For those out of state or don't subscribe to JS
Bucks Attendance Down More Than 1,000 From Last Year, Ranks Near Bottom Of NBA
Published January 22, 2014
Font Size Resize Small Resize Normal Resize Large | Print | Share |
Attendance at Bucks games has dropped by more than 1,000 from last season
The Bucks through yesterday have the NBA's worst record and are "nearly at the bottom" of the league in attendance, as they rank 29th and are "averaging 13,954 fans through the first 18 home dates," according to Charles Gardner of the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL. That number "is down more than 1,000 per game from last season's average." A "truly frightful sight was the crowd at the last home game" on Jan. 15. Attendance "was listed at 11,379, but at the start of the game, the crowd was not half that number." It "hasn't helped the Bucks that a cold, snowy winter and icy roads are keeping some people home," and traditionally, the team "does not draw well in the first two months of the season while the Packers are still playing." Hanging over the Bucks "is the unsettled situation" about whether to renovate BMO Harris Bradley Center or build a new downtown arena, as well as the "search for additional ownership" to join team Owner Herb Kohl. In addition, Bucks C Larry Sanders earlier this season "was lost for six weeks after becoming involved in a downtown bar brawl and tearing a ligament in his right thumb." That was a "damaging public relations blow after the team had spent much of the summer promoting Sanders as a key to the future" and signed him to a four-year, $44M contract extension. The Bucks are "in line to get one of the top picks in the June draft, possibly the No. 1 pick," and that player "should bring added excitement -- and fans -- to the home court." But for now, it is a "tough sell in the remaining three months of the season" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 1/22).
EYEING A NEW ARENA: In Milwaukee, Don Walker notes the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce has "hired the sports and entertainment arm of the Hammes Co. to provide advice on whether a new, multipurpose sports arena should be built, or whether the BMO Harris Bradley Center should be renovated." The move "represents a major step toward consideration of a new arena in Milwaukee." The NBA "has made it clear" to the Bucks that a new arena is "needed to meet today's league standards" and has set a '17 deadline, when the Bucks' current lease with the BMO Harris Bradley Center expires. MMAC Chair Ted Kellner said that Hammes "would provide financial strategy and a plan to guide future discussions" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 1/22).
Why would anyone tramp downtown to watch that dismal product? Besides, literally every game is on the tube. Now, to be perfectly honest, there is some very nice, potentially very good, young talent in Henson and GA. I like Knight as well. Sanders would be fine if only his IQ were as large as his uniform number. So, peddle his ass for whatever you can get. The rest of the roster ranges from just warm bodies to complete stiffs.
I couldn't care less about the Bucks.
A new arena isn't the problem; the product on the court sure is, though.
Have fans stopped attending Bucks games because the BC is outdated? The BC hasn't hurt MUs attendance.
Cleveland plays in nice arena. How have they done over the years? The problem is "kids" don't want to play in Milwaukee...or Cleveland....or Minneapolis...unless they are offered more money than anywhere else and don't care about winning.
It would be a huge black eye for the NBA if it contracted. I wish the league did it, though. Knock out the Kings and Bucks.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2014, 01:51:29 PM
Why would anyone tramp downtown to watch that dismal product? Besides, literally every game is on the tube. Now, to be perfectly honest, there is some very nice, potentially very good, young talent in Henson and GA. I like Knight as well. Sanders would be fine if only his IQ were as large as his uniform number. So, peddle his ass for whatever you can get. The rest of the roster ranges from just warm bodies to complete stiffs.
For the first time in a long time, I feel like there is a little light at the end of the tunnel for the Bucks. If they could move Sanders to a contender for a late first round pick, it could get even brighter. The emergence of Giannis as a potential star plus the inside track at a top pick in a stacked draft, and suddenly the future gets brighter. A starting 5 of Knight, GA, Jabari Parker, Sanders/Middleton, and Henson is a good start. Add someone like CJ Fair with the first pick in the second round and you have a lot of exciting young talent. The Bucks aren't savvy enough to make a Thunder 2.0 happen, but the fact that if they redrafted last year over again, GA would likely be 1 or 2, means you could have back to back top 3 picks. That alone is enough to start bringing interest back.
