In this day and age, money talks. When people want to send a message, using words is less potent than reaching for wallets. This rationale holds as true for college football as it does for any other enterprise.
Saturday's matchup against Duke marked the lowest attendance for a Virginia football game since the 2000 expansion of Scott Stadium. Only 41,713 people attended the game and, attendance at home games this season has declined nearly 8 percent since last year. Though Scott Stadium's official capacity is 61,500, that number has been exceeded on numerous occasions. Last season's home opener against the University of Southern California, for instance, drew 64,947 fans, according to ESPN's box score.
A Sept. 8 editorial, written immediately after the loss to William & Mary, discussed some of the more noticeable ramifications of poor-performing teams in the revenue sports. That editorial focused primarily on the lost income and marketing opportunities that a more successful football program would provide. The most apparent financial effect is lost revenue from reduced ticket sales; the marketing factor would arise from appearances on national television, in prestigious bowl games and in media commentary. Athletics can also be seen as an opportunity to reach out to alumni and revitalize their connections with the University. Without significant changes to the football program, it will be extremely difficult to reverse course and redeem the program's practical benefits to the University.
In the nearly two months since that editorial's publication, the negative effects have begun to crystallize. Certainly other variables could have influenced Saturday's attendance: Duke is not the type of opponent that generally draws a large crowd, and the threat of rain that day probably led some fans to stay home. Still, the numbers have become worse as the season has progressed. Attendance for the Texas Christian game was 48,336. The tally was 45,371 for the Indiana game, and 43,016 for Georgia Tech. It seems there is little question that fans are expressing serious grievances with the program.
This apathy has clearly registered with at least some of the athletes. "We don't care ... fans don't help us win, we help ourselves win," senior defensive end Nate Collins said. Senior fullback Rashawn Jackson was even more blunt, saying, "Fans here - they aren't that patient." The rift between fans and players seems to be growing more pronounced, which is a telling sign for a struggling program.\nAttendance at football games is certainly not the most dire of problems facing the University these days, but it is nothing to scoff at either. True, many superb academic schools carry on just fine without benefitting from athletic prowess in the revenue sports: Johns Hopkins, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Chicago and the Ivy League schools all come to mind.
The difference is that the University has made a substantial, continued investment in its revenue sports over the years. The most recent expansion of Scott Stadium cost about $76 million, and was financed primarily through private donations, auxiliary funds and revenue bonds. John Paul Jones Arena, completed in August 2006, totaled $147,209,539. Naturally, fielding a team each season requires money for salaries, equipment and travel as well. Many disgruntled fans can quickly recite Al Groh's annual compensation of about $1.7 million.
Top-tier sports teams are not prerequisites for strong colleges, but the University must prioritize garnering the best possible return on its sizable investment in athletics. Without meaningful changes to the football program, it is difficult to anticipate that attendance and support will rebound anytime in the foreseeable future.