On March 5 this post has been updated with the final 2012/2013 numbers
A subject that interests me ... attendance. Here are some updated stats I pulled from previous posts
----------------------------
Here are the yearly numbers since MU moved into the Bradley Center
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/season_by_season_attendance
1989 - Moved to Bradley Center
National
Year Rank Average
1989 23 11,954
1990 21 13,301
1991 18 13,433
1992 not top 25 12,613
1993 20 13,443
1994 14 14,340
1995 25 12,814
1996 16 12,751
1997 not top 25 12,247
1998 not top 25 11,508
1999 not top 25 12,145
2000 not top 25 9,971
2001 not top 25 11,360
2002 12 12,680
2003 11 15,553
2004 12 15,291
2005 21 11,965
2006 18 13,998
2007 20 15,345
2008 14 16,239
2009 10 16,200
2010 10 15,617
2011 11 15,586
2012 13 15,138
2013 ?? 15,033
According the MU media guide, here are the largest single game attendance records.
http://issuu.com/marquettesid/docs/mubb_guide_2011-12 (updated with last year's GU game)
1. 19,144 Syracuse March 7, 2009 L 86-79
2. 19,093 Notre Dame March 2, 2013 W 72-64
3. 19,091 Uconn February 25, 2009 L 93-82
4. 19,087 Georgetown March 3, 2012 W 83-69
5. 19,085 Georgetown March 1, 2008 L 70-68
6. 19,074 Wisconsin December 11, 2010 L 69-64
7. 19,041 Georgetown January 31, 2009 W 94-82
8. 19,037 DePaul January 26, 2008 W 79-71
9. 19,032 Syracuse January 29, 2011 W 76-70
10. 19,021 Pittsburgh March 3, 2007 W 75-71
11. 19,020 Wisconsin December 9, 2006 L 70-66
12. 19,011 Pittsburgh February 18, 2006 W 72-54
13. 19,007 Pittsburgh February 18, 2006 W 84-82
14. 18,949 DePaul January 24, 2009 W 91-82
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2012/2012+ncaa+mens+basketball+attendance
2011/2012 ... MU is the only non-football school that has been in the top 20 of national attendance for 11 straight years.
Rank School G Attendance Average
1. Kentucky 18 426,978 23,721
2. Syracuse 19 448,736 23,618
3. Louisville 20 430,052 21,503
4. North Carolina 18 362,867 20,159
5. Wisconsin 18 309,255 17,181
6. Creighton 16 266,632 16,665
7. Tennessee 19 314,321 16,543
8. Ohio St. 20 330,210 16,511
9. Indiana 19 312,770 16,462
10. Kansas 17 279,557 16,445
11. Memphis 20 324,670 16,234
12. BYU 16 246,777 15,424
13. Marquette 16 242,205 15,138
14. Illinois 18 269,739 14,986
15. Michigan St. 18 266,346 14,797
16. New Mexico 16 231,262 14,454
17. UNLV 19 266,469 14,025
18. Vanderbilt 18 246,561 13,698
19. Arizona 18 244,829 13,602
20. North Carolina St. 19 257,638 13,560
21. Purdue 17 226,504 13,324
22. Maryland 17 224,090 13,182
23. Arkansas 21 275,020 13,096
24. Iowa St. 18 234,266 13,015
25. Kansas St. 16 204,527 12,783
26. Connecticut 17 214,873 12,640
2012-2013 Attendance
Day Date Opponent Attendence Average
Sunday 11/11/2012 Colgate 13,065
Monday 11/13/2012 SE Louisiana 12,587 12,826
Monday 11/26/2012 UMBC 12,679 12,777
Saturday 12/8/2012 UW 18,588 14,230
Saturday 12/15/2012 Savannah State 13,366 14,057
Saturday 12/22/2012 LSU 14,309 14,099
Saturday 12/29/2012 UNC Central 13,600 14,028
Tuesday 1/1/2003 Uconn 14,159 14,044
Saturday 1/5/2013 Georgetown 15,433 14,198
Wednesday 1/16/2013 Seton Hall 13,842 14,163
Saturday 1/26/2013 Providence 15,140 14,252
Monday 1/28/2013 South Florida 15,136 14,325
Sunday 2/9/2013 DePaul 16,176 14,468
Saturday 2/16/2013 Pittsburgh 17,308 14,671
Monday 2/25/2013 Syracuse 16,049 14,762
Saturday 3/2/2013 Notre Dame 19,093 15,033
2011/2012 total attendance = 242,205
2012/2013 total attendance = 240,530
Difference = -1,675
2011/2012 BE Attendance = 16,040 (144,356)
2012/2013 BE Attendance = 15,815 (142,335)
Difference = -2,020
Comments
Last year we had three BE games that drew over 18,000
Sat 1/14/12 Pitt 18,404
Sat 2/11/12 Cincy 18,815
Sat 3/3/12 GU 19,087
This year we had one BE game and Bucky over 18,000
Sat 12/8/12 UW 18,588
Sat 3/2/13 ND 19,093
The difference between last year and this year's attendance is this year we did not have that third 18,000+ game. I thought it would be Syracuse but it "only" drew 16,049 ... maybe it because it was Monday and a 6 PM start. Had that game drew 18,000+ we would have topped last year's attendance
Creighton also in top 20.
Quote from: gepsguys on February 10, 2013, 10:12:58 AM
Creighton also in top 20.
Not every year for the last 11 like MU.
Having all the home games are on local TV will hurt attendance.
Confused? If the Badgers are our Superbowl, and there are so many Badger fans who attend the game in Milwaukee, why isn't the Top 13 attendance games all UW-Madison games? ::)
Quote from: bilsu on February 10, 2013, 10:17:33 AM
Having all the home games are on local TV will hurt attendance.
I don't think that's true, though I have heard the argument for years. Hard to prove one way or the other, but one specific example is the Blackhawks. Bill Wirtz believed in that theory. Since the Hawks put their home games on TV, attendance has gone up (but so has the quality of the product). Many factors go into this, but I think that the flip side argu,net is better: local tv generates interest/excitement, leading to more fans wanting to attend the games.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 10, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Confused? If the Badgers are our Superbowl, and there are so many Badger fans who attend the game in Milwaukee, why isn't the Top 13 attendance games all UW-Madison games? ::)
18,688 is a sellout, which was this year's UW game's attendance. The top 13 were all more than a sell-out. So, I'm guessing it comes down to how many SRO tickets MU wants to sell.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
18,688 is a sellout, which was this year's UW game's attendance. The top 13 were all more than a sell-out. So, I'm guessing it comes down to how many SRO tickets MU wants to sell.
But it appears when the official attendance figure is X, the actual number of people who show up is X - Y. The Wisconsin game's official number may have been a sellout but not every seat was filled. In the case of the other games, the total often ends up more because like the airlines, they know they can sell additional seats because people will not show.
My point was that if UW was truly our Superbowl, and unlike our other opponent's sans DePaul, it is very easy for Badgers fans to attend the game, UW should always be our top attendance game each year.
However, it isn't.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on February 10, 2013, 10:32:09 AM
Confused? If the Badgers are our Superbowl, and there are so many Badger fans who attend the game in Milwaukee, why isn't the Top 13 attendance games all UW-Madison games? ::)
What is our Superbowl then? I think every team has one....
Quote from: honkytonk on February 10, 2013, 11:05:23 AM
What is our Superbowl then? I think every team has one....
There are none. The word is hyperbole. It is our biggest rivalry game.
If the game was truly a Superbowl all top 13 attendance games would be UW. Yet only two are.
The figures show me that attendance is steadily decreasing each successive year of Buzz' tenure even though his miracle working has increased each successive year of his tenure.
Averaging a Bradley Center sell-out plus a few thousand more is insane. Its hard to imagine selling out the BC for an OOC cupcake...
When you look at the top 26 list, only 4 are private schools (SU, MU, BYU and Vandy).
Syracuse - a school that draws most of its students from large metro areas in the NE which means most move back when they graduate. Their teams are largely supported by non-alum locals.
Vandy - they draw students from all over but primarily the mid-atlantic and southeast. They, too, get a lot of non-alum, local support.
BYU - Im guessing most Mormons are already in the state of Utah. Its almost like a public school in that regard.
MU - We draw roughly 65% of our students from Wisconsin and Illinois (Chicagoland area) so our alums tend to stick close to campus. I think we rely less on non alum locals than the other private schools on the list.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on February 10, 2013, 11:22:56 AM
The figures show me that attendance is steadily decreasing each successive year of Buzz' tenure even though his miracle working has increased each successive year of his tenure.
You failed to note that national attendance is falling roughly at the same rate. That is why we were 14th nationally in 2008 with attendance of 16,329 and 13th in 2012 with attendance of 15,138. We actually increased our national ranking over 2008 even though we are down 1,100 in average attendance.
By suggesting Buzz is the problem is to also suggest he is the problem for falling national attendance. Most think the problem with national attendance is the weak economy. So, did you just blame Buzz for the housing/financial crisis?
Finally, as I noted above, my bet is this year is an increase over next year once the numbers come in for the final three games. We are less than 70 in average attendance behind last year with three games left and have a much higher profile games than the last 3 games last year. If this happens, will you credit Buzz?
Wisconsin game attendance
Dec 8, 2012 = 18,688
Dec 11,2010 = 19,074 (top 13)
Dec 6, 2008 = 18,895 (54 shy of top 13, might be #14)
Dec 9, 2006 = 19,020 (top 13)
Dec 11, 2004 = 18,611
Dec 14, 2002 = 18,677
Super Bowl....TWO words, not one. ;)
Its also worth noting that of the 13 highest attended games at the BC, 6 of them are against teams we will likely never see again in a year or two (and Im surprised UL isnt even one of them).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 10, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
Super Bowl....TWO words, not one. ;)
Proving how little I watch or care about the NFL. Super Bowl. Noted. 8-)
Quote from: honkytonk on February 10, 2013, 11:42:12 AM
Its also worth noting that of the 13 highest attended games at the BC, 6 of them are against teams we will likely never see again in a year or two (and Im surprised UL isnt even one of them).
February 17, 2007 (the last time we played LOU at home on a weekend,
I think) had 18, 904, only 45 short of the list.
Quote from: honkytonk on February 10, 2013, 11:42:12 AM
Its also worth noting that of the 13 highest attended games at the BC, 6 of them are against teams we will likely never see again in a year or two (and Im surprised UL isnt even one of them).
Top attendance seems to be late Feb/early March against highly rated (as in top 5 teams). Pitt and 'cuse is about them being highly rated (top 5) at the end of the season more than about who they are.
As proof, let's see if this coming Saturday's game draws 19,000 ... its home against Pitt but this time they are ranked 23 and not top 5. If its about Pitt the name and not Pitt the rank, the game should sell-out anyway.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 11:53:27 AM
Top attendance seems to be late Feb/early March against highly rated (as in top 5 teams). Pitt and 'cuse is about them being highly rated (top 5) at the end of the season more than about who they are.
As proof, let's see if this coming Saturday's game draws 19,000 ... its home against Pitt but this time they are ranked 23 and not top 5. If its about Pitt the name and not Pitt the rank, the game should sell-out anyway.
Seems right. Feb/March not as much competition for dollars with football gone and the NBA still mid-season. Feb/Mar Sat game + Top 10 team = sellout.
I am looking forward to the ND game on Mar 2nd.
I think that this attendance total will challenge the Cuse '09 19,144 total.
The Mike Deane era in black and white:
1994 14 14,340
1995 25 12,814
1996 16 12,751
1997 not top 25 12,247
1998 not top 25 11,508
1999 not top 25 12,145
2000 not top 25 9,971
2001 not top 25 11,360
At the beginning of every home game Al always looked at the 4 Arena corner seats to see if they were occupied. That was one of his measures of doing a good job for his employer. As far as we know Deane's was a listing of "Why I can't win here" factors. Personal Responsibility and Accountability. Some have it, some live it, some don't get it.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 11:53:27 AM
Top attendance seems to be late Feb/early March against highly rated (as in top 5 teams). Pitt and 'cuse is about them being highly rated (top 5) at the end of the season more than about who they are.
As proof, let's see if this coming Saturday's game draws 19,000 ... its home against Pitt but this time they are ranked 23 and not top 5. If its about Pitt the name and not Pitt the rank, the game should sell-out anyway.
Yeah, maybe. It would be interesting to see some analysis around teams that are ranked/unranked, weekend/week day, early and late in the year.
We already lost WVU. We will lose Pitt and SU next year. After that, we will lose UL, Cincy, ND and UConn (and USF). You mentioned in a post that because there are still some big home games ahead (two football schools and ND), the average attendance should exceed last year's. The remaining games will be against teams that are all leaving. Replace those teams with any three of Richmond/Butler/Creighton/SLU/Dayton. Still draw better than last year?
Quote from: honkytonk on February 10, 2013, 12:12:25 PM
Yeah, maybe. It would be interesting to see some analysis around teams that are ranked/unranked, weekend/week day, early and late in the year.
We already lost WVU. We will lose Pitt and SU next year. After that, we will lose UL, Cincy, ND and UConn (and USF). You mentioned in a post that because there are still some big home games ahead (two football schools and ND), the average attendance should exceed last year's. The remaining games will be against teams that are all leaving. Replace those teams with any three of Richmond/Butler/Creighton/SLU/Dayton. Still draw better than last year?
WVU is below 500, they would have been a terrible draw this year. No loss.
On the other side, Georgetown and Nova are capable of being highly ranked. We drew 16,000+ yesterday against a woeful DePaul team, because that name matters to us. St. John is capable of being ranked.
Add in Xavier and Butler, who are also capable of being highly ranked and Louisville/ND and another decent OOC opponent and our attendance will be ok.
Yes, what I wrote above depends of several things coming together but none of it is asking for something unrealistic.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
18,688 is a sellout, which was this year's UW game's attendance. The top 13 were all more than a sell-out. So, I'm guessing it comes down to how many SRO tickets MU wants to sell.
Wisconsin game this season was 18,588. 18,717 is a sellout for Bucks games.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on February 10, 2013, 11:22:56 AM
The figures show me that attendance is steadily decreasing each successive year of Buzz' tenure even though his miracle working has increased each successive year of his tenure.
It cost alot more to attend a college basketball than about 5 years ago.
Quote from: mupanther on February 10, 2013, 01:28:52 PM
It cost alot more to attend a college basketball than about 5 years ago.
Sneak in beer
Quote from: honkytonk on February 10, 2013, 11:28:48 AM
Averaging a Bradley Center sell-out plus a few thousand more is insane. Its hard to imagine selling out the BC for an OOC cupcake...
When you look at the top 26 list, only 4 are private schools (SU, MU, BYU and Vandy).
Syracuse - a school that draws most of its students from large metro areas in the NE which means most move back when they graduate. Their teams are largely supported by non-alum locals.
Vandy - they draw students from all over but primarily the mid-atlantic and southeast. They, too, get a lot of non-alum, local support.
BYU - Im guessing most Mormons are already in the state of Utah. Its almost like a public school in that regard.
MU - We draw roughly 65% of our students from Wisconsin and Illinois (Chicagoland area) so our alums tend to stick close to campus. I think we rely less on non alum locals than the other private schools on the list.
Creighton is also private. Not sure how their student body is comprised though.
Quote from: MUMonster03 on February 10, 2013, 02:10:43 PM
Creighton is also private. Not sure how their student body is comprised though.
students at Creighton get into the games for free
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
By suggesting Buzz is the problem is to also suggest he is the problem for falling national attendance. Most think the problem with national attendance is the weak economy. So, did you just blame Buzz for the housing/financial crisis?
Holy crap, have you taken clownish to a whole new level.
Read again what I wrote. Or don't and let me translate for the simple minded: attendance numbers are down even as Buzz impresses more and more each year with what he achieves.
That's all I took out of your "research".