They just can't mess up picks like the Cavs and have 4 top 5 picks turn into 1 second tier star (Irving), 2 role players (Waiters and Thompson) and a potential bust (Anthony Bennett).
Quote from: Atticus on January 22, 2014, 01:52:32 PM
I couldn't care less about the Bucks.
A new arena isn't the problem; the product on the court sure is, though.
Have fans stopped attending Bucks games because the BC is outdated? The BC hasn't hurt MUs attendance.
Cleveland plays in nice arena. How have they done over the years? The problem is "kids" don't want to play in Milwaukee...or Cleveland....or Minneapolis...unless they are offered more money than anywhere else and don't care about winning.
It would be a huge black eye for the NBA if it contracted. I wish the league did it, though. Knock out the Kings and Bucks.
The problem is on the court, but also that when the Bucks are doing well and selling more tickets, there isn't year round revenue.
That is the most simple explanation I can give people. A new arena would create YEAR ROUND revenue, instead of basketball season only revenue.
Quote from: JWags85 on January 22, 2014, 03:41:57 PM
For the first time in a long time, I feel like there is a little light at the end of the tunnel for the Bucks. If they could move Sanders to a contender for a late first round pick, it could get even brighter. The emergence of Giannis as a potential star plus the inside track at a top pick in a stacked draft, and suddenly the future gets brighter. A starting 5 of Knight, GA, Jabari Parker, Sanders/Middleton, and Henson is a good start. Add someone like CJ Fair with the first pick in the second round and you have a lot of exciting young talent. The Bucks aren't savvy enough to make a Thunder 2.0 happen, but the fact that if they redrafted last year over again, GA would likely be 1 or 2, means you could have back to back top 3 picks. That alone is enough to start bringing interest back.
They just can't mess up picks like the Cavs and have 4 top 5 picks turn into 1 second tier star (Irving), 2 role players (Waiters and Thompson) and a potential bust (Anthony Bennett).
If they hold their top spot in the lottery we will get to see Joel Embiid in Milwaukee - just a year late.
And, like you said if they could deal Sanders for a mid-1st round pick, there will be some good scorers available.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 22, 2014, 06:38:16 PM
The problem is on the court, but also that when the Bucks are doing well and selling more tickets, there isn't year round revenue.
That is the most simple explanation I can give people. A new arena would create YEAR ROUND revenue, instead of basketball season only revenue.
You lost me. The bucks can afford a roster that meets the salary cap...at least from my understanding. The idea that the BC doesn't generate enough revenue outside of the bball season (as you suggest) is mostly irrelevant. Is that an excuse for drafting bad players...or being unable to draw top free agents? Do players care if there is a TGIF that overlooks the court?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 22, 2014, 06:38:16 PM
The problem is on the court, but also that when the Bucks are doing well and selling more tickets, there isn't year round revenue.
That is the most simple explanation I can give people. A new arena would create YEAR ROUND revenue, instead of basketball season only revenue.
Forgive me, but isn't the Bradley Center hosting events year round like concerts, etc, now?
Also, year round revenue means year round expenses. Plenty of arenas out there that have year round events but struggle to make a profit.
1. Jabari
2. Wiggins
3. Exum
4. Trade down for Marcus Smart
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 11:57:06 PM
Forgive me, but isn't the Bradley Center hosting events year round like concerts, etc, now?
Also, year round revenue means year round expenses. Plenty of arenas out there that have year round events but struggle to make a profit.
I know you aren't this stupid, so I'm just going to disregard this.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 23, 2014, 07:43:31 AM
I know you aren't this stupid, so I'm just going to disregard this.
Um .. I guess I'm that stupid, too, Hards. Can you explain?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 23, 2014, 07:43:31 AM
I know you aren't this stupid, so I'm just going to disregard this.
