On Attendance and Stanford's BCS Bowl Hopes
Stanford rose to sixth in the BCS standings following its most complete game of the season--a 42-17 pasting of Arizona--and losses by four teams previously ranked ahead of the Cardinal. With each passing week, and each Stanford and Oregon win, the chances that the Cardinal will find themselves in the Rose Bowl grow.
The BCS bowl picture remains murky, but Stanford's most likely path to Pasadena involves the Cardinal, Ducks, and either Boise State or TCU winning out, and Auburn losing. If that happens, Oregon would probably play the Broncos or Horned Frogs in the National Championship Game, and the Rose Bowl would be free to select the Cardinal as the Pac-10 runner-up. There's a chance Stanford could wind up in another BCS bowl as an at-large selection, but there's also a chance that Stanford could run the table, finish 11-1, and play in the Valero Alamo Bowl on New Year's Eve. I hear San Antonio's lovely in December.
Suppose Auburn and Oregon win out and meet in the National Championship Game. The Rose Bowl would be required to select an eligible team from a non-automatic qualifying conference--Boise State or TCU, assuming both teams win out. Stanford's resume would certainly put it in contention for an at-large berth in one of the other BCS bowls, but the Cardinal could be passed over out of fear that its fans would not fill seats.
Bruce Jenkins writes that the BCS needs to start paying attention to Stanford. It would help if the Cardinal's fans started paying attention to Stanford. As Jenkins noted, it was "disappointing to see thousands of empty seats at Stanford Stadium" for Saturday's game. What gives? RuleofTree member RickeySteals shared his thoughts on Stanford's attendance woes, and I agree with most of his points, as well as this one from Jon Wilner:
Maybe giving away all those free tickets over the years — before the "What’s Your Deal" deal, back when Stanford had no football marketing plan except to give ‘em away — has served to devalue the product.
As a Stanford fan living on the East Coast, I can't speak to the athletic department's marketing efforts in and around Palo Alto, but I applaud its use of social media, including Twitter and Facebook, and the expanded content on its YouTube channel, to grow the Cardinal football brand.
While Saturday's turnout was surprising, with an undergraduate enrollment of less than 7,000 students, attendance at home games isn't the only indicator of how well Stanford fans would travel for a bowl game. It may take some time for the marketing department to consistently fill Stanford Stadium, but I think Cardinal fans would turn out in droves for a BCS bowl. You don't have to take my word for it. One Stanford fan created a petition in the form of a Facebook event titled "Stanford fans will go to a BCS Bowl" on Sunday. Within hours, more than 1,000 people pledged that they would attend. That number has since ballooned to more than 2,700. From the event's page:
Dear BCS Bowls,
Stanford will sell its allotment if selected for a BCS game. If we are in contention for a BCS bowl, do not let the fear of empty stands persuade you to select another team in our stead. Please do not take Stanford's home game attendance into account. This is not an accurate assessment of the level of support you will see from us at your bowl game.
For what it's worth, CBS Sports projects Stanford in the Rose Bowl: "With the Rose Bowl losing Oregon to the title game, look for Pasadena to take a one-loss Stanford ranked in the Top 10 of the BCS Standings. Boise State will also be in play here, but taking a Pac-10 replacement team will be tough to pass up."
ESPN.com's Mark Schlabach and Andrea Adelson have different opinions of where Stanford will end up this postseason. Schlabach, who projects an Oregon-Auburn title game, predicts the Cardinal will play in the Alamo Bowl. Adelson, who projects an Oregon-TCU title game, predicts the Cardinal will play Michigan State in Pasadena.
Of course, we won't be having this conversation if Stanford doesn't take care of business in Tempe this week. I'll turn my attention to the Sun Devils tomorrow.
Tweet
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Pretty much two things have to happen..........which you alluded to.
Gotta win out……….
and
Gotta root for Alabama to knock off Auburn.
I voted for Alamo Bowl, just because that seems like the most realistic.
But wouldnt a Rose Bowl smell so sweet?
Own the blame Mr Wilson.
by norcaliangelsfan on Nov 9, 2025 11:49 AM PST reply actions
I did exactly the same thing: Alamo Bowl appears most likely.
