Clear eyes, blocked views, bad seats: Meet the fan who exposes stadium view obstructions
-
Kalan Hooks, ESPN
Michael Barker remembers the most iconic play that he missed because of an obstructed view.
When Barker was looking for a ticket to watch the Gardner Minshew-led Washington State Cougars take on the Oregon Ducks in 2018, the average price was over $700. He ended up finding one for $250, but it came with an unexpected problem.
Once he arrived at his seat, he was surprised to find a giant light pole blocking his view of the game — an obstruction that wasn’t marked on the ticket. It ended up causing him to miss a 6-yard touchdown pass in the far-right corner of the Washington State end zone.
The only thing Barker could see were his fellow fans throwing their hands up in excitement after the play.
“After that, I wanted to warn people about obstructed views because of how I was impacted,” Barker told ESPN.
Barker, a California real estate agent, took three weeks off work in the summer of 2017 to scout college football stadiums — and to visit the Stanley Hotel in Colorado, which partly inspired Stephen King’s novel “The Shining.” He visited 99 schools, which sold him on the idea of traveling to different college campuses to attend college football games with a specific objective: helping fans avoid subpar viewing experiences.
Instead of the best seat in the house, he seeks the opposite.
“I started to light fires on social media, and since then we kind of branded it as obstructive-view alerts. And now it’s my responsibility to do that at every stadium,” Barker said.
Since starting his journey, Barker has visited 222 college football venues, including all 134 FBS stadiums — a milestone he reached by witnessing the Kennesaw State Owls upset the Liberty Flames last week.
📸 Shot of the Night 📸
Fifth Third Stadium – Kennesaw, GA
• 1st career @kennesawstfb game
• FBS school #134 out of 134
• Game #44 of the 2024 season pic.twitter.com/T7yI301cBl— College Football Campus Tour (@cfbcampustour) October 24, 2024
BARKER’S PREPARATION FOR a stadium visit begins seven months in advance. It consists of researching photos and seating charts. Along with an online search, repeat stadium visits have been some of his most informative work. When Baker visited Indiana’s Memorial Stadium in April for the Hoosiers‘ spring game, stadium officials wouldn’t let fans on the home side of the stadium where the press box resides. But he was still able to spot where the press box stuck out. He pulled out his phone, snapped a photo from across the field and made a note of the potential obstruction.
Months later, Barker returned to the stadium when Indiana took on Western Illinois during the regular season. As soon as the gates opened, Barker ran over to the left of the press box and sat in Section 108, Row 41, Seat 104, where he estimates only 64% of the field could be viewed. He couldn’t see the action until the line of scrimmage moved past the 25-yard line toward midfield.
He also recalled an experience at the 2023 Cotton Bowl between Missouri and Ohio State at AT&T Stadium. He ran into two out-of-town fans who were greeted with obstructed views that they said weren’t noted on their tickets.
According to Barker, both fans could view only about 30% of the field.
To prevent other fans from having the same experience, he took a photo from each section and described the fans’ experience on Instagram.
“You don’t know what happens until you put your butt in the seat and you look and can’t see the field. I felt bad for them, but if I can help in any way, then it’s worth it.”
🚨Obstructed View Alert🚨
Sections 438, 417 & so on
One of SEVERAL obstructed views in AT&T Stadium’s 400 level. In 438 a fan traveled from Missouri & paid $170. In 417 the ticket was donated to a veteran. 30% of the field is blocked & NOTHING was disclosed prior. Unacceptable! pic.twitter.com/frvgbPEUtt
— College Football Campus Tour (@cfbcampustour) December 30, 2023
That wasn’t Barker’s only obstructed incident involving the Buckeyes.
Of all the unsatisfactory seats Barker has occupied, he says one of the worst is at Ohio Stadium. He visited Ohio State when the Buckeyes took on Michigan State on Nov. 11, 2023, and sat in Section 11C, Row 41, Seat 31 — the highest row in the stadium.
The ticket for his seat was listed for sale with an “obstructed” note because the press box jutted out near the row. Barker could see only one end zone, which amounts to 8% field visibility.