Well, sorry to be "this stupid," as well, but you'll have to explain more simply to me how the Bucks selling more tix is counter-productive to the BC being a year-round venue. Thank you.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 22, 2014, 01:51:29 PM
Why would anyone tramp downtown to watch that dismal product? Besides, literally every game is on the tube. Now, to be perfectly honest, there is some very nice, potentially very good, young talent in Henson and GA. I like Knight as well. Sanders would be fine if only his IQ were as large as his uniform number. So, peddle his ass for whatever you can get. The rest of the roster ranges from just warm bodies to complete stiffs.
I bet you were a complete stiff 30 years ago too. maybe 40
Even if the Bucks draft awesome first round talent this year, is there any real chance they will be able to keep them beyond 3-4 years? This has long been the issue for the Bucks, back to the days of Lew Alcindor. No one stays. New arena or not, they will never be a contender for longer than a year or two at best, and even then it will only be if they can string together an immaculate draft. NBA players don't want to stay in Milwaukee. They may tolerate it at first, but before long they want out.
Also, fans want to see stars. They show up for Labron and Kobe. If they Bucks can't keep stars, the fans won't show up.
Time to cut loose and bring in an NHL team.
Quote from: hairyworthen on January 23, 2014, 08:45:13 AM
I bet you were a complete stiff 30 years ago too. maybe 40
Wasn't bad for a white boy. Had some trouble dribblin' to my left, but could hit the J. I'd classify myself as more of a wam body
I guess I'm plenty stupid (should come as no surprise), but I'm happy to see a few others here share my stupidity.
(http://images.t-shirts.com/im-with-stupid-arrow-up-front-hr.jpg)
Does the Bradley Center not have concerts, other events year round? They did when I lived there, things could certainly have changed. When I was there it was the Wave, Admirals, Marquette, Bucks, concerts, special events (speaking tours, graduations, Disney on Ice, rodeo, monster trucks, etc).
I believe the Wave are elsewhere now...MECCA?
Or was the stupid comment based on the other comment I made? Yes, more events bring in more revenue, they also incur more expenses (staffing, security, insurance, etc, etc). I don't think that was a stupid comment, especially in light of so many arenas, stadiums around the country that don't generate net profits. Many do, but many don't.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on January 23, 2014, 08:29:37 AM
Um .. I guess I'm that stupid, too, Hards. Can you explain?
"At the end of the day compared to other modern arenas in the league, this arena is a few hundred thousand square feet too small," Silver said. "It doesn't have the sort of back-of-house space you need, doesn't have the kinds of amenities we need. It doesn't have the right sort of upper bowl/lower bowl (seating) configuration for the teams frankly that Milwaukee wants to compete against."
That is a direct quote from incoming NBA commissioner Adam Silver.
Lack of lower bowl seating, lack of suites, lack of additional amenities.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 23, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
"At the end of the day compared to other modern arenas in the league, this arena is a few hundred thousand square feet too small," Silver said. "It doesn't have the sort of back-of-house space you need, doesn't have the kinds of amenities we need. It doesn't have the right sort of upper bowl/lower bowl (seating) configuration for the teams frankly that Milwaukee wants to compete against."
That is a direct quote from incoming NBA commissioner Adam Silver.
Lack of lower bowl seating, lack of suites, lack of additional amenities.
Sorry, that's not an answer to the question you slapped Chicos for, which concerned revenue generation via year-round events.
The only answer I can think of is that there are (many) concerts out there that skip the BC because it's too small. (which doesn't make sense.)
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Even if the Bucks draft awesome first round talent this year, is there any real chance they will be able to keep them beyond 3-4 years? This has long been the issue for the Bucks, back to the days of Lew Alcindor. No one stays. New arena or not, they will never be a contender for longer than a year or two at best, and even then it will only be if they can string together an immaculate draft. NBA players don't want to stay in Milwaukee. They may tolerate it at first, but before long they want out.
Also, fans want to see stars. They show up for Labron and Kobe. If they Bucks can't keep stars, the fans won't show up.
Time to cut loose and bring in an NHL team.
What does one player over 40 years ago who was a big city guy to begin with have to do with now.
