Bear Down Wildcats

I think success all starts with the product, and the product has been junk for a long long time. Consistently good product = good attendance. Amazing how two different ADs have been stung three times. Will we ever get it right?

We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

What is your argument? Cat fans do a great job considering how dismal we have been since the 90's.

Are you saying we were passed up because our fan base won't travel? Or were we passed up because we simply suck as a football program?

We are consistently in the top half in % of seats sold but that might be changing because most of out Phoenix fans realize RR is fools gold and won't be back until a change is made. At least the ones I talk to

Thought the UA traveled pretty well to ABQ and LV, two rather shitty stadiums, although LV isn't all that bad as a destination.

Tucson would most definitely travel well to San Diego, and has.

Now the Rose Bowl, sighhhh.... Who would not go to that?

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

In 2012 the NM Bowl was one of the PAC-12 bowls. In 2013 I believe the school actually lobbied to go to Shreveport rather than NM or Dallas (which was a possible at-large destination.)

Did the OP ever get answered?

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

Last season we were 5th and 6th in attendance and percent capacity, respectively.

I don't get your point.

wyo-cat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

Last season we were 5th and 6th in attendance and percent capacity, respectively.

I don't get your point.

well nothing to brag about, but our attendance could be much worse. a lot of programs nationally are having a harder time than we are are. but i have a feeling attendance next season is going to be pretty abysmal.

wyo-cat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

Last season we were 5th and 6th in attendance and percent capacity, respectively.

I don't get your point.

And we finished dead last in the PAC. The year before we were 4th in attendance and 5th in % capacity, and we finished 10th out of 12 teams. I'd say that is prety damn impressive...

My point? The crew that wants to make excuses for the staff and blame all our program challenges (recruiting, quality of bowl selection, etc) on bad fan support (which was suggested in this thread) are full of shit - and not supported by the facts. Our fan support is a helluva lot better than our program.

IF this program consistently finished in the upper 1/2 of the conference in both recruiting & final season standings (which is all even the most critical are hoping for)... My guess is our attendance numbers would jump into the top 1/3.

The kool-aid brigade needs to stop making excuses & blaming everyone else for the failures of the staff who are paid handsomely (and who have gotten good administration support) to build a good program and consistently field decent teams. The current status of the program falls on their shoulders, and no one else's.

gumby wrote:Did the OP ever get answered?

Because our program is not as good as Oregon.

As best I can tell, they are the only PAC-12 school that consistently fills their stadium... and that did not happen until they became a perennial contender. Pretty simply. Shitty (or even decent) teams - especially those out West - do not sell out on a regular basis.

Those that suggest we should be at capacity every Saturday regardless of how good our team is - and then magically this staff would be empowered to recruit and coach more effectively - are dreaming. We probably would not be much better than we are now, and they'd move on to a new excuse to protect this regime.

Hot weather in the summer? I guess they'd rather recruit to the PNW where you do not see the sun for 60-75% of the school year.
Poor local talent? We cannot get the good in-state talent that we do have... which is the best in the West behind CA (admittedly by a wide margin, but still #2).
Facilities in need of further upgrades? We'll never have the best... we're decent, and more competitive than we wer. Let's see a return on our investment before we throw good money after bad.

Take your pick... but let's be clear: It is not because of coaching. The 2nd least successful coach of all those we have had in the PAC era is deserving of a raise and extension!

ASUHATER! wrote:

wyo-cat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

Last season we were 5th and 6th in attendance and percent capacity, respectively.

I don't get your point.

well nothing to brag about, but our attendance could be much worse. a lot of programs nationally are having a harder time than we are are. but i have a feeling attendance next season is going to be pretty abysmal.

It will likely start out that way. If they get off to a good start and show they are competitive, it will pick up and be better than we anticipate.

I'll bet we are still not in the bottom third... and it is unrealistic to expect much more than that coming off the season we had in '16.

If the team is really bad again & attendance craters, no one should be surprised or blame the fans. But they will.

Harvey Specter wrote:

gumby wrote:Did the OP ever get answered?

Because our program is not as good as Oregon.

As best I can tell, they are the only PAC-12 school that consistently fills their stadium... and that did not happen until they became a perennial contender. Pretty simply. Shitty (or even decent) teams - especially those out West - do not sell out on a regular basis.

