Pages

18 April 2007

Brrrrrr

That's right, folks. There were over 20K present at Tuesday's game, yours truly included. Most came prepared for the cold despite the blanket giveaway, and most stayed until the end. There has always been talk about Croix de Candlestick pin nights and high winds. Tuesday night gave that legend a run for its money.

Temperature at first pitch was 52 degrees, with a noticeable breeze and the sun setting through partly cloudy skies. By the third inning, that breeze turned into a steady 20 mph wind. I didn't bring my portable weather station to verify it, but I figure the wind chill dipped the temperature another 3-5 degrees.

Funny thing is I remember nights like this in mid May. And late August. With the Warriors wiping the floor with the B-team Mavs next door, a lack of parking could have dissuaded some from attending the game. On the BART train home I heard one rider talk about how he had to park at Wal-Mart for a weekend game. Nevertheless I was pleasantly surprised by the turnout (which had a little something to do with the blankets). The BART bridge was packed as some Warriors fans left the blowout early.

I've touched on this briefly, but I have to ask again: How much does weather affect attendance? I can recall numerous occasions when friends who are casual A's fans chose not to go simply because of the cold. I could be way off base, but I sense that it has a greater impact than some think.
One note about attendance: The main difference between this season's figures and last season's is the fact that the Yankees didn't play here Opening Day as they did last season. The combination of a Yankees game and Opening Day effectively removed one date from pulling a sellout crowd. That normally represents a loss of 10,000 fans or more.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

TV said that first pitch temp was 51 degrees, with 27 MPH winds.

Anonymous said...

you should write about the recent developments (or lack thereof) with ol'wolffy and the proposed soccer stadium in sj. seems that wolffy and sjsu can't agree on the split of revenues. seems that wolffy has a backup plan in placer county (northeast of sactown). hey, maybe wolffy has been talkin' to sactown officials about another backup plan if/when fremont plan/smokescreen evaporates???

hmmm ... sacramento athletics ... I like the sound of that.

Kevin said...

ML,

Do you know what's the capacity of the Coliseum parking lot? We were one of the dummies that showed up at 7:20 for the Warriors game only to find out the lot was full. Luckily we had a parking pass so they allowed us to enter the general lot and hunt for a space.

Interesting that traffic northbound (and I also presume southbound) on 880 was fine. It was the off-ramps that were backed up.

Marine Layer said...

anon - you realize that the SJSU President Don Kassing is playing hardball with Wolff, not the City of San Jose? There's no third party in Fremont to cause that sort of pain. Keep trying though, I find it amusing.

About the weather - I must admit that my perception was influenced by the wind protection provided by the ticket booth at the BART Plaza. It only seemed like the wind got worse as the night progressed, when in actually it was pretty steady the whole night.

BleacherDave said...

"Kassing is playing hardball with Wolff, not the City of San Jose? There's no third party in Fremont to cause that sort of pain. Keep trying though, I find it amusing."

How about the voters? Or maybe Alameda County?


Mt. Davis provides great relief from the winds that use to plague the Coliseum, but I still don't do night games before June.

Is a fleece blanket really a significant draw on a Tuesday night in April? Or maybe interest is up due to the announced move? A's adverts warn of limited season ticket availability in MVP and infield area....assure your Cisco field priority now!

Marine Layer said...

When a vote is actually required in Fremont or Alameda County for Cisco Field/Pacific Commons we can talk. So far that's not the case.

There is no third party in Fremont that can affect the deal significantly. We're not talking about sharing revenue or building on a third party's land. Even the Scott Gas situation has boiled down a simple one-time relocation cost. It's all about taking control of what you can. In the Quakes/SJSU situation, Wolff can't exercise nearly as much control.

BleacherDave said...

"When a vote is actually required in Fremont or Alameda County for Cisco Field/Pacific Commons we can talk. So far that's not the case."

That is exactly the case. The Fremont City Council will have to go on the record and vote. And the taxpayers will be watching.

And Wolff has continually mentioned that he will need approval from Alameda County - I assume in the form of the approval of the Board of Supes. I would imagine that they will be happy to retain the team within the County, but one never knows who may decide to play some poliitical grandstanding hardball does one?

Anonymous said...

anyone that thinks the fremont thing won't come down to a vote (if it goes that far) is either quite naive or trying to pull one over on the taxpayers.

Marine Layer said...

BD - What you're describing is entirely different from what I'm talking about, which is a referendum. City and county pols can try to turn this into political gamesmanship, but so far I've seen no indication of that happening. Wake me up when there's a referendum.

I'm still waiting for even a small sign that Fremont is going to waver on their "no financial assistance" stance. To me that alone gives them a good deal of credibility.

I sense that much of the "it has to come to a vote" sentiment is wishful thinking. The process is the process. If it's a bad deal it'll be obvious. I have yet to hear from anyone projected numbers on how this is going a terrible boondoggle for Fremont/Alameda County. Now if someone is just going to make that statement, please back it up. I've provided examples of how the ongoing infrastructure can be paid for. Please rebut if you like.

Anonymous said...