I hear players clamor to go to Oklahoma City and San Antonio.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on January 23, 2014, 10:14:00 AM
Sorry, that's not an answer to the question you slapped Chicos for, which concerned revenue generation via year-round events.
The only answer I can think of is that there are (many) concerts out there that skip the BC because it's too small. (which doesn't make sense.)
Apologies. How many bars/restaurants are available inside of the Bradley Center? Pizza and brats are concessions, not restaurants. There really isn't luxury service of any sort at the BC either.
After the event, what else is there to do? The point is, that once the event is over, you go home.
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:33:48 AM
What does one player over 40 years ago who was a big city guy to begin with have to do with now.
I hear players clamor to go to Oklahoma City and San Antonio.
San Antonio is a great city. Kevin Durant is in OKC. Both are cities with metro areas much, much, larger than Milwaukee.
When has Milwaukee kept a great player around?
Quote from: brandx on January 23, 2014, 10:33:48 AM
What does one player over 40 years ago who was a big city guy to begin with have to do with now.
I hear players clamor to go to Oklahoma City and San Antonio.
More so than Milwaukee. People have to get over the defensiveness about Milwaukee. We are all MU fans and most have lived there. It's got its positives, but it's not a destination city!
Even the Bulls have had some difficulty drawing big name free agents. The NBA is a winter sport and I know I'd rather play in SA, Orlando or Phoenix this season.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 23, 2014, 09:58:32 AM
"At the end of the day compared to other modern arenas in the league, this arena is a few hundred thousand square feet too small," Silver said. "It doesn't have the sort of back-of-house space you need, doesn't have the kinds of amenities we need. It doesn't have the right sort of upper bowl/lower bowl (seating) configuration for the teams frankly that Milwaukee wants to compete against."
That is a direct quote from incoming NBA commissioner Adam Silver.
Lack of lower bowl seating, lack of suites, lack of additional amenities.
Of course that's what the NBA wants. But the question still stands as to whether what they want is in Milwaukee's best interest. I am of the personal opinion that the Bucks will always be a bottom quartile franchise for a variety of reasons. So one needs to ask the question about the expenditure of say $400 million as a necessary step to maintain that status.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
San Antonio is a great city. Kevin Durant is in OKC. Both are cities with metro areas much, much, larger than Milwaukee.
When has Milwaukee kept a great player around?
I'm not disagreeing with anything else you're saying here; however, it's not at all accurate to say that San Antonio and OKC have metro areas much, much larger than Milwaukee:
Milwaukee Metropolitan Statistical Area (Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis) population estimate as of 2012: 1,566,981
OKC MSA: 1,296,565
San Antonio MSA (San Antonio-New Braunfels): 2,234,003
On the surface, it would look like San Antonio is much larger, but it is also much more spread out (302 individuals/sq mile density for San Antonio's MSA versus 1,052/sq mile density for Milwaukee MSA). Oklahoma City's is 204/sq mi for what it's worth. I guess that all I'm trying to say is that there really isn't a huge difference and it's impossible to make an apples to apples comparison on top of that.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 11:00:06 AM
San Antonio is a great city. Kevin Durant is in OKC. Both are cities with metro areas much, much, larger than Milwaukee.
When has Milwaukee kept a great player around?
I think the problem is when did Milwaukee have a great player?
The best players since Kareem were Marques Johnson, Moncrief, Allen, Winters, Pressey, Robinson. Good players but not franchise-makers. And I don't know that any of them bolted town.
Silver's 'back of house' statement is what concerns your day to day operations, concerts and events. There isn't a ton of room inside the Bradley under the seats.
Additionally, the locker rooms suck. I've only been into the Bucks, but comparing it to pictures of other NBA teams, there's no comparison. Upgrade your facilities and you may be able to keep some younger stars. I don't know what the Bucks Training Facility looks like, but I've heard it is on the wrong(south) side of Milwaukee compared to where players live.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on January 23, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Even if the Bucks draft awesome first round talent this year, is there any real chance they will be able to keep them beyond 3-4 years? This has long been the issue for the Bucks, back to the days of Lew Alcindor. No one stays. New arena or not, they will never be a contender for longer than a year or two at best, and even then it will only be if they can string together an immaculate draft. NBA players don't want to stay in Milwaukee. They may tolerate it at first, but before long they want out.
