#
Following up on yesterday's posting of home attendance figures for Ivy League football teams last fall, today we take a look at attendance by the percentage of the stadium filled.
Of 129 schools listed in the official NCAA statistics, Dartmouth finished 73rd. Penn, playing in cavernous Franklin Field, was next-to-last at 128th.
Ivy League Home Attendance Ranked By Percentage Of Stadium Capacity:Rank | Percentage | Average | Capacity | |
73 | Dartmouth | 49.82 | 5,480 | 11,000 |
95 | Harvard | 36.94 | 11,201 | 30,323 |
106 | Columbia | 32.64 | 5,549 | 17,000 |
115 | Princeton | 23.40 | 7,019 | 30,000 |
119 | Yale | 20.64 | 13,263 | 64,269 |
123 | Brown | 18.76 | 3,752 | 20,000 |
125 | Cornell | 17.13 | 3,682 | 21,500 |
128 | Penn | 9.39 | 4,971 | 52,958 |
Wondering what school had a smaller percentage of seats filled than Penn last year? It was Tennessee State, with just 5.96 percent. That should have an asterisk, perhaps, because TSU played in the Tennessee Titans NFL stadium, averaging 4,023 in the 67,500-seat facility.
Want to guess what school packed a nation's best 138.86 percent into its stadium? That would be relative FCS newbie Merrimack. The Massachusetts school drew an average of 4,860 fans to a stadium holding 3,500.
Of interest is that Dartmouth will play two schools in the top six in terms of home attendance percentage next fall. Sacred Heart was third overall, with 121.34 percent attendance on an average of 4,854 at a stadium holding 4,000. New Hampshire was sixth at 105.09 percent with an average attendance of 11,575 at a stadium that seats 11,015.
When Dartmouth last played at Sacred Heart in 2017, the attendance was 5,121 at the 4,000-seat facility (and it looked like it). New Hampshire listed the attendance for Dartmouth's visit last fall at 15,394 (and it didn't look like it).
#
EXTRA POINT
Both here on our Vermont hillside and when we lived on the shoulder of Moose Mountain our options for TV reception were severely limited. Given both of the houses are on dirt roads with potential customers few and far between, there wasn't cable on either road. Over-the-air we could get a ghost-like PBS picture and little more. That being the case, we've been satellite TV customers for a long time.
Although our DSL internet service is almost antediluvian, we've discovered after a month's trial it's just fast enough to allow us to switch to YouTubeTV, which it turns out is half the price of our satellite service, doesn't require a contract and allows an unlimited number of programs to be recorded (something Mrs. BGA is taking advantage of during the Olympics).
Over the weekend we called our satellite provider to cancel our service. After a lengthy sales pitch the voice on the other end of the phone eventually conceded and reluctantly shut off our service. A refund for the rest of our month's charges is supposed to come in the mail.
When we asked what we should do with the two satellite receivers we had, we were told to take them to electronic recycling because they are obsolete.
So here's my question: If those receivers are obsolete, why have we been paying $17 per month to lease one of them and $7 per month to lease the other?
