low alumni giving rate or decades down the road (not for just athletics but the school as a whole). Having an on campus tailgating experience will attract students and local fans from across the city and especially Uptown back to supporting the Green Wave.

2) While a super awesome football facility would increase our recruiting ability, that is an unknown increase in quality that might not even make us a regular bowl team continuing to not providing the campus experience and money the stadium will create in the long run.

3) Where you and I differ as well is that I think that a packed Yulman stadium with on campus tailgating experience will draw local recruits equally or better than the Dome and a practice facility (especially since a practice facility is not impossible with Yulman).

I will say that I was and am a huge proponent of an on campus stadium. However, I may not have been equally as enthralled with the stadium that we are getting. BUT...

Yulman cannot be treated as the final achievement in the renewed Tulane athletic investment.

What we will have on September 6th should be considered a great base to build upon for the future. The stadium needs expanding, the facilities need continued improvements, and the coaching needs to continue to be fostered with good hires and money.

1) The facts show pretty clearly that winning and scheduling are the dominant input to attendance. Tailgating experience is not anywhere close in importance.

2) The stadium is not the biggest driver of college athletics revenue, the conference TV deal is. Does this stadium get us closer to or farther from a P5 invite? There's a pretty good argument that says we are farther away.

3) Every Tulane football coach for 20 years has disagreed with that statement, and the investing seen by all peer institutions in the "college athletic facilities arms race" also serves to disagree.

You say it cannot be treated as the final achievement but Cowen is "on the record" as 25K expandable to 30K and the University is clearly touting the project as the "Crown Jewel".

[Fred Dowler]

All well and good...but if the stadium isn't expanded, we can both of us agree that the TU program isn't Big 12 material or even close. I dare say that the majority of the people who are pleased about the project do have in mind that somehow, someday it will be expanded and/or if the truth is that expansion was/is never going to happen and somehow people could have been aware of that back 2-3 years ago or so then there were never have been enough support for this project to get it off the ground. You can't tell me that that's not that supremely serious of an issue. It definitely is.

Then, as for the institutional goals, one of my main criticisms is that the TU leadership has kept those pretty vague, and I figure deliberately so, for the longest time, and like the other poster said, all of the stakeholders totally deserve to be fully and completely informed there and that's all that there is to it.

Yes, that is true. But luckily, Scott Cowen is gone and hopefully Rick Dickson will be soon. Soon, we may have a properly run university and defined goals for the athletic department and its investments in facilities.

In the end, I think a Big XII invite is far more likely with a full on campus stadium as opposed to a half full Dome aka 35K consistent at every game that has been Tulane's historical average for its ten best seasons by attendance.

To the second part, to me, I just can't see that invitation from the Big 12 coming w/o regular attendance, night in and night out being very close to or above 35,000. And with a 23,000 seat stadium, of course, that's not happening, whether the darn thing is full or not. End of story. And I bet that almost everyone in the TU following gets that and that's why the seating and expansion are such genuine hot-button issues as they are -- and no two ways about it they are.

Now, as far "defined goals," does TU not have that? I imagine that they already do. They just don't come out and tell us exactly what those goals are. But...if the main goal is merely "let's make plenty of money through charging people more with this new facility and also through the conference (on the backs of what successes the other programs have)" and stops there then I can't applaud that. The important things are that the goals robustly emphasize on-field results, e.g. winning, conference championships, bowl appearances, going places as a program, above everything else and also that the powers-who-are openly communicate such goals to all of the stakeholders (where there would be accountability involved). Tell me, when and where have the TU powers-that-be clearly spelled out such institutional goals?

[2ndGenWave]

1) The facts show pretty clearly that winning and scheduling are the dominant input to attendance. Tailgating experience is not anywhere close in importance.

2) The stadium is not the biggest driver of college athletics revenue, the conference TV deal is. Does this stadium get us closer to or farther from a P5 invite? There's a pretty good argument that says we are farther away.

3) Every Tulane football coach for 20 years has disagreed with that statement, and the investing seen by all peer institutions in the "college athletic facilities arms race" also serves to disagree.

You say it cannot be treated as the final achievement but Cowen is "on the record" as 25K expandable to 30K and the University is clearly touting the project as the "Crown Jewel".

1) Winning is by far the most important input to attendance and scheduling helps (though in Tulane's case good opponents just meant more attendance via opponents fans). Look at a school like Ole Miss that has a good team every decade but has consistent attendance and great alumni support because of an excellent tailgating experience. (Yes they are in the SEC so scheduling isn't a problem, but even when suffering down years the student experience is strong). Good student experience in football equals strong student support of the athletics and the school for years to come.