Also, fans want to see stars. They show up for Labron and Kobe. If they Bucks can't keep stars, the fans won't show up.
Time to cut loose and bring in an NHL team.
I agree that this is the main problem, and it's a reality that many NBA teams have to face. Until the league changes something (and what to change I have no idea) it will just be an endless cycle of the top players going to crappy teams in crappy markets and then leaving the moment their rookie contact is up.
QuoteApologies. How many bars/restaurants are available inside of the Bradley Center? Pizza and brats are concessions, not restaurants. There really isn't luxury service of any sort at the BC either.
And how many Wisconsin elite give a hoot about the Bucks, or would have the dough to penny up for this. Theres not many large corporations in Milwaukee that would purchase one of these luxury boxes. The Bucks need to focus on the product there putting on the floor more. Plenty of stars in sports have helped small market teams in a variety of sports create revenue in order to build new stadiums.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 23, 2014, 10:58:24 AM
Apologies. How many bars/restaurants are available inside of the Bradley Center? Pizza and brats are concessions, not restaurants. There really isn't luxury service of any sort at the BC either.
After the event, what else is there to do? The point is, that once the event is over, you go home.
Is that a Bradley Center issue, or a zoning \ Milwaukee business issue? Sure sounds like the latter to me.
And just because you build a new arena, doesn't mean things are going to get rosier. They might, at great expense of course...that's what happened in downtown L.A. but Mr. Anschutz paid for most of it.
A few miles away, the Fabulous Forum just finished with a $100million renovation, the Eagles played there last week to kick off the grand opening. It's still in Inglewood, people are still going home after the event because no one wants to stay in Inglewood. That's an example where the businesses aren't going to folllow. Maybe they will in Milwaukee, in fact short term I would bet my life on it. Whether it is sustainable long term or not will be the key. Still, back to my original question, is the Bradley Center missing out on events right now...is it not a year round venue? I realize the square footage is smaller, is there data that is stating they are losing events because of this? By adding a new arena, there will be stories of all the jobs, the "financial impact" to the region (these are so bogus and overstated), etc. I'd just like to know is the ROI real, does it benefit the people of Milwaukee, and at what cost (who pays).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 23, 2014, 02:43:27 PM
Is that a Bradley Center issue, or a zoning \ Milwaukee business issue? Sure sounds like the latter to me.
And just because you build a new arena, doesn't mean things are going to get rosier. They might, at great expense of course...that's what happened in downtown L.A. but Mr. Anschutz paid for most of it.
A few miles away, the Fabulous Forum just finished with a $100million renovation, the Eagles played there last week to kick off the grand opening. It's still in Inglewood, people are still going home after the event because no one wants to stay in Inglewood. That's an example where the businesses aren't going to folllow. Maybe they will in Milwaukee, in fact short term I would bet my life on it. Whether it is sustainable long term or not will be the key. Still, back to my original question, is the Bradley Center missing out on events right now...is it not a year round venue? I realize the square footage is smaller, is there data that is stating they are losing events because of this? By adding a new arena, there will be stories of all the jobs, the "financial impact" to the region (these are so bogus and overstated), etc. I'd just like to know is the ROI real, does it benefit the people of Milwaukee, and at what cost (who pays).
I don't disagree with you, and I have no data to say they are missing out on events. I've been to other venues and the BC is a dump comparatively. It is terribly sad that when I went to the Palace of Auburn Hills for a concert and the place blew the BC out of the water. And they are the same age. Sadly, the BC designers didn't have the forethought that the PAH designers did. One is still considered modern by standards and the other obsolete.
Quote from: damuts222 on January 23, 2014, 12:19:22 PM
And how many Wisconsin elite give a hoot about the Bucks, or would have the dough to penny up for this. Theres not many large corporations in Milwaukee that would purchase one of these luxury boxes. The Bucks need to focus on the product there putting on the floor more. Plenty of stars in sports have helped small market teams in a variety of sports create revenue in order to build new stadiums.