Also: It’s OK to think positive, but each of the remaining three games has its hazards. Oregon State looked unstoppable against Cal, which always looks unstoppable at home (at least prior to Riley’s injury); and ASU is not half bad.
by Gus Zernial on Nov 9, 2025 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Voted for Rose
I’m thinking Auburn is over-rated and will lose to Bama. Stanford and the Donalds will win out, including their bowl games. And Stanford ends up sneaking to #2 in the final poll.
(busy knocking on wood)
by run_dmo on Nov 9, 2025 3:39 PM PST reply actions
Voting with my heart rather than my head...
… so I went with the Rose bowl.
Unfortunately, the BCS has a long and proud history of screwing Pac-10 schools, so I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see us in the Alamo bowl, or the Holiday bowl if the team loses focus in the next couple of weeks.
by RickeySteals on Nov 9, 2025 4:01 PM PST reply actions
Well with the addition of Conference Champ game........
hopefully the days of being screwed are over.
Own the blame Mr Wilson.
by norcaliangelsfan on Nov 10, 2025 9:17 AM PST up reply actions
It's horribly, horribly ironic.
The dominant win over a relatively highly ranked Arizona probably guaranteed that Stanford won’t get to go to a BCS bowl (due to the face of Stanford to a national crowd is they don’t even attend their big home games)
"We Believe" - Rudy Fernandez
by TheGreatMon on Nov 9, 2025 7:37 PM PST reply actions
Not sure about Rittenberg's interpretation of the selection rules
Obviously he has sources I don’t have but…
The rule says “For the games of January 2011 through 2014, the first year the Rose Bowl loses a team to the NCG and a team from the non-AQ group is an automatic qualifier, that non-AQ team will play in the Rose Bowl.”
First, yes… only one team from the non-AQ group is a MUST-select for the Rose Bowl…. since only one team from that group can be an automatic qualifier (see rule 3) So, if that team is in the title bowl, the Rose Bowl is free.
But… that rule does not imply an obligation by the Rose Bowl to pick a non-AQ team once in the 4-year cycle. Instead, the way I read that rule is that this may be the first year it happens, and if the Rose Bowl can’t select a non-AQ automatic qualifier team, there is no obligation for the 2nd time it happens.
So, all that stuff about wanting to get the non-AQ selection out of the way doesn’t sound correct to me.
by run_dmo on Nov 10, 2025 10:15 AM PST reply actions
Rittenberg sometimes even confuses himself
According to Andy Staples over at SI,
—The BCS states that only the TOP qualifying non-AQ is BCS-eligible. For the sake of this week’s rankings, that means one of the five BCS bowls (NCG, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange) are obligated to take TCU only. Boise State is only eligible for an at-large bid.
According to Wilner,
—The BCS must take the top four teams in the BCS rankings only if all four teams are from a BCS AQ conference. Thus, UO, Auburn, and TCU are right now assured of a BCS bowl; Boise State is assured of nothing.
And lastly, according to Wilner, Miller, and Rittenberg (who said he spoke to the Rose selection committee),
— Because the other BCS bowls have taken a disproportionate number of at-large bids in comparison to the Rose, to compensate, the Rose must take a non-AQ in the first year that one of its traditional participants (Big Ten or Pac-10) is in the NCG. HOWEVER, the rule can be exempted for that year only if a non-AQ is also in the NCG, meaning the rule is still in place for 2012-2014.
What that means is that for the Pac-10/12 and Stanford, the Rose Bowl has to hedge its bets that one of either the Big Ten or Pac-12 teams in the years after this season will make it to the NCG and that whichever conference team it loses, the 2nd place finisher is either a three-loss team or is tied with several other teams for second place, making the Rose choose who it likes more. That will force it to take the non-AQ, wipe their hands clean of their obligation, and then justifiably point out that the non-AQ was more deserving of their spot than the Pac-12/Big Ten team it replaced.
For example, with the cluster around second place in the Pac-10 last year, if the rule had been applicable last season and Oregon had made it to the NCG in place of Texas or Alabama, I’m thinking the Rose Bowl would not have had a problem taking either TCU or Boise State as their replacement team. That would have robbed the BCS of their non-AQ matchup from last season, but the Rose would have fulfilled its obligation and would be free to choose Stanford this year without any worry of backlash whatsoever (or at least minimal backlash).
by RedOscar on Nov 10, 2025 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
thanks, that helps
I wonder how much the Rose Bowl feels it has to “justify” its actions.
by run_dmo on Nov 10, 2025 6:19 PM PST up reply actions

by Scott Allen on 









