Lowest Attendance in 4 years

Go Gophers Rah

Section 238 Row 21
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
185
Points
63
Here are our home attendance stats for the past 4 years:

2008: 48,957
2007: 51,791
2006: 52,206
2005: 49,024

If you take the Iowa game out of the mix for this year, we averaged 46,440. People might argue that the NDSU games boosted previous years' averages - but if you take last year's Wisconsin and NDSU games out of the mix, we averaged 48,067 - still better than this year's "adjusted" average.

Given that the Gophers sports marketing program reported the sales of 2,000 additional season tickets last August, however, this is kind of disapointing.

I know that we have TCF Bank Stadium to look forward to, but if we can't have a good 2009 and 2010 season, I just don't see us selling out. Our football program REALLY needs to capitalize on the newness of TCF during the next two years if we are to take it to the next level (ie being a January bowl team).
 

If you take all of them out you get zero.

My problem with the attendence figures in the Dome is that for the last 20 years through one sports team or another or all, there has been an agressive campaign to convince people how much the dome sucks so they could get their own stadium. Advertising works.
 

I bought an extra ticket for this year, and "used" it by having a free seat for my son to play in during the long games. Does that ticket count, if it was never received at the gate?
 

This stat will lose all context starting next year when our capacity is 50K per game.

Go Gophers!!
 

Remember how Brewster was making the PR rounds in 2007? I'm sure that probably boosted ticket sales a little bit last year.

But after going 1-11, that undoubtedly had to impact ticket sales early in 2008; probably through the Indiana game. But then after we beat Illinois and Purdue to get to 7-1, we did have a couple decent crowds for Northwestern and Michigan.
 


BleedGopher wrote:

This stat will lose all context starting next year when our capacity is 50K per game.

Go Gophers!!

I think you are right about next year and, probably, the year after that.

My concern is that without some improvement, we will continue to have crowds of 40,000 for our "non-marquee" matchups against non-bcs opponents and the likes of Indiana in 2011 and beyond.

The next two years are CRITICAL for this program's future in my opinion.
 


He has to show progress every year. Maybe not in W/L's but certainly in building the program. The next two years as you said should be dramatic improvements. I'll take bowl eligilble with more consistent OL play and rushing yardage increase next year.
 

BleedGopher wrote:

I think you are right about next year and, probably, the year after that.

My concern is that without some improvement, we will continue to have crowds of 40,000 for our "non-marquee" matchups against non-bcs opponents and the likes of Indiana in 2011 and beyond.

The next two years are CRITICAL for this program's future in my opinion.

I disagree. If they program is where it was during the Mason years and this year (although not last year's 11-1), I think we will sell out most games. People who like to go to a few games per year (probably Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, OSU, etc.) will need to have season tickets to assure their seats. That's the idea behind 50,000 seats, and I think there are enough Gopher football fans who are willing to do that with the current level of the program combined with outdoor football.

However, I think there was rare excitement about the program this fall due to the quick start the team had along with the new stadium nearing completion. Continued improvement of the on-field product will be necessary to maintain that excitement and build interest among Minnesotans beyond those attending games.
 



It's not difficult to determine why attendence was down this year.

A) We were coming off a 1-11 year
B) Our home schedule was a joke. All 3 non-conference games were cupcakes and 2 of our 4 conference games were against Indiana and NW, neither of which have that "name" factor.
 




Top Bottom