My company has gone from box to courtside to no tickets in the five years I've been there. I know two other contractors that have dropped as well. It's not easy to entertain there.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 22, 2014, 01:42:00 PM
For those out of state or don't subscribe to JS
Bucks Attendance Down More Than 1,000 From Last Year, Ranks Near Bottom Of NBA
Published January 22, 2014
Font Size Resize Small Resize Normal Resize Large | Print | Share |
Attendance at Bucks games has dropped by more than 1,000 from last season
The Bucks through yesterday have the NBA's worst record and are "nearly at the bottom" of the league in attendance, as they rank 29th and are "averaging 13,954 fans through the first 18 home dates," according to Charles Gardner of the MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL. That number "is down more than 1,000 per game from last season's average." A "truly frightful sight was the crowd at the last home game" on Jan. 15. Attendance "was listed at 11,379, but at the start of the game, the crowd was not half that number." It "hasn't helped the Bucks that a cold, snowy winter and icy roads are keeping some people home," and traditionally, the team "does not draw well in the first two months of the season while the Packers are still playing." Hanging over the Bucks "is the unsettled situation" about whether to renovate BMO Harris Bradley Center or build a new downtown arena, as well as the "search for additional ownership" to join team Owner Herb Kohl. In addition, Bucks C Larry Sanders earlier this season "was lost for six weeks after becoming involved in a downtown bar brawl and tearing a ligament in his right thumb." That was a "damaging public relations blow after the team had spent much of the summer promoting Sanders as a key to the future" and signed him to a four-year, $44M contract extension. The Bucks are "in line to get one of the top picks in the June draft, possibly the No. 1 pick," and that player "should bring added excitement -- and fans -- to the home court." But for now, it is a "tough sell in the remaining three months of the season" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 1/22).
EYEING A NEW ARENA: In Milwaukee, Don Walker notes the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce has "hired the sports and entertainment arm of the Hammes Co. to provide advice on whether a new, multipurpose sports arena should be built, or whether the BMO Harris Bradley Center should be renovated." The move "represents a major step toward consideration of a new arena in Milwaukee." The NBA "has made it clear" to the Bucks that a new arena is "needed to meet today's league standards" and has set a '17 deadline, when the Bucks' current lease with the BMO Harris Bradley Center expires. MMAC Chair Ted Kellner said that Hammes "would provide financial strategy and a plan to guide future discussions" (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL, 1/22).
And that is why Gardner is a horrible reporter. Absolutely no context to the story. More fans go to the game post packer/holiday season and as it warms up. Attendance was only down 70 people/game since last year at 18 home games during their magical 8 seed run. The Bucks have also been in the 27-29 range the last few years so our ranking hasn't changed that much.
So instead of the story being attendance had already bottomed out and nobody cared about making the playoffs with mediocre vets, they spin it as the sky is falling due to the tank. The funny thing is the Bucks aren't tanking and actually tried putting a competitive team on the court.
The River Walk is awesome, but other than that, San Antonio is a dump.
Quote from: Atticus on January 22, 2014, 01:52:32 PM
I couldn't care less about the Bucks.
A new arena isn't the problem; the product on the court sure is, though.
Have fans stopped attending Bucks games because the BC is outdated? The BC hasn't hurt MUs attendance.
Cleveland plays in nice arena. How have they done over the years? The problem is "kids" don't want to play in Milwaukee...or Cleveland....or Minneapolis...unless they are offered more money than anywhere else and don't care about winning.
It would be a huge black eye for the NBA if it contracted. I wish the league did it, though. Knock out the Kings and Bucks.
Relocation would be more likely than contraction, and there's 11 Nielsen markets larger than Milwaukee without an NBA team. Most with arenas newer than the Bradley Center:
Seattle, Tampa-St.Pete, Nashville, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Raleigh-Durham, Baltimore, San Diego, Hartford, Kansas City, St. Louis
Only four NBA cities are smaller TV markets than Milwaukee (San Antonio, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, and Memphis).