2. I understand that conference affiliation is the greatest source of revenue, but football stadium is the next and one under our control. Again, I think a Big XII invite is far more likely with a full on campus stadium as opposed to a half full Dome aka 35K consistent at every game that has been Tulane's historical average for its ten best seasons by attendance.

3) Again, I agree that we need to continue to expand our facilities most importantly building an IPF as soon as possible.

4) Obviously the stadium is the Crown Jewel of our athletic facilities as it is on every campus in FBS with the rare exception of a basketball school like Duke. It doesn't mean they don't improve upon their crown jewels. Like LSU, Texas A&M, Michigan, Ohio State, and Alabama all have recently or currently are expanding their Crown Jewels.

[DrBox]

Who exactly are the "MANY" here that want the stadium to fail? Maybe 1 or 2 guys.

True - I should have said "some." And a very bellicose 1 or 2.

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

That's certainly what he's implying.

That's not what I said at all.
I said that it's obvious that some people would rather Tulane fail, than to succeed under practices with which they don't agree.
It's this idea that some hold that there remains this large conspiracy to destroy TU athletics from the deep recesses of Gibson Hall and the Board - and every piece of evidence to the contrary is dismissed with a flimsy wave of the hand.

There is a small subset on here that simply wants Tulane to join division 3. Right, Fred?

[2ndGenWave]

To the second part, to me, I just can't see that invitation from the Big 12 coming w/o regular attendance, night in and night out being very close to or above 35,000. And with a 23,000 seat stadium, of course, that's not happening, whether the darn thing is full or not. End of story. And I bet that almost everyone in the TU following gets that and that's why the seating and expansion are such genuine hot-button issues as they are -- and no two ways about it they are.

Now, as far "defined goals," does TU not have that? I imagine that they already do. They just don't come out and tell us exactly what those goals are. But...if the main goal is merely "let's make plenty of money through charging people more with this new facility and also through the conference (on the backs of what successes the other programs have)" and stops there then I can't applaud that. The important things are that the goals robustly emphasize on-field results, e.g. winning, conference championships, bowl appearances, going places as a program, above everything else and also that the powers-who-are openly communicate such goals to all of the stakeholders (where there would be accountability involved). Tell me, when and where have the TU powers-that-be clearly spelled out such institutional goals?

Yeah, but every other P5 league has a smaller, private school that draws significantly less than most schools. The conferences still like to tout some academic talent for their schools. The Big XII lost two AAU universities in Mizzou and Texas A&M. Looking at the stadium 8-10K could be added to the north endzone and another level easily added to the East without delving into the obvious second deck for the west side. With a Big XII invite we would easily have the support of the city to expand the stadium over the NIMBYs complains and the money to do it. Look at what TCU did (albeit they didn't expand but they did entirely remodel their stadium) with their Big XII money. Tulane just needs to have the plans ready to show they could expand when the time comes.

But I agree with the goals and accountability and a results based athletic department.

[Fred Dowler]

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

That's certainly what he's implying.

That's not what I said at all.
I said that it's obvious that some people would rather Tulane fail, than to succeed under practices with which they don't agree.
It's this idea that some hold that there remains this large conspiracy to destroy TU athletics from the deep recesses of Gibson Hall and the Board - and every piece of evidence to the contrary is dismissed with a flimsy wave of the hand.

There is a small subset on here that simply wants Tulane to join division 3. Right, Fred?

Well, what do you say about the evidence in the form of that TU has kept Rick Dickson on the payroll all these years? And when he slipped up and admitted that TU doesn't judge by wins and losses, how about that?

And what kind of tangible evidence is there that TU really cares a whole more about winning a lot and having a program going places these days, as opposed to just treading water with a kind of a limited vision, given, as I've been saying, that they don't say so and really make it clear and out in the open what their actual goals there? What they are willing to do in that regard, how robust the actual goals are, is completely key to a lot of things. And, heck yes, if the real vision is still a limited one then I can't see that leading to success in terms of making the following larger or even in terms of stopping it from continuing to shrink.

[Fred Dowler]

To the second part, to me, I just can't see that invitation from the Big 12 coming w/o regular attendance, night in and night out being very close to or above 35,000. And with a 23,000 seat stadium, of course, that's not happening, whether the darn thing is full or not. End of story. And I bet that almost everyone in the TU following gets that and that's why the seating and expansion are such genuine hot-button issues as they are -- and no two ways about it they are.