🚨Obstructed View Alert🚨
Section 11C Row 41 Seat 31
Among the MANY obstructed views at Ohio Stadium, this is the absolute worst. 8% field visibility due to the press box intruding 20+ rows into the stands. Was advised seats were for sale, but labeled obstructed. Buyer beware! pic.twitter.com/hBq5S8DHFp
— College Football Campus Tour (@cfbcampustour) November 12, 2023
That same day, he ran into three fans who unknowingly purchased season tickets with obstructed views. According to Barker, this detail wasn’t disclosed on the sale listing. Ticket distribution companies like SeatGeek and StubHub list whether or not a view is obstructed when selling a ticket, but whether or not a view is defined as such is generally up to individual venues, according to their help pages.
“He tried to minimize it and say, ‘Hey, I could see the videoboard and it’s not a problem,'” Barker said of his interaction with one of the fans. ” … You don’t want to get ripped off at an event. And if I could help anybody out with that through social media, then I feel honored to be able to do that.”
DURING COLLEGE FOOTBALL SEASON, Barker travels to four to six games each week — sometimes attending two or three in the same day. The trips can get costly.
“I live in California, and it’s the hardest place to travel because like 80% of programs are east of Texas,” he said.
Barker self-funds his trips, which leads him to budget as frugally as possible. When he flies to a game or rents a car for transportation, he avoids getting a hotel room. Instead, he sleeps in an airport or inside a rental car to keep costs down.
“I joke that whatever rental car I get, I put the word hotel in front of me. So Hotel Camry, Hotel Jeep,” Barker said. Barker estimates he spends an average of $35,000 on travel per season.
Barker spends approximately $150 on one-way airline tickets around 15 to 20 times per month, averaging about $2,250 to $3,000 monthly. He also spends an average of $60 per day on a rental car, amounting to about $1,080 through 18 college football game days each month.
When he arrives in a city for a football game, the first thing he does is locate a grocery store where he spends about $25 on food that can last him through the day. To save money, he set a personal rule: No buying food at airports or during games. Paying for parking is also off limits in his attempt to stretch every penny.
He often goes through the process of applying for a media credential for stadium access, but if denied, he relies on his social media followers for tickets.
“When I put my schedule out every week, there’s a community of people that want to help me out,” Barker said.
— College Football Campus Tour (@cfbcampustour) October 28, 2024
Though Barker’s quest is self-funded, he pays for his travel and bills with airline credit cards, which helps him rack up points to assist with overhead.
“If you want to go to 80 college football games, then you cut out all those other costs and you do it as cheap as possible,” he said.
Barker’s frugality was on full display when he attended Eastern Washington‘s season-opening home matchup against Monmouth. Barker took a $2 bus ride from Spokane International Airport to the school. Once he arrived, he met with Kelsey Hatch-Brecek, Eastern Washington’s director of alumni relations, with whom he connected via social media and who gave him a tour of the campus.
Not having a hotel room to store his belongings, Barker placed his backpack in the alum’s vehicle during the tour. He collected it once the game concluded before catching the last bus from Eastern Washington back to the airport. Though his flight didn’t depart until 5:30 a.m. the next morning, Barker arrived at the gate at 11:30 p.m. and waited there overnight.
Eastern Washington defeated Monmouth that day, but it was Barker’s pockets that won in the end. He calculated that a hotel and rental car would have cost him $210, but he spent only $4 on transportation and “lodging.”
“So it’s not fun. Nobody likes to sleep on the floor in the airport. But these are the kind of things that if you love travel, if you love college football, and you’re trying to be, you know, as cost-effective as possible, you’re willing to do these things,” Barker said. During the 2023 season, Barker estimates he lost 11 pounds from the stress of traveling and poor nutrition.
THE CURATOR OF @cfbcampustour on X and Instagram credits his online followers for keeping his quest alive.
“I would not be traveling if it wasn’t for social media, because the community that is out there, you know, I’ve been able to build around myself,” Barker said. “People are awesome. … I have friends all over the country, and it’s all because of Twitter and college football.
“When you go to these people’s town for the first time, they see it in their idealistic view because they graduated from there. So when you meet them, they’re trying to give you the experience to see it through their eyes. And that’s special because that’s their experience. And, you know, my account is almost like I’m showcasing these places for people, hopefully to inspire them.”
Barker plans to keep chronicling stadiums for the love of his followers and stadium infrastructure.
“I want to keep doing this as long as I can,” Barker said. “And again, I’m just grateful to be able to, you know, showcase this stuff on social media, because in my opinion, college sports, college football in particular, is the best sport in the world.”
