Tomorrow’s Fans Gone Today: Assessing Constraints to Student Attendance at College Football Games

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess constraints to student attendance at college football games. Surveys were distributed on and around six college campuses (2 "Power 5", 2 "Group of 5", 2 FCS) during a college football game. Using intercept sampling, students not in attendance at the game were asked to rate the extent to which 33 constraints affected their decision not to attend. Results revealed differences in constraints based on conference tier affiliation, frequency of game attendance, and timing of decision not to attend. Implications for practitioners are discussed.

Using Fan Passion to Investigate Constraints to Student Attendance at College Football Games

“…Understanding the barriers inhibiting attendance, and how those barriers vary based on one's passion for the team, allows marketers to better tailor their efforts to the needs of fans most likely to attend games. As noted above, the issue of constraints affecting college student game attendance has received prior attention, both in academia and industry (Guerra, 2015;Havard & Dwyer, 2012;Havard et al, 2017;Lee & Bang, 2011;Mayer et al, 2017;NACMA, 2016;Simmons et al, 2017;Trail et al, 2008); however, the current study advances this line of work by addressing many of the limitations in prior research.…”

“…First, the inclusion of fan passion offers new opportunities to detect differences between relevant college student fan segments. Others have segmented based on prior attendance (Havard & Dwyer, 2012;Mayer et al, 2017;Trail et al, 2008), sex (Trail et al, 2008), conference tier affiliation (Lee & Bang, 2011;Simmons et al, 2017), and timing of nonattendance decisions (Simmons et al, 2017). Lee and Bang (2011) did differentiate based on level of identification; however, the results were not specific to football, and data were collected from students in a classroom setting.…”

“…Given that constraints influence nonattendance decisions, surveying nonattendees directly about that decision may be a more appropriate approach to avoid issues with memory bias. Finally, the effects of each of the 33 constraints from the Simmons et al (2017) analysis were tested in this study. This allows for the true effect of each constraint to be assessed, as opposed to structural equation modeling or factor analysis, in which some constraints may load onto a single factor but represent different barriers.…”

“…Within academia, scholars have placed an emphasis on the motives and attributes affecting college student sport attendance (e.g., Ferreira & Armstrong, 2004;Perrault, 2016;Swanson, Gwinner, Larson, & Janda, 2003). To our knowledge, only five studies have been conducted examining constraints with student populations (Havard & Dwyer, 2012;Lee & Bang, 2011;Mayer, Morse, Eddy, & Love, 2017;Simmons, Popp, McEvoy, & Howell, 2017;Trail, Robinson, & Kim, 2008). A notable theme emerging from these analyses were efforts to understand how constraints affected various student populations differently.…”

“…The survey instrument consisted of 50 questions, divided into four sections, designed to assess attendance constraints, football game attendance frequency and intentions, passion for the team, and demographics. The constraint subscale consisted of 33 constraints (Simmons et al, 2017), and was adapted from prior sport consumption constraint-related research and existing constraint measures (Ferreira & Armstrong, 2004;Guerra, 2015;Kim & Trail, 2010, NACMA, 2016Pritchard et al, 2009;Trail et al, 2008). Internal and external constraints, grouped into six broad categories, were represented: (a) marketing-related (e.g., beverage cost, food cost, lack of interest in pregame/in-game entertainment, lack of awareness), (b) prior commitments (e.g., school commitments, friend commitments, work commitments), (c) intrapersonal factors (e.g., lack of interest in football, perceived difficulty socializing at games, perceptions of violence in football, poor experience at prior games), (d) event-specific factors (e.g., time commitment to attend, team performance, opponent quality, weather), (e) stadium-related variables (e.g., traffic, stadium accessibility, seating comfort, Wi-Fi availability), and (f) substitution options (follow along on social media, watch game on television, watch other games).…”