I'd be curious to see the season ticket holder figures.
On the plus side, the product in the building, on the court has improved year after year for the past decade. On the minus side, the past few years has seen some serious price/donation increases.
Often the extra bodies in the building is due to the fluctuating numbers in the suites, since each boxholder gets X tickets (10?) but has the option to purchase 10 (20?) more on game by game basis.
I'd be curious to know how many suites are owned year by year .. and if they are buying extras.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on February 10, 2013, 11:22:56 AM
The figures show me that attendance is steadily decreasing each successive year of Buzz' tenure even though his miracle working has increased each successive year of his tenure.
Yet the results of Buzz's 4 years are the best 4 year period in MU basketball history...economy plays a part you know...as our highest attended year - Buzz's first, incidentally - 16,239 only ranked 14th in the country...and we then ranked 10th, 10th, 11th and 13th with declining attendance...off about 1,000 per game from the aforementioned high in 2008.
Lots of competition for people's eyeballs these days. Thank God we haven't seen a paltry dip to 11,965 and 21st place 1 year removed from a Final Four appearance as we produced in the non-recessionary year of 2005.
Quote from: Ners on February 10, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
Yet the results of Buzz's 4 years are the best 4 year period in MU basketball history...
Good lord. Learn your history. 1974-77.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 10, 2013, 03:55:01 PM
Good lord. Learn your history. 1974-77.
I'm sure he meant in terms of attendance.
Quote from: bilsu on February 10, 2013, 10:17:33 AM
Having all the home games are on local TV will hurt attendance.
Is that you, Bill Wirtz?
Quote from: keefe on February 10, 2013, 04:48:15 PM
I'm sure he meant in terms of attendance.
Ah....my bad. Makes sense.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on February 10, 2013, 10:37:29 AM
I don't think that's true, though I have heard the argument for years. Hard to prove one way or the other, but one specific example is the Blackhawks. Bill Wirtz believed in that theory. Since the Hawks put their home games on TV, attendance has gone up (but so has the quality of the product). Many factors go into this, but I think that the flip side argu,net is better: local tv generates interest/excitement, leading to more fans wanting to attend the games.
Agree with you, Legs. Study after study over many years by many leagues in many sports supports your argument. On TV = good!
Ners
I knew what you meant. You know your stuff.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 10, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
Super Bowl....TWO words, not one. ;)
Great. Now MUScoop owes the NFL licensing fees.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on February 10, 2013, 03:55:01 PM
Good lord. Learn your history. 1974-77.
Though you find me an idiot much of the time....come on Sultan...I'm not that big of idiot! Thanks for the retraction.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 10, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
did you just blame Buzz for the housing/financial crisis?
No, I think we all know the housing market collapse is a direct result of the Clinton policy of loosening credit because Hillary believed, "home ownership in America is a right and not a privilege..." I have spent most of my life in societies where people SAVE 25% of their gross household income EVERY year. In the States many households run double digit deficits in spending while at the same time depleting home equity in order to finance the vacation to Cabo (ugh) or to get a new German automobile.
I spent the night in a Buddhist monastery in Mustang Nepal. I asked the monk if I could help set up things for the night and he looked at me with bemusement and said, "we are set up for the night." Myself and a Brit colleague had Nunatak sleeping bags and Patagonia layers and were concerned about staying warm at 14,000'. The monks had a simple silk wrap. Nothing else. The monk said to me the next morning as we drank yak butter tea and had goat yogurt with Tibetan bread that, "the longer you stay in the Himalaya you will realize that less is more. Things are clutter that distract the soul." Three weeks later I was back in the States in the depths of the Christmas frenzy. I parked in the Nordstrom's garage at Bellevue Square and waded into the insanity. I sat on a bench and watched but saw no joy. People pushing and shoving and spending ridiculous sums on designer labeled items. I watched a bourgeois type struggle over what style of Gucci loafer would make his day perfect and calculated that the same $500 given over to the Nordstrom family could have fed 300 orphans daal bhat and basmati rice for 6 weeks. Or could have allowed us to rent a Dornier 220 to fly a Medecins Sans Frontiers team to Jomsom to inoculate hundreds of children gathered from around the region in the most basic antigens. I watched as the Gucci man strode out of Nordstrom's and into the throngs of Bellevue Square and reflected on how he is made happy by a pair of shoes. And that really made no sense in any way. But the words of the Rinpoche in Lo Monthang did. Enlightenment is a journey and it is revealed in the most subtle yet elegant ways.
Quote from: Ners on February 10, 2013, 02:57:06 PM
Yet the results of Buzz's 4 years are the best 4 year period in MU basketball history...
What...? :o Sorry, don't agree. Al sold the place out all the time. The attendance today is driven by the fact we have a bigger building, but we played at capacity for many years in a row.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 10, 2013, 08:35:48 PM
What...? :o Sorry, don't agree. Al sold the place out all the time. The attendance today is driven by the fact we have a bigger building, but we played at capacity for many years in a row.
Come on Chicos...no sh$t...having a bigger building leads to more capacity and higher attendance! I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say Crean and Buzz would have sold out the MECCA every year, other than maybe Crean's first 2 years rescuing the program from the disaster of Mike Deane.
I do wonder if Al could have sold out the Bradley Center playing an Independent schedule back in the day....I heard it was the toughest ticket in town back then...
Quote from: Ners on February 10, 2013, 09:13:44 PM
Come on Chicos...no sh$t...having a bigger building leads to more capacity and higher attendance! I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say Crean and Buzz would have sold out the MECCA every year, other than maybe Crean's first 2 years rescuing the program from the disaster of Mike Deane.
I do wonder if Al could have sold out the Bradley Center playing an Independent schedule back in the day....I heard it was the toughest ticket in town back then...
Arena was always filled. Even for the St Leo's on Stetsons. We used to camp out for tix. For two weeks between the Union and Lalumiere. I don't know if kids would do that today. Not a judgment - just a question
Quote from: Ners on February 10, 2013, 09:13:44 PM
I do wonder if Al could have sold out the Bradley Center playing an Independent schedule back in the day....I heard it was the toughest ticket in town back then...
It was. If you didn't camp out, you had better have hoped you won a ticket lottery.
Would Al have sold out the BC? Who knows, but it would have been a great deal of fun to watch him try!
Quote from: keefe on February 10, 2013, 09:24:47 PM
Arena was always filled. Even for the St Leo's on Stetsons. We used to camp out for tix. For two weeks between the Union and Lalumiere. I don't know if kids would do that today. Not a judgment - just a question
Student section today is 3,600 which is almost 50% of the undergrad enrollment. With that many tickets in circulation, we will never know.
That said, my guess is yes in the 21st century style. No longer are we limited to forcing people to stand in front of a box office for tickets. Today they would be banging away online from their dorm room. Camping out for something is from a bygone era ... like asking kids from the 1970s if they would still go to dance marathons.
Quote from: dgies9156 on February 11, 2013, 05:38:50 AM
It was. If you didn't camp out, you had better have hoped you won a ticket lottery.
Would Al have sold out the BC? Who knows, but it would have been a great deal of fun to watch him try!
MU averages 15,000+ in attendance. Less the 3,600 student section, MU gets 11,500 to 12,000 (roughly) of non-students to go to each game. This is more than the size of the entire Arena.
Could Al have generate that much excitement off campus? Al's teams were often top 5 and even #1. Today's teams are often ranked between 10 and 25. This difference matters in attendance plus ...
* TV was free and severally limited versus the cable bills today which siphons dollars
* The Brewers have Miller park that siphons sporting dollars versus last place teams in County Stadium
* The Packers played in Milwaukee which siphoned sporting dollars.
* The NBA is significantly more popular now than in the 1970s, which siphons sporting dollars.
* The Badgers were the worst team in the B10 in the 1970s and siphoned no Milwaukee dollars for sports.
If Al put teams ranked 10 to 25 on the floor, he too would have averaged 15,000+. If Buzz manages to get top 5 and even #1 teams to put on the floor, he will sell-out.
Just think this, the upper deck at the Bradley Center has more seats than the MECCA holds all together.
Damn it, I was hoping that this article was about Lawrence Blackledge being at the game.
Could Al have filled the BC? He could have sold out Miller Park for certain games and BC every night. He and MU were bigger than anybody other than the Packers in Milwaukee area. I remember conversations back then on how many tickets could MU sell if they had more room. No question at all that Al sells out BC size arena every game back in the day.
College football attendance just released. Down from last year's all-time high, but still third highest in history.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8936389/college-football-attendance-slightly-record-2011-ncaa-says
College football attendance gets waterdown by schools like Eastern Michigan, FIU & San Jose State.
Quote from: Goose on February 11, 2013, 01:29:15 PM
Could Al have filled the BC? He could have sold out Miller Park for certain games and BC every night. He and MU were bigger than anybody other than the Packers in Milwaukee area. I remember conversations back then on how many tickets could MU sell if they had more room. No question at all that Al sells out BC size arena every game back in the day.
The waiting list was a good size. People also forget that the student section back then was smaller and split. Wisconsin basketball was not very good, no competition from in state. MU was consistently in the top 15 in the rankings.... I also have to believe MU would have been close to averaging a sellout of the BC in Al's day.
Not today, those days are long gone. To many buy games in December, week day games in Big East would be a challenge as well, 11,000 is alot different than 19,000.
Unrelated to the Al discussion, but MU sent out an email about tickets. There are less than 700 left for Pitt, so we should have an 18k crowd on Saturday.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 11, 2013, 04:15:48 PM
Unrelated to the Al discussion, but MU sent out an email about tickets. There are less than 700 left for Pitt, so we should have an 18k crowd on Saturday.
Crowd listed at 17,308. That is about 1300 short of a sell-out.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330470269
Last year's home Pitt game was Saturday Jan 14, 2012 and drew 18,404.
What is the difference? Pitt was perceived as an elite team early last year and then fell to earth. This year's Pitt team is perceived as falling to earth.
As noted in the first thread some of the highest attended games for MU's in the BC were against Pitt. I think it is safe to say it had nothing to do with it being Pitt and everything to do with them having a little number (as in 1 through 5) next to their name. This year they had a larger number (16) which is not quite the draw.
Next two home games (and final two) are against Syracuse and ND. I'll bet both draw 18,000 or more. Syracuse is perceived as an elite team with a little number next to their name. ND, is ND, in this case it is about the name and not the number.
I appreciate your closely tracking this another. I wonder if a factor might have been the perceived 'big weekend' in the 2011-12 schedule. As you'll recall, Pitt and 'Ville were part of a big MLK weekend. I knew several folks who flew into town to catch both games.
So to match last year's average, we need 18,409 (times 2) in the last two games. Tough but still possible.
As noted above, attendance is down 4 straight years.
Last year's average attendance was 15,138
Last year's average attendance with two games to go was 14,879
This year average attendance with two games to go is 14,671 ... 209 behind last year.
To break the four year slide, we need 36,817 for the next two games ... or 18,409 average.
Syracuse on Big Monday and ND to finish on a Saturday makes this possible.
What we need to win both games next week and move to around 15. Need Syracuse to stay in the top 10. ND winning and staying (or getting) ranked would help too.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:36:05 AM
As noted above, attendance is down 4 straight years.
Last year's average attendance was 15,138
Last year's average attendance with two games to go was 14,879
This year average attendance with two games to go is 14,671 ... 209 behind last year.
To break the four year slide, we need 36,817 for the next two games ... or 18,409 average.
Syracuse on Big Monday and ND to finish on a Saturday makes this possible.
What we need to win both games next week and move to around 15. Need Syracuse to stay in the top 10. ND winning and staying (or getting) ranked would help too.
I'm really hoping that the ND game can draw like last year's season ending GTown game. That would give us a real shot. If we only duplicate the Wisconsin game, we might be seeing the slide continue. And that would be too bad as the schedule lined up perfectly this year.
Quote from: jsglow on February 17, 2013, 11:41:49 AM
I'm really hoping that the ND game can draw like last year's season ending GTown game. That would give us a real shot. If we only duplicate the Wisconsin game, we might be seeing the slide continue. And that would be too bad as the schedule lined up perfectly this year.
Especially if we are still in the hunt for the BE regular season title for the ND game.
Keefe,
You sound like my vintage with camp outs for tickets at the Arena in the Al Era and now living in the Seattle area. So agree with you on the Buddhist "less is more, objects clutter," etc.
So disagree with the whole pillorying of Mrs. Clinton for Americans wanting to own a home. You sat in Belle Square, Kemper Freeman's ode to White Republican "I got mine, go get yours" Eastside Greed and rip on Hillary for what you see at Nordstrom? (There is no such place as Nordstrom's, BTW, it has and always will be Nordstrom.)
Oh, we privileged white people just so know what is best for everyone, don't we? Your Buddhist teacher I am sure confirmed for you that the Clintons are the reason for the fall and decline of Western Civilization. Along with the Starbucks in Renton I am sitting in right now.
Be still, simplify as you learned first hand, and keep working to help the world by improving the one person you can control in this life, YOU, not Mrs. Clinton. BTW, she has helped the world, in ways we will never know.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:00:54 AM
Crowd listed at 17,308. That is about 1300 short of a sell-out.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330470269
Last year's home Pitt game was Saturday Jan 14, 2012 and drew 18,404.
What is the difference? Pitt was perceived as an elite team early last year and then fell to earth. This year's Pitt team is perceived as falling to earth.
As noted in the first thread some of the highest attended games for MU's in the BC were against Pitt. I think it is safe to say it had nothing to do with it being Pitt and everything to do with them having a little number (as in 1 through 5) next to their name. This year they had a larger number (16) which is not quite the draw.
Next two home games (and final two) are against Syracuse and ND. I'll bet both draw 18,000 or more. Syracuse is perceived as an elite team with a little number next to their name. ND, is ND, in this case it is about the name and not the number.
And, oh my, if only there were 17,308 actual asses in the seats what a crowd it would have been.
Not a lot of tickets available for the Syracuse game, judging by the Ticketmaster map.
I have to figure they'll draw over 18k for the last two. Either way, MU should stay over the 15k average. Still pretty impressive.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:50:39 AM
Especially if we are still in the hunt for the BE regular season title for the ND game.
It is tickets sold, right?
Ticketmaster has been sold out for ND for months and MU only has some upper singles remaining. Based upon this, I don't know what bearing our position in the BE will have on tickets that have already been sold?
Quote from: We R Final Four on February 18, 2013, 09:50:53 AM
It is tickets sold, right?
Ticketmaster has been sold out for ND for months and MU only has some upper singles remaining. Based upon this, I don't know what bearing our position in the BE will have on tickets that have already been sold?
Did not know that game was sold out. That said, is it really sold out? Above is a post that said less than 400 tickets were left for the Pitt game a week before and they were still selling tickets. In the end the game was 1300 away from a sellout.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:00:54 AM
Crowd listed at 17,308. That is about 1300 short of a sell-out.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330470269
Last year's home Pitt game was Saturday Jan 14, 2012 and drew 18,404.
What is the difference? Pitt was perceived as an elite team early last year and then fell to earth. This year's Pitt team is perceived as falling to earth.
Leading up to last year's MU game, unranked Pitt was on a five game losing streak which included a road loss to DEPAUL and home!! losses to WAGNER and RUTGERS! I'm not sure there's any way you can credibly claim they were still "perceived as an elite team" when we actually played them.
THIS year, leading up to the MU game, Pitt had wins over Syracuse, Cincinnati, and a monster blowout over Georgetown. They were #16 in the rankings, and they already had 20 wins--and we played them to an overtime game just a few weeks earlier. And you claim they were peceived as "falling to earth"?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:36:05 AM
To break the four year slide, we need 36,817 for the next two games ... or 18,409 average.
Syracuse on Big Monday and ND to finish on a Saturday makes this possible.
What we need to win both games next week and move to around 15. Need Syracuse to stay in the top 10. ND winning and staying (or getting) ranked would help too.
As you point out, we need to average 18,409 (a near sellout) just to equal last year's total.
But let's look at best case--let's assume we draw back-to-back record crowds of 19,144 for ND and Syr. If that happens, we'll exceed last year's attendance by 1470 total fans.
That's a maximum increase of about 92/game over 2012, and that's only IF we have record attendance in the next two games.
In past posts, you said our big problem last year was that we didn't have either ND or Wisconsin at home, plus we didn't have many weekend games.
This year we have BOTH Wisconsin and Notre Dame at home, PLUS we increased the number of weekend games to 10 of 16 home games. Despite taking those actions, at best we'll see an increased attendance of 92/game--still about 1,000 short of where we were in 2009.
Can we now conclude that the five-year decline is NOT the lack of Notre Dame, Wisconsin or weekend games?
I don't know what the issue is--but given that we're not going to be able to rely on big draws like ND, Pitt, Cincy, Syracuse, UL or Notre Dame in the future, its probably worth a discussion, rather than attempt to pretend that there is no problem that can't be explained away.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 09:56:05 AM
Did not know that game was sold out. That said, is it really sold out? Above is a post that said less than 400 tickets were left for the Pitt game a week before and they were still selling tickets. In the end the game was 1300 away from a sellout.
I received that same email last week. So, is the ticket office BSing? Why did they say 400 tickets remain when actually 1300 remained?...to stir up demand for a limited # of tickets when in actuality wasn't all that limited?
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 10:02:27 AM
but given that we're not going to be able to rely on big draws like ND, Pitt, Cincy, Syracuse, UL or Notre Dame in the future, its probably worth a discussion, rather than attempt to pretend that there is no problem that can't be explained away.
I am betting we will still play some the above mentioned schools in the future--including both ND and Notre Dame.
Maybe, rather than look for things Marquette must be doing wrong, we ought to just accept the fact that what's happening in Milwaukee reflects the national trend in college basketball attendance.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 10:22:02 AM
Maybe, rather than look for things Marquette must be doing wrong, we ought to just accept the fact that what's happening in Milwaukee reflects the national trend in college basketball attendance.
When pushing an agenda/narrative giving context to raw data can be counterproductive.
Quote from: We R Final Four on February 18, 2013, 10:08:30 AM
I received that same email last week. So, is the ticket office BSing? Why did they say 400 tickets remain when actually 1300 remained?...to stir up demand for a limited # of tickets when in actuality wasn't all that limited?
Might be part of it. I think Pitt probably returned some of their allotment, as a lot of empty seats were up in that area.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 10:22:02 AM
Maybe, rather than look for things Marquette must be doing wrong, we ought to just accept the fact that what's happening in Milwaukee reflects the national trend in college basketball attendance.
+ 1,000,000
In 2009 we drew 16,200 and were
14th in the nation. Last year we drew 15,100 and were
11th in the nation. By the bolded metric, marketing directors across the country and studying what we are doing RIGHT so they can emulate it.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
+ 1,000,000
In 2009 we drew 16,200 and were 14th in the nation. Last year we drew 15,100 and were 11th in the nation. By the bolded metric, marketing directors across the country and studying what we are doing RIGHT so they can emulate it.
Some more numbers:
In 2008, 28.1 million people attended D-I college basketball games, of 5,524 per game.
In 2011, those figures were 27.6 million and 5,237.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/story/2012-03-08/college-basketball-concerns-attendance-drop/53424996/1
Tournament attendance also is falling.
In 2008, attendance for tourney games averaged 21,817. In 2011, it was 19,186.
http://thesportdigest.com/2012/03/college-basketball-attendance-under-attack/
And MU's decline is relatively small compared with many. One in 5 programs saw a 20 percent or more attendance decline between 2009 and 2012. On the flip side, only seven programs saw their attendance grow 20 percent or more.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/big-basketball-attendance-swings-among-division-i-programs/29814
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 18, 2013, 09:03:27 AM
Not a lot of tickets available for the Syracuse game, judging by the Ticketmaster map.
I have to figure they'll draw over 18k for the last two. Either way, MU should stay over the 15k average. Still pretty impressive.
Don't judge by that map. Ticketmaster doesn't put out all the tickets on the site. Ticket office told me that.
On the Pitt game, does Disney on Ice at the Cell having three sold-out shows on Saturday, cost MU a sell-out? Who knows.
Quote from: bradley center bat on February 18, 2013, 11:48:09 AM
Don't judge by that map. Ticketmaster doesn't put out all the tickets on the site. Ticket office told me that.
On the Pitt game, does Disney on Ice at the Cell having three sold-out shows on Saturday, cost MU a sell-out? Who knows.
The Venn Diagram of Disney on Ice fan and MUBB fan looks something like this:
OO
Quote from: Marquette_g on February 11, 2013, 01:16:55 PM
Damn it, I was hoping that this article was about Lawrence Blackledge being at the game.
Same here. It's always a treat when he graces the fans with his presence.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 18, 2013, 12:10:08 PM
The Venn Diagram of Disney on Ice fan and MUBB fan looks something like this:
OO
Freeway is a big fan of both
Quote from: bradley center bat on February 11, 2013, 01:44:47 PM
College football attendance gets waterdown by schools like Eastern Michigan, FIU & San Jose State.
Cool it, bro.
Obviously you don't watch college football that closely.
SJSU: 11-2 overall, Bowl win.
Home of an arguably richer FB tradition than MU:
Courtney Anderson — former NFL tight end, Atlanta Falcons and Oakland Raiders[8]
Stacey Bailey — former NFL wide receiver, Atlanta Falcons[9]
Kim Bokamper — former NFL linebacker, Miami Dolphins[9]
John Broussard — NFL wide receiver, Jacksonville Jaguars[9]
Gill Byrd — former NFL defensive back, San Diego Chargers; two NFL Pro Bowl appearances[9]
Jim Cadile — former NFL guard, Chicago Bears[9]
Matt Castelo — former NFL linebacker, Seattle Seahawks; former CFL linebacker, Hamilton Tiger-cats[10]
Steve Clarkson — nationally renowned quarterbacks coach; founder of Steve Clarkson Dreammaker quarterback camp[11]
Sherman Cocroft — former NFL defensive back, Kansas City Chiefs[9]
Clarence Cunningham — former AFL wide receiver, defensive back, running back, and kick returner; former AF2 starter, Stockton Lightning; IFL free safety, Catania Elephants[12]
Neal Dahlen — former SJSU quarterback, NFL manager and scout; holds the record for the most earned Super Bowl rings at seven.[13]
Rashied Davis — NFL wide receiver, Chicago Bears[14]
Yonus Davis — CFL running back, BC Lions
Steve DeBerg — former NFL quarterback, Dallas Cowboys[9]
David Diaz-Infante — former NFL and CFL offensive guard, San Diego Chargers, Denver Broncos, Philadelphia Eagles, and Sacramento Gold Miners[8]
Terry Donahue — UCLA head football coach; College Football Hall of Fame inductee (attended SJSU for one year)[15]
Carl Ekern — former NFL linebacker, Los Angeles Rams; one NFL Pro Bowl appearance[9]
Mervyn Fernandez —former NFL wide receiver, Los Angeles Raiders[9]
Coye Francies — NFL defensive back, Cleveland Browns[8]
Jeff Garcia — NFL quarterback, San Francisco 49ers et al.; four NFL Pro Bowl appearances[9]
Trestin George — AFL and CFL wide receiver, San Jose Sabercats and BC Lions
Jarron Gilbert - NFL defensive tackle, Chicago Bears[9]
Charlie Harraway — former NFL running back, Washington Redskins and Cleveland Browns[9]
Paul Held — former NFL quarterback, Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers[9]
Willie Heston — former SJSU halfback; College Football Hall of Fame inductee (attended SJSU from 1898 to 1900; graduated from University of Michigan)[16]
James Hodgins — former NFL fullback, Saint Louis Rams et al.[9]
Johnny Johnson — former NFL running back, New York Jets; one NFL Pro Bowl appearance; consensus choice for Rookie of the Year (1990)[9]
Cody Jones — NFL defensive tackle, Los Angeles Rams; one NFL Pro Bowl appearance[9]
James Jones — NFL wide receiver, Green Bay Packers[9]
Kevin Jurovich — NFL wide receiver, Philadelphia Eagles; San Francisco 49ers[9]
Rick Kane — former NFL running back, Detroit Lions[9]
Bob Ladouceur — among winningest high school football coaches in U.S. history; coached De La Salle High Spartans to 151 consecutive wins from 1992 to 2003[17]
Bill Leavy — NFL referee; officiated Super Bowl XL
Dwight Lowery — NFL defensive back, New York Jets and two-time All-American at SJSU[9]
Joe Nedney — NFL kicker, San Francisco 49ers[14]
William Yaw Obeng — Arena Football League lineman, San Jose Sabercats
Chris Owens — NFL defensive back, Atlanta Falcons[18]
Neil Parry — football; Most Courageous Athlete Award (Philadelphia Sports Writers Association; 2003)[19]
Tom Petithomme — former Arena Football League player, San Jose Sabercats[20]
Art Powell — NFL wide receiver, Oakland Raiders; Raiders' 7th all-time leading receiver[9]
Waylon Prather — former NFL punter, New Orleans Saints, New York Jets and Arizona Cardinals[21]
David Richmond — former NFL wide receiver, Cincinnati Bengals[22]
Scott Rislov — Arena Football League quarterback, San Jose Sabercats
Al Saunders — former NFL head coach for the San Diego Chargers[23]
Rufus Skillern — CFL and NFL wide receiver, BC Lions and Baltimore Ravens
Gerald Small — former NFL defensive back, Miami Dolphins[9]
Carl Sullivan — former NFL defensive end, Green Bay Packers[9]
Adam Tafralis — CFL quarterback, Hamilton Tiger-Cats[24]
Tyson Thompson —NFL kick returner, Dallas Cowboys[9]
Bob Titchenal — former NFL linebacker, Washington Redskins and Los Angeles Dons; one Pro Bowl appearance; former head football coach, University of New Mexico and SJSU[9]
Dick Vermeil — NFL head coach; winning coach, Super Bowl XXXIV[25][26]
Bill Walsh — NFL head coach; winning coach, Super Bowl XVI, Super Bowl XIX, and Super Bowl XXIII; Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee[25][27]
Gerald Willhite — former NFL running back, Denver Broncos[9]
Billy Wilson — former NFL receiver, San Francisco 49ers; six NFL Pro Bowl appearances[9]
Louis Wright — former NFL defensive back, Denver Broncos; 1st round NFL draft pick; five NFL Pro Bowl appearances[9]
Roy Zimmerman — former NFL quarterback, Washington Redskins; one Pro Bowl appearance[9]
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 10:22:02 AM
Maybe, rather than look for things Marquette must be doing wrong, we ought to just accept the fact that what's happening in Milwaukee reflects the national trend in college basketball attendance.
It might be the trend for all 345 teams. But not for the top 25.
Of the top 25 programs as they stand right now, 15 show a YTD 2013 increase over their 2009 attendance. Only 9 show any sort of decline, and only 3 are down more than 1,000/per game. MU ranks 24th of 25.
| Current Rank | Team | 09 NCAA? | 2009 avg | YTD 2013 avg | Chg 2009 to 2013 |
| 13 | Kansas State | | 8940 | 12562 | 3,622 |
| 1 | Indiana | | 14331 | 17405 | 3,074 |
| 10 | Louisville | Y | 19379 | 21326 | 1,947 |
| 15 | Butler | Y | 5897 | 7630 | 1,733 |
| 22 | Colorado State | | 3,257 | 4973 | 1,716 |
| 24 | VCU | Y | 6106 | 7693 | 1,587 |
| 7 | Michigan | | 10568 | 12027 | 1,459 |
| 16 | New Mexico | | 13994 | 14966 | 972 |
| 20 | Pittsburgh | Y | 11194 | 12155 | 961 |
| 18 | Ohio State | Y | 15462 | 16213 | 751 |
| 2 | Miami | | 4537 | 5131 | 594 |
| 12 | Arizona | Y | 13681 | 14067 | 386 |
| 3 | Gonzaga | Y | 6000 | 6144 | 144 |
| 5 | Florida | | 10327 | 10452 | 125 |
| 9 | Kansas | Y | 16350 | 16466 | 116 |
| 6 | Duke | Y | 9,314 | 9,314 | 0 |
| 8 | Syracuse | Y | 21044 | 20871 | -173 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | Y | 17230 | 16807 | -423 |
| 4 | Michigan State | Y | 14759 | 14250 | -509 |
| 21 | Memphis | y | 16933 | 16074 | -859 |
| 23 | Oregon | | 7972 | 7077 | -895 |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | Y | 10,031 | 9082 | -949 |
| 25 | ND | | 9428 | 8136 | -1,292 |
| 17 | Marquette | Y | 16200 | 14671 | -1,529 |
| 11 | Georgetown | | 12827 | 10114 | -2,713 |
I understand some of these teams (K-state, Indiana) have improved over the last five years, and at least on (Louisville) has a new arena.
But some teams were good in 2009, have been just as consistenly good since, are playing in the same building, and haven't seen the drop in attendance since 2009 that we have.
Its a falacy to say that "all teams are down". They aren't--not Top 25 performers, anyway.
77 nationachamps- You couldn't be more wrong, I watch college football 11+ hours every Saturday. We are talking about attendance. I know San Jose St was 11-2 and a bowl winner. There head coach moved on to Colorado. I saw there games versus BYU & La. Tech on ESPN. I watch them play Stanford tough as hell in their opener on the Pac-12 Networks. That doesn't change the fact they averaged over 10,000 in football this season.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
It might be the trend for all 345 teams. But not for the top 25.
Of the top 25 programs as they stand right now, 15 show a YTD 2013 increase over their 2009 attendance. Only 9 show any sort of decline, and only 3 are down more than 1,000/per game. MU ranks 24th of 25.
| Current Rank | Team | 09 NCAA? | 2009 avg | YTD 2013 avg | Chg 2009 to 2013 |
| 13 | Kansas State | | 8940 | 12562 | 3,622 |
| 1 | Indiana | | 14331 | 17405 | 3,074 |
| 10 | Louisville | Y | 19379 | 21326 | 1,947 |
| 15 | Butler | Y | 5897 | 7630 | 1,733 |
| 22 | Colorado State | | 3,257 | 4973 | 1,716 |
| 24 | VCU | Y | 6106 | 7693 | 1,587 |
| 7 | Michigan | | 10568 | 12027 | 1,459 |
| 16 | New Mexico | | 13994 | 14966 | 972 |
| 20 | Pittsburgh | Y | 11194 | 12155 | 961 |
| 18 | Ohio State | Y | 15462 | 16213 | 751 |
| 2 | Miami | | 4537 | 5131 | 594 |
| 12 | Arizona | Y | 13681 | 14067 | 386 |
| 3 | Gonzaga | Y | 6000 | 6144 | 144 |
| 5 | Florida | | 10327 | 10452 | 125 |
| 9 | Kansas | Y | 16350 | 16466 | 116 |
| 6 | Duke | Y | 9,314 | 9,314 | 0 |
| 8 | Syracuse | Y | 21044 | 20871 | -173 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | Y | 17230 | 16807 | -423 |
| 4 | Michigan State | Y | 14759 | 14250 | -509 |
| 21 | Memphis | y | 16933 | 16074 | -859 |
| 23 | Oregon | | 7972 | 7077 | -895 |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | Y | 10,031 | 9082 | -949 |
| 25 | ND | | 9428 | 8136 | -1,292 |
| 17 | Marquette | Y | 16200 | 14671 | -1,529 |
| 11 | Georgetown | | 12827 | 10114 | -2,713 |
I understand some of these teams (K-state, Indiana) have improved over the last five years, and at least on (Louisville) has a new arena.
But some teams were good in 2009, have been just as consistenly good since, are playing in the same building, and haven't seen the drop in attendance since 2009 that we have.
Its a falacy to say that "all teams are down". They aren't--not Top 25 performers, anyway.
Equalizer, great sort but it has an inherent bias. By picking this week's top 25, you're taking teams that are having good years. Good years means fannies in the seats. So yes most of the teams will show increases over 2009. The teams that do not are probably not doing as well. 2009 was a year MU was top 10 and until DJ went down, looked like a potential elite 8 or FF team.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
It might be the trend for all 345 teams. But not for the top 25.
Of the top 25 programs as they stand right now, 15 show a YTD 2013 increase over their 2009 attendance. Only 9 show any sort of decline, and only 3 are down more than 1,000/per game. MU ranks 24th of 25.
| Current Rank | Team | 09 NCAA? | 2009 avg | YTD 2013 avg | Chg 2009 to 2013 |
| 13 | Kansas State | | 8940 | 12562 | 3,622 |
| 1 | Indiana | | 14331 | 17405 | 3,074 |
| 10 | Louisville | Y | 19379 | 21326 | 1,947 |
| 15 | Butler | Y | 5897 | 7630 | 1,733 |
| 22 | Colorado State | | 3,257 | 4973 | 1,716 |
| 24 | VCU | Y | 6106 | 7693 | 1,587 |
| 7 | Michigan | | 10568 | 12027 | 1,459 |
| 16 | New Mexico | | 13994 | 14966 | 972 |
| 20 | Pittsburgh | Y | 11194 | 12155 | 961 |
| 18 | Ohio State | Y | 15462 | 16213 | 751 |
| 2 | Miami | | 4537 | 5131 | 594 |
| 12 | Arizona | Y | 13681 | 14067 | 386 |
| 3 | Gonzaga | Y | 6000 | 6144 | 144 |
| 5 | Florida | | 10327 | 10452 | 125 |
| 9 | Kansas | Y | 16350 | 16466 | 116 |
| 6 | Duke | Y | 9,314 | 9,314 | 0 |
| 8 | Syracuse | Y | 21044 | 20871 | -173 |
| 19 | Wisconsin | Y | 17230 | 16807 | -423 |
| 4 | Michigan State | Y | 14759 | 14250 | -509 |
| 21 | Memphis | y | 16933 | 16074 | -859 |
| 23 | Oregon | | 7972 | 7077 | -895 |
| 14 | Oklahoma State | Y | 10,031 | 9082 | -949 |
| 25 | ND | | 9428 | 8136 | -1,292 |
| 17 | Marquette | Y | 16200 | 14671 | -1,529 |
| 11 | Georgetown | | 12827 | 10114 | -2,713 |
I understand some of these teams (K-state, Indiana) have improved over the last five years, and at least on (Louisville) has a new arena.
But some teams were good in 2009, have been just as consistenly good since, are playing in the same building, and haven't seen the drop in attendance since 2009 that we have.
Its a falacy to say that "all teams are down". They aren't--not Top 25 performers, anyway.
You read my mind. I was going to ask the question today whether it's down overall but how are the top teams doing. Thanks for doing the legwork. Of course, even this analysis one can argue about some teams. For those that haven't been in the top 25 in a long time it might be a halo effect where fans are excited to back the team, while schools that have been there year in and year out it can become stale so they drop off. Who knows. Again, thanks for the data.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 02:45:56 PM
It might be the trend for all 345 teams. But not for the top 25.
Gosh, so winning teams and elite programs are less likely to be affected by a downward trend in attendance? Who would have guessed?
Yes, please ignore the experience of 300+ programs and only focus on a dozen or so highly successful ones, some of whom (i.e. Kansas, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse) are largely, if not entirely, immune to these kinds of trends.
It's interesting you chose a time range (2009 to an incomplete 2013) as your example rather than the years actually cited in the stories I linked (2008 to 2011).
Could it be that you cherry-picked because using 2008 figures would disprove your point?
Let's find out (and I'll assume your 2013 figures are correct, though a citation would be nice):
Team 2008 2013 Difference
K-State 12,529 12,562 33
Indiana 16,876 17,405 529
Louisville* 19,481 21,326 1,845
Butler 5,945 7,630 1,685
Colo. St. 3,345 4,937 1,592
Va. Commonwealth Somehow not listed on 2008 report
Michigan 10,304 12,207 1,903
New Mexico 14,361 14,996 635
Pittsburgh 10,969 12,155 1,186
Ohio St. 16,587 16,213 - 644
Miami 4,322 5,131 809
Arizona 14,208 14,067 - 141
Gonzaga** 6,000 6,144 144?
Florida 10,801 10,452 -349
Kansas 16,409 16,496 87
Duke 9,314 9,314 0
Syracuse 20,345 20,871 526
Wisconsin 17,190 16,807 -383
Michigan St. 14,759 14,250 -509
Memphis 16,748 16,074 -674
Oregon 8,701 7,077 -1,642
Okie St. 12,504 9,082 -3,422
Notre Dame 9,726 8,136 -1,590
Marquette 16,239 14,671 - 1,568
Georgetown 12,955 10,114 -2,841
* = got a new, larger arena in 2010
** = either figures are wrong, they added seats to the arena or they're counting the game played at the Key Center. Capacity is 6,000.
Eleven of the top 25 have dropped, and 13 have seen increases - but in at least two of those instances due to special circumstances. (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here on VCU.) Of the 13 that have seen increases, two of the gains have been absolutely negligible (KU and K-State). Overall, the declines are greater than the increases. So,
even among the top 25 programs, the overall trend is downward.
MU's decline is larger than most, but there definitely are reasonable explanations that require no use of the panic button:
- No weekend night games
- Only two home games vs ranked opponents
- UConn game went up against the Rose Bowl
- Team went into season with lowered expectations
But since you seem to be banging the drum the loudest on this, why do
you think attendance is down?
Quote
Its a falacy to say that "all teams are down". They aren't--not Top 25 performers, anyway.
I'm guessing you don't see the irony of that statement.
What about these teams?
2009 2012 4-year change
1. Arizona State 9,354 5,411 –42%
2. Washington State 8,018 4,910 –39%
3. UCLA* 9,843 6,352 –36%
4. Georgia Tech* 7,505 4,929 –34%
5. USC 5,619 3,970 –29%
6. Wake Forest 12,122 8,675 –28%
7. Oklahoma 11,490 8,524 –26%
8. South Carolina 11,776 8,868 –25%
9. Notre Dame* 10,468 8,004 –24%
10. Stanford 7,029 5,393 –23%
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 04:13:30 PM
What about these teams?
2009 2012 4-year change
1. Arizona State 9,354 5,411 –42%
2. Washington State 8,018 4,910 –39%
3. UCLA* 9,843 6,352 –36%
4. Georgia Tech* 7,505 4,929 –34%
5. USC 5,619 3,970 –29%
6. Wake Forest 12,122 8,675 –28%
7. Oklahoma 11,490 8,524 –26%
8. South Carolina 11,776 8,868 –25%
9. Notre Dame* 10,468 8,004 –24%
10. Stanford 7,029 5,393 –23%
Isn't his point that we aren't playing on a downslide as most of the 10 teams mentioned here? We are still playing as a top 25 team so shouldn't our attendance be holding its own or growing like other top 25 teams? At least, that's what I think he is saying.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 04:13:30 PM
What about these teams?
2009 2012 4-year change
1. Arizona State 9,354 5,411 –42%
2. Washington State 8,018 4,910 –39%
3. UCLA* 9,843 6,352 –36%
4. Georgia Tech* 7,505 4,929 –34%
5. USC 5,619 3,970 –29%
6. Wake Forest 12,122 8,675 –28%
7. Oklahoma 11,490 8,524 –26%
8. South Carolina 11,776 8,868 –25%
9. Notre Dame* 10,468 8,004 –24%
10. Stanford 7,029 5,393 –23%
I find it interesting that both you and Equalizer included Notre Dame's 2009 attendance figures yet your numbers are over 1,000/game off (9,428 vs 10,468)
Sources?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 18, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
Isn't his point that we aren't playing on a downslide as most of the 10 teams mentioned here? We are still playing as a top 25 team so shouldn't our attendance be holding its own or growing like other top 25 teams? At least, that's what I think he is saying.
But our attendance is holding up. In 2008 we were 14th nationally. Last year we were 11th nationally. What decline?
Quote from: WarriorInDC on February 18, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
I find it interesting that both you and Equalizer included Notre Dame's 2009 attendance figures yet your numbers are over 1,000/game off (9,428 vs 10,468)
Sources?
my source
http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/big-basketball-attendance-swings-among-division-i-programs/29814
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 04:32:25 PM
But our attendance is holding up. In 2008 we were 14th nationally. Last year we were 11th nationally. What decline?
This is the data I'm more interested in. How are we faring as a trend relative to the regular top 25 or so programs in
attendance, i.e. the list that we're usually around that typically gets a lot of butts in seats year in and year out, not who is or isn't in the AP poll at the moment or was in 2009 and is terrible now. Do we have a cruncher for something interesting around that?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 17, 2013, 11:00:54 AM
Crowd listed at 17,308. That is about 1300 short of a sell-out.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=330470269
Last year's home Pitt game was Saturday Jan 14, 2012 and drew 18,404.
What is the difference? Pitt was perceived as an elite team early last year and then fell to earth. This year's Pitt team is perceived as falling to earth.
Does the game starting at 12pm than 1pm last season matter? Some maybe can't make it at noon because there kids are getting down with Saturday youth league sports. Who knows!
MU needs to do more adds for upcoming games, other than twitter.
Quote from: chapman on February 18, 2013, 05:07:41 PM
This is the data I'm more interested in. How are we faring as a trend relative to the regular top 25 or so programs in attendance, i.e. the list that we're usually around that typically gets a lot of butts in seats year in and year out, not who is or isn't in the AP poll at the moment or was in 2009 and is terrible now. Do we have a cruncher for something interesting around that?
First post ... page 1
Quote from: Warriors 79 on February 17, 2013, 12:43:37 PM
Keefe,
You sound like my vintage with camp outs for tickets at the Arena in the Al Era and now living in the Seattle area. So agree with you on the Buddhist "less is more, objects clutter," etc.
So disagree with the whole pillorying of Mrs. Clinton for Americans wanting to own a home. You sat in Belle Square, Kemper Freeman's ode to White Republican "I got mine, go get yours" Eastside Greed and rip on Hillary for what you see at Nordstrom? (There is no such place as Nordstrom's, BTW, it has and always will be Nordstrom.)
Oh, we privileged white people just so know what is best for everyone, don't we? Your Buddhist teacher I am sure confirmed for you that the Clintons are the reason for the fall and decline of Western Civilization. Along with the Starbucks in Renton I am sitting in right now.
Be still, simplify as you learned first hand, and keep working to help the world by improving the one person you can control in this life, YOU, not Mrs. Clinton. BTW, she has helped the world, in ways we will never know.
Actually, the Rinpoche in Lo Monthang never mentioned Hillary Clinton or any other political figure. Buddhist monks in Nepal, despite being political refugees, are decidedly apolitical. Any organizational construct they have is focused simply on sustenance - ie those corporeal matters necessary to sustain the body so that the mind might seek enlightenment.
Funny you mention a Starbucks in Renton as that is where I spend time between visits to the neurologist. I stop in at the Starbucks on 900 - I find it much less of a fashion statement destination than is the one on Gilman in Issaquah. I still keep a house in Issaquah up on Cougar Mountain but that is more of an anchor for the kids than it is shelter for me. I have taken up residence in Nepal and plan only to return to the States for PTSD treatments.
As for Mrs Clinton, my wife was part of the crew that went with Jeff Raikes from MS over to the Foundation to get it organized after the Patty Stonesifer regime. As such she spent time working with the Clinton Foundation and had actually met Hillary at a couple private dinners when Bill G. was in attendance. (My wife worked Global Health which is Bill's portfolio while Melinda works US Programs.) Her observation was Mrs Clinton is an extremely determined woman and has a very strict interpretation of this world. Mr Clinton, on the other hand, is much more of a consensus builder and sees the end as the objective while Hillary sees her way as the objective. Hopefully that provides some perspective and insight. Mrs Clinton certainly has the power to do good and I am convinced she has in the many ways you mention. But I will tell you that she vehemently disagreed with a clean water initiative in the developing world because of more macro political issues. My wife was appalled as the losers in Mrs Clinton's construct were the children who would continue to die from lack of access to clean water.
I don't blame Hillary for the crass consumerism of the Eastside. I will admit that I am guilty of being brand conscious but for a reason. I purchase Arcteryx, Patagonia, Black Diamond and North Face because I don't want equipment failure in a hostile environment. In transportation I limit consideration to Honda and Toyota. Honda has superb power plants and Toyota quality speaks for itself. Both have created extremely well engineered vehicles. And those aren't fashion brands in any event. But in Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah people purchase Gucci for the fact of it being Gucci and the implicit message of look at my shoes! I avoid the Issaquah Starbucks because the conversations are of trips to Europe, the "cabin" at Sun Valley, or the Mercedes is in the shop. And every family has one German sedan and a Suburban. It is all very predictable.
So here I sit at the Renton Starbucks on 900. I passed this every morning at 0500 on my way to McChord, often stopping for my first shot of the day. It is much more relaxed than the Issaquah location. If you see a guy wearing either a leather USAF flight jacket or an orange Arcteryx and sporting a combat mustache do stop and say hi. My wife hated the 'stache which we all grew out while deployed, telling me only cheesy porn stars and aging fighter pilots wore them. Perhaps I should shave it off but shaving is something that often gets missed while living in Mustang. And in a funny way it somehow reminds me of her.
I believe to properly understand this issue we need to examine ticket prices/required B&G donations over the study period. My sense is that the cost of a season ticket has gone up considerably at a time when disposable income for the typical Milwaukee resident has stayed flat or gone down. Look, we can do a great service to the Administration if we demonstrate that they are now overpricing their product at the margin. My gut tells me they are and weakened attendance is a result. Perhaps we can commission a study out of the Econ Department.
Be sure to figure the economic collapse in 2008. Also 8 pm vs 7 pm and the 12 pm vs 1 pm games must have an impact. I never miss a game, live an hour away, and hate the 8 pm games. I get home after 11 and need to get up early. Natl TV trumps, I understand but if I didn't have season tickets, I wouldn't make the bunnies for sure.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
Yes, please ignore the experience of 300+ programs and only focus on a dozen or so highly successful ones, some of whom (i.e. Kansas, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse) are largely, if not entirely, immune to these kinds of trends.
So in your view, we are suffering the same trend as, say, DePaul, Villanova or Uconn? DePaul's years of accumulated futility, Villanova's decline from Final Four to non-tournament team and UConn's NCAA sanctions and coaching change aren't to blame--we're all just victims of the same big general decline in attendance?
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
It's interesting you chose a time range (2009 to an incomplete 2013) as your example rather than the years actually cited in the stories I linked (2008 to 2011).
Could it be that you cherry-picked because using 2008 figures would disprove your point?
Not really that surprising. Buzz's first year was 2009. But could you be cherry-picking by using 2008 (over two coaching regimes) to 2011 (ignoring available data from 2012 and 2013?)
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
Eleven of the top 25 have dropped, and 13 have seen increases - but in at least two of those instances due to special circumstances. (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here on VCU.) Of the 13 that have seen increases, two of the gains have been absolutely negligible (KU and K-State). Overall, the declines are greater than the increases. So, even among the top 25 programs, the overall trend is downward.
Using your choice of 2008 as a start, 13 of 25 increased, one was flat, and in one the decline was neglible. Of the 10 with more significant declines, two were explainable because of coaching transitions (Oregon & Oklahoma State), and six declined at less than half the rate of MU. Even using 2008, e're falling faster than most comparable teams.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
MU's decline is larger than most, but there definitely are reasonable explanations that require no use of the panic button:
- No weekend night games
- Only two home games vs ranked opponents
- Team went into season with lowered expectations
- UConn game went up against the Rose Bowl
--Do you have any evidence that weekend *night* games are bigger draws?