As a Bay Area native who moved to Chicago last year, pardon if I feel like laughing at the Oakland weather talk! You can see your breath outside right now--it's a foggy 36F w/wind chill, yet it looks like there are ~20-25k folks bundled up and out at US Cellular field for the Sox/Rangers game on TV right now. Granted, this is football weather, not baseball, but just wanted to put things in perspective for you folks out there!

BTW, M. Buehrle has a no-hitter through 7 tonight.

BleacherDave said...

"I sense that much of the "it has to come to a vote" sentiment is wishful thinking."

Whether you consider it to be a vote or not, the Fremont City Council will vote on the plan.

"I have yet to hear from anyone projected numbers on how this is going a terrible boondoggle for Fremont/Alameda County. Now if someone is just going to make that statement, please back it up. I've provided examples of how the ongoing infrastructure can be paid for. Please rebut if you like."

Your familiar with the rebuttal arguments about tax subsidies - you just disagree. You said you preferred to wait for the actual numbers from the plan. Some crack about you acting like an accountant........

James said...

ML said:

I sense that much of the "it has to come to a vote" sentiment is wishful thinking.

James observes:

What amazes me is the argument these Oaklanders are making that the A's are a terrible deal for Fremont, yet it would be wonderful for Oakland. But then again, sour grapes are transparent.

Marine Layer said...

Most of the arguments are the same tired platitudes trotted out from previous poorly conceived stadium deals. It's abundantly clear that this project has no precedent.

If I'm wrong about some of my assumptions about the project I'll be the first to admit that on this site. I simply haven't seen many compelling arguments that disprove those assumptions.

BTW, whether Fremont owns the stadium or not has no bearing on TIF. TIF only works with municipal bonds and the like, and the municipality has to shoulder that debt load.

The quote earlier in the week from Don Kassing as good proof as we can get right now. Plus the just-released memo from San Jose showing that the city won't make any financial contribution towards the soccer stadium lends credence to the notion that the ballpark project will actually pay for itself.

Anonymous said...

As far as the vote going to the public, Mayor Wasserman and councilmember Natarajan are already on record as saying it's not likely and that it's not something they want to do.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061119/ai_n16858018

Anonymous said...

Something happend to the link.

But if you're looking for it, it's in the Oakland Tribune, Nov. 19th 2006

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20061119/ai_n16858018

Trying again....

Jeffrey said...

For the first time since I ahve worked in San Jose, I went to a week night A's game. I have to say that it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be getting to the game, other than my brother in law not getting off work until 5:30 which meant we got there too late for a bitchin' fleece blanket (for the record BD, that is why I went, ha!)

Other than not being able to meet BD and no fleece blanket, I had an enjoyable time despite the sub arctic (for California) temperature.

I noticed something strange that got me thinking. I hopped on BART in Fremont and was surprised to note the lack of folks waiting on the platform. As I got closer to the coliseum, it seemed like the number of fans getting on the train increased at each stop.

I started thinking that some people take BART to the game not necessarily to avoid traffic, but more to avoid paying for parking. The number of people who hopped on in San Leandro was ridiculous.

Does anyone know what percentage of BART riders park at bay fair and San Leandro but actually live much further away formt he coliseum? So they just kind fo drive as close as they are comfortable with and then hop on BART? I sued to do thsi when i worked in Stockton, I'd drive to Bay Fair, get on BART. It sound strange, I know, but I preferred driving and didn't want to pay for parking.

Until Tuesday ngiht, I thought I was the only crazy person who did this.

BleacherDave said...

"I simply haven't seen many compelling arguments that disprove those assumptions."

That's all they are .... assumptions. They have neither been proven, nor disproven.

Armas said...

Jeffery,

I do the same thing all the time. I drive up to Bay Fair and take Bart who wants to pay 15-20 for parking.

Jeffrey said...

It makes me wonder if lack of BART is that big of a deal.

If people drive to San Leandro and hop on BART to avoid paying for parking, rather than to avoid traffic, why would it matter?

Of course there is the idea that the new park generates a lto more traffic and then people would want to ride BART for reasons other than to avoid paying for parking.

Not to mention there is some contingent of BART riders who DO ride to avoid traffic.

But still...

anon-a-mouse said...

I ride BART for a lot of reasons: convenience, avoid traffic, avoid parking fees, social consciousness, etc. I'll miss that aspect of the new park. I'll probably end up on CC/ACE, assuming the station gets built.

Georob said...

I've said this for years: The weather plays a HUGE role in the Coliseum attendance, but for some reason this never gets touched upon in media discussions.

Because the A's rely so heavily on walkup/same day ticket sales, it's very easy for casual fans to pass on going to a game when the weather turns cool, be it in the spring, summer, or fall. Candlestick had the same problem, but with so many season ticket holders now, the Giants no longer have that problem at ATT, nor do teams like the Yankees, Cubs, and Red Sox who play in even colder climates.

And in response to Anon-A-Mouse's comments about "Social Consciousness" as a reason for taking BART, I did notice that it came in fourth on your list. If you're going to score points with the OAFC, you'll need to do better than that!

anon-a-mouse said...

And you know that's my goal in life! Seriously though, I didn't really think about the priority. But I will say that I would pay more to ride BART even if it took longer.

Good point about the increased importance of weather with a large walkup crowd. I never really consider weather before buying tickets (other than rain early in the season), but I bet many others do.