Those that suggest we should be at capacity every Saturday regardless of how good our team is - and then magically this staff would be empowered to recruit and coach more effectively - are dreaming. We probably would not be much better than we are now, and they'd move on to a new excuse to protect this regime.

Hot weather in the summer? I guess they'd rather recruit to the PNW where you do not see the sun for 60-75% of the school year.
Poor local talent? We cannot get the good in-state talent that we do have... which is the best in the West behind CA (admittedly by a wide margin, but still #2).
Facilities in need of further upgrades? We'll never have the best... we're decent, and more competitive than we wer. Let's see a return on our investment before we throw good money after bad.

Take your pick... but let's be clear: It is not because of coaching. The 2nd least successful coach of all those we have had in the PAC era is deserving of a raise and extension!

Good answer. And we're the only hoop team that can sell out consistently. Just not going to happen in football. At least we're fanatical about one of them, unlike all the other schools not named Oregon and Arizona.

This is why the Pac-12 has no pull with DirecTV or media in general. Fans just aren't crazy faithful like in other parts of the country.

Could be a positive sign of a balanced mental outlook.

gumby wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

gumby wrote:Did the OP ever get answered?

Because our program is not as good as Oregon.

As best I can tell, they are the only PAC-12 school that consistently fills their stadium... and that did not happen until they became a perennial contender. Pretty simply. Shitty (or even decent) teams - especially those out West - do not sell out on a regular basis.

Those that suggest we should be at capacity every Saturday regardless of how good our team is - and then magically this staff would be empowered to recruit and coach more effectively - are dreaming. We probably would not be much better than we are now, and they'd move on to a new excuse to protect this regime.

Hot weather in the summer? I guess they'd rather recruit to the PNW where you do not see the sun for 60-75% of the school year.
Poor local talent? We cannot get the good in-state talent that we do have... which is the best in the West behind CA (admittedly by a wide margin, but still #2).
Facilities in need of further upgrades? We'll never have the best... we're decent, and more competitive than we wer. Let's see a return on our investment before we throw good money after bad.

Take your pick... but let's be clear: It is not because of coaching. The 2nd least successful coach of all those we have had in the PAC era is deserving of a raise and extension!

Good answer. And we're the only hoop team that can sell out consistently. Just not going to happen in football. At least we're fanatical about one of them, unlike all the other schools not named Oregon and Arizona.

This is why the Pac-12 has no pull with DirecTV or media in general. Fans just aren't crazy faithful like in other parts of the country.

Could be a positive sign of a balanced mental outlook.

Very true. Only football programs that will sell out consistently are Oregon, Washington, USC and Utah (the last 3 only when they're good). Only basketball programs are Arizona, Utah, Colorado and Oregon (last 3 only when they're good).

ASUHATER! wrote:

gumby wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

gumby wrote:Did the OP ever get answered?

Because our program is not as good as Oregon.

As best I can tell, they are the only PAC-12 school that consistently fills their stadium... and that did not happen until they became a perennial contender. Pretty simply. Shitty (or even decent) teams - especially those out West - do not sell out on a regular basis.

Those that suggest we should be at capacity every Saturday regardless of how good our team is - and then magically this staff would be empowered to recruit and coach more effectively - are dreaming. We probably would not be much better than we are now, and they'd move on to a new excuse to protect this regime.

Hot weather in the summer? I guess they'd rather recruit to the PNW where you do not see the sun for 60-75% of the school year.
Poor local talent? We cannot get the good in-state talent that we do have... which is the best in the West behind CA (admittedly by a wide margin, but still #2).
Facilities in need of further upgrades? We'll never have the best... we're decent, and more competitive than we wer. Let's see a return on our investment before we throw good money after bad.

Take your pick... but let's be clear: It is not because of coaching. The 2nd least successful coach of all those we have had in the PAC era is deserving of a raise and extension!

Good answer. And we're the only hoop team that can sell out consistently. Just not going to happen in football. At least we're fanatical about one of them, unlike all the other schools not named Oregon and Arizona.

This is why the Pac-12 has no pull with DirecTV or media in general. Fans just aren't crazy faithful like in other parts of the country.

Could be a positive sign of a balanced mental outlook.

Very true. Only football programs that will sell out consistently are Oregon, Washington, USC and Utah (the last 3 only when they're good). Only basketball programs are Arizona, Utah, Colorado and Oregon (last 3 only when they're good).

I would say that Oregon will only sell out when they are good, too. I think they've been good since before they started selling out every game with the exception of this past year - and I would expect the season was sold out before it started. Have a middling to shitty season in '17, and I would bet '18 will see a big dropoff.

Same goes for UA Hoops... if we hit the skids for any period of time, fan interest and attendance would falter.

Funny how that works... not sure why it is so hard for some to grasp.

Harvey Specter wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

wyo-cat wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:We were not selected in 2012 2013 or 2015 for PAC 12 bowls when we could have been

2012: There were 8 bowl eligible teams in the conference, and we finished 8th in the conference.

2013: There were 9 bowl eligible teams, and we finished in a 3-way tie for 7th in the conference.

2015: There 10 bowl eligible teams, we finished 10th in the conference

I am pretty sure we were the last team picked for bowl games because we were the worst team eligible in 2 of those 3 years, and in a 3-way tie for worst eligible in the other one.

But you are probably right... it was because of our bad fan support. Care to respond to the other facts posted about where we have ranked in the P12 the past 2 seasons in attendance?

Last season we were 5th and 6th in attendance and percent capacity, respectively.

I don't get your point.

well nothing to brag about, but our attendance could be much worse. a lot of programs nationally are having a harder time than we are are. but i have a feeling attendance next season is going to be pretty abysmal.

It will likely start out that way. If they get off to a good start and show they are competitive, it will pick up and be better than we anticipate.

I'll bet we are still not in the bottom third... and it is unrealistic to expect much more than that coming off the season we had in '16.

If the team is really bad again & attendance craters, no one should be surprised or blame the fans. But they will.

Next year our home schedule is Houston, NAU, Washington state, Oregon state, Utah and UCLA.

Early PAC power rankings.

Cat's 10th, only ahead of ASU and Cal. Only favored v. NAU I imagine.



http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/i ... r-rankings" target="_blank

Merkin wrote:Early PAC power rankings.

Cat's 10th, only ahead of ASU and Cal. Only favored v. NAU I imagine.



http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/i ... r-rankings" target="_blank

I would assume we are favored against UTEP and OSU as well. Possible Cal depending how each of us are playing at the time.

also depends on how much houston is losing, especially since Herman left and they are coming to Tucson I believe.

We can't fill AZ Stadium because Byrne went to Bama.

Thanks Greg Byrne!

Alcohol next season officially dead?

The Nova home loans Arizona bowl sold beer in the stadium, even some Barrio & Four Peaks options. You would think that might give the AD a data point of reference for sales numbers & issues compared to attendance for here in Tucson.

Ya almost 34K in attendance for that game

34k is probably much more than the previous year.

Ha it was like 37 degrees out! They claimed 20K but it was closer to 3K by the 3rd quarter

Timmy1973 wrote:The Nova home loans Arizona bowl sold beer in the stadium, even some Barrio & Four Peaks options. You would think that might give the AD a data point of reference for sales numbers & issues compared to attendance for here in Tucson.

I'm quite sure the AD was paying attention to how it went. It's easier to try that out on a smaller stage first than it is to do when you've got 50k+ in the stadium. Byrne said one of the issues with selling beer was that the concession stands and the restrooms were in serious need of upgrades first. Anyone who's been in the restrooms in the older parts of the stadium would probably agree with that.

yeah we'll need better concession areas and more toilets before we fill people up with beer.

Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

UALoco wrote:Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

that's refreshing at least. and with trump and the republicans in power...it's actually more likely they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world.

ASUHATER! wrote:

UALoco wrote:Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

that's refreshing at least. and with trump and the republicans in power...it's actually more likely they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world.

You lost, get over it! This is a football forum, please post your paranoia of nonsense on the political forum.

Thanks,

Sid wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UALoco wrote:Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

that's refreshing at least. and with trump and the republicans in power...it's actually more likely they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world.

You lost, get over it! This is a football forum, please post your paranoia of nonsense on the political forum.

Thanks,

like your ilk did with Obama the last 8 years? cool story bro.

scumdevils86 wrote:

Sid wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UALoco wrote:Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

that's refreshing at least. and with trump and the republicans in power...it's actually more likely they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world.

You lost, get over it! This is a football forum, please post your paranoia of nonsense on the political forum.

Thanks,

like your ilk did with Obama the last 8 years? cool story bro.

Fantastic Arizona football contribution. Political board must be down, huh bro?

Sid wrote:

scumdevils86 wrote:

Sid wrote:

ASUHATER! wrote:

UALoco wrote:Now we can officially blame Trump for everything, including Arizona's inability to pack AZ stadium. Thanks Trump.

that's refreshing at least. and with trump and the republicans in power...it's actually more likely they are to blame for everything that's wrong in the world.

You lost, get over it! This is a football forum, please post your paranoia of nonsense on the political forum.

Thanks,

like your ilk did with Obama the last 8 years? cool story bro.

Fantastic Arizona football contribution. Political board must be down, huh bro?

if it bothers you then maybe you should stop posting or at least ignore it.

Don't be like Cal!

Merkin wrote:Don't be like Cal!

Right! The debt service on that football stadium renovation is going to haunt them for a long time.

Memo to Cal: football is declining in popularity in many parts of the country. You're not in the midwest or deep south.

Memo to Arizona: you're not either.

MrMeow wrote:

Merkin wrote:Don't be like Cal!

Right! The debt service on that football stadium renovation is going to haunt them for a long time.

Memo to Cal: football is declining in popularity in many parts of the country. You're not in the midwest or deep south.

Memo to Arizona: you're not either.

It's not an easy solution. Good facilities drive recruiting. Recruiting drives winning. Winning increases revenues.

How to strike the right balance without selling out the financial future of the athletic department is the trick.

Arizona Stadium is outdated, though. Part of our issue is that we had a long period of doing absolutely nothing and falling further and further behind. Betwern 1988 and 2009, the only renovation was adding a scoreboard.

I wonder what our max is related to debt service. No clue how much we still have on the books and what we can dedicate to these projects. I will say as much as I would love the improvements I would not want to be Cal.

Building along 5th with some business entities and having a special tax district like ASSU does seems like a good move along with increases revenue with naming rights and beer sales

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Merkin wrote:Don't be like Cal!

Right! The debt service on that football stadium renovation is going to haunt them for a long time.

Memo to Cal: football is declining in popularity in many parts of the country. You're not in the midwest or deep south.

Memo to Arizona: you're not either.

It's not an easy solution. Good facilities drive recruiting. Recruiting drives winning. Winning increases revenues.



How to strike the right balance without selling out the financial future of the athletic department is the trick.

Arizona Stadium is outdated, though. Part of our issue is that we had a long period of doing absolutely nothing and falling further and further behind. Betwern 1988 and 2009, the only renovation was adding a scoreboard.

Yes, that's been the formula, but football popularity is still generally declining and bond debt must be serviced for a very long time. Will the formula still hold up? We'll see.

Nothing done from 1988-2009? We should all wish Jim Livengood was good at something besides balancing the books because his inaction, and his hiring mistakes, did a lot of damage to Arizona football.

Stanford built their new stadium for 1/3 the amount Cal did, which both are obviously elite academic schools, which the UA is not so have to recruit a different class of athlete.






Much nicer seating than Arizona stadium.



even in the cheap seats.

MrMeow wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

MrMeow wrote:

Merkin wrote:Don't be like Cal!

Right! The debt service on that football stadium renovation is going to haunt them for a long time.

Memo to Cal: football is declining in popularity in many parts of the country. You're not in the midwest or deep south.

Memo to Arizona: you're not either.

It's not an easy solution. Good facilities drive recruiting. Recruiting drives winning. Winning increases revenues.



How to strike the right balance without selling out the financial future of the athletic department is the trick.

Arizona Stadium is outdated, though. Part of our issue is that we had a long period of doing absolutely nothing and falling further and further behind. Betwern 1988 and 2009, the only renovation was adding a scoreboard.

Yes, that's been the formula, but football popularity is still generally declining and bond debt must be serviced for a very long time. Will the formula still hold up? We'll see.

Nothing done from 1988-2009? We should all wish Jim Livengood was good at something besides balancing the books because his inaction, and his hiring mistakes, did a lot of damage to Arizona football.

I am a huge advocate of any renovations being targeted at enhancing new revenue streams. Simply relying on ticket sales is a limited, constricting market. If you want renovations to be somewhat revenue neutral, you need them to offer an enhanced fan experience with stuff to spend money on.

I've visited family in Reno, and they actually have a bar/restaurant connected to the minor league baseball stadium. You can wander from the stands over to eat/drink or just hang out at the bar for the game. I tend to think things like that are the future.

So for building a new stadium, would we tear down the whole thing and build from scratch? I know Stanford was able to do it in one off-season. Would it be possible to tear down everything but Lowell-Stevens and build everything around it (err...next to it)? What do we think are the best solutions, aside from just drastically updating Arizona Stadium?

Stanford Stadium is a glorified High School Stadium.

As far as some other revenue sources and renovations, stay tuned......

Just don't get the comment about being a glorified HS stadium. That stadium is 100X better then the kitty litter box we play in. I would take that in a heart beat. Merk is right about the seats and the sight lines, all much better.

I wish we would tear the whole thing down (other than the NEZ) and just do a Stanford rebuild. I do like the idea of a tunnel over to a couple of bars and drinking/eating places along 5th. Heck start booking concerts in the thing for additional revenue. (did someone mention Flettwood Mac Merk )

azcat49 wrote:Just don't get the comment about being a glorified HS stadium. That stadium is 100X better then the kitty litter box we play in. I would take that in a heart beat. Merk is right about the seats and the sight lines, all much better.

I wish we would tear the whole thing down (other than the NEZ) and just do a Stanford rebuild. I do like the idea of a tunnel over to a couple of bars and drinking/eating places along 5th. Heck start booking concerts in the thing for additional revenue. (did someone mention Flettwood Mac Merk )

I love history so I love stadiums like the Big House, Ohio Stadium, Wrigley Field, Lambeau Field and Arizona Stadium. There is something about them that is special. Nothing special at all about Stanford. I would expect to see the same thing in Dallas for a High School.

Now you are onto the right line of thinking for the renovations for Arizona Stadium....

I'd like to know how that stadium is just a glorified high school stadium. Maybe that don't extend so far up you can't see the game anyways? It's missing a 90 foot scoreboard like ours, but outside of having 2 small scoreboards, it looks nice enough for what we need. What is going to draw attendance is not how it looks from helicopter shots, but what it is like to attend a game. Have decent seating, have nice concessions/bathrooms/concourse, that is it. Utah's stadium doesn't really look like anything special, but they fill it up and it's a pretty good fan experience (main things-- lots of gates, wide concourse, lots of difference and good concession options).

hahaha yeah our stadium is on par with ohio stadium, wrigley and lambeau? gtfo.

One of those is definitely not like the others...

I think Stanford Stadium should be the model for our renovation.

PHXCATS wrote:

azcat49 wrote:Just don't get the comment about being a glorified HS stadium. That stadium is 100X better then the kitty litter box we play in. I would take that in a heart beat. Merk is right about the seats and the sight lines, all much better.

I wish we would tear the whole thing down (other than the NEZ) and just do a Stanford rebuild. I do like the idea of a tunnel over to a couple of bars and drinking/eating places along 5th. Heck start booking concerts in the thing for additional revenue. (did someone mention Flettwood Mac Merk )

I love history so I love stadiums like the Big House, Ohio Stadium, Wrigley Field, Lambeau Field and Arizona Stadium. There is something about them that is special. Nothing special at all about Stanford. I would expect to see the same thing in Dallas for a High School.

Now you are onto the right line of thinking for the renovations for Arizona Stadium....

I love Arizona, but that's like comparing a paper airplane to Air Force One. We have nowhere near the history and status of any of those stadiums. Arizona Stadium in football is like Wells Fargo at ASU for basketball. If you're a fan, there have been some fun moments, but no one outside our fanbase would really have any memories.

Stanford has a nice soccer stadium.

The thing is a rickety aluminum dump.

Yes good sight lines (because it is small) and decent enough renos that they could pay for (because it is small) but do not want.

I doubt it will survive the next big one it's so flimsy and aluminumy