--You may want to check the number of ranked opponents we had last year. And in 2008 for that matter.
--We always seem to have conflict with a bowl game or Packers game or NFL playoffs. Hardly unique.
--We ALWAYS go into the season with lowered expectations.
Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2013, 04:06:41 PM
But since you seem to be banging the drum the loudest on this, why do you think attendance is down?
Well we can't fix the problem if people are going to argue the problem doesn't exist. Here's a start as to why attendance is down:
--Continuing to promote our opponents as the draw rather than Marquette, training fans to care more for "big" games and avoid the others.
--Continuing to promote the Big East aheaad of Marquette.
--Raising ticket prices too much, too quickly.
--Buzz doesn't do enough personally to promote attendance, thank fans for attending, reaching out to the students etc.
--Also continuing to lower expectations and harp about how bad we are doen't help, either.
--Not enough promotional activities to bring in fans--e.g. the $99 ticket offer for the cheap seats, or tickets for MPS students.
--Apparently not enough insight into tickets actually avialble, hence claiming a game is sold out with only 17,300 sold.
--Not using available resources (like email) to promote last-minute sales to broader groups.
--Hokey in-game stunts that make an MU game more like a Bucks game than a big-time college game.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
So in your view, we are suffering the same trend as, say, DePaul, Villanova or Uconn? DePaul's years of accumulated futility, Villanova's decline from Final Four to non-tournament team and UConn's NCAA sanctions and coaching change aren't to blame--we're all just victims of the same big general decline in attendance?
Not really that surprising. Buzz's first year was 2009. But could you be cherry-picking by using 2008 (over two coaching regimes) to 2011 (ignoring available data from 2012 and 2013?)
No we suffer from the same thing that is nationally causes the NCAA tourney to decline in attendance (see above)
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
Well we can't fix the problem if people are going to argue the problem doesn't exist. Here's a start as to why attendance is down:
--Continuing to promote our opponents as the draw rather than Marquette, training fans to care more for "big" games and avoid the others.
--Continuing to promote the Big East aheaad of Marquette.
--Raising ticket prices too much, too quickly.
--Buzz doesn't do enough personally to promote attendance, thank fans for attending, reaching out to the students etc.
--Also continuing to lower expectations and harp about how bad we are doen't help, either.
--Not enough promotional activities to bring in fans--e.g. the $99 ticket offer for the cheap seats, or tickets for MPS students.
--Apparently not enough insight into tickets actually avialble, hence claiming a game is sold out with only 17,300 sold.
--Not using available resources (like email) to promote last-minute sales to broader groups.
--Hokey in-game stunts that make an MU game more like a Bucks game than a big-time college game.
2009 #2 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally
2010 #3 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally
2011 #4 all-time in MU attendance #11 nationally
2012 #7 all-time in MU attendance #13 nationally
Who should we fire for this horrible record during the Buzz regime?
And please check 2003 - 2005 when the master promoter Tom Crean was running the show ...
Year National Average
2003 11 15,553 (final four year)
2004 12 15,291
2005 21 11,965
That was a problem, this is not.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
--Raising ticket prices too much, too quickly.
Assuming this is a problem, if the hike in ticket prices is more than offsetting the drop in attendance (demand is inelastic for MU tickets), meaning MU is bringing in more revenue, is it then a problem? Or, does MU think it is a problem or only cares that more money is flowing in?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 10:58:25 AM
+ 1,000,000
In 2009 we drew 16,200 and were 14th in the nation. Last year we drew 15,100 and were 11th in the nation. By the bolded metric, marketing directors across the country and studying what we are doing RIGHT so they can emulate it.
I think you've actually reversed the numbers:
2009, we drew 16,200 and ranked 10th in the country.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2009.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2009.pdf)
2010, we drew 15,617 and still ranked 10th
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2010.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2010.pdf)
2011 we drew 15,586 and dropped to 11th.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2011.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2011.pdf)
In 2012, we drew 15,138 in 2012, and fell to 13th
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2012.pdf (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2012.pdf)
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 08:00:46 PM
Assuming this is a problem, if the hike in ticket prices is more than offsetting the drop in attendance (demand is inelastic for MU tickets), meaning MU is bringing in more revenue, is it then a problem? Or, does MU think it is a problem or only cares that more money is flowing in?
No doubt that the lower bowl is very inelastic. But I'd argue that the corners and ends of the upper deck are far more elastic. I sincerely believe that Mu ought to go back to $99 in the upper endzone and maybe $199 in the corners. I've indicated in other threads that we were lured in from Chicago by the $99 ticket. Remember, an unsold season ticket represents exactly $0 for all but 2-3 games at most.
No Bobby Huggins is the problem.
Quote from: jsglow on February 18, 2013, 08:34:32 PM
No doubt that the lower bowl is very inelastic. But I'd argue that the corners and ends of the upper deck are far more elastic. I sincerely believe that Mu ought to go back to $99 in the upper endzone and maybe $199 in the corners. I've indicated in other threads that we were lured in from Chicago by the $99 ticket. Remember, an unsold season ticket represents exactly $0 for all but 2-3 games at most.
How much do you think the hike in ticket prices as cut into upper bowl attendance?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 04:32:25 PM
But our attendance is holding up. In 2008 we were 14th nationally. Last year we were 11th nationally. What decline?
I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings. His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance. Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 18, 2013, 10:15:22 PM
How much do you think the hike in ticket prices as cut into upper bowl attendance?
This is a good point. I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.
I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.
It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups. Those groups are impacted by price. Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games. That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 18, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings. His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance. Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.
As was pointed out above, the entire NCAA and the NCAA tourney has seen bigger declines (raw attendance) than MU. The top 25 is a biased sample as it looks at the attendance of teams that are hot now, most of which were not four years ago which is why they are all up. See my post above that includes teams not in the 25 this season like ND, UCLA and ASU, they have seen horrific declines in attendance.
The problem with decline attendance is not MU specific ... it is college-wide. MU decline has been less than average.
Maybe MU should do in what the Bucks do for upper deck seats. The prices are different for rows in the sections, in MU has the same price for just the section. If your in the corner row R should cost less than row C.
http://www.nba.com/bucks/tickets/seating-maps
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 19, 2013, 07:03:19 AM
As was pointed out above, the entire NCAA and the NCAA tourney has seen bigger declines (raw attendance) than MU. The top 25 is a biased sample as it looks at the attendance of teams that are hot now, most of which were not four years ago which is why they are all up. See my post above that includes teams not in the 25 this season like ND, UCLA and ASU, they have seen horrific declines in attendance.
The problem with decline attendance is not MU specific ... it is college-wide. MU decline has been less than average.
To go with Another's point bolded here, I decided to look at the top 8 teams from Equalizer's top-25 list in increasing attendance and compare their 2009 year vs this year. The below has been taken from the school's bball wiki pages.
1. Kansas State
In 2009, Kansas State finished 22-12 and missed the NCAA tournament. In 2008, they had made the tournament for the first time since 1996. Since this 2009 year, they have made the tournament every year, earning 2, 5, and 8 seeds the last 3 years. I think it would be a somewhat safe assumption that interest in KState Bball has dramatically increased since 2009.
2. Indiana
Many of us are more familiar with this one. In 2009, Indiana finished 6-25, including 1-17 in Big 10 play. They returned to the NCAA tournament last year making the Sweet 16 and entered this year preseason #1.
3. Louisville
Louisville has not changed much in terms of quality basketball. They earned the #1 overall NCAA tournament seed in 2009 and have not missed the tournament yet. This year they have been ranked as high as #1. As many have pointed out, in 2010, Louisville began playing in the brand new Yum! Center.
4. Butler
Butler made the NCAA tournament in 2009 after finishing 26-6 losing in the first round that year to LSU. Since then, they have made the NCAA tournament championship game twice. Again, I think it is safe to say that interest in Butler basketball has greatly increased with the two runner-up finishes.
5. Colorado State
Not much information is contained on CSU's wiki page, but it mentions that in 2012 they made the NCAA tournament for the first time in more than 2 decades. This year again they are ranked. Again, I believe it is safe to say that overall interest in their program has dramatically increased since 2009.
6. VCU
In 2009, the Rams made the NCAA tournament as an 11 seed, losing in the first round. Since then, they were CBI champs in 2010, made the Final 4 in 2011, and the Sweet 16 in 2012. They again have found themselves in the top 25 this year.
7. Michigan
In 2009, Michigan made the NCAA tournament after finishing 21-14. They missed the tourney in 2010, but made appearances in 2011 and 2012. This year they have had perhaps the most regular season success and hype as they have consistently been ranked in the top 10 and have been #1 several times.
8. New Mexico
In 2009, New Mexico finished 22-12 and did not make the NCAA tournament. They had an appearance in 2010 (their first since 2005) and again in 2012. This year they have been consistently ranked in the top 25. Again, I think its a fair assumption that interest in their program has increased dramatically since 2009.
Now I have to get back to work
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 18, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
I think he's talking about raw number decline...actual attendance, not place in the rankings. His point, if I am reading it right, is that top 25 teams are mostly seeing a surge in attendance while only a few are seeing a decline in actual attendance. Maybe I am not understanding his point but that's the way I see it.
That's exactly the point.
What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.
I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.
What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.
With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been
consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago. Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered. Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009. We're one of those few.
What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year.
And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels. We're still down where we were at in 2012.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 18, 2013, 07:46:24 PM
So in your view, we are suffering the same trend as, say, DePaul, Villanova or Uconn? DePaul's years of accumulated futility, Villanova's decline from Final Four to non-tournament team and UConn's NCAA sanctions and coaching change aren't to blame--we're all just victims of the same big general decline in attendance?
That's quite the red herring. As if only teams with NCAA sanctions and severely flagging fortunes have suffered attendance declines.
Among the others experiencing attendance declines:
Ohio State, Georgetown, Wisconsin, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida, Memphis, Arizona, Minnesota, Dayton and Iowa State.
Shall I name more?
QuoteNot really that surprising. Buzz's first year was 2009. But could you be cherry-picking by using 2008 (over two coaching regimes) to 2011 (ignoring available data from 2012 and 2013?)
Wait ...are you linking the attendance decline to Buzz? A coach 10 times more popular among the fan base than anyone since at least Hank Raymonds?
I chose 2008 because that was the year cited in the two reports I linked, and the apparent high point before the ongoing downward trend. It seems to me that when discussing a downward trend - whether it be in housing dales, stock prices or attendance, the logical place to start is when the trend began, rather than picking a year at random after it already was under way. At least that's how the people who prepared the reports looked at it.
QuoteUsing your choice of 2008 as a start, 13 of 25 increased, one was flat, and in one the decline was neglible. Of the 10 with more significant declines, two were explainable because of coaching transitions (Oregon & Oklahoma State), and six declined at less than half the rate of MU. Even using 2008, e're falling faster than most comparable teams.
The problem with using only the current top 25 and their current attendance is that you're getting mostly programs that are at a high point (Miami, Michigan, Indiana, New Mexico, Butler, Gonzaga, Colorado State, VCU) and/or elite programs with large student and fan bases/ticket demands that are largely immune to fluctuations (Duke, Kansas, Syracuse, Louisville).
Marquette - like Georgetown or Notre Dame - fall into neither category. MU is doing well, but not as well as the recent past. MU lacks the large alumni base and student body of most of the state schools in the top 25, and therefore is far more reliant on drawing the casual fan than, say, Kansas or Indiana or Louisville. Hence, MU - like Georgetown and ND - is more susceptible to the trend.
Also, even teams that are consistently in the top 25 - Florida, Memphis, Ohio State - are seeing declines.
Quotetwo were explainable because of coaching transitions (Oregon & Oklahoma State),
There's a provable link between coaching transitions and attendance decline?
Citation needed.
QuoteYou may want to check the number of ranked opponents we had last year. And in 2008 for that matter.
Three home games vs home opponents in 2008. Seven against ranked opponents in 2009.
QuoteWe always seem to have conflict with a bowl game or Packers game or NFL playoffs. Hardly unique.
Really? When was the last time Marquette played a Big East opponent at the exact same time UW was in the Rose Bowl or a Packers game?
Quote--We ALWAYS go into the season with lowered expectations.
Like in 2007-08 when MU was ranked #11 in the preseason poll? And the next year, when they were 16th?
Well we can't fix the problem if people are going to argue the problem doesn't exist. Here's a start as to why attendance is down:
QuoteContinuing to promote our opponents as the draw rather than Marquette, training fans to care more for "big" games and avoid the others.
Examples?
QuoteContinuing to promote the Big East aheaad of Marquette.
Examples?
QuoteAlso continuing to lower expectations and harp about how bad we are doen't help, either.
Who does this?
And, for the love of God, don't cite Buzz's Lou Holtz routine. If you think that's keeping fans away no point continuing this discussion.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 19, 2013, 09:58:55 AM
That's exactly the point.
What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.
I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.
What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.
With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago. Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered. Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009. We're one of those few.
What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year.
And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels. We're still down where we were at in 2012.
You have made this argument ad infinitum. Now make a point. Do you wish to blame someone for it? Do you have a cause for it? Is it something MU is doing wrong? Is it Buzz?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 18, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
This is a good point. I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.
I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.
It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups. Those groups are impacted by price. Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games. That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.
Wow! I had to pay $40 at the RAC to see MU play Rutgers and they were the nose bleed seats.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 19, 2013, 09:58:55 AM
That's exactly the point.
What should be common sense:
--Teams that decline in performance decline in attendance
--Teams that improve in preformance improve in attendance.
--Teams that have held their own in performance--with very few exceptions--hold their own in attendance.
I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.
What Another84 is doing is taking a report that shows teams that were ahead of us in 2008 but slipped behind us over the last five years--teams like Memphis and Tennessee and Maryland-- choosing to ignoring their respective scandals and/or coaching transitions (which cause a decline in both performance and attendance), and projecting those isolated issues into a "general" problem for all college baseketball.
With very few exceptions (namely Marquette, Georgetown and Notre Dame), the teams that have been consistently good from 2009 to now are still reporting about the same average attendance as they were five years ago. Some are up a few hundered a game, some are down a few hundered. Very very few of them are more than 1,000 behind the pace they were on in 2009. We're one of those few.
What should be obvious by now is that the excuses provided for last year's attendance decline--no Notre Dame, no Wisconsin, not enough weekend games, not enough ranked teams--have all been solved this year.
And yet, we didn't see attendance recover to 2011 or 2010 or 2009 levels. We're still down where we were at in 2012.
Regarding the highlighted part. 2009 was our all-time high in attendance. How many other teams are being compared to their all-time high in 2009?
And sticking with the idea that a team record drives attendance ... in 2009 we were ranked top 10 most of the season. We started off BE play 9-0. It was not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team. It was the three amigos senior year. Then James broke his foot during the Uconn game, near the end of the season, and that was the end of the FF dream.
So yes, the 2012 and 2013 teams, while ranked (and the 2012 team was even a top 10 ranked team) are considered inferior
in expectations to the 2009 team and attendance is down from 2009.
Agree with topper's thought that the lower bowl has nothing to do with attendance. Those seats are a given and the demand is inelastic so charging fully is absolutely appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum, I fully support lowering ticket prices in the upper corners and endzone so the family of four can decide that day to be a walk-up. "Hey, wanna go to the Marquette game?" Certainly super premium games can be excluded (Wisconsin, for example) but Seton Hall on a Saturday? Even Pitt at 17,300 might have meant that the price point was still too high.