Now, as far "defined goals," does TU not have that? I imagine that they already do. They just don't come out and tell us exactly what those goals are. But...if the main goal is merely "let's make plenty of money through charging people more with this new facility and also through the conference (on the backs of what successes the other programs have)" and stops there then I can't applaud that. The important things are that the goals robustly emphasize on-field results, e.g. winning, conference championships, bowl appearances, going places as a program, above everything else and also that the powers-who-are openly communicate such goals to all of the stakeholders (where there would be accountability involved). Tell me, when and where have the TU powers-that-be clearly spelled out such institutional goals?

Yeah, but every other P5 league has a smaller, private school that draws significantly less than most schools. The conferences still like to tout some academic talent for their schools. The Big XII lost two AAU universities in Mizzou and Texas A&M. Looking at the stadium 8-10K could be added to the north endzone and another level easily added to the East without delving into the obvious second deck for the west side. With a Big XII invite we would easily have the support of the city to expand the stadium over the NIMBYs complains and the money to do it. Look at what TCU did (albeit they didn't expand but they did entirely remodel their stadium) with their Big XII money. Tulane just needs to have the plans ready to show they could expand when the time comes.

But I agree with the goals and accountability and a results based athletic department.

I still say that you have to show that you're drawing enough support, enough, to me, being 35,000 or so night in and night out. Perhaps I could be wrong, but TU has to first get to that point before the Big 12 invitation becomes a possibility, as I see it.

[winwave]

So, if we are $150 million away from being at the top of our current conference or included in the ACC or Big 12, how can you argue that Yulman was a bad idea? Even without Yulman we would be $80 million short of that goal while still playing in the Dome (ie not attracting the attention, possible donations, and added fans possible with Yulman) where we make no money. We might possibly have an indoor practice facility for football but frankly with our ability to use the Saints facility for now is just as good especially with local recruits.

An on campus stadium of 23K may not get us a P5 bid, but expanded to 30-35K will if you look at schools like Duke, Wake Forest, Vandy, Northwestern, and Stanford (and compare the city sizes to their stadium capacity and attendance). We keep building new dorms on campus and force Sophomores to live on campus, when the students are perfectly happy to live off campus after freshman year instead of funneling that money into athletic facilities. If we average investing $10 million a year in athletics facilities over the next decade then we can easily add facilities for tennis and track, an indoor practice facility, expanded weight, locker, and training facilities for football, and expanded stadiums for football and basketball. If Tulane cannot get donations then the school should issue bonds because it has been proven that a solid athletic program is massively beneficial financially and for the brand of the school as a whole. Look at Louisville, Baylor, and even Alabama recently and the continued strength of Duke, Stanford, Vandy, Miami, and Notre Dame vs Tulane, Rice, Emory, etc.

This nonsense about 35,000 being good enough has to stop. We all know Tulane loves to go low bar. Some said we'll be ok w/30k. Then they backed off and said 25k was ok. So Tulane comes in w/22,660. Tulane has said expansion can be 5-10k. So that only gets 27,660 to 32,660. Not acceptable. North end zone expansion by 10,000 is not doable. First off CJ insisted he wanted it kept for practice purposes. He wants his IPF and football operations building on campus and he's right. Football is king especially in the deep south. At the least he can get a Wilson extension there to house some of the things he wants like a real D-1 weight room. As to 10,000 in that end zone come on. That would be 50% of what the entire stadium currently holds. It's twice as much as what's in that end zone now. Not realistic.

As to those other schools they are grandfathered in. Other than Stanford if they could have ditched them they would have. Plus Stanford stadium seats 50k. If they were expanding now those schools wouldn't stand a chance.

As to our attendance we have never won consistently against quality opposition in modern times when football has become the number one sport. There is no question that such a program, which better be what we are striving for, can draw 40-45K of our own fans no matter the opponent. With New Orleans as the draw such a program would never have less than 50k at home games and would easily sell out for the top programs in the Big 12 or ACC. Leagues don't care about how many visiting fans are in attendance they are interested in the total number.

[jonathanjoseph]

Who exactly are the "MANY" here that want the stadium to fail? Maybe 1 or 2 guys.

True - I should have said "some." And a very bellicose 1 or 2.

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

That's certainly what he's implying.

That's not what I said at all.
I said that it's obvious that some people would rather Tulane fail, than to succeed under practices with which they don't agree.
It's this idea that some hold that there remains this large conspiracy to destroy TU athletics from the deep recesses of Gibson Hall and the Board - and every piece of evidence to the contrary is dismissed with a flimsy wave of the hand.

There is a small subset on here that simply wants Tulane to join division 3. Right, Fred?

But it's the EVIDENCE that suggests such a "conspiracy". Everything from Cowens consistent message to the plan for tiny football and basketball facilities to a lack of accountability or expectation of results from Dickson etc. I could go on.

Just so were clear, the last time the term "conspiracy" was thrown around here it was regarding 22k, and that turned out to be true.

[2ndGenWave]

The only schools not in the P5 that attract more than 40K a game are East Carolina and UCF.

Schools in the P5 that attracted less than 40K a game in 2013 include Wake Forest, Duke, Washington St., Vandy, Syracuse, Northwestern, Boston College, Colorado, and Kansas. That is 4 ACC teams, 2 PAC-12 teams, 1 SEC, 1 Big-10, and 1 Big XII or nearly 1 out of six.

Currently the SEC, BIG-10, and ACC have 14 members. The PAC-12 has twelve and the Big XII has ten. The Big XII will likely add 2-4 teams in the next decade so they have a championship game so they will need to add between 2-4 teams with less than 40K draw.

Stanford seats 50,000 (but downsized from 85,000 in 2005) and Northwestern seats 47,000. But they are both in metro areas that are significantly larger than New Orleans that are home many graduates and opposing teams graduates unlike Tulane.

If you look at the stadium you could add a level of boxes on the north side and then a level of seats above that which stretch over the top of the current Wilson Center. This could easily hold 7-8,000 since the north endzone currently holds nearly 6,000 seats. It is not crazy to say that another level added onto the East side could hold 2,000. With a second level to the West side, we would easily pass 35,000 even if that takes a Big XII bid to find.

Fact is that modern times have only seen increases in the very upper echelon of college football attendance and that is basically because they have been able to fund stadium larger. Pretty much everyone else has suffered because of increased TV exposure and viewership. Even P5 teams only travel at best several thousand fans especially if they are coming from locations like Lubbock, Ames, Manhattan, Austin, Stillwater, Norman, Morgantown, and Waco (otherwise known as places without cheap flights and long drives to New Orleans).

[sader24]

Who exactly are the "MANY" here that want the stadium to fail? Maybe 1 or 2 guys.

True - I should have said "some." And a very bellicose 1 or 2.

Why shouldn't they be "Bellicose"?

[winwave]

The only schools not in the P5 that attract more than 40K a game are East Carolina and UCF.

Schools in the P5 that attracted less than 40K a game in 2013 include Wake Forest, Duke, Washington St., Vandy, Syracuse, Northwestern, Boston College, Colorado, and Kansas. That is 4 ACC teams, 2 PAC-12 teams, 1 SEC, 1 Big-10, and 1 Big XII or nearly 1 out of six.

Currently the SEC, BIG-10, and ACC have 14 members. The PAC-12 has twelve and the Big XII has ten. The Big XII will likely add 2-4 teams in the next decade so they have a championship game so they will need to add between 2-4 teams with less than 40K draw.

Stanford seats 50,000 (but downsized from 85,000 in 2005) and Northwestern seats 47,000. But they are both in metro areas that are significantly larger than New Orleans that are home many graduates and opposing teams graduates unlike Tulane.

If you look at the stadium you could add a level of boxes on the north side and then a level of seats above that which stretch over the top of the current Wilson Center. This could easily hold 7-8,000 since the north endzone currently holds nearly 6,000 seats. It is not crazy to say that another level added onto the East side could hold 2,000. With a second level to the West side, we would easily pass 35,000 even if that takes a Big XII bid to find.

Fact is that modern times have only seen increases in the very upper echelon of college football attendance and that is basically because they have been able to fund stadium larger. Pretty much everyone else has suffered because of increased TV exposure and viewership. Even P5 teams only travel at best several thousand fans especially if they are coming from locations like Lubbock, Ames, Manhattan, Austin, Stillwater, Norman, Morgantown, and Waco (otherwise known as places without cheap flights and long drives to New Orleans).

You again bring up schools that would no longer get invited to their leagues if they weren't already in them. As for adding schools the Big 12 is very happy as they are. They won't be adding any schools averaging less than 40k. Not a chance. If schools want in they are going to have to bust in by showing they are for real and can add to the pot. This is a great football town. If Tulane produces something it never has in modern times, a consistently winning program against quality opposition, we can be one of those schools.

[Fred Dowler]

The only schools not in the P5 that attract more than 40K a game are East Carolina and UCF.

Schools in the P5 that attracted less than 40K a game in 2013 include Wake Forest, Duke, Washington St., Vandy, Syracuse, Northwestern, Boston College, Colorado, and Kansas. That is 4 ACC teams, 2 PAC-12 teams, 1 SEC, 1 Big-10, and 1 Big XII or nearly 1 out of six.

Currently the SEC, BIG-10, and ACC have 14 members. The PAC-12 has twelve and the Big XII has ten. The Big XII will likely add 2-4 teams in the next decade so they have a championship game so they will need to add between 2-4 teams with less than 40K draw.

Stanford seats 50,000 (but downsized from 85,000 in 2005) and Northwestern seats 47,000. But they are both in metro areas that are significantly larger than New Orleans that are home many graduates and opposing teams graduates unlike Tulane.

If you look at the stadium you could add a level of boxes on the north side and then a level of seats above that which stretch over the top of the current Wilson Center. This could easily hold 7-8,000 since the north endzone currently holds nearly 6,000 seats. It is not crazy to say that another level added onto the East side could hold 2,000. With a second level to the West side, we would easily pass 35,000 even if that takes a Big XII bid to find.

Fact is that modern times have only seen increases in the very upper echelon of college football attendance and that is basically because they have been able to fund stadium larger. Pretty much everyone else has suffered because of increased TV exposure and viewership. Even P5 teams only travel at best several thousand fans especially if they are coming from locations like Lubbock, Ames, Manhattan, Austin, Stillwater, Norman, Morgantown, and Waco (otherwise known as places without cheap flights and long drives to New Orleans).

You again bring up schools that would no longer get invited to their leagues if they weren't already in them. As for adding schools the Big 12 is very happy as they are. They won't be adding any schools averaging less than 40k. Not a chance. If schools want in they are going to have to bust in by showing they are for real and can add to the pot. This is a great football town. If Tulane produces something it never has in modern times, a consistently winning program against quality opposition, we can be one of those schools.

The truth.

[tpstulane]

There's a great article on SEC attendance in today's TP (listed below). It say's SEC attendance has been down 5 of the last 6 years. In fact Ole Miss has turned back in many tickets for this season's game at LSU. Tickets are now available for every LSU home game except Alabama. Said that the SEC Network will even further kill attendance since every game will be on TV. People are saying the hassle and expense isn't worth it when all games are now on TV. Most people are now content watching on their big HDTV's instead of fighting the traffic and other things. Interesting stuff:

http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/ ... es_an.html

[Fred Dowler]

There's a great article on SEC attendance in today's TP (listed below). It say's SEC attendance has been down 5 of the last 6 years. In fact Ole Miss has turned back in many tickets for this season's game at LSU. Tickets are now available for every LSU home game except Alabama. Said that the SEC Network will even further kill attendance since every game will be on TV. People are saying the hassle and expense isn't worth it when all games are now on TV. Most people are now content watching on their big HDTV's instead of fighting the traffic and other things. Interesting stuff:

http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/ ... es_an.html

A lot of solid points there about what's going on in general with college sports and tv and why, with so much available on tv, you really can't expect an more to just schedule a game and show up and be able to take it for granted that fans are going to be there, no matter what.

I especially think this one point, in response to why attendance patterns are changing, hits home, though:

"Some of it can be long-time ticketholders, tired of being shaken down every few years when minimum donation levels are raised for the right to retain seat location."

Maybe the TU higher-ups should be paying some attention.

[Fred Dowler]

So your idea is that people should be shamed or pressured into supporting or at least stifled from criticizing the agenda that you favor, then?

That's certainly what he's implying.

That's not what I said at all.
I said that it's obvious that some people would rather Tulane fail, than to succeed under practices with which they don't agree.
It's this idea that some hold that there remains this large conspiracy to destroy TU athletics from the deep recesses of Gibson Hall and the Board - and every piece of evidence to the contrary is dismissed with a flimsy wave of the hand.

There is a small subset on here that simply wants Tulane to join division 3. Right, Fred?

But it's the EVIDENCE that suggests such a "conspiracy". Everything from Cowens consistent message to the plan for tiny football and basketball facilities to a lack of accountability or expectation of results from Dickson etc. I could go on.

Just so were clear, the last time the term "conspiracy" was thrown around here it was regarding 22k, and that turned out to be true.

He's long been one to "dismiss with a flmsy wave of the hand" that Cowen or Rick Dickson or the TU model have had much to do with the struggles of the major sports programs.

[tpstulane]

I especially think this one point, in response to why attendance patterns are changing, hits home, though:
"Some of it can be long-time ticketholders, tired of being shaken down every few years when minimum donation levels are raised for the right to retain seat location."
Maybe the TU higher-ups should be paying some attention.

Maybe for winning programs but our problem stems strictly from losing for decades. This is the first year for our money grab, that's fine as long as you win.