In the new 12-team College Football Playoff format, there is an added emphasis on conference championships. The four highest-ranked conference champions receive a first-round bye and a fifth conference champion is guaranteed a spot in the field. Those champions will be determined by conference title games held Dec. 6-7.
But in a college football landscape that has mostly done away with divisions and with some conferences expanding to as many as 18 teams, it can be difficult to figure out who is in line to reach those conference title games.
We’re here to help out. Below are the list of tiebreakers for each league to help determine conference championship game participants.
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
2. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
3. Win percentage against common opponents
4. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings
5. Combined win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by the ACC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against the next-highest common opponent in the conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Win percentage against all common opponents
3. Record against next-highest common opponent in conference standings; in case of tied teams in standings, use each team’s win percentage against all of those teams
4. Combined win percentage in conference games of conference opponents (strength of conference schedule)
5. Total wins over the 12-game season (only one win against teams from FCS or lower division will be counted)
6. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
7. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams. When reduced to two tied teams, the two-team tiebreakers will be used.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
2. Win percentage against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by the Team Rating Score metric (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by the Big Ten commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams: if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head among tied teams (if all tied teams are common opponents)
1a. If all tied teams are not common opponents, if any tied team defeated each of the other tied teams
1b. If all tied teams are not common opponents, and no tied team defeated each of the other tied teams, but a tied team lost to each of the other tied teams, that team is eliminated
2. Record against all common conference opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents from top-to-bottom of the conference standings (breaking ties among tied teams; if a two-team tiebreaker will not break a tie, combined records against tied common opponents will be used)
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher relative total scoring margin against all conference opponents (from SportSource Analytics)
6. Random draw
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings (and didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season)
2a. If one team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings and lost in the final weekend of the regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If both teams are ranked, the higher-ranked team that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season (if both lose, a composite average of metrics)
2c. If neither team is ranked in the latest CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: In case of a tie for both conference championship spots, once the tiebreaker identifies one championship game representative, it will start over with the remaining tied teams.
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
1a. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
2. If the highest-ranked team in the latest CFP rankings that didn’t lose in the final weekend of the regular season
2a. If the highest-ranked team loses in final weekend of regular season, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2b. If multiple ranked teams in the CFP rankings, the highest ranked team(s) that wins in the final weekend of the regular season
2c. If all ranked teams lose on the final weekend, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
2d. If no teams are ranked in the final CFP rankings, a composite average of selected metrics will be used
3. Win percentage against common conference opponents
4. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) excluding exempt games
5. Coin toss
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie and three-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP rankings going into the final weekend (if team wins in the final weekend)
3. Highest average ranking of four computer rankings (Connelly SP+, SportSource, ESPN SOR, KPI Rankings)
4. Highest average ranking of two computer rankings (SportSource, KPI Rankings)
5. Highest most recently published multiyear football Academic Progress Rate (if same, most recent year)
6. Draw administered by commissioner’s designee
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Win percentage against common opponents
3. Win percentage against common opponents based on MAC finish (breaking ties) from top-to-bottom of conference
4. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
5. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
6. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Three-team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Win percentage against all common opponents
4. Win percentage against all common opponents based on finish (with ties broken)
5. Combined conference win percentage of conference opponents
6. Higher ranking by Team Rating Score metric (SportSource Analytics)
7. Draw administered by MAC commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie:
1. Head-to-head
2. Highest CFP ranking (if team wins in the final weekend)
2a. If only or both CFP ranked teams loses in the final weekend (or if there is no ranked teams), an average of metrics will be used
3. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference)
4. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
5. Win percentage against common conference opponents
6. Coin toss conducted virtually by the commissioner
Three-plus team tie:
1. Combined head-to-head (if all teams played each other)
2. If one tied team defeated all other tied teams
3. Highest CFP ranking among teams to win in the final weekend
4. Average of selected metrics (if ranked team loses or if no teams ranked)
5. Overall win percentage against all opponents (conference and nonconference); maximum one win against FCS or lower-division team
6. Record against the next-highest team in the conference standings (tied teams will be lumped together if tied teams played all those teams)
7. Win percentage against common conference opponents
8. Drawing conducted virtually by the commissioner
Conference’s tiebreaker policy
Two-team tie
1. Head-to-head
2. Overall win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Win percentage against all common nondivisional conference opponents
5. Higher-ranked teams in the CFP rankings (if it wins in the final regular season week); if the highest-ranked team loses, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
7. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
8. Coin toss
Three-plus team tie: (Teams will not revert to two-team tiebreaker once three-plus team tiebreaker is trimmed to two.)
