NCAA attendance for 2009

[jadennis]

SEC Attendance (national ranking)
Tennessee (5)
Georgia (6)
LSU (7)
Alabama (9)
Florida (10)
Auburn (13)
S Carolina (17)
Kentucky (22)
Arkansas (24)
Ole Miss (35)
Miss St (36)
Vanderbilt (67)

As is always the case, the SEC outdrew the other conferences.  

Number of Programs in the Top 25 attendance:
ACC: 3 - conference avg. #44.8
Florida St (19)
Clemson (20)
Virginia Tech (24)

Big East: 0 - conference avg. #51.8

Big Ten: 6 - conference avg. #28.5
Michigan (1)
Penn St (2)
Ohio St (3)
Wisconsin (15)
Michigan St (18)
Iowa (21)

Big XII: 4 - conference avg. #34
Texas (4)
Nebraska (10)
Oklahoma (12)
Texas A&M (16)

Pac 10: 2 - conference avg. #40.9
Southern Cal (11)
UCLA (25)

SEC: 9 - conference avg. #20.9
Tennessee (5)
Georgia (6)
LSU (7)
Alabama (9)
Florida (10)
Auburn (13)
S Carolina (17)
Kentucky (22)
Arkansas (24)

Notables:
Miami was #50 at 47,551 per game, or 63% capacity.  They are known for poor attendance, but that's just embarrassing.  Rutgers outdrew them at 49,113 per game.

South Florida, however, is at #40 with 52,553 per game.

Kentucky only averaged 5,000 fewer than Florida State (69k vs 74k) and may have outnumbered them if they had a bigger stadium.  Kentucky was at 102% capacity to FSU's 90%.

Kind of crazy that the ACC has no one in the top 15.  

Some programs really showed their support despite poor results on the field:
5-7 Michigan was at 102% capacity
5-7 Washington was 89%
3-9 Illinois was at 94%
5-7 NC State was at 98%
5-7 Kansas was at 100%
5-7 Wake Forest was at 101%
3-9 Colorado was at 93%
2-10 Vandy was at 88%

[AUChizad]

Big Ten: 6
Michigan (1)
Penn St (2)
Ohio St (3)

Gotta give it to them. That's pretty damn impressive.

[Saniflush]

Gotta give it to them. That's pretty damn impressive.

Not as impressive as having 3/4 of your conference in the top 25.

[AUChizad]

Not as impressive as having 3/4 of your conference in the top 25.

Still over half.

I'd say 6/11 with the top 3 vs. 9/12 without is pretty comparable.

Just trying to give credit where credit's due.

[Saniflush]

Still over half.

I'd say 6/11 with the top 3 vs. 9/12 without is pretty comparable.

Just trying to give credit where credit's due.

They get some props for sure.

[jadennis]

Gotta give it to them. That's pretty damn impressive.

That was the first thing I thought.  Those three teams have an average of 320,000 people in their stadiums on a Saturday that they all have a home game.  That's more than the population (city proper) of Orlando, Scottsdale, Pittsburgh, Birmingham, Toledo, Newark, St Petersburg, Lexington, etc.

Not as impressive as having 3/4 of your conference in the top 25.

But the depth of the SEC is what's really impressive.

On a Saturday that has home games at Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Alabama, and Auburn, there are more people (550,000+) in those stadiums than the cities of Atlanta, Miami, Kansas City, Cleveland, Tuscon, Raleigh, etc.

[wreckingball]

Gotta give it to them. That's pretty damn impressive.

No I don't, those are the teams with the 3 biggest stadiums.

[Tiger Wench]

No I don't, those are the teams with the 3 biggest stadiums.

Unless I read it wrong, the rankings were on percent of capacity - which removes the "more seats to fill" variable from the equation, right?  Those three schools still had the highest percentage of butts in seats.

[The Prowler]

Ohhh......These teams all had higher attendances than SPuat

Michigan (1)
Penn St (2)
Ohio St (3)
Texas (4)
Tennessee (5)
Georgia (6)
LSU (7)
...
SPuat (9)


but that can't be true....SPuat holds 92,000+ 

[RWS]

Ohhh......These teams all had higher attendances than SPuat

Michigan (1)
Penn St (2)
Ohio St (3)
Texas (4)
Tennessee (5)
Georgia (6)
LSU (7)
...
SPuat (9)


but that can't be true....SPuat holds 92,000+ 

Actually, Alabama is ranked #8 in the country. UGA is #6, LSU is #7, UA is #8, UF is #9, and Nebraska is #10. It's worth noting that Alabama lost quite a few seats this season while construction of the South End Zone Expansion was taking place. FWIW, only 477 people separated Alabama and LSU. If I remember correctly, Death Valley holds more people than BDS anyway, soooooo......

[Aubie16]

Unless I read it wrong, the rankings were on percent of capacity - which removes the "more seats to fill" variable from the equation, right?  Those three schools still had the highest percentage of butts in seats.

No it was just based on actual attendance. There weren't very many hard numbers in the OP so it was kind of confusing. Here is the Top 15:

Top 10 Football Bowl Subdivision Attendance Leaders
1. Michigan:------------ 108,933
2. Penn State:---------- 107,008
3. Ohio State:----------- 105,261
4. Texas: ----------------101,175
5. Tennessee:----------- 99,220
6. Georgia:-------------- 92,746
7. LSU:------------------ 92,489
8. Alabama:------------- 92,012
9. Florida:--------------- 90,635
10. Nebraska:----------- 85,888
11. Southern California- 84,799
12. Oklahoma ------------84,778
13. Auburn --------------84,614
14. Notre Dame--------- 80,795
15. Wisconsin------------ 80,109

[Tiger Wench]

No it was just based on actual attendance. There weren't very many hard numbers in the OP so it was kind of confusing. Here is the Top 15:

Well that is not very fair - does not compare apples to apples.  The percent of capacity is a more equitable number.  If you have 100K seats but only fill 50K of them, but a school with 65K seats fills ALL of them, then who has better attendance?

[Aubie16]

Well that is not very fair - does not compare apples to apples.  The percent of capacity is a more equitable number.  If you have 100K seats but only fill 50K of them, but a school with 65K seats fills ALL of them, then who has better attendance?

Bad example. School B would win in both categories.

In any case, I believe the school who has more butts in the seats has better attendance, regardless of capacity. It isn't fair to say a school like Fresno St. who was routinely at 100% capacity for the season(41,000) in the mid 2000's has more fan support/attendance than Auburn who was usually in the 93-95% range (87,000).

[AUChizad]

Well that is not very fair - does not compare apples to apples.  The percent of capacity is a more equitable number.  If you have 100K seats but only fill 50K of them, but a school with 65K seats fills ALL of them, then who has better attendance?

Well, in that case 65k > 50k, so you're right, the school with the smaller stadium is more impressive.

But in my opinion, if the school with 100k seats sells 75k, that's still > 65k, still more impressive. Still more fan support. That's why they built a bigger stadium.

[AUChizad]

Bad example. School B would win in both categories.

In any case, I believe the school who has more butts in the seats has better attendance, regardless of capacity. It isn't fair to say a school like Fresno St. who was routinely at 100% capacity for the season(41,000) in the mid 2000's has more fan support/attendance than Auburn who was usually in the 93-95% range (87,000).

You beat me by 30 seconds.

Damn.

[Tiger Wench]

Bad example. School B would win in both categories.

In any case, I believe the school who has more butts in the seats has better attendance, regardless of capacity. It isn't fair to say a school like Fresno St. who was routinely at 100% capacity for the season(41,000) in the mid 2000's has more fan support/attendance than Auburn who was usually in the 93-95% range (87,000).

Yes, bad example - I should have used 65K for both examples.  I still say that 100% of your seats being filled is better than 65% - smaller schools usually have smaller stadiums, but they still can support their team fanatically.

[jadennis]

Bad example. School B would win in both categories.

In any case, I believe the school who has more butts in the seats has better attendance, regardless of capacity. It isn't fair to say a school like Fresno St. who was routinely at 100% capacity for the season(41,000) in the mid 2000's has more fan support/attendance than Auburn who was usually in the 93-95% range (87,000).

I don't see it like that.  I mean, I do to some extent, but there has to be some reasonable limits.  Just because Fresno can fill 100% of 41,000 seats doesn't mean they could fill 100% of 61,000 seats, let alone 87,451 seats.

I think there has to be some point where they just aren't comparable really.  Maybe compare everyone with capacities of 90k+, then everyone with 75k to 89k, then everyone with 60k to 74k, etc.

The point is, if the demand at Fresno was soooo great, they wouldn't have only 41,000 seats.  They would expand to meet demand.  If they knew for a fact they were turning away 20,000 requests for tickets year after year, they would build more seats, simple as that.  Even though they are at 100% of 41,000, they obviously feel comfortable at that size.  They may be getting demands for 48,000 tickets but feel the expense of adding 5k or 7k seats isn't financially worth it.

But again, I guarantee you that if they had demand for another 20k, they'd do it....money, money, money, that's why some stadiums seat what they do.  It's either financially advantageous or it isn't.  Demand/supoport answers that question.

[jadennis]

Here are the "% capacity" numbers on some top programs and overall attendance leaders.

These are the top 15 in average attendance, plus Kentucky and Virginia Tech, who were the only other teams in the top 25 of attendance that were also at least 100% capacity.

Avg attendance rank by is in parentheses.

(4) Texas - 107.5%
(10) Nebraska - 105.95%
(12) Oklahoma - 103.25%
(22) Kentucky - 102.94%
(3) Ohio St - 102.87%
(1) Michigan - 102.57%
(9) Florida - 102.36%
(7) LSU - 100.1%
(6) Georgia - 100.00%
(14) Notre Dame - 100.00%
(23) Virginia Tech - 100.00%
(8) Alabama - 99.86%
(2) Penn St - 99.74%
(15) Wisconsin - 99.74%
(5) Tennessee - 99.21%
(13) Auburn - 96.76%
(11) USC - 90.59%


On the other end of the spectrum was UCLA, who was #25 in average attendance (64k), but was only at 70% capacity, which is over 91k.

[Aubie16]

I don't see it like that.  I mean, I do to some extent, but there has to be some reasonable limits.  Just because Fresno can fill 100% of 41,000 seats doesn't mean they could fill 100% of 61,000 seats, let alone 87,451 seats.

I think there has to be some point where they just aren't comparable really.  Maybe compare everyone with capacities of 90k+, then everyone with 75k to 89k, then everyone with 60k to 74k, etc.

The point is, if the demand at Fresno was soooo great, they wouldn't have only 41,000 seats.  They would expand to meet demand.  If they knew for a fact they were turning away 20,000 requests for tickets year after year, they would build more seats, simple as that.  Even though they are at 100% of 41,000, they obviously feel comfortable at that size.  They may be getting demands for 48,000 tickets but feel the expense of adding 5k or 7k seats isn't financially worth it.

But again, I guarantee you that if they had demand for another 20k, they'd do it....money, money, money, that's why some stadiums seat what they do.  It's either financially advantageous or it isn't.  Demand/supoport answers that question.

I think you just agreed with me? I am in favor of using hard counts because, like you said, most schools would tend to build more seats if there is truly the demand for them.

[jadennis]

I think you just agreed with me? I am in favor of using hard counts because, like you said, most schools would tend to build more seats if there is truly the demand for them.

Looking back, I misread your post.  It's the offseason...things get cloudy in my head.  Plus, I was doing actual, real work at work today....so I can't be held responsible for my brain being spread too thin today.