Look, MU had absolutely outstanding success with the $99 end zone season ticket promotion 4 years back. I don't have stats but I've heard this from very reliable sources. At $99 ($6.19 per ticket over 16 games), eating some tickets becomes perfectly acceptable. They had the same problem with student sales last year when they raised the price to $125. Guess what? Student season ticket sales declined. Thank goodness they saw the error of their way and returned to $99 this year. Think of the BC like an airplane leaving the gate with empty seats.
Quote from: jsglow on February 19, 2013, 11:37:50 AM
Agree with topper's thought that the lower bowl has nothing to do with attendance. Those seats are a given and the demand is inelastic so charging fully is absolutely appropriate. At the other end of the spectrum, I fully support lowering ticket prices in the upper corners and endzone so the family of four can decide that day to be a walk-up. "Hey, wanna go to the Marquette game?" Certainly super premium games can be excluded (Wisconsin, for example) but Seton Hall on a Saturday? Even Pitt at 17,300 might have meant that the price point was still too high.
Look, MU had absolutely outstanding success with the $99 end zone season ticket promotion 4 years back. I don't have stats but I've heard this from very reliable sources. At $99 ($6.19 per ticket over 16 games), eating some tickets becomes perfectly acceptable. They had the same problem with student sales last year when they raised the price to $125. Guess what? Student season ticket sales declined. Thank goodness they saw the error of their way and returned to $99 this year. Think of the BC like an airplane leaving the gate with empty seats.
Does the MU administration see it this way too?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 19, 2013, 11:28:40 AM
Regarding the highlighted part. 2009 was our all-time high in attendance. How many other teams are being compared to their all-time high in 2009?
You are incorrect. 2008 was our all time high. 2009 was down slightly. Admittedly not by much, but still down.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 19, 2013, 11:28:40 AM
And sticking with the idea that a team record drives attendance ... in 2009 we were ranked top 10 most of the season. We started off BE play 9-0. It was not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team. It was the three amigos senior year. Then James broke his foot during the Uconn game, near the end of the season, and that was the end of the FF dream.
So yes, the 2012 and 2013 teams, while ranked (and the 2012 team was even a top 10 ranked team) are considered inferior in expectations to the 2009 team and attendance is down from 2009.
I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."
But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline. Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.
Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated. The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th. We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5). Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid. If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it.
And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.
Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).
What actually happened?
Attendance further fell to 15,586.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 19, 2013, 12:32:30 PM
You are incorrect. 2008 was our all time high. 2009 was down slightly. Admittedly not by much, but still down.
I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."
But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline. Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.
Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated. The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th. We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5). Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid. If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it.
And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.
Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).
What actually happened?
Attendance further fell to 15,586.
I'll take a shot at this....because Buzz isn't nearly as good of promoter of the program as was Tom Crean. End of story. Nonetheless, I'd still take slightly reduced attendance over occasional trips to the NIT and consistent 1st round NCAA losses.
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 19, 2013, 09:58:55 AM
I don't know how in any universe anyone could complain that we're not holding our own.
Then why are you making the argument?
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 19, 2013, 12:32:30 PM
You are incorrect. 2008 was our all time high. 2009 was down slightly. Admittedly not by much, but still down.
I could argue that 2009 should have shown an improvment over 2008, given that it was "not a stretch to think that was a FF caliber team."
But instead, lets not use 2009 as the baseline. Let's run with your argument on expectations and use 2010.
Recall what expectations were for 2010. The amigos had graduated. The "cupboard was empty" as many around here like to say. Buzz's pre-season commentary said we should be picked 16th, and most everyone else had us no better than 12th. We had more newcomers (7) than returning players (5). Very few held out hope for as much as an NCAA bid. If there was ever a year to have low expectations, 2010 was it.
And with those rock-bottom pre-season expectations--and no home game with Wisconsin to boost us--we fell to 15,617.
Now, if your argument was correct, attendance should have recovered as expectations improved for the following year (boosted by Wisconsin on the home slate).
What actually happened?
Attendance further fell to 15,586.
Correct, it fell by 31 people per game! Can we just say it is unchanged?
How about this ... 15,500 to 16,200 is MU's ceiling, and variation within this range can be explained by a few factors (are we top 10, do we play UW, number of weekend games, number of ranked opponents, do we play ND, do we play a decent DePaul team at home). If your asking why we are not drawing more than 16,239/game, maybe we will need to win the National Championship to move above the 2008 (16,239) 2009 (16,200) peak?
Quote from: Ners on February 19, 2013, 12:41:46 PM
I'll take a shot at this....because Buzz isn't nearly as good of promoter of the program as was Tom Crean. End of story. Nonetheless, I'd still take slightly reduced attendance over occasional trips to the NIT and consistent 1st round NCAA losses.
Ners, human nature is to assign one simple reason for every problem. Reality rarely works that way.
When PT Barnum was the head coach (Crean) we went to the final four, then this happened ...
Year National Average
2003 11 15,553 (final four year)
2004 12 15,291
2005 21 11,965
Did Crean forget how to carnival bark in 2004 and 2005? Or was it back to back NIT teams and stellar recruits like James Matthews and Brandon Bell (was that the Niv Berkowtiz era too?) that turned people off from going to games?
Regarding our current attendance slide.
2009 #1 all-time in MU attendance #14 nationally (Crean)
2009 #2 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally (Buzz)
2010 #3 all-time in MU attendance #10 nationally (Buzz)
2011 #4 all-time in MU attendance #11 nationally (Buzz)
2012 #7 all-time in MU attendance #13 nationally (Buzz)
Is this really a problem?
I don't think there is a problem, many would like it to get better.
I think it starts with cutting the cost of ticket prices for seats in the upper deck corner row Q thru X. This was the first year they did that with the mini-plan.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 19, 2013, 11:44:22 AM
Does the MU administration see it this way too?
Not sure another. But they clearly reversed themselves with respect to the student season tickets this year. Perhaps we'll see some moderation is the non-student ticket prices too.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 18, 2013, 11:02:07 PM
This is a good point. I think the lower bowl has been sold out for 8+ years, or close to it ... which eliminates the lower bowl as having an impact on fluctuating attendance.
I'll bet a donut MU hasn't lost more than 50 net season tickets in any year in the past decade .. and have gained +50-500 in some years.
It's all about the upper deck .. 5 pack sales, single game sales, groups, walkups. Those groups are impacted by price. Used to be $9 for the worst ticket .. that's true now too, but it's for the cupcakes (that have no walkup) and $15 for most games, $20 for premium games. That's a lot for a crappy upper endzone ticket.
Last night's crowd was outstanding for its enthusiasm and noise but well below my expecation for actual tickets sold. 16,049 announced. Sure MU put on a late $10 ticket promotion, but it was too little, too late. I can't wait for Saturday but I am now forced (unhappily) to report that we're going to finish out the year below 15,000 per game for the first time since 2006.
Larry, in these challenging times you simply must lower the price, especially in the upper bowl. An empty seat generates exactly zero in revenue.
Uppers in the corner and behind the basket are just too expensive. Make them $9 for all games and you will sell out against the good opponents.
I think in the new conference (and even next year in what's left of the Big East) something is gonna have to give. We will have fewer elite opponents. Ticket prices can't stay where they are, or we will be seeing attendance in the 12,000ish range for some conference games, which is unacceptable IMO.
Quote from: jsglow on February 26, 2013, 02:36:09 PM
I can't wait for Saturday but I am now forced (unhappily) to report that we're going to finish out the year below 15,000 per game for the first time since 2006.
Still a shot... Need 18,563 in the house to get to 240,000 (15k/game). I think there's a legitimate shot, with how hot of a ticket it is.
Through the Syracuse game-
ATTENDANCE SUMMARY GAMES TOTALS AVG/GAME
HOME.................... 15 221437 14762
The premium pricing for the Syracuse game is a joke. With the game falling on a Monday night at 6pm. Upper seats at $30 & $20. Rows Q-Z need to be lowered in price.
If they aren't already, they should be giving those unsold seats (especially for the non-con cupcake games) to grade school and high school groups for next to nothing. Loyalty to a team can start really young, and today's Boy Scout field trip participant could become tomorrow's freshman - or season-ticket holder.
I think everyone should send e-mails to the ticket office. Athletics@marquette.edu
Tell them to lower the tickets in the upper corners. Starting in October when single game tickets go on sale. Not on twitter, four days before the game.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 26, 2013, 03:19:09 PM
Still a shot... Need 18,563 in the house to get to 240,000 (15k/game). I think there's a legitimate shot, with how hot of a ticket it is.
Through the Syracuse game-
ATTENDANCE SUMMARY GAMES TOTALS AVG/GAME
HOME.................... 15 221437 14762
As noted above, attendance has declined for 4 straight years.
After 15 games last year total attendance was 223,118 (14,875/avg) or 1,681 ahead of this year.
The last game of last year was Georgetown and it drew 19,087 for a total season attendance of 242,205 (15,138/avg). To break this we would need 20,768 which is physically impossible. However, if we draw 18,555 Saturday we will average exactly 15,000 for the season.
Quote from: MUfan12 on February 26, 2013, 03:19:09 PM
Still a shot... Need 18,563 in the house to get to 240,000 (15k/game). I think there's a legitimate shot, with how hot of a ticket it is.
Through the Syracuse game-
ATTENDANCE SUMMARY GAMES TOTALS AVG/GAME
HOME.................... 15 221437 14762
Yes, I stand corrected. I did my math relative to the 15,138 number from last year which is no longer attainable. Sorry guys.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 03:12:48 PM
Uppers in the corner and behind the basket are just too expensive. Make them $9 for all games and you will sell out against the good opponents.
I think in the new conference (and even next year in what's left of the Big East) something is gonna have to give. We will have fewer elite opponents. Ticket prices can't stay where they are, or we will be seeing attendance in the 12,000ish range for some conference games, which is unacceptable IMO.
+1
Warriorchick and I will get an opportunity to voice our opinion this Saturday at the very highest level. One of the things we will surely indicate is that a successful Men's basketball program is absolutely critical to the overall health of the university and is a central driver in making all things at Marquette possible. We somehow forgot that lesson in the '80s and paid a very steep price for many years.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 03:24:22 PM
If they aren't already, they should be giving those unsold seats (especially for the non-con cupcake games) to grade school and high school groups for next to nothing. Loyalty to a team can start really young, and today's Boy Scout field trip participant could become tomorrow's freshman - or season-ticket holder.
Great idea
Quote from: jsglow on February 26, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Warriorchick and I will get an opportunity to voice our opinion this Saturday at the very highest level. One of the things we will surely indicate is that a successful Men's basketball program is absolutely critical to the overall health of the university and is a central driver in making all things at Marquette possible. We somehow forgot that lesson in the '80s and paid a very steep price for many years.
+1
struggling basketball and neighbors eating people certainly hurt the school in the 80s. The school can do something about the former and only hope the latter is not repeated again.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 03:48:31 PM
Great idea
They do at least offer free tickets to HS seniors who have been accepted- and ND is one of the games offered this year
Quote from: jsglow on February 26, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
+1
Warriorchick and I will get an opportunity to voice our opinion this Saturday at the very highest level. One of the things we will surely indicate is that a successful Men's basketball program is absolutely critical to the overall health of the university and is a central driver in making all things at Marquette possible. We somehow forgot that lesson in the '80s and paid a very steep price for many years.
So the hiring of Tommy Amaker has been critical to Harvard's overall health? The health of a University must rest on many far more crucial factors. Intercollegiate athletics is marketing and far removed from the enterprise's core competencies. If your premise is correct, that the Men's basketball program, " is a central driver in making all things at Marquette possible," then the University has far more critical foundational issues.
Living in the developing world it has come out that I was graduated from Marquette University. Not once has someone referenced the basketball program. But in many cases it is the University's Jesuit heritage that has held meaning for others. I would have it no other way.
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 04:28:54 PM
So the hiring of Tommy Amaker has been critical to Harvard's overall health? The health of a University must rest on many far more crucial factors. Intercollegiate athletics is marketing and far removed from the enterprise's core competencies. If your premise is correct, that the Men's basketball program, " is a central driver in making all things at Marquette possible," then the University has far more critical foundational issues.
Living in the developing world it has come out that I was graduated from Marquette University. Not once has someone referenced the basketball program. But in many cases it is the University's Jesuit heritage that has held meaning for others. I would have it no other way.
A 100 years ago, if Knute Rockne went to Valpo instead of ND, would ND be any different than St' Joes of Indiana or today's Valpo?
The basketball program is the school's marketing tool. It makes us known and (unfortunately) we in the US associate name recognition with academic success (I say unfortunately because football/basketball success does not mean academic success).
Without that name recognition, MU is no different than Canisius, Fairfield, John Carroll, Regis, Rickhurst, Seattle University, University of Scranton or Springhill (all Jesuit Universities). Can you tell me the city all these schools are in? Ok, how about this list of Jesuit Universities ... Boston College, Creighton, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis and Xavier .. not mention DePaul, ND, PC, Seton Hall and Villanova.
Harvard (and most of the Ivies) stand as an exception to this rule. Their name recognition stands alone.
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on February 26, 2013, 04:17:28 PM
They do at least offer free tickets to HS seniors who have been accepted- and ND is one of the games offered this year
Are you sure? I recall having to pay for the tickets for my son and his buddy to go to the Georgetown game last year.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on February 26, 2013, 04:44:44 PM
A 100 years ago, if Knute Rockne went to Valpo instead of ND, would ND be any different than St' Joes of Indiana or today's Valpo?
The basketball program is the school's marketing tool. It makes us known and (unfortunately) we in the US associate name recognition with academic success (I say unfortunately because football/basketball success does not mean academic success).
Without that name recognition, MU is no different than Canisius, Fairfield, John Carroll, Regis, Rickhurst, Seattle University, University of Scranton or Springhill (all Jesuit Universities). Can you tell me the city all these schools are in? Ok, how about this list of Jesuit Universities ... Boston College, Creighton, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis and Xavier .. not mention DePaul, ND, PC, Seton Hall and Villanova.
Harvard (and most of the Ivies) stand as an exception to this rule. Their name recognition stands alone.
+1
With the exception of the Ivies, I'd be hard-pressed to name a private college of any national significance that has not been an athletic powerhouse at one point or another in its history.
Let's face it. Without Al, Marquette could very well be Loyola's poor neighbor to the north.
Quote from: Victor McCormick on February 26, 2013, 03:12:48 PM
Uppers in the corner and behind the basket are just too expensive. Make them $9 for all games and you will sell out against the good opponents.
I think in the new conference (and even next year in what's left of the Big East) something is gonna have to give. We will have fewer elite opponents. Ticket prices can't stay where they are, or we will be seeing attendance in the 12,000ish range for some conference games, which is unacceptable IMO.
Simple financial analysis would determine if it is worth doing that or not. If you drop the price but don't get enough incremental butts in the seat to make up for the revenue loss, then you might not do it. Depends what is more important to them.
Upper corners are $12 right now. Say there are 2000 seats there for $12 and you sell 50% of them at $12 for $12,000 in revenue per game. If you drop prices to $9 and increase sales by 50% to 1,500 tickets, you get $13,500. No brainer. If you get only 1,250 sales (still an improvement of 25% in ticket sales) your revenue is only $11,250 and dropped 6.25%. You have to make sure the gain in volume is enough to accommodate the price point lowering.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 26, 2013, 07:10:13 PM
Simple financial analysis would determine if it is worth doing that or not. If you drop the price but don't get enough incremental butts in the seat to make up for the revenue loss, then you might not do it. Depends what is more important to them.
Upper corners are $12 right now. Say there are 2000 seats there for $12 and you sell 50% of them at $12 for $12,000 in revenue per game. If you drop prices to $9 and increase sales by 50% to 1,500 tickets, you get $13,500. No brainer. If you get only 1,250 sales (still an improvement of 25% in ticket sales) your revenue is only $11,250 and dropped 6.25%. You have to make sure the gain in volume is enough to accommodate the price point lowering.
Does Marquette get any cut of the ancillary revenues (beer, parking, etc.)? If so you would have to factor that in. More butts in the seats means increased sales of nachos.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, math is not appreciated here.
But anyhow .. there are no $12 tickets. $9 is the cheapest end-zone seats, and that's for cupcakes. BE games are $15, $20 for premium.
http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/marq/graphics/auto/MBB-SG-Prices-1213.jpg
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on February 26, 2013, 07:33:30 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, math is not appreciated here.
But anyhow .. there are no $12 tickets. $9 is the cheapest end-zone seats, and that's for cupcakes. BE games are $15, $20 for premium.
http://grfx.cstv.com/schools/marq/graphics/auto/MBB-SG-Prices-1213.jpg
Yep. Simply too much. $100 to take a family of 4 if you include nominal concessions.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
+1
With the exception of the Ivies, I'd be hard-pressed to name a private college of any national significance that has not been an athletic powerhouse at one point or another in its history.
Here is a listing of private colleges who have never been athletic powerhouses and whose reputation is built strictly on academic excellence. All of these schools enjoy a more prestigious reputation than any of the schools in the current Big East, including our own alma mater. As I mentioned in another thread, if I see one of these schools on a CV I will make time to interview that person. In my volunteer work abroad I have found the preponderance of young volunteers tend to come from schools such as these. I really do believe many of these private schools emphasize social justice, community, global responsibility as part of the core curriculum. Excellence on the athletic field is great marketing for a University but it has nothing to do with a college's primary mission of education. One should not confuse the two.
Cal Tech
Williams
Amherst
Wellesley
MIT
Swarthmore
Haverford
Bowdoin
Vassar
Kenyon
Oberlin
Carleton
Colby
Middlebury
Johns Hopkins
Union College
Claremont McKenna
Colgate
Smith
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Washington & Lee
Bryn Mawr
Wesleyan
Brandeis
Tufts
Barnard
Rice
DePauw
Reed
Washington University
Hamilton
Connecticut College
Hampden-Sydney
Skidmore
Lafayette
Quote from: keefe on February 26, 2013, 07:57:42 PM
Here is a listing of private colleges who have never been athletic powerhouses and whose reputation is built strictly on academic excellence. All of these schools enjoy a more prestigious reputation than any of the schools in the current Big East, including our own alma mater. As I mentioned in another thread, if I see one of these schools on a CV I will make time to interview that person. In my volunteer work abroad I have found the preponderance of young volunteers tend to come from schools such as these. I really do believe many of these private schools emphasize social justice, community, global responsibility as part of the core curriculum. Excellence on the athletic field is great marketing for a University but it has nothing to do with a college's primary mission of education. One should not confuse the two.
Cal Tech
Williams
Amherst
Wellesley
MIT
Swarthmore
Haverford
Bowdoin
Vassar
Kenyon
Oberlin
Carleton
Colby
Middlebury
Johns Hopkins
Union College
Claremont McKenna
Colgate
Smith
Pomona
Harvey Mudd
Washington & Lee
Bryn Mawr
Wesleyan
Brandeis
Tufts
Barnard
Rice
DePauw
Reed
Washington University
Hamilton
Connecticut College
Hampden-Sydney
Skidmore
Lafayette
Keefe, honey, we need to find you a hobby.
And I didn't say they didn't exist, I said I would be hard-pressed to name one. You've outdone yourself. And to be fair, most of the schools on this list don't have more than a couple of thousand undergrads. It's really hard for any small school to rise to national prominence in sports.
And no, I don't need a list of schools that have. But thanks, anyway.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Are you sure? I recall having to pay for the tickets for my son and his buddy to go to the Georgetown game last year.
Yes, my son got them 4 years ago and I know a couple of accepted students this year that got the ND complementary tickets. But the sheet of paper looks more like a promotion for the game than tickets.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 08:12:47 PM
Keefe, honey, we need to find you a hobby.
And I didn't say they didn't exist, I said I would be hard-pressed to name one. You've outdone yourself. And to be fair, most of the schools on this list don't have more than a couple of thousand undergrads. It's really hard for any small school to rise to national prominence in sports.
And no, I don't need a list of schools that have. But thanks, anyway.
+1
Most of this list is Liberal Arts colleges that are smaller than many of the high schools that the kids came from.
So, if you're trying to be a national University, which MU is, and what MU is ranked as, then name recognition matters. Successful Basketball (or Football) is one of the most effective ways to do this.
So while I agree that the list has some great schools, that are a different class of school than MU and really not comparable.
The first post has been updated with the final 2012/2013 stats and some new comments based on the final numbers.
Great post, AMU84 .. it may work better if you re-posted it down here on page 6 again.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 05, 2013, 08:00:19 AM
Great post, AMU84 .. it may work better if you re-posted it down here on page 6 again.
Here it is ...
On March 5 this post has been updated with the final 2012/2013 numbersA subject that interests me ... attendance. Here are some updated stats I pulled from previous posts
----------------------------
Here are the yearly numbers since MU moved into the Bradley Center
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/season_by_season_attendance
1989 - Moved to Bradley Center National
Year Rank Average
1989 23 11,954
1990 21 13,301
1991 18 13,433
1992 not top 25 12,613
1993 20 13,443
1994 14 14,340
1995 25 12,814
1996 16 12,751
1997 not top 25 12,247
1998 not top 25 11,508
1999 not top 25 12,145
2000 not top 25 9,971
2001 not top 25 11,360
2002 12 12,680
2003 11 15,553
2004 12 15,291
2005 21 11,965
2006 18 13,998
2007 20 15,345
2008 14 16,239
2009 10 16,200
2010 10 15,617
2011 11 15,586
2012 13 15,138
2013 ?? 15,033
According the MU media guide, here are the largest single game attendance records.
http://issuu.com/marquettesid/docs/mubb_guide_2011-12 (updated with last year's GU game)
1. 19,144 Syracuse March 7, 2009 L 86-79
2. 19,093 Notre Dame March 2, 2013 W 72-64
3. 19,091 Uconn February 25, 2009 L 93-82
4. 19,087 Georgetown March 3, 2012 W 83-69
5. 19,085 Georgetown March 1, 2008 L 70-68
6. 19,074 Wisconsin December 11, 2010 L 69-64
7. 19,041 Georgetown January 31, 2009 W 94-82
8. 19,037 DePaul January 26, 2008 W 79-71
9. 19,032 Syracuse January 29, 2011 W 76-70
10. 19,021 Pittsburgh March 3, 2007 W 75-71
11. 19,020 Wisconsin December 9, 2006 L 70-66
12. 19,011 Pittsburgh February 18, 2006 W 72-54
13. 19,007 Pittsburgh February 18, 2006 W 84-82
14. 18,949 DePaul January 24, 2009 W 91-82
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2012/2012+ncaa+mens+basketball+attendance
2011/2012 ... MU is the only non-football school that has been in the top 20 of national attendance for 11 straight years.
Rank School G Attendance Average
1. Kentucky 18 426,978 23,721
2. Syracuse 19 448,736 23,618
3. Louisville 20 430,052 21,503
4. North Carolina 18 362,867 20,159
5. Wisconsin 18 309,255 17,181
6. Creighton 16 266,632 16,665
7. Tennessee 19 314,321 16,543
8. Ohio St. 20 330,210 16,511
9. Indiana 19 312,770 16,462
10. Kansas 17 279,557 16,445
11. Memphis 20 324,670 16,234
12. BYU 16 246,777 15,424
13. Marquette 16 242,205 15,13814. Illinois 18 269,739 14,986
15. Michigan St. 18 266,346 14,797
16. New Mexico 16 231,262 14,454
17. UNLV 19 266,469 14,025
18. Vanderbilt 18 246,561 13,698
19. Arizona 18 244,829 13,602
20. North Carolina St. 19 257,638 13,560
21. Purdue 17 226,504 13,324
22. Maryland 17 224,090 13,182
23. Arkansas 21 275,020 13,096
24. Iowa St. 18 234,266 13,015
25. Kansas St. 16 204,527 12,783
26. Connecticut 17 214,873 12,640
2012-2013 Attendance
Day Date Opponent Attendence Average
Sunday 11/11/2012 Colgate 13,065
Monday 11/13/2012 SE Louisiana 12,587 12,826
Monday 11/26/2012 UMBC 12,679 12,777
Saturday 12/8/2012 UW 18,588 14,230
Saturday 12/15/2012 Savannah State 13,366 14,057
Saturday 12/22/2012 LSU 14,309 14,099
Saturday 12/29/2012 UNC Central 13,600 14,028
Tuesday 1/1/2003 Uconn 14,159 14,044
Saturday 1/5/2013 Georgetown 15,433 14,198
Wednesday 1/16/2013 Seton Hall 13,842 14,163
Saturday 1/26/2013 Providence 15,140 14,252
Monday 1/28/2013 South Florida 15,136 14,325
Sunday 2/9/2013 DePaul 16,176 14,468
Saturday 2/16/2013 Pittsburgh 17,308 14,671
Monday 2/25/2013 Syracuse 16,049 14,762
Saturday 3/2/2013 Notre Dame 19,093 15,033
2011/2012 total attendance = 242,205
2012/2013 total attendance = 240,530
Difference = -1,675
2011/2012 BE Attendance = 16,040 (144,356)
2012/2013 BE Attendance = 15,815 (142,335)
Difference = -2,020
Comments
Last year we had three BE games that drew over 18,000
Sat 1/14/12 Pitt 18,404
Sat 2/11/12 Cincy 18,815
Sat 3/3/12 GU 19,087
This year we had one BE game and Bucky over 18,000
Sat 12/8/12 UW 18,588
Sat 3/2/13 ND 19,093
The difference between last year and this year's attendance is this year we did not have that third 18,000+ game. I thought it would be Syracuse but it "only" drew 16,049 ... maybe it because it was Monday and a 6 PM start. Had that game drew 18,000+ we would have topped last year's attendance
Thanks for all the hard work another. Saturday's crowd was fantastic. My hope is that the folks who were there for possibly the first or second time this year came away with a 'That was awesome; we've got to come more often next year' attitude.
Be interesting to see if MU decides to go back to the $99 season ticket plan. Our season ticket base must be right around 12,500. Be very nice to increase that by 250-500.
And for the record, I attended 12 of the 16 home games. 2 when we were away from the midwest on particular weekends, and 2 weeknight games that are frankly quite challenging on work nights from here in Chicago. Warriorchick beat me by one getting to 13 of 16.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2013, 08:28:52 AM
2011/212 was the 11th year in a row that MU is the only non-football team in the top 20.
Rank School G Attendance Average
1. Kentucky 18 426,978 23,721
2. Syracuse 19 448,736 23,618
3. Louisville 20 430,052 21,503
4. North Carolina 18 362,867 20,159
5. Wisconsin 18 309,255 17,181
6. Creighton 16 266,632 16,665
7. Tennessee 19 314,321 16,543
8. Ohio St. 20 330,210 16,511
9. Indiana 19 312,770 16,462
10. Kansas 17 279,557 16,445
11. Memphis 20 324,670 16,234
12. BYU 16 246,777 15,424
13. Marquette 16 242,205 15,138
14. Illinois 18 269,739 14,986
15. Michigan St. 18 266,346 14,797
16. New Mexico 16 231,262 14,454
17. UNLV 19 266,469 14,025
18. Vanderbilt 18 246,561 13,698
19. Arizona 18 244,829 13,602
20. North Carolina St. 19 257,638 13,560
21. Purdue 17 226,504 13,324
22. Maryland 17 224,090 13,182
23. Arkansas 21 275,020 13,096
24. Iowa St. 18 234,266 13,015
25. Kansas St. 16 204,527 12,783
26. Connecticut 17 214,873 12,640
Creighton is #6--aren't they also a non-football school?
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 03:24:22 PM
If they aren't already, they should be giving those unsold seats (especially for the non-con cupcake games) to grade school and high school groups for next to nothing. Loyalty to a team can start really young, and today's Boy Scout field trip participant could become tomorrow's freshman - or season-ticket holder.
Absolutely. Almost every kid in my daughter's grade school has been to a Milwaukee Wave game. Yes, the Milwaukee Wave. And because of it, guess what? they are all Milwaukee Wave fans. All they had to do was give away a few tickets, now parents are asking one another when is the next game and who wants to go.
Some of my earliest memories are watching Athletes in Action or similar in the Pepsi Challenge because the tickets were very cheap. 40 years later and I plan my calendar around game dates and times. Worked for me.
I didn't and won't bother cross-referencing weather, but if I am reading the numbers correctly, MU's attendance is down for the year by about one decent snowfall on a night they were playing a cupcake.
AnotherMU84-
"The difference between last year and this year's attendance is this year we did not have that third 18,000+ game. I thought it would be Syracuse but it "only" drew 16,049 ... maybe it because it was Monday and a 6 PM start. Had that game drew 18,000+ we would have topped last year's attendance."
Great work on the numbers!
One thing that is missing is when Marquette does the premium pricing. This 2012-13 season it was as high as five games for the top prices. Wisconsin, G'town, Pitt, Syracuse & Notre Dame. While the numbers were a bit down, they could've made more money.
Last season, MU only did two premium games G'town on Senior Day Saturday and a February Saturday game versus Cincy.
Quote from: MUMountin on March 05, 2013, 09:18:11 AM
Creighton is #6--aren't they also a non-football school?
Let me restate ... MU is the only non-football school that has been in the top 20 of national attendance for 11 straight years.
Quote from: bradley center bat on March 05, 2013, 11:12:47 AM
One thing that is missing is when Marquette does the premium pricing. This 2012-13 season it was as high as five games for the top prices. Wisconsin, G'town, Pitt, Syracuse & Notre Dame. While the numbers were a bit down, they could've made more money.
Last season, MU only did two premium games G'town on Senior Day Saturday and a February Saturday game versus Cincy.
+1
This thread is seven pages most of which is people asking what the "problem" is with sagging attendance. A few pages ago I asked if the administration think their is a problem. Bat is suggesting that do not because they are jacking up prices and more than offsetting the declines in attendance. For all we know this was a record year in revenues from attendance and they are high-fiveing everyone in the administration office while we are kvetching about it.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
+1
With the exception of the Ivies, I'd be hard-pressed to name a private college of any national significance that has not been an athletic powerhouse at one point or another in its history.
The University of Chicago still is very present in the Big 10 record book.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 05, 2013, 01:39:24 PM
The University of Chicago still is very present in the Big 10 record book.
Chicago was an athletic powerhouse from the 1890s until they left the B1G around WW2. The first Heisman Trophy winner, Jay Berwanger in 1938, was from Chicago. In the 1950s and 1960s their presence in Olympic sports (especially Track & Field) was close to what Stanford is today.
So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics. Note: See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.
Remember the point, we associate athletic success with academic success. to repeat what I wrote on the other page ...
The basketball program is the school's marketing tool. It makes us known and (unfortunately) we in the US associate name recognition with academic success (I say unfortunately because football/basketball success does not mean academic success).
Without that name recognition, MU is no different than Canisius, Fairfield, John Carroll, Regis, Rickhurst, Seattle University, University of Scranton or Springhill (all Jesuit Universities). Can you tell me the city all these schools are in? Ok, how about this list of Jesuit Universities ... Boston College, Creighton, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Louis and Xavier .. not mention DePaul, ND, PC, Seton Hall and Villanova.
Harvard (and most of the Ivies) stand as an exception to this rule. Their name recognition stands alone.
I think there is definite problem with the trend of lower attendance. Plenty of factors play into it but having less fans every season is far from a good trend. I would think that reversing the trend at MU would be very high on priority list for MU. Honestly I know more and more people that would rather pay inflated ticket cost for 3-5 games rather than get season tickets. It really does come down to entertainment value and more than half the home games are not that entertaining.
Quote from: warriorchick on February 26, 2013, 04:56:20 PM
Are you sure? I recall having to pay for the tickets for my son and his buddy to go to the Georgetown game last year.
Sorry i missed this until now. I think so-the email sure made it look that way-- 2 tickets. Because we already had tickets to the game, I didn't follow up though.
Quote from: Goose on March 05, 2013, 01:56:05 PM
I think there is definite problem with the trend of lower attendance. Plenty of factors play into it but having less fans every season is far from a good trend. I would think that reversing the trend at MU would be very high on priority list for MU.
This is a national trend, not unique to MU.
NFL
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/08/after-peaking-in-2007-nfl-attendance-steadily-has-declined/
MLB
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-passan_10_degrees_attendance_042511
College Football
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21597895/in-era-of-technological-financial-change-has-college-football-peaked
NBA
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/why-t-nba-teams-fill-arenas-even-giving-193354981--nba.html
NASCAR
http://www.thatsracin.com/2012/07/07/91025/nascar-ticket-revenue-in-sharp.html
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on March 05, 2013, 02:14:07 PM
Sorry i missed this until now. I think so-the email sure made it look that way-- 2 tickets. Because we already had tickets to the game, I didn't follow up though.
If they were indeed free, that is something new. I remember one of my son's other buddies backing out at the last minute, and I was a little cheesed that we paid for a ticket that didn't get used. It would make sense to charge at least a nominal amount to cut down on the no-shows.
It would be interesting to know what the commitment rate will be among kids who went to the Notre Dame game last weekend. I can't imagine a kid attending and not thinking to himself, "I gotta go to school here!"
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
+1
This thread is seven pages most of which is people asking what the "problem" is with sagging attendance. A few pages ago I asked if the administration think their is a problem. Bat is suggesting that do not because they are jacking up prices and more than offsetting the declines in attendance. For all we know this was a record year in revenues from attendance and they are high-fiveing everyone in the administration office while we are kvetching about it.
I wish MU will make corner tickets starting at row Q thru X lower in price. Row C shouldn't be the same price as row X.
What are we complaining about. Our lowest average attendance back in 2000 was still more than what the RAC holds at Rutgers..... they die for those kind of numbers.
Warriorchick
My daughter will be freshman next year and she took advantage of the ticket for ND. Also, for Syracuse my daughter and family took advantage of the reduced price tickets in box. Thise we paid for and ND was free.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on March 05, 2013, 03:04:34 PM
What are we complaining about. Our lowest average attendance back in 2000 was still more than what the RAC holds at Rutgers..... they die for those kind of numbers.
Actually since 2006
2000 not top 25 9,971
2001 not top 25 11,360
2002 12 12,680
2003 11 15,553
2004 12 15,291
2005 21 11,965
2006 18 13,998
2007 20 15,345
2008 14 16,239
2009 10 16,200
2010 10 15,617
2011 11 15,586
2012 13 15,138
2013 ?? 15,033
That said the difference between 2012 and 2015 is 1675 tickets spread over 16 games .... it is essentially a rounding error. 2007, 2010 and 2011 are 3,000 to 4,000 more than this year, again not a lot. Only 2008/2009 stand out.
Don't those previous years include more games? We had 16 this year, but wasn't it 18 when we still played the 2 exhibition games? Attendance for those games was basically just season ticket holders, so it makes the higher averages a little more impressive.
Good point, Litehouse.
2004 and before, we usually had 2 exhibition games. From 2005 to 2010, we had 1. The last two years, we've had none.
Gotta figure, zero walk-up sales for exhibitions.
And, for that matter, near zero for all cupcakes, for all years. Our schedule has improved in the past 5 years, playing fewer 300+ rpi. Just grabbed a year, 2008, we played 9 cupcakes. This year, 6.
MU has seen a fairly modest decrease in a period where the economy has been in the toilet, and television viewing has never been better. It seems they are probably just like anyone else across just about any sport. How to reverse that trend is a tough question. I wold suggest that no longer allowing season ticket holders to select their seats is probably not where I wold start however.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 06, 2013, 08:37:24 AM
MU has seen a fairly modest decrease in a period where the economy has been in the toilet, and television viewing has never been better. It seems they are probably just like anyone else across just about any sport. How to reverse that trend is a tough question. I wold suggest that no longer allowing season ticket holders to select their seats is probably not where I wold start however.
MU feels the same way but it is a tax situation regarding donations. They didn't have a choice and are getting as close to 'select your exact seats' as the taxing authorities will allow. Blame the government, not Marquette.
My guess would be that MU has as many eyeballs as ever, but people aren't THAT motivated to go sit in the last rows of the upper deck when you can sit at home and watch a 60".
Home viewing has gotten a lot better (on average) over the past 10 years.
MU just needs to get a little more creative with marketing their non-premium seats. 5 game packs were a great start. Maybe see if they can get a partner company to sponsor the package and the give the consumer some sort of additional incentive?
Buy a $100 5 game plan in the 400 level and get $20 to Major Goolsby's? Maybe you get $10 in the MU spirit shop? (obv. one or the other).
Also, I like when they do young alumni stuff. I don't know if they still do it, but they used to offer young alumni discounts for kids who are only a year or 2 out of school. Maybe extend that to 5 years out? Could their be a "young family plan"? Or maybe even a "family section"? Lots of MU people bringing young ones.
Oh, and maybe there could be some sort of year-end bonus if you attend every game (extra seating points for the following year?).
Let's not only sell the seats, lets encourage people to go to the games!
There's also no doubt that MU's television coverage has gotten FAR better.
10 years ago, how many games were on TV? Heck, were any home games on TV?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 06, 2013, 09:14:38 AM
There's also no doubt that MU's television coverage has gotten FAR better.
10 years ago, how many games were on TV? Heck, were any home games on TV?
Yea, not many.
I'm pretty dedicated and I only miss 1 or 2 a year due to other commitments.
But, there are evenings when I come home from work, and sitting on the couch does sound a little nicer than driving down to the BC to see Florida A&I.
I still go... but I can see how people wouldn't... especially if you were sitting in the nose bleeds.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2013, 01:51:56 PM
So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics. Note: See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.
To name a few:
MIT
Emory
California Institute of Technology
Johns Hopkins (unless you consider being a power in one minor sport)
Washington University (St. Louis)
Guns
You are better man than I am. I stopped getting season tickets because the couch was better option for me many nights. I went to the games I wanted to and had a blast. The TV coverage has improved and made it easy to get lazy.
Quote from: Goose on March 06, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
Guns
You are better man than I am. I stopped getting season tickets because the couch was better option for me many nights. I went to the games I wanted to and had a blast. The TV coverage has improved and made it easy to get lazy.
I don't have kids or a ton of responsibilities, so I outside of just laziness, I don't really have an excuse not to go.
Throw a newborn or multiple kids into the picture, and it will limit my attendance.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 05, 2013, 01:51:56 PM
So the question still stands ... other than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics. Note: See Keefe's list above and the response to that list before you offer up a small liberal arts college that no one has heard of.
Even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:
#6 - MIT
#10 - Cal Tech
#13 - Johns Hopkins (exception for lacrosse)
#14 - Washington University, St. Louis
#20 - Emory University
#23 - Carnegie Mellon
#28 - Tufts University
#32 - New York University
#33 - Brandeis University
#33 - University of Rochester
#37 - Case Western
#38 - Lehigh
#41 - RPI
#46 - Yeshiva
Remember, these are *national universities* and not liberal arts colleges. So there are PLENTY of schools that have had academic success without top-level athletic success. Here are the ones from the top 50 who have actually had athletic success...and I am being somewhat liberal in my definition of "success."
#4 - Chicago
#6 - Stanford
#8 - Duke
#12 - Northwestern
#17 - Rice
#17 - Notre Dame
#17 - Vanderbilt
#21 - Georgetown
#24 - USC
#27 - Wake Forest
#31 - BC
#44 - Miami (FL)
So that is 14 without success....12 with... Even if you swap out Johns Hopkins that only makes it even. So honestly I think your point is wrong.
Guns
College tuition at MU probably adds to my laziness. Throw in a few $8 beers and $20 parking and figure my kid can use that dough more than me.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 06, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
Even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:
#6 - MIT
#10 - Cal Tech
#13 - Johns Hopkins (exception for lacrosse)
#14 - Washington University, St. Louis
#20 - Emory University
#23 - Carnegie Mellon
#28 - Tufts University
#32 - New York University
#33 - Brandeis University
#33 - University of Rochester
#37 - Case Western
#38 - Lehigh
#41 - RPI
#46 - Yeshiva
So that is 14 without success....12 with... Even if you swap out Johns Hopkins that only makes it even. So honestly I think your point is wrong.
The argument is athletics is important to a University because it attracts attention, money, applications and, by extension, academic reputation. The exception I gave was the Ivy League. You are adding to this exception list with the schools above. Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).
Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important? That is what you mean with
So honestly I think your point is wrong. So MU dumps basketball and they can become the Catholic version of Yeshiva and that is better than their current reputation with basketball?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 10:36:52 AM
Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important?
You must be mixing me up with someone else because I have never made that argument. I am simply providing an answer to your query: "(O)ther than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."
I just named 14 of them.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 10:36:52 AM
The argument is athletics is important to a University because it attracts attention, money, applications and, by extension, academic reputation. The exception I gave was the Ivy League. You are adding to this exception list with the schools above. Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).
Restated, you are arguing that if MU dropped all athletics the reputation of the school would be unchanged as a top 100 National University because this list "proves" athletic success to a school's reputation is not that important? That is what you mean with So honestly I think your point is wrong. So MU dumps basketball and they can become the Catholic version of Yeshiva and that is better than their current reputation with basketball?
Without basketball, MU wouldn't be where it's at.
BUT, the idea that athletics are the ONLY WAY to be nationally recognized is wrong. There are other ways.
College athletics is VERY IMPORTANT. But, it cannot be a fundamental driver of a academic institution because you then get into a lot of "gray areas" where people make questionable decisions because they don't want to hurt the athletic program.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 10:36:52 AM
Your list has RPI ... to be honest I'm not sure what school that is (I will Google it after this post and I'm sure that I will know what it is).
RPI = Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which is one of the nation's top science and engineering schools.
Also, they have been a hockey power, with two national championships and five appearances in the Frozen Four.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 06, 2013, 10:51:17 AM
RPI = Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, which is one of the nation's top science and engineering schools.
Also, they have been a hockey power, with two national championships and five appearances in the Frozen Four.
Ah, I should have known that. But I am not sure if athletic success in a fringe NCAA sport like hockey or lacrosse is what Another had in mind.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 06, 2013, 10:52:36 AM
Ah, I should have known that. But I am not sure if athletic success in a fringe NCAA sport like hockey or lacrosse is what Another had in mind.
Fringe????
Why, you, I oughta .....
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 06, 2013, 10:43:50 AM
You must be mixing me up with someone else because I have never made that argument. I am simply providing an answer to your query: "(O)ther than the ivies, name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics."
I just named 14 of them.
Fair enough on you never making the athletic argument...
The last school on your list is Yeshiva at #46. It is tied at #46 with Penn State, Illinois, Texas and Washington.
So, if I created a questionnaire that had the following question:
From this list, which school has the best academic reputation?
a) Penn State
b) University of Illinois
c) University of Texas
d) University of Washington
e) any of the 14 schools aboveHow many of the 14 schools in the post above will beat one of the first four on this questionnaire? I would argue exactly two ... MIT and Hopkins. The rest would fall behind at least one of the first four on the list above? Why? Because the first four on this questionnaire have had athletic success and that translates into a
perception of academic success.
The argument is outside of the Ivies, it is rare that a school gains a national reputation without a successful sports program. Your list does not persuade me to rethink that belief.
Another, you are maddening. You said "name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics." Now you are claiming that schools like Tufts and Yeshiva truly aren't "nationally recognized" because less people have heard of them than they have Illinois, Texas or Washington?
Come on. Give me a break. You made a false assertion. Stop shifting the goal posts.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 10:56:10 AM
Fair enough on you never making the athletic argument...
The last school on your list is Yeshiva at #46. It is tied at #46 with Penn State, Illinois, Texas and Washington.
So, if I created a questionnaire that had the following question:
From this list, which school has the best academic reputation?
a) Penn State
b) University of Illinois
c) University of Texas
d) University of Washington
e) any of the 14 schools above
How many of the schools above will beat one of the first four on this list? I would argue exactly two ... MIT and Hopkins. The rest would fall behind at least one of the first four on the list above? Why? Because the first four have had athletic success and that translate into a perception of academic success.
The argument is outside of the Ivies, it is rare that a school gains a national reputation without a successful sports program. Your list does not persuade me to rethink that belief.
One could make a case that Penn State or U of Washington have better academic reputations than Emory and Cal Tech and NYU, etc.
And that person would be insane.
Tell me, has Alabama's athletic success translated into a perception of academic success? Florida's? Kentucky's? I'd argue just the opposite. Florida, and to a lesser extent, Alabama are both pretty good schools, but their reputation as football powers in the SEC creates a negative perception about their academics.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 06, 2013, 11:01:26 AM
Another, you are maddening. You said "name me a nationally recognized University with a good reputation that was never a power in athletics." Now you are claiming that schools like Tufts and Yeshiva truly aren't "nationally recognized" because less people have heard of them than they have Illinois, Texas or Washington?
Come on. Give me a break. You made a false assertion. Stop shifting the goal posts.
You said ...
even though I hate their methodology, I will simply name the non-Ivy private schools from the USN&WR top 50 national rankings that have not had athletics success:
Since this methodology you hate makes your argument work, you're cementing the goal posts in that awkward position because it works for you.
The issue is
reputation which is all about goal post shifting!
Quote from: Pakuni on March 06, 2013, 11:03:13 AM
Tell me, has Alabama's athletic success translated into a perception of academic success? Florida's? Kentucky's? I'd argue just the opposite. Florida, and to a lesser extent, Alabama are both pretty good schools, but their reputation as football powers in the SEC creates a negative perception about their academics.
Using the imperfect US News rankings (because it what we have) Here is the SEC
SEC -- Average of 98.7
17. Vandy
54. Florida
63. Georgia
65. Texas A&M
77. Alabama
89. Auburn
97. Missouri
101. Tennessee
115. South Carolina
125. Kentucky
134. LSU
134. Arkansas
151. Ole Miss
160. Mississippi State
Seems like (meaning I have not done a statistical study) the better Football schools are near the top and the ones that struggle in football are near the bottom. The one exception is the one private school in the SEC, Vandy (similar to Northwestern in the B1G).
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 11:05:01 AM
Since this methodology you hate makes your argument work, you're cementing the goal posts in that awkward position because it works for you.
The methodology that USN&WR uses is odd, but it doesn't yield inaccurate results in terms of national reputation. Unless you are saying that these schools aren't recognized nationally, which is false, then it doesn't really matter.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 06, 2013, 11:13:58 AM
The methodology that USN&WR uses is odd, but it doesn't yield inaccurate results in terms of national reputation. Unless you are saying that these schools aren't recognized nationally, which is false, then it doesn't really matter.
Villanova and Providence are
not on US News list of national universities. Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list. Since US News says they are not "national universities," they are not nationally recognized. Correct?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
Villanova and Providence are not on US News list of national universities. Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list. Since US News says they are not "national universities," they are not nationally recognized. Correct?
No, I wouldn't make that assumption.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 06, 2013, 11:21:56 AM
Villanova and Providence are not on US News list of national universities. Instead they rank highly on their Northeast regional list. Since US News says they are not "national universities," they are not nationally recognized. Correct?
US News deems universities national or regional based on the types of degrees and programs they offer, not the geographical extent of their reputation.
One can - and should - question the validity of US News rankings, but one thing that really ought not be questioned is their relation to reputations. The rankings to a large extent determine a school's reputation, but they're also largely based on a school's reputation among their peers (making them somewhat a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is one of the problems with them).