1. Combined head-to-head
2. Divisional win percentage
3. Win percentage against the next-highest team in the division standings (lumping together tied teams)
4. Highest-ranked team in the CFP rankings (if they win in the final weekend of regular season); if that team loses, an average of selected computer rankings
5. If no team is ranked in the CFP rankings, an average of selected computer rankings (Anderson & Hester, Massey, Colley and Wolfe)
6. Overall win percentage (conference and nonconference) against FBS teams
7. Draw lots (conducted by commissioner)
Check out the ESPN college football hub page for the latest news, analysis, schedules, rankings and more.
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Juan Soto will take his time surveying the free agent market before signing with a team, according to his agent Scott Boras.
Speaking at the general manager’s meetings Wednesday, Boras indicated that Soto desires a “thorough” vetting before making a decision.
“Due to the volume of interest and Juan’s desire to hear [from teams], I can’t put a timeframe on it, but it’s going to be a very thorough process for him,” Boras said. “He wants to meet people personally. He wants to talk with them. He wants to hear from them.”
That includes ownership, even for the New York Yankees, for whom he played in 2024 and hit 41 home runs with a league-leading 128 runs scored. Soto helped New York to a World Series appearance, but that doesn’t necessarily give the Yankees a leg up on the competition to sign him.
“He wants ownership that’s going to support that they are going win annually,” Boras said. “Owners want to meet with Juan and sit down and talk with him about what they’re going to provide for their franchise short term and long term.”
Soto’s overall deal is likely to be at least the second largest in MLB history behind Shohei Ohtani‘s 10-year, $700 million contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.
Boras refused to compare the two players, but stressed Soto’s age (26) as a distinctive factor in teams’ pursuit of his client. Ohtani was 29 when he hit free agency.
“I don’t think Ohtani has much to do with Juan Soto at all,” Boras said. “It’s not something we discuss or consider. … He’s in an age category that separates him.”
Both New York teams have spoken to Boras already, though there are a handful of other big-market franchises that could be in play for his services, including the San Francisco Giants and Toronto Blue Jays.
Boras was asked how the competitive balance tax on payrolls could impact Soto’s free agency.
“I don’t think tax considerations are the focal point when you’re talking about a business opportunity where you can make literally billions of dollars by acquiring somebody like this,” Boras said.
Boras and Soto are only at the beginning stages of what could be a drawn-out process. One thing going for the player, in Boras’ estimation, is that Soto is “pretty well known” considering he has already been on three teams and played in 43 playoff games, including twice in the World Series.
In his agent’s eyes, every winning team should be interested.
“They’re [team executives] called upon to be championship magicians,” Boras said. “Behind every great magician is the magic Juan.”
-
Jesse Rogers, ESPN Staff Writer
SAN ANTONIO — Free agent pitcher Kyle Hendricks has agreed to a one year, $2.5 million contract with the Los Angeles Angels, sources familiar with the situation told ESPN.
Hendricks, 34, posted a 5.92 ERA for the Chicago Cubs last season but was better in the second half after a stint in the bullpen. His ERA was 4.41 from mid-July to the end of the regular season. He threw 7⅓ shutout innings in his last start as a Cub in late September after spending the first 11 years of his career with Chicago.
The Angels are hoping Hendricks finds more consistency in 2025, similar to what he displayed at times late in 2024. They also have a young pitching staff that needs mentoring. Hendricks can help in that department as well.
Hendricks won the ERA title in 2016, helping the Cubs to a World Series title. He was the last member of that team still playing for the Cubs until he became a free agent after the 2024 season. Overall, he’s 97-81 with a 3.68 ERA.
Hendricks is from the Los Angeles area, having gone to Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California. He was originally drafted by the Angels in the 39th round in 2008 before attending Dartmouth. Additionally, his dad worked in the Angels’ ticket office for six years when Hendricks was a teenager.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports7 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Environment1 year agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway